Which prime lens + 16-80 for Vietnam, Cambodia and Thailand

Hello!

a couple of months ago I asked you for advice on buying the XS-10 with 18-55 or 16-80. I finally decided to buy a barely new second hand X-S10 which included a 15-45 and I also bought the 16-80 separately.

I've tried both of them a bit, and although I like the 15-45 in terms of size/weight, the electronic zoom feels weird, so I will probably sell it. The 16-80 is at my size/weight limit, but I could get used to it if it helps me take good pictures thanks to its versatility. I didn't choose the 18-55 f2.8-4 because of its more limited focal range, and neither the 16-55 f2.8 or the Tamron 17-70 f2.8 because of their larger size/weight.

Now about the topic:

I'm travelling for 3 weeks to Vietnam, Cambodia and Thailand, and I'd like to get the most out of my new X-S10 and the lenses I'm taking with me. I'd like to travel light, so I've thought about buying at most 1 prime lens to supplement the 16-80. So far I've only used two Lumix 12-32mm and 35-100mm zooms with my old Pen-F, so as I'm not used to prime lenses yet, I guess just one would be fine to start with for going lighter in the cities and night pics.

In Vietnam we will visit Hanoi (street, architecture, portraits, night) and Halong Bay (wide-angle and zoomed-in landscapes), in Cambodia we will just go to Angkor Wat (architecture, landscape, portrait), and then 3 days to Bangkok (street, architecture, portrait, night) and one week to some Thay islands (landscape, portrait).

I've been reading many posts and reviews about Fuji lenses, but I'm still not sure which focal length would make more sense for the type of travel and for pairing it with the 16-80.

- Would a fast wide-angle like the Samyang 12mm, Viltrox 13mm f1.4, 14mm 2.8 or 16mm 2.8 be much better than the 16-80 for landscapes, architecture and night pics? is the IQ difference during daylight much better compared to the 16-80? and could be that focal lengths too "specific" for those kinds of photos so it would require changing lenses often?

- Or maybe better a "classic" focal length like the 23mm f2, 35mm f1.4 or 35mm f2 XC for street, night pics and some close portraits? = so lighter than with the 16-80 but with overlapping focal lengths?

- I would be short of a telephoto lens, but maybe I could skip it on this trip to travel light. The only doubt about this: would the 80mm of the 16-80 be enough for decent zoomed-in landscapes like in Halong Bay?

Many thanks in advance!

Victor

I vote for the most universal focal length - 23mm. You would probably go for light f2 version.

The Vilrox 13mm f/1.4 would be a great complement to the 16-80 both in terms of focal length and light gathering - 3 full stops faster for low light shooting. I took a recent trip out to Colorado and used it mostly with my 16-55 and didn't finding myself wishing for alternative focal lengths - I used 2 camera bodies, though, I hate swapping lenses. The 13mm is very wide, but not ridiculously so, you will need to mindful to keep the camera level to avoid excessively converging or diverging verticals, but it's great for low light indoor stuff and outdoor city/street photography (day or night). It's lots of fun to shoot with, I think I actually shot with it more than the very versatile 16-55 on that trip.

If I was going to take just one prime to use exclusively, it would be a 23mm (the X100V in my case, which also pairs well with the 13mm).

If I was taking just a zoom - definitely the 16-55, super versatile and fast enough for indoor/night shooting without having to bring a prime along.

My choice would be a 23mm or 35mm prime, the reason is street and night. The smaller lenses are less obvious and mostly less serious for other people then a bigger zoom.

Or maybe even the new 30mm for macro ability. F2.8 should still be ok-ish for night work.

You say you didn't like the 15-45's power zoom.

Did you try zooming it with the focus ring rather than the power zoom control?  I find that it behaves more like the other lenses if you do that.

It is also wider than the 16-80 and very sharp at 15mm.  Some people simply use the 15-45 as a sharp, small 15mm wide angle and forget the fact that it zooms. For wide stuff. I choose it over the 16-80

My vote would go for XF 35mm f/1.4 - it`s similar to my travel kit, where besides XF 16-80mm f/4 (all-around, daylight) I also take Mitakon 35mm f/0.95 (artistic, night) and Samyang (Rokinon) 8mm f/2.8 fisheye (land or cityscapes).

Having a fast prime somewhere in the middle of the slower zoom range is a common two-lens zoom/prime kit, where I find 35mm more useful for subject separation than 23mm (and zoom already covers the wide(r) end anyway), while still not too tight for later night shots (and having an extra stop of light over f/2 helps, too).

XF 23/2 would be my recommendation. Sort of a Swiss Army knife lens to keep the camera small and light.

You have to embrace the fact that you will miss photographs with any kit. The temptation is to drag along too much gear for fear of missing photos. Better to keep the kit simple, make the photos you can, and let the ones you miss pass by. Too much gear and fear of missing this or that photo can undermine the sense if exploration and joy of traveling and experiencing a new part of the world.

cheers,

Matt

For your general purpose, for a small, lightweight carry-around lens, my vote would also be for the 23mm f2. You could also go a bit wider with the 18mm f2. In full frame terms these lenses are 35mm and 27mm equivalents.

There is a reason why fixed lens cameras like the Ricoh GR3, the Leica Q, the Fuji X100 series and most smartphones, are made with 27mm - 35mm equivalent lenses.

The OP seems to have a tendency towards wider lenses, so perhaps a 14mm or 16mm is the way to go in this instance.

One way that can help you decide on which lens to take: do an IG or Flickr search for various specific lenses and look through the photo pool. Look at the overall viewpoint of the various images and decide which lens(es) best match your photographic style. Even with many years of experience, I occasionally do this when I am stuck deciding which lens(es) to take with me.

You will be in a lot of temples and crowded markets. A wide lens like the Viltrox 13/1.4 is helpful. 1.4 also helps, because of the heat many markets are night markets and it's also often dark within these temples. The tiny 27/2.8 is also something to consider because of it's size.
A lot boils down to your personal preferences. Do you prefer a wider view or do you like to isolate things with a longer focal length. But you have your zoom lens for this anyway. I personally would go with the 13/1.4 Viltrox or a 23/1.4 or the tiny 27/2.8 (your camera is stabilized anyway).

Have fun.

Common sense recommends to get a prime lens that is faster than the f/4 zoom, and with a focal length around the middle of the zoom.

My favourite "tactics":

- zoom for outdoor areas (as your 16-80)

- prime for lower light/indoor or evenings (I would choose 23mm or maybe 18mm)

victorgm wrote:

Hello again!

Thank you very much for all the advice! I've been very short of time these weeks and I haven't been able to reply until now. The truth is that for the same reason I haven't been able to practice much with the X-S10 and I'm still undecided about the fixed focal length.

Precisely what I want to avoid is to hesitate between the 16-80 and the fixed lens I will buy when taking pictures on the trip, but to have a specific use for the fixed lens that avoids swapping every time and enjoy it more than stressing about using the most suitable one.

I understand that there would be two strategies to combine with the 16-80:

- Buy a bright prime that offers a different focal length, e.g. 12mm f2, 16mm 2.8 or a 50/70mm.

- Buy a bright prime in the mid-range of the 16-80, so that it is valid to go lighter and in different situations in low light, dusk or night.

I would say that most of my photos are landscapes, interiors and architecture, so a 16mm 2.8, 18mm or 23mm f2 would suit me well. You can check out my instagram at @victorguimeram instagram.com/victorguimeram (don't kick me out of the forum for that, I want to open a flickr soon

On the other hand, I could enhance my street/architecture/portrait photography (of my partner) on this trip in Hanoi/Bangkok if I took a 27mm 2.8 and 35mm 1.4, or for landscapes that require some zoom (like in halong bay with distant islets that with wide angle are lost in the distance), although for that the 16-80 could also defend itself well.

In short, I think I'm tending towards the 23mm f2, and I've seen one second-hand for 275€. But I have a specific doubt: for a daytime walk around the temples of Angkor Wat, would you use the 16-80mm f4 or the 23mm f2 first? I understand that the versatility of the 16-80 can be very good, but would a 23mm f2 offer better quality during the day with the same focal length? Or would it only stand out in low light like at sunset?

Many thanks again!

Victor

That's why I much prefer the 16-55 f/2.8, over the 16-80. it can almost always get the job done without having to hassle with swapping it out for a prime when the light drops. That leaves me with the option to carry a second lens (or camera/lens) with a complementary focal length (I'm liking the Viltrox 13 f/1.4 for that) rather than a redundant overlapping one. Being very wide, it's great in tight places or for grand vistas, and it's got amazing sharpness and lots of DOF to work with, even at its widest apertures, which really helps in low light where the super shallow DOF of a longer focal length would be limiting (often). Just my 2 cents.