For efficiency, zooms are best! no lenses swapped. I just came back from a week trip with 20-35 and 35-100, both are equally used. I planned accordingly what to shoot on any day each time I have either lens attached so in exchange I hardly switch one to another.
I don't know how the 20-35 compared to 25v, or the 38/55/90v to 35-100, I'm sure the fixed have slight advantage on sharpness (depend on the settings).
maxx9photo wrote:
For efficiency, zooms are best! no lenses swapped. I just came back from a week trip with 20-35 and 35-100, both are equally used. I planned accordingly what to shoot on any day each time I have either lens attached so in exchange I hardly switch one to another.
I don't know how the 20-35 compared to 25v, or the 38/55/90v to 35-100, I'm sure the fixed have slight advantage on sharpness (depend on the settings).
I think the image quality of the zooms is on par or nearly on par with the primes. What have seen from the zooms from pro shooters, I would have no hesitation based on image quality. For me it is about the size of the rig both in terms of visuals and weight in my hand. I am leaning towards the 25V,38V, and 75P. The combined weight of that is 4.8lbs or 2180 grams. The two zoom kit is 5.59 lbs or 2539 grams. Not a huge difference unless you think about how much weight is in your hand and bag as separate ideas and also the low light performance of the wide primes. I do alot of night shooting and the stop or more helps. I get the attraction to zooms and have seriously considered them. I will likely pick up the 35-100 later as a local use lens for car shows etc. Each pound matters past 20K steps in a day so I do really look at weight now, not the young buck with 20 lbs of gear in a backpack anymore. I also do like using out of focus backgrounds for some of my shots and the wider apertures help.
I have been shocked at how good the 35-100 is and it's put me off the idea of buying any prime in that range for a long time. I have heard similar things about the 20-35.
I wasn't impressed with the bokeh QUALITY of the 55V and at the same 55mm length, the zoom handily bests it, even with a slower aperture. I'd rather have more appealing bokeh than more bokeh. I suspect this is likely the case for the other lenses in consideration.
RoamingScott wrote:
I have been shocked at how good the 35-100 is and it's put me off the idea of buying any prime in that range for a long time. I have heard similar things about the 20-35.
I wasn't impressed with the bokeh QUALITY of the 55V and at the same 55mm length, the zoom handily bests it, even with a slower aperture. I'd rather have more appealing bokeh than more bokeh. I suspect this is likely the case for the other lenses in consideration.
I have looked at the bokeh of the 3 lenses I am considering. The 25V does well for a wide but not alot in it in most use cases I have. I found the bokeh on the 38V very good for a 30mm equivalent lens. The 75P was excellent, especially for such a light simple design. While they are not the best in each focal I have seen, they are very very good. I have not seen the 55V as that focal length is less useful for my purposes. In the end, Bokeh is a very subjective and personal thing either way.
My copy of the Hasselblad 20-35 isn’t as good as the primes in that range. At f8 it gets pretty close. I like the zoom. The IQ still exceeds what I can get in a smaller format and I like the convenience. I use it more than the primes. But the primes are noticeably better.
The Fujifilm variant is spectacular matching or exceeding all the Fuji primes in that range. By some margin the best wide zoom I’ve ever seen.
DKLeica wrote:
I have looked at the bokeh of the 3 lenses I am considering. The 25V does well for a wide but not alot in it in most use cases I have. I found the bokeh on the 38V very good for a 30mm equivalent lens. The 75P was excellent, especially for such a light simple design. While they are not the best in each focal I have seen, they are very very good. I have not seen the 55V as that focal length is less useful for my purposes. In the end, Bokeh is a very subjective and personal thing either way.
flash wrote:
My copy of the Hasselblad 20-35 isn’t as good as the primes in that range. At f8 it gets pretty close. I like the zoom. The IQ still exceeds what I can get in a smaller format and I like the convenience. I use it more than the primes. But the primes are noticeably better.
The Fujifilm variant is spectacular matching or exceeding all the Fuji primes in that range. By some margin the best wide zoom I’ve ever seen.
Gordon
I hate zooms and the Fuji 20-35 is the first zoom I can say is appreciably better than multiple primes in it's range. It really is an engineering marvel.
With the zoom you will always have an albatross around your neck. With 38V and 75p you can pick and choose which one do you take out on a day or even part of a day. I generally travel with the 38V and 90 3.2 (older version) and it is a manageable kit.
Obviously if the situation demands real-time focal length changes then zoom is beneficial.
DKLeica wrote:
I think the image quality of the zooms is on par or nearly on par with the primes. What have seen from the zooms from pro shooters, I would have no hesitation based on image quality. For me it is about the size of the rig both in terms of visuals and weight in my hand. I am leaning towards the 25V,38V, and 75P. The combined weight of that is 4.8lbs or 2180 grams. The two zoom kit is 5.59 lbs or 2539 grams. Not a huge difference unless you think about how much weight is in your hand and bag as separate ideas and also the low light performance of the wide primes. I do alot of night shooting and the stop or more helps. I get the attraction to zooms and have seriously considered them. I will likely pick up the 35-100 later as a local use lens for car shows etc. Each pound matters past 20K steps in a day so I do really look at weight now, not the young buck with 20 lbs of gear in a backpack anymore. I also do like using out of focus backgrounds for some of my shots and the wider apertures help.
selahsean wrote:
. I realize AF-C is one of the big selling points of the V lenses and the X2D2 and it works but it wouldn't be a primary reason to go that route.
AF-C is huge. Combined with tracking it makes the X2DII a simple joy to use. Half press to lock on object, reframe, shoot. Easy peasy. Eye/face AF, animal eye/face AF. Chefs kiss. And the IBIS has to be tried to be believed.
An X2DII with a 38V or 55V can be a one lens lightweight setup. Don’t be afraid to crop. So many megapixels to work with.
I’m sure the 35-100 is wonderful but realized the reality of the size (not so much worried about the weight) would make me leave it home instead of carrying it. Using a tripod—I’d be OK with the size.
soarfm wrote:
AF-C is huge. Combined with tracking it makes the X2DII a simple joy to use. Half press to lock on object, reframe, shoot. Easy peasy. Eye/face AF, animal eye/face AF. Chefs kiss. And the IBIS has to be tried to be believed.
An X2DII with a 38V or 55V can be a one lens lightweight setup. Don’t be afraid to crop. So many megapixels to work with.
I’m sure the 35-100 is wonderful but realized the reality of the size (not so much worried about the weight) would make me leave it home instead of carrying it. Using a tripod—I’d be OK with the size....Show more →
"AF-C is more like the dancing bear. The marvel is that it dances, and it’s rude to criticize its choreography. It is indeed AF-C, and the accuracy is pretty good, but there are issues. When you first half-press the shutter release, there is a multi-second delay where the camera says to itself, “AF-C? AF-C? Oh, yeah; I remember how to do that.” After the first shot with the shutter in continuous mode, it’s fine, but the lag is initially shocking. Continuous mode exposes the underbelly of 33×44 MP cameras. It takes so long to read out the sensor that the viewfinder just shows you the last picture you took, which is somewhat of a pain in the thighbone."
This matches my experience for the most part and I generally think the X2D2 can be a everyday camera, but if you're thinking you're going to get a modern day AF-C experience simply by purchasing the V lenses I think you may end up feeling disappointed in that choice. If you're trying to choose between the IQ of the earlier XCD lenses and the new V lenses I don't think that AF-C should necessarily be a tipping point in the V lenses favor. My two cents and your mileage may vary as they say.
In what universe does anyone believe that a 33x44mm sensor with a glacial readout is going to match a modern stacked or semi stacked sensor from the big three? Some people must be just straight out stupid if they believe any claim like that. Just because Fujifilm make a 500mm does not mean it competes with an A1ii for shooting wildlife.
It’s the same as those Darwin award winners who follow Google maps off a cliff. If that’s the average humanity is doomed. No wonder there are stickers on stoves that state *fire is hot*.
In the context of a 33x44mm sensor the AFC on the XD2 is pretty good. So is the GFX100ii. It’s as fast as miniMF has been. The key word is context. Frankly I have zero sympathy for any fool who looks at a YouTube video thinking they’re getting the whole truth.
If 45mm (35mm equivalent) is my bag, any reason NOT to get a 45P? I understand it doesn't support AF-C but I am looking to use it as a general walkaround/travel lens.
pingflood wrote:
If 45mm (35mm equivalent) is my bag, any reason NOT to get a 45P? I understand it doesn't support AF-C but I am looking to use it as a general walkaround/travel lens.
I have a 45P on loan at the moment. Not having AF-C is not the end of the world. It is as sharp as I need it to be and it renders decently. It is noisy! But minor quirk compared to the difference in price between the 38v and 55v.
I wouldn't hesitate to own it.
"AF-C is more like the dancing bear. The marvel is that it dances, and it’s rude to criticize its choreography. It is indeed AF-C, and the accuracy is pretty good, but there are issues. When you first half-press the shutter release, there is a multi-second delay where the camera says to itself, “AF-C? AF-C? Oh, yeah; I remember how to do that.” After the first shot with the shutter in continuous mode, it’s fine, but the lag is initially shocking. Continuous mode exposes the underbelly of 33×44 MP cameras. It takes so long to read out the sensor that the viewfinder just shows you the last picture you took, which is somewhat of a pain in the thighbone."
This matches my experience for the most part and I generally think the X2D2 can be a everyday camera, but if you're thinking you're going to get a modern day AF-C experience simply by purchasing the V lenses I think you may end up feeling disappointed in that choice. If you're trying to choose between the IQ of the earlier XCD lenses and the new V lenses I don't think that AF-C should necessarily be a tipping point in the V lenses favor. My two cents and your mileage may vary as they say....Show more →
I really like the work that Jim Kasson does, but do see the need to keep perspective, and I think he too understands that. The AF-C is quite good and I see that initial lag he sees and initially thought I had a defective unit. But after that initial moment all works very well and the results are spectacular and the IBIS seems to defy physics. The reason to buy a lens without AF-C capability should be for reason other than it's inability to match the AF-C performance of the current line of full frame sports and wildlife systems. If you want a tiny lens that is more affordable then maybe a 45 or 28 without AF-C is an acceptable tradeoff.
This thread has been choosing that first lens for an X2D2 and there is a lotta love for the 35-100 but if we listen to what Jim Kasson has said in his review about that lens you might decide (size and weight notwithstanding) that his assessment that the 35-100 performance is very good between 35-70 and only "adequate" between 70-100 is kind of a deal breaker especially when compared to a Z8 with a 28-70. Yet the venerable Jim Kasson decided that even with those shortcomings he bought one even after he was done with testing.
Getting back to the OP's question. My recommendation is to buy one lens, a 38V, and enjoy all that the X2D2 offers. Shoot it for a month--or two. Shoot it in AF-S, shoot it in AF-C. Less theorizing, more practice.
Have you ever considered the older 21mm lens? It never owned one, and it is no longer available new, but I only heard good things about. It is about the same weight as the 25V and its field of view would be closer to the 18mm you are currently using on the M. See also review:
This thread has been choosing that first lens for an X2D2 and there is a lotta love for the 35-100 but if we listen to what Jim Kasson has said in his review about that lens you might decide (size and weight notwithstanding) that his assessment that the 35-100 performance is very good between 35-70 and only "adequate" between 70-100 is kind of a deal breaker especially when compared to a Z8 with a 28-70. Yet the venerable Jim Kasson decided that even with those shortcomings he bought one even after he was done with testing.
Getting back to the OP's question. My recommendation is to buy one lens, a 38V, and enjoy all that the X2D2 offers. Shoot it for a month--or two. Shoot it in AF-S, shoot it in AF-C. Less theorizing, more practice....Show more →
Hello,
I think the 38V for me is a foregone conclusion as my most used Leica M lens is the 28 Summilux. I also think that getting a lens and adapting to the different aspect ratio will provide me with insight. The main issue I am having is what to do on the wide end for travel.
SlowDriver wrote:
Have you ever considered the older 21mm lens? It never owned one, and it is no longer available new, but I only heard good things about. It is about the same weight as the 25V and its field of view would be closer to the 18mm you are currently using on the M. See also review:
I did look at this lens very seriously and it appears to be an amazing optic. My hesitation with it is that the super wide angle will be less often used vs a 20-21mm equivalent and after seeing some videos of the last gen XCD lenses being used with the X2D2, I decided to just stick with the current batch so I can take advantage of the modern autofocus tracking.
soarfm wrote:
I really like the work that Jim Kasson does, but do see the need to keep perspective, and I think he too understands that. The AF-C is quite good and I see that initial lag he sees and initially thought I had a defective unit. But after that initial moment all works very well and the results are spectacular and the IBIS seems to defy physics. The reason to buy a lens without AF-C capability should be for reason other than it's inability to match the AF-C performance of the current line of full frame sports and wildlife systems. If you want a tiny lens that is more affordable then maybe a 45 or 28 without AF-C is an acceptable tradeoff.
This thread has been choosing that first lens for an X2D2 and there is a lotta love for the 35-100 but if we listen to what Jim Kasson has said in his review about that lens you might decide (size and weight notwithstanding) that his assessment that the 35-100 performance is very good between 35-70 and only "adequate" between 70-100 is kind of a deal breaker especially when compared to a Z8 with a 28-70. Yet the venerable Jim Kasson decided that even with those shortcomings he bought one even after he was done with testing.
Getting back to the OP's question. My recommendation is to buy one lens, a 38V, and enjoy all that the X2D2 offers. Shoot it for a month--or two. Shoot it in AF-S, shoot it in AF-C. Less theorizing, more practice....Show more →
Even in its weaker areas it still out-resolves anything from small format. So his assertion (from a single lens) simply means it may not match the ultimate numbers on a chart. In use the 35-100 resolves a stunning amount of detail at any focal length. And very few of the primes do better in its range. It’s not as *gritty* as the older 35-75 Which has ridiculous contrast across the range. The 35-100 is gentler in rendering but still resolves vast amount of detail. It’s also the only 28mm equivalent in the XCD line up, weirdly. It’s also has the best AF in an XCD lens. It compares extremely well to the Fujifilm 45-100 which is larger, slower and heavier without the range.
The argument for the zoom is whether one wants the weight in a bag or over the shoulder, when compared to carrying primes. The V lenses also have the focus clutch, which I find incredibly useful and the zoom alleviates lens swaps in inclement conditions. But it’s mostly whether you want to have a lighter camera in hand with a couple of lenses in a bag.
It seems the OP already has decided on the 38V and 90V. He seems to know what he wants from previous experience. It’s just the wide where there aren’t any ideal options as he wants a 21mm but needs to settle for a 20 or 22.
