foto16 wrote:
If you avoid XC lenses and superzooms, almost all Fuji made XF lenses have enjoyed the "quintessential" reputation.
The one sleeper XC lens is the XC 35 f2, which is optically identical to the XF35 f2.
The quintessential Fuji lenses tend to be small, light, have aperture rings, and capture classic focal lengths (usually 35/50/90 in full-frame terms, which were used by many of the "masters").
So based on that the following models come to mind:
16 f2.8
23 f2 or f1.4
35 f2 or f1.4
56 f1.2
Kit lens 18-55 ("classic" Fuji for its being light and small and uncharacteristically sharp for a kit lens).
I will also toss in the 27 f2.8 in there for being a pancake lens, which works really well on Fuji's smaller bodies and has a very classic "normal" focal length (40mm in full-frame terms).
There seems to be a radical misunderstanding of what "quintessential" means
Yes, there are plenty of good and serviceable lenses on X mount...almost none of them are the singular reason that people buy into the mount like lenses such as the 16/1.4, 35/1.4 or 56/1.2 have been over time.
gear-nut wrote:
I regularly use —and like— the term clinical. One of the sharpest lenses ever tested was a Leica Summicron that resolved 200 lpmm — you needed an optical bench to measure is as no film could resolve that. Summicrons were anything but clinical in their rendering.
To me the clinicality comes from the newer lens design attributes of high contrast and micro-contrast edge to edge. Both affect the perception of resolution but don’t necessarily generate more real resolution, just the impression of it.
Today with digital sharpening, high amount low radius, combined with excellent clarity options, we can generate a lot of beneficial global and micro contrast, such that when used with a not clinical lens, we can recapture a lot of the contemporary look if desired, but also can retain a legacy look when we don’t. Contrarily, we can add negative clarity and contrast to a clinical lens’ image and soften that character. However, that usually doesn’t recreate the legacy lens’ traits of oof rendering and non-linear contrast falloff, and digital attempts to replicate either or both usually fall well short. So just speaking for myself, these latter two traits are what makes the legacy look desirable. My .02, respect YMMV. ...Show more →
I’m not buying it, and I’ve used lenses built over more than a half century.
All that “clinical” seems to mean to most people is “sharp” and “accurate.”
I suppose that in the film era (particularly if you shot slides film and left your slides as transparencies) it made sense to use lenses with significant vignetting, halation, color casts, and all the rest of you wanted those things. (Though the effects of some of them, specifically color casts, are quite tiny by comparison to the effects of transparency film choose.)
But today, again unless you totally eschew post-processing, there’s really no downside to using a sharp lens that doesn’t lower contrast much. In situations where you want vignetting, halation, various sorts of blur, blur makes, etc. it is simple to introduce them in post… where you have far more control over the nature and intensity of those effects.
You can always produce those same effects, with more flexibility and control, in post today… and you get the advantages of higher optical quality when you need it.
A problem I also have with the term “clinical” as it is used here is that it suggests a negative thing. No one ever says, “I like ‘clinical’ lenses!” and the usage is always as a negative, where this subjective term “clinical” suggests that positive optical qualities are a bad thing.
gdanmitchell wrote:
A problem I also have with the term “clinical” as it is used here is that it suggests a negative thing. No one ever says, “I like ‘clinical’ lenses!” and the usage is always as a negative, where this subjective term “clinical” suggests that positive optical qualities are a bad thing.
YMMV.
"Clinical" is usually adopted as a bit of a pejorative. But yes, having a "clinical look" is something that you cannot fully describe in words, but you know when you see it. (Well, some people know it when they see it -- I rarely use the term myself).
People use all kinds of words in this field -- do words like "magic", "character", or "dreamy" have any objective meaning either?
If someone doesn't want to use the word "clinical" they don't have to. It's good, at least, to be aware that it's becoming a common descriptor nowadays.
gdanmitchell wrote: You can always produce those same effects, with more flexibility and control, in post today… and you get the advantages of higher optical quality when you need it.
A problem I also have with the term “clinical” as it is used here is that it suggests a negative thing. No one ever says, “I like ‘clinical’ lenses!” and the usage is always as a negative, where this subjective term “clinical” suggests that positive optical qualities are a bad thing.
YMMV.
The first above we disagree on. You may think you can replicate the legacy look, but I have never seen any post-processing good enough to convince me to give up a legacy lens -- in fact I have bought several "less than" designs specifically for their unique and irreplaceable looks.
As to the second comment above, I personally do not use clinical as a pejorative. I use it to describe --and I think accurately-- the distinction between the "newer" designs and their "legacy" design counterparts.
mjeffv2 wrote:
I just snagged my first digital Fujifilm camera and would love some good lens options for it! It's quite the contrast to my main setup, a Sony a7rV, so I'm very unfamiliar with the offerings. I snagged an XT50 body with the TTArtisans 27mm f2.8 pancake to start with since I'll have a month to return that lens. What are some really good "bang for the buck" and maybe slightly higher end but not particularly top shelf lens options?
I started off doing automotive photography (stills and action) but have really moved into city/street, nature, close ups/macro, and landscape type stuff lately. Basically a little bit of everything except portrait. I decided to snag a Fuji in hopes that I could get a bit more creative with my photos, with my Sony I want everything to be very sharp and clinical, almost always searching for that "perfect" photo. I know Fuji is basically on the opposite end of the spectrum (still capable of sharp pictures, but I feel like its not the main goal) so this should be a lot of fun!...Show more →
Wouldn't say that Fuji is on the "opposite end of the spectrum" in terms of IQ. It certainly is behind on AF, though.
With regard to lenses, I strongly recommend the Classic Primes 16f2.8/23f2/35f2/50f2, and the 90f2. The 90 is among the best lenses not only in the Fuji system, but beyond. The Classic Primes offer very good IQ at a very reasonable price, size and weight are perfect. They just perfectly complement Fuji cameras (and in particular the X-Pro and X-E bodies). The faster 1.4 lenses I find to large and expensive. The 27mm and the 14mm are nice lenses, too (but watch out for the uncommanded focus shift in MF). Can't speak much about zoom lenses. My copy of the 10-24 was very good. But in general, I would stay with Sony cameras for zooms.
Nielk Mike wrote:
Wouldn't say that Fuji is on the "opposite end of the spectrum" in terms of IQ. It certainly is behind on AF, though.
With regard to lenses, I strongly recommend the Classic Primes 16f2.8/23f2/35f2/50f2, and the 90f2. The 90 is among the best lenses not only in the Fuji system, but beyond. The Classic Primes offer very good IQ at a very reasonable price, size and weight are perfect. They just perfectly complement Fuji cameras (and in particular the X-Pro and X-E bodies). The faster 1.4 lenses I find to large and expensive. The 27mm and the 14mm are nice lenses, too (but watch out for the uncommanded focus shift in MF). Can't speak much about zoom lenses. My copy of the 10-24 was very good. But in general, I would stay with Sony cameras for zooms. ...Show more →
I’ve used the 27mm f/2.8 lenses (the early one without the aperture ring and the current one that has it) for years. It is my most-used lens on my Fujifilm systems up to and including my XT5. It is a remarkably sharp lens and it focuses quickly and accurately. I have had literally NO issues with its ability to AF. Ever.
Likewise, I have used the 14mm f/2.8 for about a dozen years, since I got my first Fujifilm x-trans camera, the XE1… and continuing through the XPro2 and now the XT5. I’ve never had any of the issues that Mike (and virtually no one else) reports with this lens. It is optically excellent and a solid, reliable performer.
I own the 90mm f/2, and have also used it extensively. I agree with his characterization — it is a truly top notch lens that competes with the full frame competitors providing similar functionality., e.g. 135mm f/2 lenses For what it is, I’d say that it, too, is smaller/lighter than we might expect.
The only other of the f/2 lenses I have used was the 35mm f/2 which I tested (against my 35mm f/1.4) for about a month. I thought it was an excellent lens and I recommend it to anyone looking for a smaller prime of that focal length who doesn’t need the larger aperture and/or who wants to save some money.
Some of the larger aperture lenses are larger than you might expect. For example, I have the original 23mm f/1.4. It is a great performer, but it is not a small lens. (It comes with an oversized hood, which doesn’t help.) However, there is an exception: The old 35mm f/1.4, a really fine lens, is quite small for such a lens. It is a little larger than the f/2 “Fujicron” primes, but not by much.
I will agree that in general Fujifilm’s AF is not at the front of the pack. That distinction seems to belong to the full frame manufacturers at this point. But to be clear, Fujifilm AF is fine. It works great for my street photography, and that’s something that stresses AF speed and accuracy performance.
gear-nut wrote:
The first above we disagree on. You may think you can replicate the legacy look, but I have never seen any post-processing good enough to convince me to give up a legacy lens -- in fact I have bought several "less than" designs specifically for their unique and irreplaceable looks.
As to the second comment above, I personally do not use clinical as a pejorative. I use it to describe --and I think accurately-- the distinction between the "newer" designs and their "legacy" design counterparts.
Respectfully, yes, we do disagree on the first point. “Duplicate” might be the sticking point. Whatever the “look” is of some legacy lens (a thing I feel is overrated in any case), while we might not exactly, perfectly replicate it we most certainly can produce the very same classes of effects with even greater control. Take vignetting as an example. (I regard vignetting as a good and useful thing.) I could settle for one lens with a particular pattern of vignetting, but I feel that I have much more creative control over this “flaw” in post than I have with a lens or even lenses. I can control how much of it there is, how gradually it fades in, how far from the edges of the frame, and more. (I can even decide how much to soften the image in the “vignetting zone,” or how to subtly shift colors and more.)
That’s an extension of the creative power that I might get from a lens with a particular vignette-related look — it can do almost exactly what the lens could do and go well beyond that.
FWIW, I apply these variables in post all the time. Not just to luminosity vignetting. I often may decrease the sharpness near the edges of the frame or decrease saturation or contrast. Sometimes I might increase saturation in the center, shift the color balance subtly (typically a few points warmer), or vary the amount of (Adobe) “clarity” across the frame.
I’m doing the same things that you might look to a lens to accomplish… but I have far more creative control over the effects and their application — all the way from not applying them at all to using them more aggressively
I’m glad that you don’t think of “clinical” as a pejorative. However, among photographers it is almost always used that way, typically that a sharp lens is “too clinical.”
By the way, I”m not completely immune to the lure of old, classic gear. I shot with a bunch of that stuff decades ago. A while back my two sons “got into photography” by purchasing old film cameras for a song at thrift stores. I thought they were barking up the wrong tree, but I usually resisted saying so. (I’ve learned a few lessons as a parent! Sometimes I remember them.) But when they showed me that old analog stuff, I admit to getting some wonderful, warm, nostalgic feelings about that old gear.)
I also frequently add a subtle touch of vignetting in post and agree that works well. However, *resolution* falloff, contrast falloff and bokeh are not as easy to replicate; and IMHO this is where legacy lenses sing.
As far as the comment “too clinically sharp,” I might use that terminology for say a wedding portrait, but it’s not a “problem” with the lens, it’s an issue for how it’s being used. A good example is the GF 110. The lens is bitingly sharp even wide open, and arguably one of the best in the GF line. Would I shoot a wedding couple with it? Heck yes, and in a nanosecond — BUT I’d darn sure have a black mist filter on it, and probably at least the ¼…
I reference a couple of parallel experiences that I find interesting to compare to photography. As a hobby, audio equipment draws all kinds of opinion and different thoughts as to what is "the best" or what is too "clinical". I have a small winery side business and pour our wines for people of different tastes and experiences. Believe me, taste is all over the map, even more so than hearing. Our vision or interpretation of what we see, is something I believe people see as "truth". However, I've come to believe that we all have differences in what we see and enjoying seeing. Its not really a stretch if you think of art like paintings or sculptures and peoples varied opinion of them.
Personally, I consider the term "clinical" to be a negative. To me it means that while technically excellent, it doesn't come across as realistic. Its probably why corner softness of some lenses, that some people get worked up about, doesn't bother me at all. It seems realistic to how I see the world. Like a little vignetting can be, potentially even drawing the viewer to the center where the subject matter is contained. I recently looked at an image of a dog taken with an very expensive camera and lens. The dog was razor sharp and the background was full on bokeh. Zero transition and to me it looked fake, full on Photoshop. I see similar in advertisements and such, I would call it too clinical for me and I have no desire to create something like that. But like taste and sound, we like what we like.
RoamingScott wrote:
There seems to be a radical misunderstanding of what "quintessential" means
Yes, I think maybe the wrong word was chosen. But if you read the OP's entire post, they explained in more detail. My comments and I think many others, focused on the "bang for the buck" angle. Rather than literal definition of quintessential.
RoamingScott wrote:
There seems to be a radical misunderstanding of what "quintessential" means
Yes, there are plenty of good and serviceable lenses on X mount...almost none of them are the singular reason that people buy into the mount like lenses such as the 16/1.4, 35/1.4 or 56/1.2 have been over time.
I think this sums it up as best as can be. If I were to hear quintessential..it would be the original 35, 56 ... and probably the 16.
If by quintessential you're looking for the piece of glass that is fastest to focus, sharp as all hell with beautiful image quality and color. In short...the lens that when you put it in front of your x sensor gets the best out of it. The best I've used is the 90mm. The 200 may challenge it but at 5-6k ... I won't be finding out anytime soon.
For me personally the quintessential lens that brought me to Fuji wasn't a Fuji. It was the Minolta Rokkor 58 1.2. Nothing quite like it. At the time I got it the Fuji X-T1 had the best EVF in the game and with my horrible eyes that allowed me to manually focus it. I was sold.
SGinNorcal wrote:
Yes, I think maybe the wrong word was chosen. But if you read the OP's entire post, they explained in more detail. My comments and I think many others, focused on the "bang for the buck" angle. Rather than literal definition of quintessential.
I agree, also, the word was not even mentioned in the actual post itself.
But if that's the condition -- what is quintessential -- to me the lens has metal barrel, an aperture ring, is small and light, and is probably a prime lens somewhere in the neighborhood of 16-50mm focal length.
Once you narrow that down, and apply it to the context of the OP's conditions of cost and use, I think a few lenses stand out:
16 f2.8 (the f1.4 version is big and expensive)
18 f2 or 23 f2 (I know people who use the 18mm lens and crop in).
35 f2 or f1.4 (I have the f1.4 version, preferring the option for more subject isolation, but had the f2 version as well)
50 f2 (I have the 56 f1.2, but the 50 is much smaller, lighter and faster to focus).
That should cover the vast majority of things the OP needs to shoot based on the description he gave.
If you don't want to carry around multiple lenses, the older kit lens (18-55 f2.8-4) is a great option.
I want the OP to keep in mind that the stuff online, on Instagram or Youtube, that's drawing him into the Fuji system -- it's really not about lenses. It's about color, composition, lighting, mood and storytelling.
Some may not have read the post, but I think many of us were responding to what the OP wrote, not just one word in the thread title.
For my part, the notion of there being a literal “quintessential” lens isn’t really relevant or even objectively answerable. The question elaborated in the post about good, useful lenses is.
