X-T3 goes to Norway and some thoughts about lenses

[stratman1976]

This summer we went to visit Norway. What a beautiful country that is. Just wanted to share some thoughts on the lenses I brought and share some pictures. It was a family vacation, no serious photography going on.

Wanted my kit to be compact and versatile because we went camping and did not have the room. So, I took my Think Tank retro 5 which holds a body and three lenses.

What I took was:

• X-T3
• XF10-24/4.0 WR ( a no brainer)
• XF18/1.4 (indoors and outdoors lowlight)
• XF35/1.4 (my favourite)

Which means I left the 16/2.8, 23/2.0, 27/2.8, 56/1.2 and 18-55/2.8-4.0 at home. The 10-24 and 18 I got recently and haven't been able to try them a lot so this was a good opportunity. I am mainly a people photographer, so I was looking forward of doing more landscape.

What I learned was:

XF10-24/4.0 WR (50% of keepers): f4.0 is plenty bright enough for most cases. I've never owned a constant f4.0 lens before, only 2.8's. But the 10-24 works well and is very, very versatile, but in terms of IQ and rendering I'm afraid I find it a bit underwhelming. Besides the 16-55 (which I tried out, not owned it) there's no Fuji zoom that rocks my boat.

IMO the strength of this lens lies in its focal range. It's also very useful for filming, which I did on occasion.

XF18/1.8 (30% of keepers): Love this one. More versatile than I thought. Used it for portraits, landscapes and night-photography. Sharp, very nice bokeh and rendering.

XF35/1.4 (20% of keepers): My favourite lens. It has character and is versatile, I was always a 50mm equiv guy.

Only thing I missed is the 18-55, which is just a brilliant walk-around lens. But I find the IQ to be at the bottom compared to the other lenses I have, so I don't regret it.

What I've come to learn about Fuji during the past 7 years is that I see it mainly as a prime-system. Before this trip I got the 16-80, really wanted to like it, but it didn't meet my expectations.

So my conclusion for Fuji is that - in most cases - I find IQ more important than the great versatility that zooms have.

Enjoy the pictures C&C always welcome!




















having a phone with you can sometimes be handy...

 

[TonyBologna]

Very nice photos!

Currently going through a bit of lens reconfiguration in the system myself. I don't have the same lenses you do, but I can pretty much agree with your conclusions at the 30,000 meter level!

 

[Dr_J]

Lovely photos!

Yes, I feel the same - Fujifilm X is mainly a prime system. Which is why I like it a lot. My favorite travel combo is 14/2.8 + 35/1.4. The only missing element is a short/medium tele: 90/2 is a bit too large and heavy. For now, I use 55-200 instead (basically same weight and size as 90/2 though). Works nice for landscapes too.

 

[Mar]

Very nice set of pictures! Thank you for sharing.

 

[MrSee]

Beautiful set. Fuji’s rich colours never cease to amaze me!

 

[Jerry-astro]

This summer we went to visit Norway. What a beautiful country that is. Just wanted to share some thoughts on the lenses I brought and share some pictures. It was a family vacation, no serious photography going on.

Wanted my kit to be compact and versatile because we went camping and did not have the room. So, I took my Think Tank retro 5 which holds a body and three lenses.

What I took was:

• X-T3
• XF10-24/4.0 WR ( a no brainer)
• XF18/1.4 (indoors and outdoors lowlight)
• XF35/1.4 (my favourite)

Which means I left the 16/2.8, 23/2.0, 27/2.8, 56/1.2 and 18-55/2.8-4.0 at home. The 10-24 and 18 I got recently and haven't been able to try them a lot so this was a good opportunity. I am mainly a people photographer, so I was looking forward of doing more landscape.

What I learned was:

XF10-24/4.0 WR (50% of keepers): f4.0 is plenty bright enough for most cases. I've never owned a constant f4.0 lens before, only 2.8's. But the 10-24 works well and is very, very versatile, but in terms of IQ and rendering I'm afraid I find it a bit underwhelming. Besides the 16-55 (which I tried out, not owned it) there's no Fuji zoom that rocks my boat.

IMO the strength of this lens lies in its focal range. It's also very useful for filming, which I did on occasion.

XF18/1.8 (30% of keepers): Love this one. More versatile than I thought. Used it for portraits, landscapes and night-photography. Sharp, very nice bokeh and rendering.

XF35/1.4 (20% of keepers): My favourite lens. It has character and is versatile, I was always a 50mm equiv guy.

Only thing I missed is the 18-55, which is just a brilliant walk-around lens. But I find the IQ to be at the bottom compared to the other lenses I have, so I don't regret it.

What I've come to learn about Fuji during the past 7 years is that I see it mainly as a prime-system. Before this trip I got the 16-80, really wanted to like it, but it didn't meet my expectations.

So my conclusion for Fuji is that - in most cases - I find IQ more important than the great versatility that zooms have.

Enjoy the pictures C&C always welcome!




















having a phone with you can sometimes be handy...

Great pics. I didn't see the 16-55 on the list of lenses in that range that you had tried. If you can live with the fact that it's a bit on the hefty side, you should be able to get better and more consistent IQ across its range than you got with the two other lenses you tried. Now, I'll qualify that with the fact that the 16-55 f/2.8 is not a stabilized lens, and that could be a "deal killer" for you when using a camera that doesn't offer IBIS. However, purely from the standpoint of IQ, I would expect better results than you got with the other lenses you tried. It's been called "a bag of primes" here more than once, and I'm not so sure that this is much of an exaggeration, at least from my own experience. On the wider end, the 8-16 f/2.8 is another lens with close to prime quality across its range IMHO. It's also not particularly lightweight.

Bottom line, it's really FAR more than just a "prime system" but a lot depends on what lenses you choose to use and how significant overall weight factors into your criteria for usage.

--
Jerry-Astro
Fuji Forum co-Mod

 

[stratman1976]

Great pics.

Thank you Jerry

I didn't see the 16-55 on the list of lenses in that range that you had tried.

Yes, I have tried it and liked it but it is a bit on the hefty side and strays away from the reason I got into Fuji, the compactness and weight. A couple of months ago I decided to get the 10-24 and not the 16-55/2.8. But I am realising that IQ is more important to me than size and weight.

If you can live with the fact that it's a bit on the hefty side, you should be able to get better and more consistent IQ across its range than you got with the two other lenses you tried.

The other reason that I didn't get the 16-55 is that I have a FF Nikon kit (I use that for clients) and I'm on the verge of going F --> Z. What attracted me for travel was the 24-120/4.0. It seems to get very good reviews. I was thinking to keep the heavy stuff with Nikon and the light stuff with Fuji.

Now, I'll qualify that with the fact that the 16-55 f/2.8 is not a stabilized lens, and that could be a "deal killer" for you when using a camera that doesn't offer IBIS. However, purely from the standpoint of IQ, I would expect better results than you got with the other lenses you tried. It's been called "a bag of primes" here more than once, and I'm not so sure that this is much of an exaggeration, at least from my own experience.

Stabilisation is nice to have, no dealbreaker.

On the wider end, the 8-16 f/2.8 is another lens with close to prime quality across its range IMHO. It's also not particularly lightweight.

Bottom line, it's really FAR more than just a "prime system"

Of course it is. But when I want to go compact with high IQ, for me, it isn't.

but a lot depends on what lenses you choose to use and how significant overall weight factors into your criteria for usage.

I agree. I love the Fuji system for travel so I'll probably keep the primes and get zooms for the Nikon system.

Thank you for your thoughts!

 

[Jerry-astro]

Great pics.

Thank you Jerry

I didn't see the 16-55 on the list of lenses in that range that you had tried.

Yes, I have tried it and liked it but it is a bit on the hefty side and strays away from the reason I got into Fuji, the compactness and weight. A couple of months ago I decided to get the 10-24 and not the 16-55/2.8. But I am realising that IQ is more important to me than size and weight.

If you can live with the fact that it's a bit on the hefty side, you should be able to get better and more consistent IQ across its range than you got with the two other lenses you tried.

The other reason that I didn't get the 16-55 is that I have a FF Nikon kit (I use that for clients) and I'm on the verge of going F --> Z. What attracted me for travel was the 24-120/4.0. It seems to get very good reviews. I was thinking to keep the heavy stuff with Nikon and the light stuff with Fuji.

Now, I'll qualify that with the fact that the 16-55 f/2.8 is not a stabilized lens, and that could be a "deal killer" for you when using a camera that doesn't offer IBIS. However, purely from the standpoint of IQ, I would expect better results than you got with the other lenses you tried. It's been called "a bag of primes" here more than once, and I'm not so sure that this is much of an exaggeration, at least from my own experience.

Stabilisation is nice to have, no dealbreaker.

On the wider end, the 8-16 f/2.8 is another lens with close to prime quality across its range IMHO. It's also not particularly lightweight.

Bottom line, it's really FAR more than just a "prime system"

Of course it is. But when I want to go compact with high IQ, for me, it isn't.

but a lot depends on what lenses you choose to use and how significant overall weight factors into your criteria for usage.

I agree. I love the Fuji system for travel so I'll probably keep the primes and get zooms for the Nikon system.

Thank you for your thoughts!

Makes sense, particularly if you're a multisystem guy. I shoot only Fujifilm, so I don't have the opportunity to optimize based on multiple systems' strong points. Primes are very much a strong point for Fujifilm, and while I personally am a bit more more of a "zoom guy," there's a ton of outstanding work being displayed here by many photographers who prefer using primes. Stabilization is an absolute "must have" for me since I do a lot of low light photography. I'm also pretty weight tolerant as much of photography has involved hauling around pretty sizable kit {previously X-H1 with grip and 100-400... now X-H2S with 150-600). Hope the dual system approach continues to work well for you... hopefully best of both worlds.

--
Jerry-Astro
Fuji Forum co-Mod