Lightmancer
Legend
- Location
- Sunny Frimley
- Name
- Bill Palmer
Seconded.
-
Cameraderie, a friendly photography forum, join now for free!
tonyturley
Legend
- Location
- Scott Depot, WV, USA
- Name
- Tony
Mine arrived today. Mint condition, and I immediately mounted my Konica 57mm f/1.4. Lots to learn in the coming days. My immediate impression was one of surprise at how light the X-T1 feels for a magnesium alloy, weather sealed frame.
TT
TT
Yes, it is bigger/heavier than the primes. But it has the same image quality as the best of the Fuji primes. That combined with the versatility of the focal range has made it irreplaceable at events. The smaller 2.8 aperture is not an issue because I normally need a larger in focus area. If you don't mind the size, and don't need the larger apertures, the 16-55 is a fantastic all around lens.
GregVD
New Member
I know these are US prices, but can you get a comparable price in Europe? If you count the $USD 250 battery grip, this is basically a new X-T1 body for $750 USD.
Fujifilm XT1 Mirrorless Digital Camera 16421452 XT1 Body B&H Photo
Hmmm, I have already decided to go for the 100-400 so the only question is whether to go for the 16 WR or the 16-55 WR. I already have the 18-55 so that could be sold to help fund the purchase of the 16-55 so slightly swaying in that direction. What are your thoughts on the 16 WR vs the 16-55 WR?
GeraldH
They are two of the best lenses I've ever shot with on any system. With the 16mm 1.4 being one of my favorites ever, I was 24mm shooter on full frame DSLR. In that regard, the 16mm is the best in that 24mm effective focal range. I moved to the 16-55 because it better suited my working shoots. Each lens is great at something the other is not capable of doing. So it would come down to what you need out of the lens.
Both are amazingly sharp throughout the aperture range, have excellent contrast and render images with fantastic color. Both are weather sealed.
The 16mm 1.4 has the 1.4 aperture, and a super close minimum focus distance. Which makes it great for a lot of things. The 16mm is wonderful for environmental portraits for example, being able to get close to the subject for isolation while still being wide enough for including the environment.
The 16-55mm is a zoom with a constant 2.8 aperture throughout the focal range, with the sharpness, contrast, and rendering of the best Fuji primes. When I am working something like a convention, it gives me the versatility of having 4 primes and in between focal lengths in one lens.
If you do landscape work, the 16-55 takes a 77mm filter. Which tend to me on the more expensive side for screw in filters. And the larger, more expensive size filters in something like the Lee system.
The 16-55 is the larger/heavier of the two. But the 16mm and 56mm equal that out in weight if you were to carry two primes. Plus, you're getting the 100-400, so everything is going to feel smaller and lighter.
tonyturley
Legend
- Location
- Scott Depot, WV, USA
- Name
- Tony
In the short time I've had my X-T1, I have come to the conclusion it is the best camera I have ever owned, be it Fuji, Sony, Olympus, or Pentax. Paired with the XF 18-55, it makes for a nice, lightweight, versatile package. However, come inclement weather, I know I'll want a WR lens. Given that I've bought two Fuji cameras in recent weeks, the camera budget is currently tapped out. When I look at future possible lens purchases, the 16-55 WR and 18-135 WR are both far too large for my tastes. Although the 16mm WR would probaby suit my style more, the 35mm WR is more suited to my wallet. If the rumored XF 23mm f/2 turns out to be WR, that might be a suitable compromise.
I share your concerns re the 16-55 and 18-135 so the 16 WR is looking favourite at the moment. The 100-400 is a special project lens and is already on order. Bring it on!
GeraldH
Just took delivery of the 100-400, and yes, it is a big heavy lens, for Fuji. But compared to my friend's 400mm Canon lens it's a tiddler!
GeraldH
Last edited by a moderator:
