New to the brand and working on my lens cache for my T5. Is there a universally agreed upon "best" lens for Image quality? I realize the gravity of what I am asking but I am just curious, focal length and speed aside, is there one lens that stands out? Sharpness, micro-contrast, etc. I realize we all like things differently, just thought I'd ask. Doesn't have to be a Fujifilm brand either. My all time favorite IQ lens when I shot Canon EF, was a Zeiss manual focus. The micro contrast almost gave it a 3d look, really making the images pop. Not interested in the super zooms, most likely will be used for portraiture but I am flexible on the focal length. My guess at this point would be the 56 1.2?
I am currently torn between the 33, 56, and 90. Leaning slightly towards the 56 mainly for Focal Length reasons, but not quite sold yet.
I agree with the posts above, from what I am seeing, most all are pretty darn good. Just looking for one that maybe has a little something extra special.
Best IQ is a broad ask. By best do you mean clinical sharpness corner to corner, or smooth bokeh-liscious rendering across the frame? The upside us there are a bunch of options in either direction. It would help to know which focal ranges you prefer and if you’re size or weight constrained?
That said, a few standouts for clinically good are the 18/1.4, 33/1.4 and 90/2. A few in the little more classically excellent would be IMO the 16/1.4, 35/1.4 and 56/1.2.
This is good info and pretty much what I’ve been tracking. Definitely a broad ask. Occasionally there is a lens that seems to be universally agreed to have something special. IQ wise. I have the 18 1.4 headed my way and on my 5rii and past Canons, I’ve always preferred the 35 1.4. I have 50mm on my film bodies that I use but sparingly.
I guess the good news is that there may not be a standout so then I can simply focus on the focal length. I’m still torn between the 33, 56, 90. I’m more interested in the 56 but the slower AF has me hesitant for some reason even though I’ll be able to deal with it. The 33 would probably be the better FL for me and the 90 is more so because of all the good things I hear about it and about 15 years ago I attempted to buy an EF 135 F2 and the guy kept my money and never sent the lens. So I’ve always been interested in trying one.
Lenses that aren’t perfect from a purely technical standpoint usually have some character. I don’t like any of the modern X-system cameras, but every X-mount lens I tried was excellent. Even the old XF18/2. It was not perfect, but had its charm, I actually ended up liking it a lot. I had 18/1.4, 16-55mm/2.8, 23/1.4, 16-80/4, 18/2 lens at different times.
jakeg403 wrote:
New to the brand and working on my lens cache for my T5. Is there a universally agreed upon "best" lens for Image quality? I realize the gravity of what I am asking but I am just curious, focal length and speed aside, is there one lens that stands out? Sharpness, micro-contrast, etc. I realize we all like things differently, just thought I'd ask. Doesn't have to be a Fujifilm brand either. My all time favorite IQ lens when I shot Canon EF, was a Zeiss manual focus. The micro contrast almost gave it a 3d look, really making the images pop. Not interested in the super zooms, most likely will be used for portraiture but I am flexible on the focal length. My guess at this point would be the 56 1.2?...Show more →
There are quite a few really good ones, in my view and experience.
The best approach is to decide what lens features (focal length, aperture) you want tand then look for the Fujifilm lens that best matches those needs. It isn’t (or at least it shouldn’t be!) like you would need a 35mm f/2 lens but buy the 90mm f/2 because someone says it is “the best” Fujifilm lens, right?
Some that I have that I think are extra excellent in various ways include:
I think you will like the 18/1.4 you have on order, its one of my favorite X lenses. The 16-55mkII is a fantastic zoom and I use it a ton as my hiking lens. The 33/1.4, 50/f2 are really good. The 80/2.8 macro has incredible detail and it often overlooked. Funny you mention, the EF 135/f2, I use it with a Fringer adapter when I want a long prime and its really good on the X-T5. Not super sharp but great character and reach. I've not had a Fuji lens that I thought truly sucked.
I appreciate all the replies. I do agree that focal length is the important factor. I do though enjoy having a good lens that will force me to shoot to the strength of that lens. It’s definitely sounding like “just pick any, they’re all good” and that’s a good thing.
jakeg403 wrote:
It’s definitely sounding like “just pick any, they’re all good” and that’s a good thing.
Which is not true. The best currently are the Sigma 12f1.4, Fuji 18f1.4, 23f1.4WR, 33f1,4, 56f1.2WR and 90f2. There are MTF charts on the Net that you can check. Unfortunately, the 1.4 lenses are rather big and heavy - not really my idea of an APS_C system. So next best (and the 50mm as good) are the Fujicrons 16/23/35/50 - which however deliver top performance across the image at f4 and/or f5.6.
There are only two zoom options from Fuji that deliver top sharpness: The 16-55f2.8 and the 50-140. Both large and expensive. The Sigma 18-50f2.8 is a sharp, small, inexpensive yet fast zoom. But then again: For me, Fuji is for use with primes.
In the end, all Fuji lenses (and third party lenses) perform well if one respects that you don't view a 40mp image at 100% or more. On a screen or print at full image resolution, normal size screen or TV, or standard size print and appropriate viewing distance, you won't see a difference. Which means: It comes down to the focal length you want or need, the speed of the lens you want or need, and the size/price. You can take incredible images with the XC15-45 plastic zoom (though the PZ is a pain). .
Nielk Mike wrote:
There are only two zoom options from Fuji that deliver top sharpness: The 16-55f2.8 and the 50-140. Both large and expensive.
I disagree. The Fuji 8-16/2.8 is possibly even sharper than the 16-55; and the 70-300 is also excellent, as good as the 50-140/2.8. The 150-600 is also exceptionally good for that range.
But I agree with you that performance isn’t everything, size and weight and of course cost all play an important role in building a system to match our needs 👍🏻
jakeg403 wrote:
…a good lens that will [b[force me to shoot to the strength of that lens…
I think it is more important to get the appropriate lens that LETS you shoot to the strength of your vision.
Getting a lens that doesn’t fit what you are trying to shoot so that you can be “force” to the strength of the lens seems a bit like buying the wrong size pants because they force you to wear to the strength of the pants. ;-)
Nielk Mike wrote:
There are only two zoom options from Fuji that deliver top sharpness: The 16-55f2.8 and the 50-140. Both large and expensive. The Sigma 18-50f2.8 is a sharp, small, inexpensive yet fast zoom. But then again: For me, Fuji is for use with primes.
The 16-55mkII is no longer big and heavy, expensive and excellent yes. I don't own but I've seen plenty of very sharp images from the 16-50 and 18-55 kits lenses. I also happily shot the 16-80 for a couple of years. Relative to price and size, they are all great lenses. If you are a pixel peeper, I guess you have to stick to primes.
I don’t disagree at all, however I’ve found in the past challenging myself makes me better and see things differently and sometimes I end up keeping the new lens and sometimes I offload it but each time I get better. I try to challenge myself to all sorts of styles. Admittedly the 35mm FF focal length is my favorite and usually go to, but I do like others as well. What I am learning from this thread though is that there doesn’t seem to be that one special lens and that’s ok, so now I will focus more on the focal length. I think I’m narrowing it down to the 33 or 56 at this point but am still open. Not really in a hurry.
gdanmitchell wrote:
I think it is more important to get the appropriate lens that LETS you shoot to the strength of your vision.
Getting a lens that doesn’t fit what you are trying to shoot so that you can be “force” to the strength of the lens seems a bit like buying the wrong size pants because they force you to wear to the strength of the pants. ;-)
gdanmitchell wrote:
I think it is more important to get the appropriate lens that LETS you shoot to the strength of your vision.
Getting a lens that doesn’t fit what you are trying to shoot so that you can be “force” to the strength of the lens seems a bit like buying the wrong size pants because they force you to wear to the strength of the pants. ;-)
I think what the OP is saying is similar to when I've said, "I intentionally take the wrong lens" or many others saying they take a prime to introduce a restriction and force themselves to work harder and more creatively. I think your suggestion works in a perfect world where we have a vision. But what about when you feel stagnated or are seeking a vision? Using a lens outside of your norm can spark ideas and a new vision. I think there is room for both approaches.
SGinNorcal wrote:
I think what the OP is saying is similar to when I've said, "I intentionally take the wrong lens" or many others saying they take a prime to introduce a restriction and force themselves to work harder and more creatively. I think your suggestion works in a perfect world where we have a vision. But what about when you feel stagnated or are seeking a vision? Using a lens outside of your norm can spark ideas and a new vision. I think there is room for both approaches.
If you are stagnated and looking for a new vision, using the “wrong” lens, in my opinion, is the least effective way to deal with that. I don’t disagree with the idea that if you already own just one lens, say a 50mm prime or something, that there is value in exploring things like how to photograph with a wide angle lens or perhaps a telephoto, etc.
However, that’s not what we have here. The questions wasn’t “I always shoot with a 50mm lens and I’m wondering what other lenses I might try to expand my perspectives?” It was, essentially, “I don’t care what the focal length, aperture, or type (zoom/prime) is. I just want a lens that someone says is the ‘best’ Fujifilm lens regardless of its features.”
When you feel stagnation in your photography — and, yes, it happens to everyone* — there are far more effective ways to deal with that over the long term than buying some random lens and then figuring out if it is what you needed.
Sometimes — often, actually — it is just a matter of “doing the work” as you pass through the dry spell and find your way again, putting one foot in front of the other until it passes. It might make sense to try shooting different subjects than what you usually photograph, even if that seems awkward at first. It could involve viewing a lot of photography, via books, exhibits, or even on social media. In some cases, revisiting you own older work can help.
* My professional background and training is in the arts, so I watch a lot of people go through creative dry spells. It is actually a normal, predictable, cyclical thing in creative work… and there are effective strategies for dealing with it and getting back on track.
(A favorite story about that: I as at a talk by photographer Huntington Witherill at the Center for Photographic Art in Carmel a decade or more ago. He’s a photographer who has changed the focus of his work several times, with each phase producing beautiful work. Someone asked him about the further of the kind fo work in the show — computer manipulated images of flowers. His reply, as I recall it, was essentially, “I don’t know what is next, but I’m confident that I’ll figure it out.”)
This thread is starting to veer off track. I started it with the simple question wondering if there is 1 or 2 "special" lenses in the Fuji X system. Through my experiences with the past Canon EF system, this was the case, there were a few lenses that seemed to routinely produce a universally agreed upon "special" look. I realized I was flirting with many different opinions and that's ok. I am no longer a paid photographer, so I shoot for me and those I choose to work with so I am not looking for a specific tool for a specific task.
I appreciate everyone's feedback here, and my personal opinion this early in my experience with Fuji is that there isn't just 1 or 2 universally special lenses, and that is perfectly fine with me. I understand that focal length is typically the most important factor and I do agree with it, however I am someone who has yet to find a focal length I can't work with. I simply move my feet or find a different subject. Again, thanks to all and I will keep replying as well, just didn't want to see this turn into opinions of "why" others should choose lenses. I am more interested in the "why" certain lenses are special to people.
