Lenses if I switch, how to build a set which works together

[whettam]

OK I’m still thinking this through and as encouraged before in my initial thread about EVF’s, I’ve been considering more about my planned lenses, if I made the switch. It’s been an interesting exercise and one that has surprised me. I thought that I would be leaning towards the f1.4 and f2 primes, but that’s not really what I have come up with. Interested to hear if anyone has any observations.

I like fast glass, pref with constant aperture and low weight (appreciate don't always go together), but this has often led me to primes, for the mid range and then zooms for wide (interiors) / tele (fast moving subjects) flexibility.

Standard zoom : Didn't initially even think this would be category, but I think the Sigma 17- 40 1.8 looks really interesting and useful for documentary / travel / environmental portraits covers several of my main use cases. Wish it started at 16, but think I'm OK with that compromise.

Portrait option of 85 on FF is an important focal length for me, so think would also get the 56 1.2 WR, would pair nicely with the Sigma. But interested to hear opinions on the APD version?

So as summarised in the other thread about the Sigma 17-40, not considering as many f1.4 or f2 primes as I thought I would. But including my Fuji X100VI does give me FF equiv 35 and 85 primes on two bodies, which would be good setup sometimes.

Then the Fuji 70-300 which just seems a bit of a no brainer telephoto, for the reach / weight, variable aperture is the compromise, but I'll just have to learn to figure that out.

Those three lenses would cover a lot of what I hope to do and with the XT-5, would weigh just over 2kg (2.6kg if I include X100VI) which compares very well compared to the same range with my Nikon FF (over 3.5 kg as a minimum), probably more as my current standard zoom is only f4 vs 2.8 (for the Sigma in FF terms).

But then I get a bit more confused:

• shorter faster tele - possibly the 50-140 2.8 but its a bit heavy, so alternative is 90 f2 good for longer portrait option, but prime is a bit less flexible for fast moving subjects e.g. close sports / dogs running about, I suppose you could argue 70-300 covers this, but do like idea of faster constant aperture shorter tele
• wide option, seems Fuji are a bit weak in this area? Viltrox 13 1.4 probably looks most suitable, currently only have a FF 20mm prime. But would have ideally preferred a zoom for flexibility for UWA, so Sigma 10-18 f2.8 is possibly another option, the Fuji options are either too slow for interiors or too expensive :-( as I don’t often shoot really wide

I could then possibly longer term consider other 1.4 primes to add a bit more speed e.g. 16, 33, etc. or lighter 2.8's to keep weight down. Interested in opinions on this as an approach.

 

[Morris0]

OK I’m still thinking this through and as encouraged before in my initial thread about EVF’s, I’ve been considering more about my planned lenses, if I made the switch. It’s been an interesting exercise and one that has surprised me. I thought that I would be leaning towards the f1.4 and f2 primes, but that’s not really what I have come up with. Interested to hear if anyone has any observations.

I love fast primes for portraits. It's so nice to isolate the subject with DOF and Fuji's primes have wonderful bokeh.

I like fast glass, pref with constant aperture and low weight (appreciate don't always go together), but this has often led me to primes, for the mid range and then zooms for wide (interiors) / tele (fast moving subjects) flexibility.

Standard zoom : Didn't initially even think this would be category, but I think the Sigma 17- 40 1.8 looks really interesting and useful for documentary / travel / environmental portraits covers several of my main use cases. Wish it started at 16, but think I'm OK with that compromise.

If you get the sigma it will zoom in the opposite direction of Fuji zooms. For me that kills muscle memory slowing me down and making me miss shots. Yes the fast zoom is attractive and if Sigma bothered to gear it the other way for Fuji I'd have one in my kit.

Portrait option of 85 on FF is an important focal length for me, so think would also get the 56 1.2 WR, would pair nicely with the Sigma. But interested to hear opinions on the APD version?

All of Fuji's 50mm ish options are great. I've tried them all and found the 50mm f2 met my needs. You get an even more magical look from the 56 1.2 and the APD even nicer. The differences mostly vanish if you need to stop down to get enough of your subject's face in focus. The 50mm f2 is real nice with tubes for flowers and insects.

So as summarised in the other thread about the Sigma 17-40, not considering as many f1.4 or f2 primes as I thought I would. But including my Fuji X100VI does give me FF equiv 35 and 85 primes on two bodies, which would be good setup sometimes.

I'm a two body shooter so the primes work great for me

Then the Fuji 70-300 which just seems a bit of a no brainer telephoto, for the reach / weight, variable aperture is the compromise, but I'll just have to learn to figure that out.

The 70-300mm is a very average lens. It's sharp enough and the bokeh is OK to good. All Fuji lenses have attractive bokeh. It will get you close enough for flowers and insects and is great for isolation type landscapes. It's fine for occasional wildlife and birds. Not my choice for photographing people. It's OK with a 1.4x TC yet may exhibit CA. With the TC it's not a good choice for action yet acceptable without the TC.

Those three lenses would cover a lot of what I hope to do and with the XT-5, would weigh just over 2kg (2.6kg if I include X100VI) which compares very well compared to the same range with my Nikon FF (over 3.5 kg as a minimum), probably more as my current standard zoom is only f4 vs 2.8 (for the Sigma in FF terms).

But then I get a bit more confused:

• shorter faster tele - possibly the 50-140 2.8 but its a bit heavy, so alternative is 90 f2 good for longer portrait option, but prime is a bit less flexible for fast moving subjects e.g. close sports / dogs running about, I suppose you could argue 70-300 covers this, but do like idea of faster constant aperture shorter tele

The 50-140mm f2.8 is a good lens yet I wish it were longer. The 90mm f2.0 is my faverate portrait lens and it's good for some sports. It creates a magical look, an absolute delight to shoot with with fast focus. It works well with an extension tube for macro work. Even though I don't use it much, I'll never sell it.

• wide option, seems Fuji are a bit weak in this area? Viltrox 13 1.4 probably looks most suitable, currently only have a FF 20mm prime. But would have ideally preferred a zoom for flexibility for UWA, so Sigma 10-18 f2.8 is possibly another option, the Fuji options are either too slow for interiors or too expensive :-( as I don’t often shoot really wide

I don't know where you get this from. Fuji has way too many wide lenses in there collection. It can be overwhelming. Most of them are excellent. The only reason to go third party is price.

I could then possibly longer term consider other 1.4 primes to add a bit more speed e.g. 16, 33, etc. or lighter 2.8's to keep weight down. Interested in opinions on this as an approach.

You have clearly been shooting for a while, decide what you shoot the most and fill those needs first. Then fill gaps that you notice you are missing.

Morris

 

[whettam]

Thank you again Morris, this is all really useful.

OK I’m still thinking this through and as encouraged before in my initial thread about EVF’s, I’ve been considering more about my planned lenses, if I made the switch. It’s been an interesting exercise and one that has surprised me. I thought that I would be leaning towards the f1.4 and f2 primes, but that’s not really what I have come up with. Interested to hear if anyone has any observations.

I love fast primes for portraits. It's so nice to isolate the subject with DOF and Fuji's primes have wonderful bokeh.

I like fast glass, pref with constant aperture and low weight (appreciate don't always go together), but this has often led me to primes, for the mid range and then zooms for wide (interiors) / tele (fast moving subjects) flexibility.

Standard zoom : Didn't initially even think this would be category, but I think the Sigma 17- 40 1.8 looks really interesting and useful for documentary / travel / environmental portraits covers several of my main use cases. Wish it started at 16, but think I'm OK with that compromise.

If you get the sigma it will zoom in the opposite direction of Fuji zooms. For me that kills muscle memory slowing me down and making me miss shots. Yes the fast zoom is attractive and if Sigma bothered to gear it the other way for Fuji I'd have one in my kit.

I had not appreciated that very useful to know and this puts me off a bit too, maybe I should look at those prime options again or the 16-55 f2.8?

Portrait option of 85 on FF is an important focal length for me, so think would also get the 56 1.2 WR, would pair nicely with the Sigma. But interested to hear opinions on the APD version?

All of Fuji's 50mm ish options are great. I've tried them all and found the 50mm f2 met my needs. You get an even more magical look from the 56 1.2 and the APD even nicer. The differences mostly vanish if you need to stop down to get enough of your subject's face in focus. The 50mm f2 is real nice with tubes for flowers and insects.

This is good to know important focal length for me. I tend to use tubes too for flowers / insects rather than a dedicated macro.

So as summarised in the other thread about the Sigma 17-40, not considering as many f1.4 or f2 primes as I thought I would. But including my Fuji X100VI does give me FF equiv 35 and 85 primes on two bodies, which would be good setup sometimes.

I'm a two body shooter so the primes work great for me

Then the Fuji 70-300 which just seems a bit of a no brainer telephoto, for the reach / weight, variable aperture is the compromise, but I'll just have to learn to figure that out.

The 70-300mm is a very average lens. It's sharp enough and the bokeh is OK to good. All Fuji lenses have attractive bokeh. It will get you close enough for flowers and insects and is great for isolation type landscapes. It's fine for occasional wildlife and birds. Not my choice for photographing people. It's OK with a 1.4x TC yet may exhibit CA. With the TC it's not a good choice for action yet acceptable without the TC.

Yes would not be using the 70-300 for people more sports / wildlife / maybe dogs in action and it's not my primary use case so was looking to save a bit. What else would you recommend the 100-400?

Those three lenses would cover a lot of what I hope to do and with the XT-5, would weigh just over 2kg (2.6kg if I include X100VI) which compares very well compared to the same range with my Nikon FF (over 3.5 kg as a minimum), probably more as my current standard zoom is only f4 vs 2.8 (for the Sigma in FF terms).

But then I get a bit more confused:

• shorter faster tele - possibly the 50-140 2.8 but its a bit heavy, so alternative is 90 f2 good for longer portrait option, but prime is a bit less flexible for fast moving subjects e.g. close sports / dogs running about, I suppose you could argue 70-300 covers this, but do like idea of faster constant aperture shorter tele

The 50-140mm f2.8 is a good lens yet I wish it were longer. The 90mm f2.0 is my faverate portrait lens and it's good for some sports. It creates a magical look, an absolute delight to shoot with with fast focus. It works well with an extension tube for macro work. Even though I don't use it much, I'll never sell it.

Thank you that's all good to know, I'm used to using 70-200 on FF, so probably OK with focal length limitation of 50 - 140, was probably only looking to get one of these, 50-140 would be good for sports / dogs and OK for portraits, 90 the other way around :-(

• wide option, seems Fuji are a bit weak in this area? Viltrox 13 1.4 probably looks most suitable, currently only have a FF 20mm prime. But would have ideally preferred a zoom for flexibility for UWA, so Sigma 10-18 f2.8 is possibly another option, the Fuji options are either too slow for interiors or too expensive :-( as I don’t often shoot really wide

I don't know where you get this from. Fuji has way too many wide lenses in there collection. It can be overwhelming. Most of them are excellent. The only reason to go third party is price.

I suppose for zooms I'm only away of the 8-16 f2.8 I like the range but quite expensive, as I don't often take UWA photos and the 10-24 f4 is a bit slow. Based on specs Viltrox 13 seemed better than the Fuji wide option 14 f2.8.

I could then possibly longer term consider other 1.4 primes to add a bit more speed e.g. 16, 33, etc. or lighter 2.8's to keep weight down. Interested in opinions on this as an approach.

You have clearly been shooting for a while, decide what you shoot the most and fill those needs first. Then fill gaps that you notice you are missing.

Morris

Thank you again.

 

[William the X-T5 guy]

I've gone through this twice with Fuji, the first time in 2012 when I bought the X-Pro1 and then again when I bought the X-T5 in 2023.

Not being a zoom user (in 2012) I ended up with the 14/2.8, 23/1.4, 35/1.4, 56/1.2 and 60 macro. They are all very good lenses. I've heard some complaints about focus speed with the 56, but coming from Pentax it seems quite fast (Pentax AF is very accurate, but not very quick).

And I used that kit quite happily and added an X-T1 when it came along.

Fast forward to 2016 and Pentax released the K1 and I went back to using Pentax as my front line cameras, eventually almost forgetting that the Fuji equipment existed.

Anyway, I was cleaning out my office one day in early 2023 and there, under a stack of old pizza boxes was my Domke bag with the Fuji gear. Thinking this stuff is too nice to have sitting around, I had a look at what was current for Fuji and bought the X-T5 body. It was a toss up between it and the XH body. I liked the better EVF in the XH camera, but I preferred the control layout on the X-T body, and I don't shoot video enough to matter.

And then the lens buying began again. I spent some time reading this forum and found people were very enthusiastic about the red badge lenses. I picked up the 16-55, 50-140 and 80 macro over the next few months and added the 8-16 later that year as well.

I eschewed my eschewing of zooms.

My go to portrait lens when I was using Pentax APS-C was the DA70/2.4. For me it is the perfect focal length for head & shoulder portraiture.

Went to the Fuji catalogue and they have nothing, but the Viltrox 75/1.2 was highly recommended, and I ended up with that lens. It's high recommendation turned out to be valid. It's a lovely lens. A bit longer than I like, but I make it work.

And I couldn't be happier, except for the weight. These lenses are all horses. But they do what I want, so I'm happy.

I don't know if this helps, but there you go.

 

[a_c_skinner]

I rarely disagree with Morris but I do think that is a rather downbeat assessment of the 70-300 which I think is really satisfactory. I'm not clear why after a really good write up Morris goes on to say it isn't a good lens for people.

Each to their own but for cost and weight and bulk I find the 70-300 a really good package. It saves me from bending down to shoot wild plants!

 

[biza43]

For wide angle I recommend the Fuji 14. I tried the Viltrox, but it had poor resistance to flare.

 

[Meeces]

OK I’m still thinking this through and as encouraged before in my initial thread about EVF’s, I’ve been considering more about my planned lenses, if I made the switch. It’s been an interesting exercise and one that has surprised me. I thought that I would be leaning towards the f1.4 and f2 primes, but that’s not really what I have come up with. Interested to hear if anyone has any observations.

I like fast glass, pref with constant aperture and low weight (appreciate don't always go together), but this has often led me to primes, for the mid range and then zooms for wide (interiors) / tele (fast moving subjects) flexibility.

Standard zoom : Didn't initially even think this would be category, but I think the Sigma 17- 40 1.8 looks really interesting and useful for documentary / travel / environmental portraits covers several of my main use cases. Wish it started at 16, but think I'm OK with that compromise.

Portrait option of 85 on FF is an important focal length for me, so think would also get the 56 1.2 WR, would pair nicely with the Sigma. But interested to hear opinions on the APD version?

So as summarised in the other thread about the Sigma 17-40, not considering as many f1.4 or f2 primes as I thought I would. But including my Fuji X100VI does give me FF equiv 35 and 85 primes on two bodies, which would be good setup sometimes.

Then the Fuji 70-300 which just seems a bit of a no brainer telephoto, for the reach / weight, variable aperture is the compromise, but I'll just have to learn to figure that out.

Those three lenses would cover a lot of what I hope to do and with the XT-5, would weigh just over 2kg (2.6kg if I include X100VI) which compares very well compared to the same range with my Nikon FF (over 3.5 kg as a minimum), probably more as my current standard zoom is only f4 vs 2.8 (for the Sigma in FF terms).

But then I get a bit more confused:

• shorter faster tele - possibly the 50-140 2.8 but its a bit heavy, so alternative is 90 f2 good for longer portrait option, but prime is a bit less flexible for fast moving subjects e.g. close sports / dogs running about, I suppose you could argue 70-300 covers this, but do like idea of faster constant aperture shorter tele
• wide option, seems Fuji are a bit weak in this area? Viltrox 13 1.4 probably looks most suitable, currently only have a FF 20mm prime. But would have ideally preferred a zoom for flexibility for UWA, so Sigma 10-18 f2.8 is possibly another option, the Fuji options are either too slow for interiors or too expensive :-( as I don’t often shoot really wide

I could then possibly longer term consider other 1.4 primes to add a bit more speed e.g. 16, 33, etc. or lighter 2.8's to keep weight down. Interested in opinions on this as an approach.

Are you thinking the 17-40 for low f/stop, range, or both? If you're thinking the 17 for wide side of things, and end up with another wider than 17 lens at some point, then does that steer you towards a more normal mid-zoom range now since you would end up with something wider anyway eventually?

Which, if you are thinking the 16-55 would be okay- I can't recommend the version II enough. It is a touch plasticky (and helps the low weight for sure), but man what a lens. The version i is no slouch either, although bigger.

The 17-40 seems like a pretty big gap left between 40 and 70 if you picked up the 70-300 (and I would highly recommend it as well). I do believe Viltrox is supposed to release the 56 f/1.2 for Fuji soonish (no idea how big it will be), but that might be another option worth waiting for. The Viltrox 75 is an amazing lens, and the 13 has a great reputation on the boards here as well. As mentioned, lots of choice around 50mm.

I'd also mention the forthcoming Sigma 12 f/1.4 wide angle. Was supposed to come out with the 17-40, but delayed. Not sure why (info from fujirumors.com).

I'd also think about the 50-140 with the 1.4 converter. Although I'm not sure if Fuji has upgraded/updated (without announcing) the switch mechanism on the covererter- my first one broke with not much use - its plastic parts underneath. Could be one of those things where materials are updated under the hood, so to speak.

If you're thinking of the Sigma 10-18, don't forget Tamron 11-20 as well.

Maybe something else to think about, although probably minor, is filter size if you use them. Might be a secondary consideration when looking at an overall kit.

A bit rambly of a response, but maybe gives some more food for thought.

 

[jhorse]

The 70-300mm is a very average lens. It's sharp enough and the bokeh is OK to good. All Fuji lenses have attractive bokeh. It will get you close enough for flowers and insects and is great for isolation type landscapes. It's fine for occasional wildlife and birds. Not my choice for photographing people. It's OK with a 1.4x TC yet may exhibit CA. With the TC it's not a good choice for action yet acceptable without the TC.

Yes would not be using the 70-300 for people more sports / wildlife / maybe dogs in action and it's not my primary use case so was looking to save a bit. What else would you recommend the 100-400?

Just to add an opinion of the Fuji 70-300f5.6. IMHO at its price point it is an excellent lens. I tend to use it far more often than my Fuji 100-400 because of its lighter weight and smaller bulk, its almost indistinguishable image quality up to 300mm vs the 100-400 at 300mm at normal viewing on a 27" Mac Studio Display, its excellent AF (on XT5) and occasionally I can use the x1.4 converter. I do use it for sports a lot (fast action polo, kite surfing (son's passion) and cycle racing (daughter's passion)) where I find its IQ passes muster.

I do use the 100-400 occasionally for wildlife, but the subjects tend to be deer, which are not a demanding subject even when galloping or rutting (unlike birds in flight which need far greater skill and a better lens). I have looked at the Fuji 150-600, but concluded that for my use case the cost of change is not worth it. That said, the 70-300 for my modest wildlife needs is fine; if I am quiet and slow I can get to within about 50m of deer so as an easily carried lens its reach is acceptable.

Hope that helps. As an aside, my most used lens is the 16-55f2.8 MkII, which is a pleasure to use and always delivers excellent image quality.

 

[whettam]

I rarely disagree with Morris but I do think that is a rather downbeat assessment of the 70-300 which I think is really satisfactory. I'm not clear why after a really good write up Morris goes on to say it isn't a good lens for people.

Each to their own but for cost and weight and bulk I find the 70-300 a really good package. It saves me from bending down to shoot wild plants!

I thought Morris was on balance actually quite positive about it, after the average comment ;-) This lens will be a bit of a compromise, I don't like variable aperture. But it would primarily be used for sports / wildlife, which are less important use cases / genres for me, just something I would like to try. So at price point could be a good option, I suppose the one reason I'm prepared to also consider the heavier 100-400 (I'm guessing less of a compromise?) is that I will know when I'm going to use it in advance and therefore weight not so much of factor, although I mentioned combined weight off the three lenses, I don't anticipate always carrying the the telephoto.

 

[whettam]

OK I’m still thinking this through and as encouraged before in my initial thread about EVF’s, I’ve been considering more about my planned lenses, if I made the switch. It’s been an interesting exercise and one that has surprised me. I thought that I would be leaning towards the f1.4 and f2 primes, but that’s not really what I have come up with. Interested to hear if anyone has any observations.

I like fast glass, pref with constant aperture and low weight (appreciate don't always go together), but this has often led me to primes, for the mid range and then zooms for wide (interiors) / tele (fast moving subjects) flexibility.

Standard zoom : Didn't initially even think this would be category, but I think the Sigma 17- 40 1.8 looks really interesting and useful for documentary / travel / environmental portraits covers several of my main use cases. Wish it started at 16, but think I'm OK with that compromise.

Portrait option of 85 on FF is an important focal length for me, so think would also get the 56 1.2 WR, would pair nicely with the Sigma. But interested to hear opinions on the APD version?

So as summarised in the other thread about the Sigma 17-40, not considering as many f1.4 or f2 primes as I thought I would. But including my Fuji X100VI does give me FF equiv 35 and 85 primes on two bodies, which would be good setup sometimes.

Then the Fuji 70-300 which just seems a bit of a no brainer telephoto, for the reach / weight, variable aperture is the compromise, but I'll just have to learn to figure that out.

Those three lenses would cover a lot of what I hope to do and with the XT-5, would weigh just over 2kg (2.6kg if I include X100VI) which compares very well compared to the same range with my Nikon FF (over 3.5 kg as a minimum), probably more as my current standard zoom is only f4 vs 2.8 (for the Sigma in FF terms).

But then I get a bit more confused:

• shorter faster tele - possibly the 50-140 2.8 but its a bit heavy, so alternative is 90 f2 good for longer portrait option, but prime is a bit less flexible for fast moving subjects e.g. close sports / dogs running about, I suppose you could argue 70-300 covers this, but do like idea of faster constant aperture shorter tele
• wide option, seems Fuji are a bit weak in this area? Viltrox 13 1.4 probably looks most suitable, currently only have a FF 20mm prime. But would have ideally preferred a zoom for flexibility for UWA, so Sigma 10-18 f2.8 is possibly another option, the Fuji options are either too slow for interiors or too expensive :-( as I don’t often shoot really wide

I could then possibly longer term consider other 1.4 primes to add a bit more speed e.g. 16, 33, etc. or lighter 2.8's to keep weight down. Interested in opinions on this as an approach.

Are you thinking the 17-40 for low f/stop, range, or both? If you're thinking the 17 for wide side of things, and end up with another wider than 17 lens at some point, then does that steer you towards a more normal mid-zoom range now since you would end up with something wider anyway eventually?

Which, if you are thinking the 16-55 would be okay- I can't recommend the version II enough. It is a touch plasticky (and helps the low weight for sure), but man what a lens. The version i is no slouch either, although bigger.

The 17-40 seems like a pretty big gap left between 40 and 70 if you picked up the 70-300 (and I would highly recommend it as well). I do believe Viltrox is supposed to release the 56 f/1.2 for Fuji soonish (no idea how big it will be), but that might be another option worth waiting for. The Viltrox 75 is an amazing lens, and the 13 has a great reputation on the boards here as well. As mentioned, lots of choice around 50mm.

I'd also mention the forthcoming Sigma 12 f/1.4 wide angle. Was supposed to come out with the 17-40, but delayed. Not sure why (info from fujirumors.com).

I'd also think about the 50-140 with the 1.4 converter. Although I'm not sure if Fuji has upgraded/updated (without announcing) the switch mechanism on the covererter- my first one broke with not much use - its plastic parts underneath. Could be one of those things where materials are updated under the hood, so to speak.

If you're thinking of the Sigma 10-18, don't forget Tamron 11-20 as well.

Maybe something else to think about, although probably minor, is filter size if you use them. Might be a secondary consideration when looking at an overall kit.

A bit rambly of a response, but maybe gives some more food for thought.

Thank you, not rambly at all some useful comments and mentions of rumours / lens I was not aware of. My initial interest in the Sigma 17-40 was primarily the aperture, I'm used to full frame so on ASPC see 1.8 as an advantage over f2.8. I'm fairly used to gaps, because often use primes and thought the reach of 40 then in set with 56 1.2 prime would work. But your point about the limitation at wide end is a really good one, it would be likely to make me want another wider option more. Additionally Morris comment about the reverse zoom direction does put me off this lens a bit.

I had considered Filters and was one of the reasons I made my initial selection (now being revisited) apart from the 90 all are same size.

 

[whettam]

The 70-300mm is a very average lens. It's sharp enough and the bokeh is OK to good. All Fuji lenses have attractive bokeh. It will get you close enough for flowers and insects and is great for isolation type landscapes. It's fine for occasional wildlife and birds. Not my choice for photographing people. It's OK with a 1.4x TC yet may exhibit CA. With the TC it's not a good choice for action yet acceptable without the TC.

Yes would not be using the 70-300 for people more sports / wildlife / maybe dogs in action and it's not my primary use case so was looking to save a bit. What else would you recommend the 100-400?

Just to add an opinion of the Fuji 70-300f5.6. IMHO at its price point it is an excellent lens. I tend to use it far more often than my Fuji 100-400 because of its lighter weight and smaller bulk, its almost indistinguishable image quality up to 300mm vs the 100-400 at 300mm at normal viewing on a 27" Mac Studio Display, its excellent AF (on XT5) and occasionally I can use the x1.4 converter. I do use it for sports a lot (fast action polo, kite surfing (son's passion) and cycle racing (daughter's passion)) where I find its IQ passes muster.

I do use the 100-400 occasionally for wildlife, but the subjects tend to be deer, which are not a demanding subject even when galloping or rutting (unlike birds in flight which need far greater skill and a better lens). I have looked at the Fuji 150-600, but concluded that for my use case the cost of change is not worth it. That said, the 70-300 for my modest wildlife needs is fine; if I am quiet and slow I can get to within about 50m of deer so as an easily carried lens its reach is acceptable.

Hope that helps. As an aside, my most used lens is the 16-55f2.8 MkII, which is a pleasure to use and always delivers excellent image quality.

Your use of 70-300 is similar to my planned e.g. kite surfing, polo, surfing. I think again for the price vs compromise, it is the one I'm most sure about.

The comments about the 16-55 f2.8 are also useful, as I suppose it's the natural option to look at if I'm rejecting the Sigma 17-40. However I suppose trying to get my head around if I "only" have 2.8 in mid range zoom, then I think I'm likely to want a couple of faster 1.4 primes too. So wonder if I might be better compromising on the mid range zoom and just getting the 16-80 f4 as a kit lens with the XT-5, but I know commentary on it is mixed?

 

[RobRoy22]

OK I’m still thinking this through and as encouraged before in my initial thread about EVF’s, I’ve been considering more about my planned lenses, if I made the switch. It’s been an interesting exercise and one that has surprised me. I thought that I would be leaning towards the f1.4 and f2 primes, but that’s not really what I have come up with. Interested to hear if anyone has any observations.

I like fast glass, pref with constant aperture and low weight (appreciate don't always go together), but this has often led me to primes, for the mid range and then zooms for wide (interiors) / tele (fast moving subjects) flexibility.

Standard zoom : Didn't initially even think this would be category, but I think the Sigma 17- 40 1.8 looks really interesting and useful for documentary / travel / environmental portraits covers several of my main use cases. Wish it started at 16, but think I'm OK with that compromise.

Portrait option of 85 on FF is an important focal length for me, so think would also get the 56 1.2 WR, would pair nicely with the Sigma. But interested to hear opinions on the APD version?

So as summarised in the other thread about the Sigma 17-40, not considering as many f1.4 or f2 primes as I thought I would. But including my Fuji X100VI does give me FF equiv 35 and 85 primes on two bodies, which would be good setup sometimes.

Then the Fuji 70-300 which just seems a bit of a no brainer telephoto, for the reach / weight, variable aperture is the compromise, but I'll just have to learn to figure that out.

Those three lenses would cover a lot of what I hope to do and with the XT-5, would weigh just over 2kg (2.6kg if I include X100VI) which compares very well compared to the same range with my Nikon FF (over 3.5 kg as a minimum), probably more as my current standard zoom is only f4 vs 2.8 (for the Sigma in FF terms).

But then I get a bit more confused:

• shorter faster tele - possibly the 50-140 2.8 but its a bit heavy, so alternative is 90 f2 good for longer portrait option, but prime is a bit less flexible for fast moving subjects e.g. close sports / dogs running about, I suppose you could argue 70-300 covers this, but do like idea of faster constant aperture shorter tele
• wide option, seems Fuji are a bit weak in this area? Viltrox 13 1.4 probably looks most suitable, currently only have a FF 20mm prime. But would have ideally preferred a zoom for flexibility for UWA, so Sigma 10-18 f2.8 is possibly another option, the Fuji options are either too slow for interiors or too expensive :-( as I don’t often shoot really wide

I could then possibly longer term consider other 1.4 primes to add a bit more speed e.g. 16, 33, etc. or lighter 2.8's to keep weight down. Interested in opinions on this as an approach.

Are you thinking the 17-40 for low f/stop, range, or both? If you're thinking the 17 for wide side of things, and end up with another wider than 17 lens at some point, then does that steer you towards a more normal mid-zoom range now since you would end up with something wider anyway eventually?

Which, if you are thinking the 16-55 would be okay- I can't recommend the version II enough. It is a touch plasticky (and helps the low weight for sure), but man what a lens. The version i is no slouch either, although bigger.

The 17-40 seems like a pretty big gap left between 40 and 70 if you picked up the 70-300 (and I would highly recommend it as well). I do believe Viltrox is supposed to release the 56 f/1.2 for Fuji soonish (no idea how big it will be), but that might be another option worth waiting for. The Viltrox 75 is an amazing lens, and the 13 has a great reputation on the boards here as well. As mentioned, lots of choice around 50mm.

I'd also mention the forthcoming Sigma 12 f/1.4 wide angle. Was supposed to come out with the 17-40, but delayed. Not sure why (info from fujirumors.com).

I'd also think about the 50-140 with the 1.4 converter. Although I'm not sure if Fuji has upgraded/updated (without announcing) the switch mechanism on the covererter- my first one broke with not much use - its plastic parts underneath. Could be one of those things where materials are updated under the hood, so to speak.

If you're thinking of the Sigma 10-18, don't forget Tamron 11-20 as well.

Maybe something else to think about, although probably minor, is filter size if you use them. Might be a secondary consideration when looking at an overall kit.

A bit rambly of a response, but maybe gives some more food for thought.

Thank you, not rambly at all some useful comments and mentions of rumours / lens I was not aware of. My initial interest in the Sigma 17-40 was primarily the aperture, I'm used to full frame so on ASPC see 1.8 as an advantage over f2.8. I'm fairly used to gaps, because often use primes and thought the reach of 40 then in set with 56 1.2 prime would work. But your point about the limitation at wide end is a really good one, it would be likely to make me want another wider option more. Additionally Morris comment about the reverse zoom direction does put me off this lens a bit.

I had considered Filters and was one of the reasons I made my initial selection (now being revisited) apart from the 90 all are same size.

Over time it’s inevitable that you will buy lenses which don’t share the same filter thread, and step-up rings to fit a large filter like 72 or 77mm are a sound investment. Based on my experiences I would highly recommend the XF16-55/2.8 MkII and XF70-300 +1.4x TC as the two zooms of greatest versatility for your needs. BTW I also dislike variable aperture zooms. The 50-140 is a great lens but too heavy for frequent carry.

Primes can be chosen accordingly to your preferences and priorities. Lots to choose from including third party. The upcoming Viltrox 56/1.2 Pro looks like it will be an excellent option, though I personally don’t need it (see my gear).

 

[RobRoy22]

The 70-300mm is a very average lens. It's sharp enough and the bokeh is OK to good. All Fuji lenses have attractive bokeh. It will get you close enough for flowers and insects and is great for isolation type landscapes. It's fine for occasional wildlife and birds. Not my choice for photographing people. It's OK with a 1.4x TC yet may exhibit CA. With the TC it's not a good choice for action yet acceptable without the TC.

Yes would not be using the 70-300 for people more sports / wildlife / maybe dogs in action and it's not my primary use case so was looking to save a bit. What else would you recommend the 100-400?

Just to add an opinion of the Fuji 70-300f5.6. IMHO at its price point it is an excellent lens. I tend to use it far more often than my Fuji 100-400 because of its lighter weight and smaller bulk, its almost indistinguishable image quality up to 300mm vs the 100-400 at 300mm at normal viewing on a 27" Mac Studio Display, its excellent AF (on XT5) and occasionally I can use the x1.4 converter. I do use it for sports a lot (fast action polo, kite surfing (son's passion) and cycle racing (daughter's passion)) where I find its IQ passes muster.

I do use the 100-400 occasionally for wildlife, but the subjects tend to be deer, which are not a demanding subject even when galloping or rutting (unlike birds in flight which need far greater skill and a better lens). I have looked at the Fuji 150-600, but concluded that for my use case the cost of change is not worth it. That said, the 70-300 for my modest wildlife needs is fine; if I am quiet and slow I can get to within about 50m of deer so as an easily carried lens its reach is acceptable.

Hope that helps. As an aside, my most used lens is the 16-55f2.8 MkII, which is a pleasure to use and always delivers excellent image quality.

Your use of 70-300 is similar to my planned e.g. kite surfing, polo, surfing. I think again for the price vs compromise, it is the one I'm most sure about.

The comments about the 16-55 f2.8 are also useful, as I suppose it's the natural option to look at if I'm rejecting the Sigma 17-40. However I suppose trying to get my head around if I "only" have 2.8 in mid range zoom, then I think I'm likely to want a couple of faster 1.4 primes too. So wonder if I might be better compromising on the mid range zoom and just getting the 16-80 f4 as a kit lens with the XT-5, but I know commentary on it is mixed?

I have had a very happy journey with the 16-80, but the 16-55/2.8 MkII is simply better, and obviously faster. It will spend a lot of time on your X-T5. A couple of fast primes will also be fine. Many to choose from.

 

[Rightsaidfred]

I suppose for zooms I'm only away of the 8-16 f2.8 I like the range but quite expensive, as I don't often take UWA photos and the 10-24 f4 is a bit slow. Based on specs Viltrox 13 seemed better than the Fuji wide option 14 f2.8.

I did do through an UWA journey. I've posted it all here in the forum.

Bottom line, for me, IQ matters. My UWA journey ended up with a used copy of the XF 8-16 to mitigate the high price, and I am very happy with the IQ I get from this lens.

Yes it is big and heavy. That's the trade-off what I accept for IQ. Maybe they come up with a Mk II one day, not aware of any rumors today.

For samples, see here, Palma de Mallorca with XF 8-16/2.8 // The happy end of my UWA journey

BR,

Martin

 

[a_c_skinner]

I suppose an average Fuji lens is actually a very good lens.

 

[whettam]

I suppose for zooms I'm only away of the 8-16 f2.8 I like the range but quite expensive, as I don't often take UWA photos and the 10-24 f4 is a bit slow. Based on specs Viltrox 13 seemed better than the Fuji wide option 14 f2.8.

I did do through an UWA journey. I've posted it all here in the forum.

Bottom line, for me, IQ matters. My UWA journey ended up with a used copy of the XF 8-16 to mitigate the high price, and I am very happy with the IQ I get from this lens.

Yes it is big and heavy. That's the trade-off what I accept for IQ. Maybe they come up with a Mk II one day, not aware of any rumors today.

For samples, see here, Palma de Mallorca with XF 8-16/2.8 // The happy end of my UWA journey

BR,

Martin

Thanks Martin, they are really great images. I suppose I have always struggled with UWA, I like other peoples UWA photos, but I can never get my composition quite right, especially wider than about 20mm in FF frame terms. I used to have the Nikon 14-24 on my DLSR which was a brilliant lens with great IQ, but I never really liked my own photos with it just other peoples, so that was my logic for skipping the 8-16 on ASPC and going the 13 / 14 prime route, although I would prefer zoom as its useful to be able to go a bit wider when necessary, especially interiors (your bathroom shot made me smile and sums up why would be useful).

 

[Morris0]

Thank you again Morris, this is all really useful.

OK I’m still thinking this through and as encouraged before in my initial thread about EVF’s, I’ve been considering more about my planned lenses, if I made the switch. It’s been an interesting exercise and one that has surprised me. I thought that I would be leaning towards the f1.4 and f2 primes, but that’s not really what I have come up with. Interested to hear if anyone has any observations.

I love fast primes for portraits. It's so nice to isolate the subject with DOF and Fuji's primes have wonderful bokeh.

I like fast glass, pref with constant aperture and low weight (appreciate don't always go together), but this has often led me to primes, for the mid range and then zooms for wide (interiors) / tele (fast moving subjects) flexibility.

Standard zoom : Didn't initially even think this would be category, but I think the Sigma 17- 40 1.8 looks really interesting and useful for documentary / travel / environmental portraits covers several of my main use cases. Wish it started at 16, but think I'm OK with that compromise.

If you get the sigma it will zoom in the opposite direction of Fuji zooms. For me that kills muscle memory slowing me down and making me miss shots. Yes the fast zoom is attractive and if Sigma bothered to gear it the other way for Fuji I'd have one in my kit.

I had not appreciated that very useful to know and this puts me off a bit too, maybe I should look at those prime options again or the 16-55 f2.8?

The build quality of the new 16-55 f2.8 is meh and I'm confident I'd destroy it. The old one is solid and a little heavier. Both have great IQ.

Portrait option of 85 on FF is an important focal length for me, so think would also get the 56 1.2 WR, would pair nicely with the Sigma. But interested to hear opinions on the APD version?

All of Fuji's 50mm ish options are great. I've tried them all and found the 50mm f2 met my needs. You get an even more magical look from the 56 1.2 and the APD even nicer. The differences mostly vanish if you need to stop down to get enough of your subject's face in focus. The 50mm f2 is real nice with tubes for flowers and insects.

This is good to know important focal length for me. I tend to use tubes too for flowers / insects rather than a dedicated macro.

So as summarised in the other thread about the Sigma 17-40, not considering as many f1.4 or f2 primes as I thought I would. But including my Fuji X100VI does give me FF equiv 35 and 85 primes on two bodies, which would be good setup sometimes.

I'm a two body shooter so the primes work great for me

Then the Fuji 70-300 which just seems a bit of a no brainer telephoto, for the reach / weight, variable aperture is the compromise, but I'll just have to learn to figure that out.

The 70-300mm is a very average lens. It's sharp enough and the bokeh is OK to good. All Fuji lenses have attractive bokeh. It will get you close enough for flowers and insects and is great for isolation type landscapes. It's fine for occasional wildlife and birds. Not my choice for photographing people. It's OK with a 1.4x TC yet may exhibit CA. With the TC it's not a good choice for action yet acceptable without the TC.

Yes would not be using the 70-300 for people more sports / wildlife / maybe dogs in action and it's not my primary use case so was looking to save a bit. What else would you recommend the 100-400?

For an occasional wildlife shooter the 70-300 is lighter though the 100-400 has a bit better IQ and bokeh. I don't like the build quality of the 100-400mm. I have not used the Tamron 150-500mm yet it fits the need as well. Some report it's a little soft at 500mm yet I've seen some great photos taken with it.

Those three lenses would cover a lot of what I hope to do and with the XT-5, would weigh just over 2kg (2.6kg if I include X100VI) which compares very well compared to the same range with my Nikon FF (over 3.5 kg as a minimum), probably more as my current standard zoom is only f4 vs 2.8 (for the Sigma in FF terms).

But then I get a bit more confused:

• shorter faster tele - possibly the 50-140 2.8 but its a bit heavy, so alternative is 90 f2 good for longer portrait option, but prime is a bit less flexible for fast moving subjects e.g. close sports / dogs running about, I suppose you could argue 70-300 covers this, but do like idea of faster constant aperture shorter tele

The 50-140mm f2.8 is a good lens yet I wish it were longer. The 90mm f2.0 is my faverate portrait lens and it's good for some sports. It creates a magical look, an absolute delight to shoot with with fast focus. It works well with an extension tube for macro work. Even though I don't use it much, I'll never sell it.

Thank you that's all good to know, I'm used to using 70-200 on FF, so probably OK with focal length limitation of 50 - 140, was probably only looking to get one of these, 50-140 would be good for sports / dogs and OK for portraits, 90 the other way around :-(

• wide option, seems Fuji are a bit weak in this area? Viltrox 13 1.4 probably looks most suitable, currently only have a FF 20mm prime. But would have ideally preferred a zoom for flexibility for UWA, so Sigma 10-18 f2.8 is possibly another option, the Fuji options are either too slow for interiors or too expensive :-( as I don’t often shoot really wide

I don't know where you get this from. Fuji has way too many wide lenses in there collection. It can be overwhelming. Most of them are excellent. The only reason to go third party is price.

I suppose for zooms I'm only away of the 8-16 f2.8 I like the range but quite expensive, as I don't often take UWA photos and the 10-24 f4 is a bit slow. Based on specs Viltrox 13 seemed better than the Fuji wide option 14 f2.8.

I've been very happy with the 10-24 WR. It's fine indoors for stationary subjects and I've used it in museums. It's versicle and small enough for street yet as you point out slow at night yet sometimes fine with high ISO.

I could then possibly longer term consider other 1.4 primes to add a bit more speed e.g. 16, 33, etc. or lighter 2.8's to keep weight down. Interested in opinions on this as an approach.

You have clearly been shooting for a while, decide what you shoot the most and fill those needs first. Then fill gaps that you notice you are missing.

Morris

Thank you again.

Any time,

Morris

 

[Rightsaidfred]

Thanks Martin, they are really great images. I suppose I have always struggled with UWA, I like other peoples UWA photos, but I can never get my composition quite right, especially wider than about 20mm in FF frame terms.

Good UWA composition is really not easy and I also struggle oftentimes.

But it attracts me, so I keep on trying

I found out I cannot live without an UWA lens

I used to have the Nikon 14-24 on my DLSR which was a brilliant lens with great IQ, but I never really liked my own photos with it just other peoples, so that was my logic for skipping the 8-16 on ASPC and going the 13 / 14 prime route, although I would prefer zoom as its useful to be able to go a bit wider when necessary, especially interiors (your bathroom shot made me smile and sums up why would be useful).

Play, rent, buy used, sell.

There is no one lens that fits all. Especially UWA life is full of trade offs Size, weight, distortion, vignetting, corners.

I found out that I personally need good IQ in the corners. Not mushy. Because of landscape and architecture photography. YMMV.

The Viltrox 13/1.4 is also excellent. Also in the corners. There is also the XF 8/3.5. As I said in my other posts, I've not yet had the chance to directly compare the XF 8 with the XF 8-16.

There are quite a number of manual lenses, Laowa, NiSi, now also a cheap one from 7Artisans. There is the Samyang 12.

For the time being, I'll stay with my big 8-16 and the Viltrox 13.

Cheers,

Martin

--
SmugMug - https://martinlang.smugmug.com
500px - https://500px.com/martinlangphotography
Insta - https://www.instagram.com/martininframes
Co-author on https://frickelfarm.de/