Fuji XT-1 with 18-55 or 16-55

Thanks here as well for all the input.

Right now, I'm leaning 18-135 + 56 on the XT-1 with a grip. But, I really need to get in a store and get hands-on if I can find a shop local that has everything I want to look at. (Dreading that my only choice might be Samy's Camera...)

If I bought only one lens, i might go with the 16-55, but the other combo probably would give more options.

Thinking about what I typically shoot in low-light, the 56 would be a better choice than the 35 for me, unless.. the min focusing distances, need to check what those are.
 
Just my 2 cents here...
I pretty much own all of the lenses at the point and started with the 18-55 "kit" lens. I intended to sell it once I got the 16-55 but it has it's place and I can't let it go. I agree, it doesn't get the credit it deserves and the OIS does work fairly well. The 16-55 is slightly better (although not as much as I had hoped for to be honest) and the 2.8 is better for portraits. Since I mostly shoot people the OIS is fairly useless for me since they're typically moving, and even though I can handhold rock steady, people, even if they're trying to be still, tend to move enough to soften the image.
The extra "width" of the 16-55 is very nice to have. 2mm at the low end is significant. They both have their place and if the size and weight doesn't bother you, the 16-55 is a better lens, but the portability of the 18-55 is very nice. I've noticed that the smaller the lens the less people tend to shy away from me, in the street context, so the 18-55 wins there. If your budget allows, perhaps get the 16-55 and find a used 18-55 since they're plentiful and cheap (used).
And as for the 56 1.2, it's hands down the best piece of glass you can put on a Fuji. I have the non-APD version and I try to find a way to use it even when I shouldn't.
The 14mm prime is very good and small/light.
The 55-200 is actually pretty darn good, and the OIS works pretty well, too. I'll use it for portraits sometimes with I really need to isolate and/or flatten the subject. The aperture isn't great for portraits, but when I need it, it delivers.
I recently picked up the 27mm pancake since it was on sale and thought it would make my X-E2 "pocketable" when really traveling light, but haven't gotten to really test it much yet.
The 35 1.4 is one that gets a lot of love but I don't own that one. I tried one out after hearing so much great info about it, but was not really impressed with it. To be fair, I probably didn't use it enough to get to know it, but it's not on my buy list.
The 60mm macro is not as bad as people say...one you update the firmware. Decent macro lens, and not bad for portraits since it's a 2.4, but unless I need a macro lens for something, it'll probably never be used again. Once I got the 56 1.2 the 60 hasn't been out a single time.

Sorry for the novella, just adding some color around the line up. The nice thing for you is that no matter which lens(es) you get, you can't lose. They're all going to give you great photographs, and once you know each of their personalities/sweet spots, you'll love each of them. You really can't go wrong with most of these Fuji lenses.

Good luck and let us know what you wind up getting!
 
Hmm.. more good input. Really going back and thinking what ranges I'm likely to use the most. The 18-135 still is a consideration as well now, but that does get a bit dark on the long end (but I won't be buying anything of that length anytime soon otherwise, so...)
 
Going back.. I've been tied to zooms for a while, other than my 85 1.4 and old 105 2.5 from back in the day. So that's not an issue... but I am used to big bright zooms, all 2.8 ones. So I should play with the 18-135 and see if that will work for me or not.
 
The 18-135 is not fast aperture wise, but the new OIS it has works as advertised. You can hand hold some really slow shutter speeds. Although if you have a moving subject that is no help. combining it with the 56 1.2 like you mentioned earlier would make for a great combo.
 
Ordered this last incarnation of my plan... X-T1 with the 18-135 and the 56 1.2 and the grip. Once it gets here I need to do some tests, and see if I'm confident enough to go ahead and sell of the rest of my Nikon gear.
 
I have both lenses. Since getting the 16-55, it has become my main lens. You need to get a feel for it in your hand to really decide, but although it's big, it's still comfortable to work with. As for the IQ, there is a big difference. But whether or not that makes a difference to you depends on your personal style and how much processing you do.

The best way to really judge is to rent both lenses and give them a try. If you decided on the 18-55, mine's for sale.
 
Well, I received my 18-135 and 56 1.2 and the X-T1 late last week. Shot twice with it so far, but haven't done real benchmark testing yet. Applied the firmware updates after the first day, haven't really tested with them yet.

My next challenge is going to be testing the 56 against the 84 1.4 on my D800. Going to assess keeping the Nikon gear or not.

Thanks for all the feedback everyone!
 
Ok.. did some initial testing over the weekend. I goofed a bit on the focus point, so I don't want to post pics here that the pixel peepers are going to tear apart, but I'll tell you what I found.

The Nikkor 85 (attached to a D800) not surprisingly, is a bit sharper. You do have a lot more pixels to capture that info.
The Nikkor has a LOT more chromatic aberration, across the image. areas of high contrast and patterns clearly show it.
Downsampling the 85 to the same size as the 56, the key difference is the 56 is showing a bit more depth of field, as would be expected, and the Fuji image is a bit darker overall.

So, considering the CA, it's a toss-up. If I needed max detail I could shoot Nikkor, but with the CA risk.

Next weekend I'm going to do some real-world hold-the-camera-and-shoot tests, and some high ISO tests with the 18-135 and my Nikkor zooms. I think the OIS may win out there, but that's what I want to test.
 
Karl said:
Ok.. did some initial testing over the weekend. I goofed a bit on the focus point, so I don't want to post pics here that the pixel peepers are going to tear apart, but I'll tell you what I found.

The Nikkor 85 (attached to a D800) not surprisingly, is a bit sharper. You do have a lot more pixels to capture that info.
The Nikkor has a LOT more chromatic aberration, across the image. areas of high contrast and patterns clearly show it.
Downsampling the 85 to the same size as the 56, the key difference is the 56 is showing a bit more depth of field, as would be expected, and the Fuji image is a bit darker overall.

So, considering the CA, it's a toss-up. If I needed max detail I could shoot Nikkor, but with the CA risk.

Next weekend I'm going to do some real-world hold-the-camera-and-shoot tests, and some high ISO tests with the 18-135 and my Nikkor zooms. I think the OIS may win out there, but that's what I want to test.
Click to expand...
With faster zoom, there's no need for IS
 

Similar threads

K
Fuji 18-55 vs 16-55
Replies
12
Views
7K
Bobby T
Bobby T
Stevelink
Fuji XT-1/16-55 Settings for a Marathon
Replies
11
Views
1K
KillRamsey
KillRamsey
AndyMcD
Fuji 16\1.4 or 16-55\2.8?
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
Lensflare
Lensflare
Back
Top