gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
The 18-55 is actually a very good performer. In optical terms it is essentially in the same category as the 16-55, believe it or not. Fujifilm built a kit lens with that one that is not like the typical kit lenses from other manufacturers. I actually recommend it over the 16-55 to a lot of people asking about a zoom that covers this range, particularly if size/weight are an issue.
As to the big zoom being big, well, yes… big zooms are big.
The 50-150 is a bit smaller than lighter than my Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L and fairly similar to my Canon 70-200mm F/4L lenses. The 16-55 f/2.8 is large by Fujifilm standards, but it is notably smaller than my arguably equivalent Canon 24-70mm f/2.8. The 100-400 is not quite as big as my Canon 100-400, yet it gives the “reach” of a 600mm focal length on 1.5x crop.
As for such lenses “defeating the purpose of the Fuji cameras,” one is entitled to that opinion. However, I look at it differently.
I primarily use Fujifilm x-trans cameras with small primes, since the main use is street and travel photography. They are, indeed, well suited to use with those kinds of lenses, and Fujifilm makes a bunch of good ones.
I look at the other, larger lenses as allowing me to expand the functional performance of the Fujifilm system beyond that, however. For example, on several hiking trips (a couple in the Sierra Nevada and recently the Great Glen Way in Scotland), I carried the 16-55 as my main lens since that works better for landscape-type photography for me. (I also brought along my 27mm f/2.8 for use in places like Edinburgh, Glasgow, and London… and I ended up finding the zoom useful there, too. (And, yes, the 18-55, if I still had it, would have worked well here, too.)
I like the larger lenses for a few other reasons. Sometimes when hiking with FF I carry just a 70-200mm and my 24-70mm with a large Canon 5DsR body and a pretty hefty tripod. But I can swap that out for the XT5, 16-55, 50-140, and a smaller tripod… and carry a smaller and lighter pack.
I’ve been using the 100-400 as part of my system for winter migratory bird photography. I like to run two systems when I do this, since I frequently shift between long lens bird photography and “birds in the landscape” photography done with shorter focal lengths. So I might set up the Fuji with the 100-400 (sometimes with the 1.4x TC) and the Canon system with a normal or wide lens. I’ve been known to have both set up side by side.
I’d also point out that for some folks who use one system and can’t or prefer not to cart around multiple camera, these lenses let them extend the usefulness of their small Fujifilm system beyond just the prime-based street and travel photography to almost any other kind of work they might want to do.
So, rather than thinking of them as defeating the purpose of the Fujifilm system, think of them potentially expanding its renate.
And, of course, if your preference is entirely to use small primes or other miniature lenses, you can find those.
And finally, the question was about which of the zooms are or are not “strong performers,” not about whether or not it is appropriate to use them on Fujifilm. (Fujifilm makes them, so they just think they are appropriate! ;-) )
YMMV.
Oh, one small negative on the 50-140. It comes with a strange, large tripod foot that sticks out much farther from the lens than necessary. I replaced mine with a much more compact third-party option.
|
