Fuji Fast prime lens on X-Pro1

[Akashi]

Hi,

I want to add one fast lens to my X-Pro1 setup. I currently have the 18/F2 and 35/F2. I have been looking at the 56 1.2 but I do not normally shoot a lot of portraits. The 56 would be a short telephoto lens for me, which I guess is ok although WR would have been preferable? Alternatively I guess I could sell the 18 and get a 16/1.4 - but that seem a little extreme as the 18mm havent done anything wrong so far, unless the 16 blows it away. The reason I want a fast lens is to compensate for the dark hours, of course, which we have plenty of during autumn/winter.

Any thoughts?

 

[KillRamsey]

Well, you've got a wealth of options in FujiLand, so we need to know a few things first.

1. Do you care about focal length other than thinking that the 56 is a little long?
2. Is cost a concern?
3. Are you potentially ok with a much bigger, heavier lens than the two you have now?

What you've got is two comparatively tiny, light lenses. And they both hit f2, so you're really only going to get one more stop, which isn't like going from the plastic XC 16-50 cheapo kit zoom some people begin with. The incremental new amount of light from f1.4 is not going to suddenly make exciting new things possible vs what you have now. That makes me think you should KEEP the two you have, and think about adding a new focal length. And that ... makes me think the 23 f1.4 is one that makes the most sense. Yes, the 56 is incredible, and it's one and a half stops faster, but you just can't USE it for as many things as the 18, 23, or 35. It's just a little too long to do everything with.

So the 23 I guess.

 

[KillRamsey]

As for "does the 16 blow away the 18?"...

The 18 is the softest XF lens. But as you said, that doesn't really mean much, because even so it's still pretty good. The 16 is a much newer design, and yes it's better optically. Frustratingly, though, the new 16 f1.4 has sagittal coma flare in the corners at f1.4, which only matters if you like taking pics of the stars, like I sometimes do. That lens could've been killer for star shots, but sag coma is a no-go... little bat wings on your stars that don't come off in post. The Rokinon 12mm f2 is much better for that kind of shot.

So the 16 IS better, but ... so what? It's only 1 stop faster, it's expensive and huge, and you already have (and like!) the 18. I wouldn't bother.

 

[Akashi]

As for "does the 16 blow away the 18?"...

The 18 is the softest XF lens. But as you said, that doesn't really mean much, because even so it's still pretty good. The 16 is a much newer design, and yes it's better optically. Frustratingly, though, the new 16 f1.4 has sagittal coma flare in the corners at f1.4, which only matters if you like taking pics of the stars, like I sometimes do. That lens could've been killer for star shots, but sag coma is a no-go... little bat wings on your stars that don't come off in post. The Rokinon 12mm f2 is much better for that kind of shot.

So the 16 IS better, but ... so what? It's only 1 stop faster, it's expensive and huge, and you already have (and like!) the 18. I wouldn't bother.

I think I agree with this, I´d rather keep my 18 for now. As for the 23, I really don´t see much of a practical difference in focal length between the 18 and the 23.
I do fear that the 56 is going to sit on the shelf a lot, I got the 75 1.8 for m43 which also is a strange focal length, I don´t use it much, in fact I will sell it now.

 

[KillRamsey]

In BIG spaces, you can use the 56 a lot. In a large event space, a big wedding reception dance hall, or walking around in a beautiful place that's large and wide open, then the 56 becomes a somewhat "normal" focal length. But as soon as people come within 25 feet, you're not going to be able to shoot groups of them at one time. If they're more like 10 feet away, you won't be able to shoot their whole body.

I see a fairly big difference between 18mm and 23, myself. 23 is just narrow enough to begin isolating subjects with bokeh, or to be able to make a passable portrait... 18 distorts the face out too much, and 23 is much better controlled, though still not as good as your 35. Also, low light is a very "on/off" shooting condition, you know? Once it gets dark out, it's not going to suddenly get bright for a few seconds again. So when it IS dark out, then putting the 23 onto the X-Pro1 would make a lot of sense, as it is that "do it all" focal length, and you get an extra stop, and it's a little sharper than the 18.

If you're just itching for new things to try, check out the Rokinon lenses. If you can live with manual focus, everything else about them is remarkable. I have and love the 12.

 

[flysurfer]

My number 1 wide-angle choice is the 16mmF1.4, followed by 23mmF1.4 and 14mmF1.4. For tele, the 90mmF2 ist the best lens, followed by the 56mmF1.2 (non-APD).

In the middle, the 35mmF1.4 is unmatched.

 

[Bobby T]

My number 1 wide-angle choice is the 16mmF1.4, followed by 23mmF1.4 and 14mmF1.4. For tele, the 90mmF2 ist the best lens, followed by the 56mmF1.2 (non-APD).

In the middle, the 35mmF1.4 is unmatched.

Agreed. The 16 1.4 is an amazing lens. With the 35mm, the f2 is really good, so you can't go wrong with either option at that focal length.

 

[KillRamsey]

My number 1 wide-angle choice is the 16mmF1.4, followed by 23mmF1.4 and 14mmF1.4. For tele, the 90mmF2 ist the best lens, followed by the 56mmF1.2 (non-APD).

In the middle, the 35mmF1.4 is unmatched.

Did you just accidentally announce a new lens I didn't know about? Or did I miss a release?

 

[Akashi]

So the consensus is that the best lenses are 16/1.4, 23/1.4, 35/2 or 1.4, 90/2 and 56/1.4? There is actually a used 90mm for sale here now, if only I wasn´t limited to EVF, but WR is an advantage.

Would you guys say that the 16 is better than the 23, or is that splitting hairs?

 

[flysurfer]

Did you just accidentally announce a new lens I didn't know about? Or did I miss a release?

F2.8

 

[KillRamsey]

F2.8

Disappointed.

 

[Bobby T]

So the consensus is that the best lenses are 16/1.4, 23/1.4, 35/2 or 1.4, 90/2 and 56/1.4? There is actually a used 90mm for sale here now, if only I wasn´t limited to EVF, but WR is an advantage.

Would you guys say that the 16 is better than the 23, or is that splitting hairs?

I tested the 16mm and 23mm side by side last year. The 16mm was the better of the two. Plus the 16mm has such a close focusing distance. But there is not so much of a difference that if you prefer the 23mm focal length, I would recommend going that route.