JMPerona wrote:
I don’t think I need 56mm, so most likely I will get the 50mm f2.
These are the ones I will get ( I already have the 23mm f2.8):
18mm f2
35mm f1.4
50mm f2
And then I have the budget to add 1 more lens, but here I have a problem: I could add one 1.4 lens for more “premium” job, or one Voigtlander lens for “fun”. I was thinking about the 27mm f2.
What do you think?
I think that’s a viable set of three lenses. (I usually use a similar but slightly different three lens set for street and travel photography.)
To some extent these things come down to personal preferences and your individual use case, but the one potential weakness with that trio is that the difference between 35mm and 50mm is not all that huge.
My personal approach is to try to get approximately a 2:1 ratio between focal lengths with a three lens set. The ratio between your 18mm and the 35mm is in that range, but not between the 35mm and the 50mm. The challenge is that there isn’t really a lens in that (35 x 2) range from Fujifilm. The 56mm f/1.2 gets a little closer, but it is also a rather large lens — fine if you really need f/1.2 but not so swell if you don’t. The closest lens is the little 60mm f/2.8 macro, which can work, but I doubt you want to go that route.
My solution, which evolved over a dozen or more years shooting Fujifilm, uses the 14mm f/2.8, the 27mm f/2.8, and the 50mm f/2. I like the fact that I get the wider coverage of the 14mm, which is one of Fujifilm’s best lenses. I also very much like the tiny 27mm pancake for street and travel photography. (I can photography urban night scenes with it.) And the 50mm f/2 works as a twice-as-long lens and as a portrait lens.
I’m not suggesting that you mimic what I do, but you might want to look at other possible combinations before you decide if this one is ideal for you. It might be, but good to make sure.