One lens to cover the focal length of 3?

[bishbosh12]

Hi,

Been mulling over an idea that may be a bad idea.... I have a an X-E2 and lenses as follows: Fuji 10-24, 18-55 and 50-230. On a recent walk when on holiday I took them all and the environment I was walking through, open countryside with sheep, a road and sweeping landscape meant I ended up using all 3 lenses swapping them in and out, which became a bit painful.

So I began to wonder if a single lens that covered the most used focal lengths would be a good idea and save me swapping out the lenses every 2 minutes. Looking at the photos I took I reckon an ideal range would be 12-14mm to 130-140mm.

However, the lenses that are available seems limited to:

• Fujifilm XF 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6
• Sigma16-300mm f/3.5-6.7

In my mind the Fuji lower focal length is too close to the 18-55, and the Sigma upper focal length I doubt I'd use, as I hardly really use the full range of the Fuji 50-230 I have.

So, my questions.... is this a bad idea? If not have I missed some lenses that might suffice?

Ta,

Tony

 

[Jeff Biscuits]

Good ones. Of course, the lens is perfectly usable in the real world, as any other modern lens. I remember shooting a landscape assignment for a travel magazine 23 years ago with a Canon EF 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 zoom, which was considered not good enough...

Right. Even the first image (which for some reason I stupidly shot at f/22, and then overprocessed a bit) has enough detail to make it work. I’m almost tempted to reshoot it next week, I’ll be passing through the same spot

Fundamentally, it’s easy to pay too much attention to the vocal pixel-peepers on the internet. Sharpness these days is not so much a “bourgeois concept” as a “forumite concept”. Best to get the lens (and body) that leads you to make images that you like when you stand back and look at them in their entirety, and forget all other considerations.

The 16-80 handles superbly, is weather resistant, and has a very versatile range. There’s a lot to like about it. Dismissing it for image quality issues mostly feels like bad workmen blaming their tools (if that turn of phrase travels beyond the UK?).

 

[Northcoast216]

Hi,

Been mulling over an idea that may be a bad idea.... I have a an X-E2 and lenses as follows: Fuji 10-24, 18-55 and 50-230. On a recent walk when on holiday I took them all and the environment I was walking through, open countryside with sheep, a road and sweeping landscape meant I ended up using all 3 lenses swapping them in and out, which became a bit painful.

So I began to wonder if a single lens that covered the most used focal lengths would be a good idea and save me swapping out the lenses every 2 minutes. Looking at the photos I took I reckon an ideal range would be 12-14mm to 130-140mm.

However, the lenses that are available seems limited to:

• Fujifilm XF 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6
• Sigma16-300mm f/3.5-6.7

In my mind the Fuji lower focal length is too close to the 18-55, and the Sigma upper focal length I doubt I'd use, as I hardly really use the full range of the Fuji 50-230 I have.

So, my questions.... is this a bad idea? If not have I missed some lenses that might suffice?

Ta,

Tony

Lots of good advice with the responses; having been shooting for decades, I've wrestled with this same issue. My preferred solution is to carry two bodies with the necessary zooms. The OP referenced however choosing one of two lenses, Fuji 18-135 or Sigma 16-300. Going with Fuji here is a no brainer as it's a far better lens of the two. Tamron makes a 18-300 but I've found it to be dreadful. I'd think the Sigma 16-300 wouldn't be any better.

 

[MrAndreas]

The 16-80 handles superbly, is weather resistant, and has a very versatile range. There’s a lot to like about it.

From what I have seen, my impression is that 16-80/4 is an overall excellent lens with very decent IQ, though I don't have hands-on experience with it.

Dismissing it for image quality issues mostly feels like bad workmen blaming their tools (if that turn of phrase travels beyond the UK?).

I won't dismiss it for IQ; my only remark is that instant f/4 may be restrictive in certain scenes and under certain conditions. But as we all know, everything is a tradeoff. And you can always add a pair of fast primes to your lineup if needed.

--

https://www.viewbug.com/member/stesinou

 

[Yannis1976]

Hi,

Been mulling over an idea that may be a bad idea.... I have a an X-E2 and lenses as follows: Fuji 10-24, 18-55 and 50-230. On a recent walk when on holiday I took them all and the environment I was walking through, open countryside with sheep, a road and sweeping landscape meant I ended up using all 3 lenses swapping them in and out, which became a bit painful.

So I began to wonder if a single lens that covered the most used focal lengths would be a good idea and save me swapping out the lenses every 2 minutes. Looking at the photos I took I reckon an ideal range would be 12-14mm to 130-140mm.

However, the lenses that are available seems limited to:

• Fujifilm XF 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6
• Sigma16-300mm f/3.5-6.7

In my mind the Fuji lower focal length is too close to the 18-55, and the Sigma upper focal length I doubt I'd use, as I hardly really use the full range of the Fuji 50-230 I have.

So, my questions.... is this a bad idea? If not have I missed some lenses that might suffice?

Ta,

Tony

Lots of good advice with the responses; having been shooting for decades, I've wrestled with this same issue. My preferred solution is to carry two bodies with the necessary zooms. The OP referenced however choosing one of two lenses, Fuji 18-135 or Sigma 16-300. Going with Fuji here is a no brainer as it's a far better lens of the two. Tamron makes a 18-300 but I've found it to be dreadful. I'd think the Sigma 16-300 wouldn't be any better.

I don’t see any dreadful lens here…

https://flic.kr/p/2rxvAv4

(please check the whole 16-300 group, didn’t know how to share the whole group, so just shared one image)

 

[raymondp1138]

I have found the 16-80 to be a wonderful travel lens.

Me too!

 

[bishbosh12]

I have found the 16-80 to be a wonderful travel lens.

To be honest the shot I needed the big zoom (50-230) was used at 80mm, and I absolutely love the 18-55 so maybe the 16-80 would do, I suppose I was just wanting a little more headroom either side. I'll look into this lens.

It depends what your subject is at 80mm. Due to it only being sharp in the center at 80mm, with only fair borders and poor edges, (at any aperture), the XF 16-80 appears to be primarily a portrait lens at the long end and not suitable for subjects requiring good border and edge sharpness. OTOH, the XC 50-230mm has very good sharpness across the frame at 80mm and even at 230mm for that matter, (at least in my copy), so it can be used for landscapes as well.
If you do decide to try the XF 16-80 f4, then I suggest you buy used from a reputable used lens reseller that allows easy returns. I have seen many used 16-80s being offered by lens resellers well bellow half the price of a new one, so no reason to pay full price for a new one when so many used ones in "excellent" or "like new" condition are readily available.

Good points. In this instance the subject was an interesting tree I placed in the centre of image, zooming in to remove stuff either side but leaving a little greenery border so the 16-80 might be okay.

If I were to get the 16-80 I'd sell the 18-55 but am hesitant to do so as I love it and the size, I think the 16-80 is a bit bigger and does it really give much more for the size increase?

 

[Jeff Biscuits]

If I were to get the 16-80 I'd sell the 18-55 but am hesitant to do so as I love it and the size, I think the 16-80 is a bit bigger and does it really give much more for the size increase?

The main benefits are the weather resistance, the additional range at both ends, a constant aperture, and a proper aperture ring. For me those are all compelling factors, but YMMV.

I briefly had an 18-55 pass through my hands but I couldn’t see any reason why I would choose it over any of Fuji’s other normal zooms (I think at the time I had the 16-80 and the original 16-50). But I know lots of people like it.

 

[yoshi2425]

Three lenses and changing in the field can be a lot. Given what you have shared and the comments, the 16-80 might be what you need. It may not be as wide or long but seems like a reasonable compromise. Adding a bright prime would cover lower light, quality, depth of field control, etc. The 16-80 has OIS, which could be a big deal.

 

[bishbosh12]

If I were to get the 16-80 I'd sell the 18-55 but am hesitant to do so as I love it and the size, I think the 16-80 is a bit bigger and does it really give much more for the size increase?

The main benefits are the weather resistance, the additional range at both ends, a constant aperture, and a proper aperture ring. For me those are all compelling factors, but YMMV.

I briefly had an 18-55 pass through my hands but I couldn’t see any reason why I would choose it over any of Fuji’s other normal zooms (I think at the time I had the 16-80 and the original 16-50). But I know lots of people like it.

Great points, although I presume what you mean by "proper aperture ring" are the markngs? I do really like the 18-55 but then I've not had a different lens in the same range. I imagine had the 16-80 been the kit lens I'd feel the same about it. There is a compelling case for swapping to it.

 

[bishbosh12]

1. Jeff Biscuits wrote:

It depends what your subject is at 80mm. Due to it only being sharp in the center at 80mm, with only fair borders and poor edges, (at any aperture), the XF 16-80 appears to be primarily a portrait lens at the long end and not suitable for subjects requiring good border and edge sharpness.

You can overthink these things, though. There’s nothing really stopping it being used for landscapes at 80mm.

Very nice shots. Can I ask what you used for them and what focal length?

 

[Jeff Biscuits]

Great points, although I presume what you mean by "proper aperture ring" are the markngs?

Yes, and it means it’s not just a continuously rotating ring, it has stops at the end. So to open it up you just rotate it to the stop and you know you’re wide open—and more importantly you know that whenever you go, say, three clicks one way and three clicks back, you’re always back at the same aperture you started from, which is not true of an unstopped ring.

 

[RobRoy22]

It depends what your subject is at 80mm. Due to it only being sharp in the center at 80mm, with only fair borders and poor edges, (at any aperture), the XF 16-80 appears to be primarily a portrait lens at the long end and not suitable for subjects requiring good border and edge sharpness.

You can overthink these things, though. There’s nothing really stopping it being used for landscapes at 80mm.

A picture paints a thousand words; in this case 5,000 Great shots

 

[bishbosh12]

Great points, although I presume what you mean by "proper aperture ring" are the markngs?

Yes, and it means it’s not just a continuously rotating ring, it has stops at the end. So to open it up you just rotate it to the stop and you know you’re wide open—and more importantly you know that whenever you go, say, three clicks one way and three clicks back, you’re always back at the same aperture you started from, which is not true of an unstopped ring.

You know I hadn't even thought of that, and now I think about it my very first camera (a pentax) back when I was 15 had just that and also the nikon I had mid 90s. I just thought they were all like the ones I now have

 

[RobRoy22]

Good ones. Of course, the lens is perfectly usable in the real world, as any other modern lens. I remember shooting a landscape assignment for a travel magazine 23 years ago with a Canon EF 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 zoom, which was considered not good enough...

Right. Even the first image (which for some reason I stupidly shot at f/22, and then overprocessed a bit) has enough detail to make it work. I’m almost tempted to reshoot it next week, I’ll be passing through the same spot

Fundamentally, it’s easy to pay too much attention to the vocal pixel-peepers on the internet. Sharpness these days is not so much a “bourgeois concept” as a “forumite concept”. Best to get the lens (and body) that leads you to make images that you like when you stand back and look at them in their entirety, and forget all other considerations.

The 16-80 handles superbly, is weather resistant, and has a very versatile range. There’s a lot to like about it. Dismissing it for image quality issues mostly feels like bad workmen blaming their tools (if that turn of phrase travels beyond the UK?).

Indeed. I’ve lazily overused my 16-55 MkII since I got it, and for sure there have been occasions when the 16-80 (which I didn’t sell) would have served me better. Note to self….

 

[Jeff Biscuits]

It depends what your subject is at 80mm. Due to it only being sharp in the center at 80mm, with only fair borders and poor edges, (at any aperture), the XF 16-80 appears to be primarily a portrait lens at the long end and not suitable for subjects requiring good border and edge sharpness.

You can overthink these things, though. There’s nothing really stopping it being used for landscapes at 80mm.

Very nice shots. Can I ask what you used for them and what focal length?

They’re all the 16-80 at 80mm.

Some more from the same lens at other focal lengths.…

Brecon Beacons again:

Clouds, colour shifted in Lightroom:

Handheld at 1/4sec thanks to OIS:

OIS to the fore again:

Striding Edge, Lake District:

Unedited Velvia SOOC JPEG:

Castle Crag, Lake District:

 

[Superscroll]

Oh i love that last shot!

 

[Jeff Biscuits]

Oh i love that last shot!

Thanks… if nothing else, it argues the case for “who cares about corner sharpness?”

 

[bishbosh12]

Oh i love that last shot!

Thanks… if nothing else, it argues the case for “who cares about corner sharpness?”

Indeed. Apologies for asking details about the shots, but I was viewing them on my phone, now I'm on the PC and hovering the mouse over the image shows me everything I need to know

 

[Jeff Biscuits]

Apologies for asking details about the shots, but I was viewing them on my phone, now I'm on the PC and hovering the mouse over the image shows me everything I need to know

No problem, and don’t worry, I assumed that was the reason

 

[robert1955]

I've for a long time done the two bodies thing, but I want [once again to go lighter. That could mean one body. Three lenses would not mean lighter, so it becomes a 'pick any two out of three,

For zooms that would mean a standard or long standard zoom, with an ultrawide and a moderate tele.
I guess you could pick the last two, which leaves you a gap between 24 and 50/55. Not really workable for me.
I have the Fuji 10-24. Problem: too much overlap on the long end.
I currently have the Fuji 70-300. Problem: big and heavy. But I see no alternative. The 50-230 and 55-200 are old and the first one I think is no longer available