Fuji X-E2 and 18-55mm lens

[mrgooch]

It was difficult getting close enough for a decent shot.

 

[KillRamsey]

Focus was difficult, you're saying? If so, I'd be interested to know your settings. Might be of some help.

 

[mrgooch]

It wasn't the focus it was trying to get close enough to get a decent picture. The bird kept flying away. I did shoot with zone focus in continuous mode. A fast shutter speed to prevent blur and a small enough lens setting F8 to insure range of focus.

 

[Lightmancer]

Forgive my ignorance, but when you say "kit lens" do you mean the 18-55? That was the lens I bought with my X-E1 back in the day but I don't know if the bundles have changed.

 

[mrgooch]

Yes.It's the 18-55mm.

 

[Mike G]

I don’t agree that the 18-55 is a “kit” lens!

 

[Covey22]

55's a little short if you're trying BIF (Birds In Flight). A good companion to your lens is the 55-200 OIS. That will definitely get you close enough to most birds in non-safari conditions.

It is a kit lens by virtue of being a bundle item, but what a fabulous piece of kit.

 

[Mike G]

It is a kit lens by virtue of being a bundle item, but what a fabulous piece of kit.

Don’t agree with the first part but agree with the second part.

I believe the term kit lens implies it can only be bought with a body, which the does not apply to the 18-55, but it is a super little lens!

 

[Covey22]

Don’t agree with the first part but agree with the second part.

I believe the term kit lens implies it can only be bought with a body, which the does not apply to the 18-55, but it is a super little lens!

IIRC, when the first X's came out, the XCs (16-50, 50-230) were not yet made, so your only choice for a wide-to-short tele zoom kit bundle at the time was the 18-55.

 

[KillRamsey]

Back to the point, we may have our latest potential victim of "XC50-230-itis"... Several of us have scored that lens (used at less than $200 usually, or new for whatever it goes for these days) and found the reach and weight to be excellent, the optical performance to be a solid B+ / A-, and the bang-for-buck to be off the charts.

 

[rayvonn]

Only this week my local store had a bundle deal with an X-E3, 18-55 and for $100 more, a "55-230" which didn't make sense, as there's either a 55-200 or a 50-230. Obviously I rang up the store to clarify, only to be met by a laughing salesman - "no, we made a mistake there" he said, "it's the 50-230 that's included in the deal, not the 55-200. You're not the first person that's called about that". That 50-230 is almost being given away these days.

 

[ReneBee]

Back to the point, we may have our latest potential victim of "XC50-230-itis"... Several of us have scored that lens (used at less than $200 usually, or new for whatever it goes for these days) and found the reach and weight to be excellent, the optical performance to be a solid B+ / A-, and the bang-for-buck to be off the charts.

After seeing all these awesome images of the XC50-230, I came down with the same "..-ites"....
René.

 

[KillRamsey]

That 50-230 lens is criminally under-respected.

 

[David Taylor]

Bought the 50-230 this week. Excellent.