pechance wrote:
For general scenery shots the slightly softer corners of the pancakes are probably OK, for critical shots - like architecture (inside or out) - perhaps the solution is not the heavier lens, but technique. Switch to the 27 Ultron, shoot multiple frames and stitch - I would expect that would even the playing field to the fuji 1.4 primes.
Not sure what lenses you have experience with, but my Fujifilm 14mm f/2.8, 27mm f/2.8, and 50mm f/2 are quite sharp across the frame. While the Fujifilm APS-C system would not be my first choice for tripod-based best-of-class architectural work (for me that would be a high-res FF system), you’ll get excellent sharpness with such subjects from these lenses and similar.
pechance wrote:
For general scenery shots the slightly softer corners of the pancakes are probably OK, for critical shots - like architecture (inside or out) - perhaps the solution is not the heavier lens, but technique. Switch to the 27 Ultron, shoot multiple frames and stitch - I would expect that would even the playing field to the fuji 1.4 primes.
Not sure what lenses you have experience with, but my Fujifilm 14mm f/2.8, 27mm f/2.8, and 50mm f/2 are quite sharp across the frame. While the Fujifilm APS-C system would not be my first choice for tripod-based best-of-class architectural work (for me that would be a high-res FF system), you’ll get excellent sharpness with such subjects from these lenses and similar.
Personally, I find that actually changing lenses on the fly isn't as likely as I want it to be. The 3 prime kit sounds great but consider if you are really going to do it on the fly. I love the XF33 but it is only 50g lighter than the 16-55 mkII, so 2 primes are going to be heavier. Not saying I won't ever take 2 or 3 primes out for a day but I do try and consider if lens changes are going to happen and grab the 16-55 when I don't think it likely.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Not sure what lenses you have experience with, but my Fujifilm 14mm f/2.8, 27mm f/2.8, and 50mm f/2 are quite sharp across the frame. While the Fujifilm APS-C system would not be my first choice for tripod-based best-of-class architectural work (for me that would be a high-res FF system), you’ll get excellent sharpness with such subjects from these lenses and similar.
SGinNorcal wrote:
I would suggest you try indoor stitching prior to the trip with the lens you plan to use. Lenses with field curvature or soft corners often don't stitch well and indoor, closer in shots can have issues with aligning edges. Sometimes the 12/1.4 Sigma can be a better choice than stitching and the Fuji 8mm is just crazy wide.
I guess another option would be the 18/2.8 Skopar, 35/2 APO Macro Ultron instead of the 27/2 and either the 75/1.9 Ultron or the new 90/4 APO Lanthar. The 35 has a flat field and is quite sharp edge to edge - would definitely handle the stitching process without issue.
SGinNorcal wrote:
Personally, I find that actually changing lenses on the fly isn't as likely as I want it to be. The 3 prime kit sounds great but consider if you are really going to do it on the fly. I love the XF33 but it is only 50g lighter than the 16-55 mkII, so 2 primes are going to be heavier. Not saying I won't ever take 2 or 3 primes out for a day but I do try and consider if lens changes are going to happen and grab the 16-55 when I don't think it likely.
I totally get that - the problem I would have is - I assume I would walk around with the 16-55v2 on the xt5. If I needed to switch to a longer length lens, it is not pocketable - I would need to use a camera bag of some type, where the primes would work in pockets.
SGinNorcal wrote:
Personally, I find that actually changing lenses on the fly isn't as likely as I want it to be. The 3 prime kit sounds great but consider if you are really going to do it on the fly. I love the XF33 but it is only 50g lighter than the 16-55 mkII, so 2 primes are going to be heavier. Not saying I won't ever take 2 or 3 primes out for a day but I do try and consider if lens changes are going to happen and grab the 16-55 when I don't think it likely.
You are right that there are lots of trade-offs here, and different solutions will for for different photographers.
I traveled with (full-frame) zoom lenses for years, and not knowing any better I was OK with it — though it meant that I had to carry a separate, dedicated camera and lens bag that wasn’t exactly small. That being said, there’s an argument for taking a zoom instead of a few primes — all of the focal lengths are there all the time, you can adjust instantly, and so on. A downside for me was that the camera/lens combo is much more bulky, requiring specialized bags and drawing more attention.
You could use several large aperture primates. As you point out, with the 33mm example, those are also pretty big and heavy, with the possible exception of the little 35mm f/1.4. You don’t gain much in the “less attention getting” department or the smaller bag department, but you do get the extra small DOF and some potential low light advantages.
You could use several small and smaller-aperture primes as I usually do — chosen from the many available f/2 and f/2.8 options. Some of these lenses are quite small and light, and they also draw less attention, if that matters. And I can get my three lens kit and camera body into a fairly small non-photography bag that doesn’t give away that I’m a photographer.
I agree that lens switching on the fly does slow you down when you must do it. My travel photography philosophy (which is very different than how I operate in other situations) is to “shoot with the lens on the camera” most of the time. For me, that’s the 27mm f/2.8 pancake. Sometimes we imagine that we need the zoom to carefully frame the composition — and for some kinds of photography that is true — but It is quicker for me to just learn to “see” most subjects at 27mm. I tend to reserve the 14mm and 50mm for specific shots that really call for the narrower or wider angle of view. Of course, that approach won’t work for everyone.
