Travel lens for X-S10, 18-55 / 16-80 + prime?

Hello!

I'm planning to get a second hand X-S10 next week to replace my old Pen-F, and after a lot of reading I'm still confused about the Fuji lens options.

Until now, I've used the light/compact/cheap lenses Lumix 12-32mm F3.5-5.6 (24-64mm FF eq.) and 35-100mm F4-5.6 (70-200mm FF eq.) with the Pen-F, probably not getting its best potential with those as even I like my pics i'm not impressed with their IQ/sharpness. I shoot most of the time with the 12-32mm, but also needed to change to the 35-100mm for the longer reach (maybe 70/30), and actually I would like to change less between lenses during the same walk.

I use the camera for travelling/day trips, mostly landscapes, architecture (I'm architect) and street. We will travel soon to Southeast Asia for 3 weeks, so it's a nice timing to get the Fuji, and I would like to get a nice all-rounder zoom lens trying to keep a compact/light form.

For this, I'm debating with the classic battle: the 18-55mm (27-83mm FF eq.) for a lighter solution and the 16-80mm (24-120mm FF eq.) for wide angle + longer range, and I'd say I'm leaning more towards the latter to avoid changing lenses so often..even if its bigger and with higher F-number. Other options like the 18-135mm, 16-55mm F2.8 and Tamron 17-70mm are sadly too big for me. Today I was about to buy a 1 year old X-S10 with 2000 shutter + 16-80mm for 1100€, but I didn't make up my mind and it got sold and now I've a similar one but with the 18-55mm for the same price...

But above all, I'm confused about if it's worth to combine one of those with one prime lens with a faster aperture: for example if I get the 16-80mm F4 (so kind of "slow" in low light), is there a big benefit using a prime like 18mm F2 if that focal length is more suited for landscape - so usually with daylight? or would it make a big difference for example in architecture interiors where the 16-80mm would suffer?

Which other combinations would you recommend me for my type of use with my future X-S10, trying to keep a good IQ/range while avoiding frequent lens swaps + a relatively light/compact combo? let me dream a bit more

Many thanks!

Depends on how highly you prioritize compactness and range. The 18-55 (if shot like a constant F4 lens) does not disappoint. The wide-end should only be shot wide-open as a last resort. Here're some recent samples @ask99 posted: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4675721

Hello. Since you shoot mostly still subjects (landscape, architecture), you can profit from the dual stabilisation from the lens and body to be able to use slower shutter speeds with a narrow aperture lens and be able to use lower iso in low light. The 16-80 f4 forms, I believe, the perfect balance between practicality and compactness. The 24-120 equivalent range is quite good. As a large aperture prime you have the mentioned 18mm f2, 16mm f1.4 if you prefer wide angle. Or the smaller and less expensive 16mm f2.8. This last one is also weather resistant. Too bad the X-S10 isn't.

Hi,

Lens choice is personal - there's no right answer. The used camera with the 16-80 had the more versatile lens. I find 16mm very much worth having over 18mm - it's just that bit wider. That has sold. The one you're considering now has the 18-55. Both are good lenses for travel (as long as the lens is in sound condition), but obviously you'd lose the 16mm and longer focal lengths with the 18-55.

If you were going to consider a supplementary prime lens on the wide side for the 18-55, you could consider the 14mm f2.8. It's a very good lens and faster and wider than the 16-80 for interiors. It's also very good in terms of rectilinear correction which might suit you for your architectural interests. You could also consider the 16/1.4 or 16.2.8.

If you want to consider a supplementary prime lens on the longer side, things get a bit more difficult. The 60mm is only a whisker longer than the 18-55. The 80mm macro is big and very heavy. The 90mm is faster and longer. Both are expensive, a bit more specialized, and at >500g, on the heavy side to travel with for FLs you may not use often.

The alternative would be to consider a longer zoom. The 50-230mm zoom is neat and light @ 375g and IMO good for travel. They've a slow aperture, but the IQ is excellent value for money and certainly good enough for travel memories. The AF is good enough in any reasonable light for common travel subjects (but wouldn't tackle sports or BIFs). Their OIS is effective. They're inexpensive if you can find a used one. They came in two versions. The early one is marked 'OIS' the second is marked OIS II. They're optically the same - the only difference is the upgraded OIS. The other alternatives are the 55-200 and 70-300, both better but significantly heavier and dearer.

Hope that helps.

Regards, Rod

I suggest You to wait till December for new ultra compact and lightweight Sigma 18-50/2.8 with Fuji X mount. This zoom will be perfect fit with X-S10 for traveling. Add to this set some even more compact and light manual UWA like Samyang 12/2 (for architecture) , and You got excellent setup for Your needs

Just don't throw away manual focusing ultra wide lens. You will hardly need AF for lens like Samyang 12/2 for architecture

BeatX wrote:

I suggest You to wait till December for new ultra compact and lightweight Sigma 18-50/2.8 with Fuji X mount.This zoom will be perfect fit with X-S10 for traveling. Add to this set some even more compact and light manual UWA like Samyang 12/2 (for architecture) , and You got excellent setup for Your needs

Just don't throw away manual focusing ultra wide lens. You will hardly need AF for lens like Samyang 12/2 for architecture

This. The 12-32mm and its big brother the 35-100 are great because they are ultra lightweight as well as being optically sound. The Sigma is bigger but not much at 290g. No OIS but f2.8 makes up for that IMHO. It is probably the same size and weight as both Panasonic lenses, which is still small.

But if you get one of the (18-55mm or ideally the) 16-80mm, I would also add the 23mm f2 as a light versatile lens.

I am taking the 18-50mm f2.8 away for a city break next week (only available on Sony now). Probably going to take the Pergear 10mm f5.6 on my Fuji too, as there will be lots of close ups. But usually I wouldn't need more. The 18-50mm is great for close ups too (very close focusing distance).

The Sigma replaces the Fujicrons and other non f1.4 primes for me: it's very powerful having f2.8 at 18mm and 50mm (and everywhere in between). I don't miss having the 18mm f2, 23mm f2 or 27mm f2.8. Only thing it doesn't replace is the Fuji 35 1.4 and Sigma 56mm f1.4.

Two alternatives : Tamron 18-300mm Tamron 17-70mm the last one is top The 18-300mm is excellent in the range  18-100 and very good 100-200 then good at 300mm

The 18-300 is an excellent one lens solution with a quite decent 300mm tele (easy to PP)

The 18-55 is a good choice.  Occasionally there is a bad specimen but usually, especially if stopped down a bit, it will be first class.

The 50-230 zoom is excellent for the price and weight.

So your current setup is pretty much replicated with those.

If your interest is architecture then something wider would probably be my next suggestion.  The 15-45 gets good notes, esp. at the wide end.  The 14/2.8 is first class.  I've no experience of the independent wide manual lenses.

The X-S10 takes really good pictures up to 800ISO and perfectly acceptable up to 3200, especially if you've got modern denoising software so do you need a faster lens?  You can use them to manipulate the background but few situations call for fast lenses for the light nowadays.

Finally your Olympus stuff should be capable of pretty good images.  Is your technique optimal or are your expectations excessive?  If you like your current gear and want better images looking to technique might be better value for money.

As already noted, it’s a massively personal choice. Personally I can’t get enthused about zooms that stop at 18mm, and if I were prioritising light/compact kit I’d take either of the XC zooms (16-50 or 15-45) over the 18-55.

The 16-80 is incredibly versatile and usable. It’s the only zoom I’ve really stuck with—though for me the question of “do I want to take it with me and use it?” is a far more important question for kit than “does it produce the absolute best available image quality?” Don’t worry about f/4 if you’re shooting interiors as the excellent OIS more than compensates.

As for the prime, pairing a prime with a zoom is pretty sensible, but which one is hugely dependent on what you want. If I’m hiking then I pair the 16-80 with the Samyang 12mm f/2, which is an excellent landscape lens and just about wide enough to represent a substantial step from the 16 (the 14 is a very nice lens but IMO it struggles to justify itself if you’re already packing a 16). Whereas I’m in a city I’d probably default to one of the 23mm options—all of which are good—or maybe the 27 if I wanted minimum bulk. (Well, in reality I’d normally take two or maybe three primes, but then I’m not a fan of zooms except for hiking.)

I can vouch for the 16-80 lens, I have used it extensively in the last month or so during several trips. Quite often, there is a recommendation of supplementing a zoom with a faster prime lens, but this is only valid if you have use for it.

Since your camera will have image stabilization, you could go for the 16-55 f/2.8, I think that with f/2.8 and ISO 3200, you might not require a faster prime?