swldstn wrote:
Just got back into Fuji after leaving it awhile back. I’ve decided that it will be my APS-C based camera system. For full frame I shoot both Sony and Canon mirrorless. While Fuji has many good lenses it’s hard to find only three small ones to keep either the X-T5 or new X-E3 a light as my my bench mark which is the Sony A7CII/A7CR and the small Sony f/2.5 primes like their 40/2.5 G.
The three or four that I’ve chosen are the XF 16/2.8 R WR, XF 35/2 R WR, the XF 50/2 R WR, and possibly the new XF 23/2.8 R WR. Obviously I don’t have the 23mm yet. I did also for now wanted one zoom for the times I don’t want to swap lenses so I have a copy of the XF 16-50mm f/2.8-4.8 R LM WR. Those are the ones I’ve found that make the Fuji lighter than the compact Sony kit....Show more →
I think that your setup has some real pluses, especially if you end up adding that 23mm f/2.8. For my photography (and YMMV) I’d like something between that 35mm and 16mm focal lengths. I’m usually fine with 2:1 focal length ratios between lenses, but that particular range is so important that I might want to break it up.
gdanmitchell wrote:
I think that your setup has some real pluses, especially if you end up adding that 23mm f/2.8. For my photography (and YMMV) I’d like something between that 35mm and 16mm focal lengths. I’m usually fine with 2:1 focal length ratios between lenses, but that particular range is so important that I might want to break it up.
Agreed. Since the XF 23/2.8 will be in the X-E5 kit I pre-ordered so unfortunately just have to sit and wait. Hopefully it will only last a few more weeks. Of course there is the standalone XF 23/2 R WR I can buy if the X-E5 is not what we all thought it can be. Then I can decide if I keep the lens and sell a used body or if it more attractive to sell the kit intact with both the body and lens I can do that. Will just have to see. Definitely need a 23mm between the 16mm and 35mm for sure.
nhsonyshooter wrote:
Sony keeps ruining their smaller body's with flip screens and or fixed screens. So I pre-ordered the X-E5. This will be my first Fuji inter-changeable lens body. I ordered the Voigtlander 27mm f/2 Ultron as an EDC lens. I love 40mm and based on Fred's review it seems perfect for this body. I also picked up 2 Viltrox lenses (first time for those as well) 13/1.4 XF & the 27/1.2 XF. Received those already. First impressions are they are very nice feeling and surprisingly feel premium even though they are comparatively cheap. Based on reviews the are suppose to excellent optically. I actually like the weight to them. I also liked they are both 67mm which is nice. They probably will look big on the X-E5. But we will see. Looking for any other suggestions from existing Fuji users on lenses. I know Fuji AF is not to Sony's Level but I'm going into this with a different mind set than when I picked up the X100VI. There were many things I did like about the X100VI. Looking forward to giving this a try....Show more →
I just bought a small EDC body (X-T50) and I'm really loving it with the trio of 16 2.8, 35 1.4 and 50 f2. I really like how the 16 and 50 are silver and they really match the silver X-T50. They are small, light, and have good IQ. I am looking forward to using these lenses when I buy a silver X-E5 eventually. I bet they will look and handle great with that body
If I were to add a zoom, it will be the new 16-50. Also tiny and doesn't have an extending barrel.
swldstn wrote:
Agreed. Since the XF 23/2.8 will be in the X-E5 kit I pre-ordered so unfortunately just have to sit and wait. Hopefully it will only last a few more weeks. Of course there is the standalone XF 23/2 R WR I can buy if the X-E5 is not what we all thought it can be. Then I can decide if I keep the lens and sell a used body or if it more attractive to sell the kit intact with both the body and lens I can do that. Will just have to see. Definitely need a 23mm between the 16mm and 35mm for sure....Show more →
My hunch is that you might get a bit more money selling them separately. The lens retails for something like $500, but won’t be available until the end of the year… and there are likely quite a few folks out there who would pay retail (or more) to get one early.
darwinphoto wrote:
For me Fuji is all about reduced size & weight plus an old-school experience with manual aperture rings on the lenses. I did the bit DSLR thing with pro lenses (i.e. big, heavy, expensive) and am no longer interested.
I choose small and light over big & heavy even if that means less observed sharpness with a 40 MP sensor viewed at 100%. Overall rendering matters more to me than microscopic sharpness and I'm favoring simpler lens formulas with fewer elements over highly corrected lenses with many elements. Voigtlander over Fuji, and Fuji over Sigma. I'm also a sun star addict :-)
I didn't know what "lens character" meant until I owned the Fuji 35mm f1.4. It's an older lens so it's slow, and I don't pixel peep, but it consistently produces images for me that make me smile.
gkramer wrote:
I didn't know what "lens character" meant until I owned the Fuji 35mm f1.4. It's an older lens so it's slow, and I don't pixel peep, but it consistently produces images for me that make me smile.
It is a fine lens. I’ve had mine since moe or less when it came out — over a dozen years now. I worked fine on my 16MP camera back then and it works fine on my 40MP camera now.
As to the “character” thing, I don’t really see that. It is simply a very good lens.
gkramer wrote:
I didn't know what "lens character" meant until I owned the Fuji 35mm f1.4. It's an older lens so it's slow, and I don't pixel peep, but it consistently produces images for me that make me smile.
Yep. For those that know what the intangible is they're looking for, it's there. Some refuse to believe it's there, usually the same folks that don't see good vs bad "bokeh." It's always been a puzzler to me, since I definitely notice both character and bokeh. (Actually one of the main reasons I sold off the Fuji MF gear was the lenses either had busy bokeh or were so clinical they had no character. Sharp as heck, and detailed files, just no juice or too busy oof areas for me )
Jack Flesher wrote:
Yep. For those that know what the intangible is they're looking for, it's there. Some refuse to believe it's there, usually the same folks that don't see good vs bad "bokeh." It's always been a puzzler to me, since I definitely notice both character and bokeh. (Actually one of the main reasons I sold off the Fuji MF gear was the lenses either had busy bokeh or were so clinical they had no character. Sharp as heck, and detailed files, just no juice or too busy oof areas for me )
I guess I'm going to have to break down and try the 35/1.4. I've resisted as I have the 33 and like it. But all of you probably aren't wrong I like having a mixed bag of lenses, those that are sharp and those with character to choose from. I feel like the 33/1.4, 18/1.4, and 50/f2 do a really good job of sharpness without sterility. On the GF side, the 55/1.7 does both, just dial in the aperture for what you want. I also love my Contax 645 lenses on Gfx, the 145/2.8 and 35/3.5 are really fun to shoot with, loud and slow AF but worth it. Its great to add vintage lenses into the mix.
nhsonyshooter wrote:
I do like primes but not against trying out zooms. I'll check out the 70-300 that would be convenient since it shares 67mm filter.
Thanks
I have X-E4 and also ordered X-E5.
I don't think 70-300 is good idea for X-E5, even with a grip that is unbalance and won't feel good.
If really need a telephoto lens for travel , Fujifilm XF 16-80mm f/4 R OIS WR only 440g but image quality is average.
Never tried Tamron XF 17-70mm f2.8 with my X-E4, but just 55g less than 70-300. I don't expect it feels good on hands as well.
IMO 16-55 is the only and best option for travel on XE body
If looking for wild life, just forget about the XE body.
Well using the 400-800 on my RV. I can't imagine the 70-300 would feel any worse. Not a huge fan of short zooms. Rather have faster glass and zoom with feet. I don't mind holding a lens with a camera attached though. You may be right, but I still have to try things for myself. One downside is I'm reading it is not great at 300mm. So that may kill it for me. Can't hurt to try it.
zi464 wrote:
I have X-E4 and also ordered X-E5.
I don't think 70-300 is good idea for X-E5, even with a grip that is unbalance and won't feel good.
If really need a telephoto lens for travel , Fujifilm XF 16-80mm f/4 R OIS WR only 440g but image quality is average.
Never tried Tamron XF 17-70mm f2.8 with my X-E4, but just 55g less than 70-300. I don't expect it feels good on hands as well.
IMO 16-55 is the only and best option for travel on XE body
If looking for wild life, just forget about the XE body.
Jack Flesher wrote:
Yep. For those that know what the intangible is they're looking for, it's there. Some refuse to believe it's there, usually the same folks that don't see good vs bad "bokeh." It's always been a puzzler to me, since I definitely notice both character and bokeh. (Actually one of the main reasons I sold off the Fuji MF gear was the lenses either had busy bokeh or were so clinical they had no character. Sharp as heck, and detailed files, just no juice or too busy oof areas for me )
Right, Jack. Those who don't see any particular "character" in a fine lens do so because they (we?) "refuse to believe it is there?" Sort of like those who don't see leprechauns in the woods because they don't believe in leprfeharuns... ;-)
At least I still recognize bokeh when I see it.
- - -
SGinNorcal wrote:
I guess I'm going to have to break down and try the 35/1.4. I've resisted as I have the 33 and like it. But all of you probably aren't wrong
I recommend it. It is a fine lens with excellent optical performance. It is also rather small compared to some of the other Fujifilm f/1.4 lenses — small enough that I'm happy to carry it for street photography and travel.
Will you think it is a better performer than the 33mm f/1.4? Not sure about that. My recommendation that people looking for a f/1.4 lens in this range and assuming that the newer 33mm lens will be "better" take a good close look at the 35mm f/1.4 first.
(There's a pattern among photography gear buyers of assuming that the newest thing is going to be so much better than the old thing that they dismiss the old. It isn't that simple.)
- - - zi464 wrote:
I don't think 70-300 is good idea for X-E5, even with a grip that is unbalance and won't feel good.
While I don't have experience with the 70-300 that allows me to recommend (or un-recommend) it on the basis of its performance, I think people are too quick to buy into the "big lenses on small cameras are unbalanced" mantra. I've used some good sized lenses (bigger than the 70-300) on smaller cameras and I'm fine with them. They might seem different at first, but you'll adapt and before you know it you won't die it a thought.
I shoot an X-T5 with the Fuji16-80 and the Fuji 70-300. On my X-T50 I shoot the Fuji 16-50, the Fuji 23/2 and the Sigma 10-18. All of these lens are giving me great images.
I agree with Dan. I have used the XF 70-300 on the X-E4 and now the X-T50 and X-T5. There is no problem in handling for me and it performs very well. I previously have used large lenses on small bodies in other brands (Panasonic 100-400 on an Olympus E-M5iii) without an issue as well.
gdanmitchell wrote:
It is a fine lens. I’ve had mine since moe or less when it came out — over a dozen years now. I worked fine on my 16MP camera back then and it works fine on my 40MP camera now.
As to the “character” thing, I don’t really see that. It is simply a very good lens.
Here is an example of why I think the Fuji 35mm f1.4 has something a little special. Not the greatest photo, but you will hopefully notice the background bokeh has a bit of a look of an impressionist painting, while the foreground bokeh in the corners has a subtle swirl. It looks to me like a much more subtle version of some vintage lenses that had these characteristics but often in an over the top 70s way, I guess because they were funky 60s and 70s lenses. The 35mm f1.4 looks to me to have some Helios funkiness but in a subtle way.
Geoff D F wrote:
Here is an example of why I think the Fuji 35mm f1.4 has something a little special. Not the greatest photo, but you will hopefully notice the background bokeh has a bit of a look of an impressionist painting, while the foreground bokeh in the corners has a subtle swirl. It looks to me like a much more subtle version of some vintage lenses that had these characteristics but often in an over the top 70s way, I guess because they were funky 60s and 70s lenses. The 35mm f1.4 looks to me to have some funkiness but in a subtle way.
Thanks for the example. I too just added a Fuji X system in the last 2 weeks (before the price hike) and the Fuji 35 f1.4 was the first lens I purchased for the XT5. I have always looked for a special portrait lens with a bit of character in the 50 to 58mm range, for Nikon it is the 58 f1.4 G and for Sony it is the Zeiss 55mm f1.8 FE. For a longer portrait lens I had my Sigma 56mm f1.4 E-mount lens for my A6700 converted to a Fuji mount to go along with the 35 f1.4. It is not special, but for now is fine.
For my everyday kit I bought the 4 small WR Fuji primes of 16mm f2.8 and 23, 35 and 50mm f2. All in silver. Dang fine lenses, very impressed with their overall quality.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Right, Jack. Those who don't see any particular "character" in a fine lens do so because they (we?) "refuse to believe it is there?" Sort of like those who don't see leprechauns in the woods because they don't believe in leprfeharuns... ;-)
At least I still recognize bokeh when I see it.
- - -
I recommend it. It is a fine lens with excellent optical performance. It is also rather small compared to some of the other Fujifilm f/1.4 lenses — small enough that I'm happy to carry it for street photography and travel.
Will you think it is a better performer than the 33mm f/1.4? Not sure about that. My recommendation that people looking for a f/1.4 lens in this range and assuming that the newer 33mm lens will be "better" take a good close look at the 35mm f/1.4 first.
(There's a pattern among photography gear buyers of assuming that the newest thing is going to be so much better than the old thing that they dismiss the old. It isn't that simple.)
- - -
While I don't have experience with the 70-300 that allows me to recommend (or un-recommend) it on the basis of its performance, I think people are too quick to buy into the "big lenses on small cameras are unbalanced" mantra. I've used some good sized lenses (bigger than the 70-300) on smaller cameras and I'm fine with them. They might seem different at first, but you'll adapt and before you know it you won't die it a thought....Show more →
My option also based on I tried 70-300 on my X-E4 at local camera store.
) 
