Great demonstration of what the gear is capable of. You have some great photographs. I use a 35mm f1.4, a 16-80mm f4 and a 55-200mm f3.5-4.8 and I really like landscapes and portraits with these.
George - Thanks so much! I use my 16-80 all the time for work and pleasure. I upgraded to the 70-300 from the 55-200 which I loved and still feel is an awesome lens. I’m not much of a 50mm full frame guy so I just bought the 23mm 1.4 and am enjoying it.
Thanks for sharing your favorites. I’ve got the triumvirate (10-24/16-80/70-300) for landscapes plus a couple of primes for light walkaounds and portraits. I was considering selling the 16-80 but after seeing the variety of shots you got with it, I remembered how flexible it is. I think it’s a keeper!
Good video! I use the 10-24, 16-80, and the 55-200. I have the 100-400, but it’s too big. I’ll have to look at the 70-300. Nice pix too! This is the first I’ve seen of the range of your images. I may have to join you on a workshop!!! Thanks. Geoff
Wow wow wow, what amazing shots, love those b&w of the sea. But first, a very personal and nice Reviewe, thank you. I also love the 70-300, 18-55 is coming this weak, also 18-135 and I'm curios of the 568 1.2 I also got the 10-24, and like you said, very good lens for special shots, not so often used.
Well done, you picked my 3 Fuji lens. For Fuji users who might have been put off the 16-80 by a faint hot spot, be aware it fades to zero within a a year. At least mine did.
Hi Rodney - I got mine as soon as they started shipping. So I got a really good copy, I guess. I shoot a lot wide open at f4 and the images are really sharp.
Hi Kirk and Merry Christmas! My 16-80 F4 lens is practically glued onto my XT4 and handles about 90% of what I want it to do. Love your videos and comments. May Leica get a BIG bag of milk bones for Christmas !!
Thanks Fairstamp. Leica got a giant rubber non destructive chew toy. It’s been either in her mouth or at her feet all day. Merry Christmas to you as well.
Kirk, Happy Holidays, Very interesting perspective. I have 4 Fuji zooms. (18-55 (came with X-T3) ,then 55-200, then 100-400 (before 70-300 announced) 70-300, then 1.4tc. They are all great lenses but in the interest of weight, size versatility I'm always packing the 18-55, 70-300 and 1.4tc. The 70-300 with the 1.4tc is still a few inches shorter and about 1 lb. lighter than the 100-400 alone. With the 1.4tc attached the 70-300 becomes a 98-420mm lens. Keep up the great work.
The 100-400 only comes out for me for outside sports on a monopod. Sometimes for long landscape shots on a tripod. Big tripod! The 50-140 just gets used a lot for inside sports and outside at night with the 1.4TC. Otherwise my choice would have been the three i mentioned the 10-24, 16-80, 70-300
Hello Kirk. First of all, thank you for this video. You showed some great shots you've taken with these lenses and I loved them. I am hoping to get the 16-80 some time and I came across your video. What I would actually like to say is that I love your enthusiasm after many years of experience behind the camera. I just started photography and my only wish is that to be as enthusiastic and loving for photography even when I am your age. Love from Turkey!
Many thanks for your kind comments! I took some time off for the past couple of months from shooting and doing videos as I was a bit burned out. I still shoot some commercial jobs and freelance for our local paper which will be picking up this fall. More videos to come. I hope you pick up the 16-80 it’s a great lens.
I don't understand why the criticism of the 16-55mm F2.8 being labeled as "big, heavy, and expensive" doesn't seem to extend to its larger, heavier, and more expensive counterpart, the 50-140mm. In my view, the 16-55mm serves as the ideal complement to the 50-140mm.
They are both superb lenses. But I stand by my feeling that even though the 50-140 is big, heavy, and expensive it’s one of “my favorites” the 16-55 2.8 is also superb but for everyday use I’ll take the 16-80 every time.
Three beauties there Kirk. I only have the 18 - 55 myself. I got side tracked by manual focus and mainly smaller primes. but I do quite fancy the 70 - 300. Have a great Christmas and all the best for the new year.
I’ve been a NIKON person for “years”; selling off my D850 + lots of F mount lenses to go with the Z7 II (which I still use and love). Mirrorless to reduce weigh on those long hikes. I have just ‘bumped’ into Fujifilm (never used before) and after a ‘good’ deal of research have bought (still in transit) the X-T5 which comes with the 16-80 lens that you have mentioned. I am so so glad you were extremely pleased with it since I suddenly thought it was another of those ‘iffy’ KIT lenses 😢 I have just subscribed and LIKED - I will visit your channel often. Thank you for your reviews here 🏴
I have been very happy with my 16-80. Others have complained about it not being as sharp as they would like but I have found just the opposite. It will be different than your Z7 ll that’s for sure full frame vs aps-c. Make sure the firmware is at 2.0 so you are up to date with the autofocus system. I love mine and am now using it for sports as well as everything else.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography thanks, I've been RUclips'ing like mad to get the basics in my mind ~ but it'll only be when I have it that I'll be able to get to grips. As a second camera I'm hoping for good images.
Maybe you can help? My X-T5 just arrived and charging .... I just watched your video on this subject so also just ordered dual charger + spare battery 🙊🏴 I'm very confused ~ how do I update firmware?
My always-on lens is the 18-135 F3.5-5.6 - I love the flexibility of the zoomrange and that it has OIS. I opted for that instead of the Kit-lense and I'm super happy with it. Your words and love for the 100-400 lense are so true. That is my 2nd lense (plus the 1.4 TC). Since I shoot landscape 99% of the time, I only need these two lenses. Maybe I'll get a faster wide-angle in the future for night and milkyway fotography, but the lightpolution in this part of Europe doesn't make it an instant buy 😉
I have two Fuji zooms, the much-maligned 8-16 f2.8 and the 50-140 f2.8. The 8-16 is fabulous. All of the complaints about weight, size and cost -- well, everyone can decide for themselves what matters. All I can say is that the 8-16mm takes great photos. At 8mm, it is remarkably well-corrected, it is sharp, and, if sunstars are your thing, you can even go there. And there is quite a difference between 8mm and 10mm at the wide end if your default is the very competent 10-24mm f4. The 50-140mm is very good. It probably doesn't measure up to, say, the Nikon 70-200mm FL -- it has a rep of a sometimes busy bokeh -- but for maybe 90% of your shots is as good as any of that range. I sold my 18-55mm. I think I just find midrange zooms kind of boring. I swap in either the 23mm f1.4 or the 50mm f1 for that range. For super telephoto, I bring out the bad boy 200mm f2, which is a joy to use.
Tony you have some great lenses there. Yes I agree the 8-16 is outstanding. But for me it’s too large and the front element is too big for normal size filters. I don’t use lenses that wide enough to consider it. I love my 50-140 and yes it is close but not quite as good as my Canon 70-200 f2.8 was. Yes it’s all about personal taste which I talk about.
Admittedly, I am not a fan of the 16-80, only because the 16-55 is so good - personally, I don't mind a little extra weight. I thought the best set of images (by a fairly wide margin) were the ones taken with your 70-300. Everyone "sees" a scene differently and clearly you tend to compose an image in the telephoto range. I have the 55-200 but only use it for my kids outdoor sports. I'm a sucker for wider angle shots. If you get a chance to try out the new 18 1.4 - do it!! I sold my 16 1.4 to make room for it and I have zero regrets. Really enjoy your content Kirk - thanks for sharing your 3 favorite lenses!
Thanks Brian! I do agree that the 16-55 is a beautiful lens, no question. I have found the 16-80 to be outstanding for what I like to do and its cost and weight suite me better than the 16-55. I have found that the 55-200 and the 70-300 were severely handicapped by their inability to focus while zooming for my sports work that's why I use the 50-140 and the 100-400. When Fuji gives me the chance I'll borrow the 18 1.4 and see what it's all about. Thanks for the positive comments they are much appreciated.
The 16-80 is actually sharper overall than the 16-55 from f5 to f10 based on mtf tests and other sharpness measurements. Initial reviews weren't great because of shutter shock affecting image quality from OIS at high shutter speed. I don't think there's much of an advantage with the 16-55, some consider its bokeh worse so it relies mainly on the aperture advantage and slight t-stop advantage. No OIS, less range, far heavier, and virtually double the price used. The 18 f/1.4 is indeed an amazing lens, quite possibly Fuji's sharpest lens to date.
@@michalmaly7794 update it and use it with the efc + es + ms shutter setting. If it doesn't look sharp off a tripod, then yes it could be a bad copy. Zoom lenses have the highest variance due to the sheer number of elements in it.
The images from that 16-80 were outstanding! I’m thinking of picking it up as an all in one travel lens. Maybe with the 35F2 for low light. I have the 18-55 and love it. I’ll hang in to it even if I get the 16-80.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography Kirk, I don’t disagree with you on the XF50-140, but I have the XF55-200 (which I’m not selling, I have a great copy) and the XF70-300, so it’s definitely not a lens that I need.
Great selection of zoom lenses Kirk. I am very hapy so far with my compact 18-55mm f2.8-4 lens; it's very nifty! I would love to try the 70-300mm but still seems to be on pre-order here in the UK! Have you noticed that Fujifilm have updated their lens roadmap to include a 150-600mm zoom lens? Now that would be worth testing out when it gets released!
Steve - I hope you can find one soon. The supply chain issues with Fujifilm are pretty bad. I don't think the 150-600 has been included on the map. I'll have to check.
I prefer prime lenses to zoom lenses. I prefer fixed aperture zoom lenses to variable aperture zoom lenses. I only need two Fuji zoom lenses: 1. 16-55mm f/2.8 2. 50-140mm f/2.8 When I shoot weddings, I use my Fuji zooms as backup to my Fuji primes (16mm f/1.4, 23mm f/1.4, and 56mm f/1.2) When I need a lens longer than the 140mm focal length on my Fuji zoom, I use an adapted Nikon 400mm f/5.6 When I need a lens wider than the 16mm focal length on my Fuji zoom, I use a Zeiss 12mm f/2.8 (Fuji X mount)
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography I gladly put up with the weight and cost of the 16-55 because I do a lot of low-light shooting and need the extra stop of light gathering.
Hello from Scotland Firstly, many thanks for the time and trouble you take in creating and posting your enjoyable and interesting videos. I am of a similar vintage to yourself and greatly appreciate watching someone who takes a real-world approach rather than someone who is besotted with “on paper” facts and figures. I would be very interested in your thoughts on which longer lens I should consider. For many, many years I was a devout Canon user. Several times I went out with the specific aim of purchasing something different but always came away with Canon. Using their products was 2nd nature to me. Following a couple of heart attacks I found I could no longer cope with the weight and changed over to MFT. I managed to get excellent results from several bodies and a plethora of high-end lenses. Using the bodies, though, was never 2nd nature and I always had to think about what I was doing. My health steadily improved thanks largely to the drugs regime I was on. Eventually I reached the conclusion I could cope with a bit more weight and sold my MFT equipment and replaced it with Fujifilm. On balance, I think the results from Fuji equipment is probably slightly higher quality than from MFT, but, despite what many RUclipsrs would have us believe, there is not an awful lot in it. The main benefit, to me, of Fujifilm, is in the tactile nature of the controls and the sheer pleasure of using their equipment which takes me back to the golden age of the 1970s and 1980s. Without going into boring detail about all the lenses I have tried and gone through I have whittled down my collection to: • 10-24 Mkii • 16-55 • 50-140 • 2x TC I had hoped that the 50 - 140 with converter would be long enough but I feel I need a little bit more. At the moment I’m debating between the 70 - 300 or the 100 - 400. The shorter lens has the obvious benefits in terms of weight and cost, neither of which is insignificant. Assuming that image quality is paramount, my question is whether using the 70 - 300 with the converter to reach 400 would produce an image significantly less than the 100 to 400 at full length. I want to capture birds feeding and birds in flight. The shooting scenarios would not involve me carrying equipment for any great length, so weight, whilst relevant, is not such as to rule out the 100 - 400 on the basis of weight alone. I am really only interested in the end results. I’d be very interested to find out what your thoughts are. Best wishes Donald
Hi Donald, If you don't mind the weight and you will be shooting birds in flight I would go with the 100-400 it handles action photography much better than the 70-300. The 70-300 with the TC is in FF terms is about a 638 mm. It's fine for birds if you set the focal length before you shoot. It does not handle zooming and focusing well at all. The 100-400 is a beast no doubt about it.
I loved that kit lens! I'm sorry I sold it. I had a ball roaming San Francisco with it some years ago. . Even at night, in the city, it came through for me. People did not seem put off by the lens vs. larger zooms. I eventually replaced the kit lens with the 16-55mm. I love it but it is big and heavy, as you have said. Variable aperture lenses take some getting used to like my 100-400mm vs. some of my other lenses. My favorite, of all the lenses I own are is the 50-140mm with or without the 1.4/2.0X teleconverters (when needed).
Love your videos! I've been a fuji shooter for 5 years, I would love to know your fav Leica body and lens for street photography. A video on that would be awesome👌
For street shooting, which I don't do a lot of I would have to go with my Leica M-P 240 and the 28 Elmarit. I don't live near the city so street shooting has been slim.
Fuji makes great lenses. One weakness that frustrates me is the lack of weather sealing in the older lenses. I agree the red badge lenses are pretty big for an APS-C lens. Great quality though. I had all 3 but sold them for the same reason as you….too bulky. Any plans on expanding your Leica kit? Would love to see more M lenses on your Fuji bodies. Great stuff Kirk. Always watching your videos. Love the shot of the moon at Thatcher light. Wow!
Thanks @illumigraphic for hanging in there with me. I used the 50-140 with the XT3 and battery grip last night for high school basketball. It was painful. Very heavy. I much prefer the 90 f2 and will go back to it. I have some more Leica lenses to use. But I'm not going to expand the kit anymore. I have a version 1 Summicron f2 which I may compare images with the aspherical version I have. I have a friend that has the v4 of that lens which is popular for the bokeh. I'd like to compare that as well. The moon shot was done with the 100-400 on a tripod next to me and I just happened to pick up the xt3 with the 70-300 with 1.4 to make a shot or two and this goose came by for a cameo. I guess you just have to be ready .... or lucky!
Love your zoom choices...but then I am a zoom fan since film days. We also love the 100-400 but keep it on a tripod with the xh1 for backyard woods shots. I like the 10-24, 16-80, 50-140 (good though heavy, best with a monopod). Am waiting for the 70-300 to come back in stock, meanwhile miss the range of the under-rated lightweight xc 50-230 we gifted with our old xt3.
You will love the 70-300. It is outstanding. I love my 10-24 but I only use it for landscape work which have not been doing that much of. I’ve been using it as my standup video lens.
I have three Fuji X cameras. When I bought my X-T20, it came with two cheap zooms- XC-16-50 and XC-50-230. I thought they would be junk, I'd use them for paperweights and door-stops. To my astonishment, both were damn good lenses, especially the latter. I can imagine how good the XF Fuji zooms are, next level for sure. I'd buy one, but I am a prime and vintage lens guy.
That has been my experience Barry. The reason I went with Fuji instead of Sony was the quality of its prime lenses. My first zoom was the 18-55. I knew it was top notch. The second was the 55-200 it came highly recommended. I have replaced those with the 16-80 and 70-300. Very happy with those.
Great photos, Kirk. I have the 55-200mm. It's the only zoom I own. I love the way it renders colour, but I find it so difficult to focus on the X-E1 that I find myself hesitating to use it. But when it hits focus, all the missed shots fade into insignificance. All your example images throughout the video seemed imbued with that 'magic something', which makes me think I won't lose that by upgrading to something else. Cheers Brian
Thanks Brian, it’s a beautiful lens. It’s older and so is the X-E1 that may be why it’s missing focus. The other choice would be to go manual focus. Good luck it’s a great lens.
As a shooter who owns and uses many much more expensive Fujinon, a sleeper of sorts is the dirt cheap, light as a feather plastic Fujinon 15-45mm wide angle zoom. Cheap construction, weird power zoom, but excellent optics, sharpest at the widest angle, great for a walk around street shooter, small as a Fujicron. Most on EBay are unused, due to the fact that most new camera buyers don’t give this kit lens a shot & put them up for bargain basement prices. Not the very best on the block, but a steal for what it is, especially for those not swimming in dough.
Nice video! For me it’s 1. 70-300 (I can’t believe how much I love this lens. It’s so lightweight for hikes, is really sharp, nice pseudo macro shots for flowers and insects, and good reach for wildlife. Especially if shooting electronic 30fps with the 1.25 crop. You are approaching 600mm FF equivalent when doing so) 2. 16-55 2.8 (is my workhorse. I shoot tons of events, weddings, and family photos with it. It also serves me well as a landscape lens. I find it boring but very useful at the same time. However id likely go with the 16-80 If I didn’t have to have the 2.8 for my paid work) 3. 40-150 2.8 (sports and portraits. Really fast focusing lens with good results)
You have had a long career as a photographer if I've understood it correctly. You probably used mostly fixed prime lenses early in your career. This was a very inspirational video. How do you personally see it now, do you see it now that the zoom lenses and camera technology has developed so much that you nowadays prefer zoom lenses?
I shoot more with zooms now. When I shot Canon I slowly moved to the professional f2.8 zooms because they were just as good as the primes. With Fuji it's a tossup. All their lenses are great. The little Fujicron primes are amazing.
I've finally got my trifecta zooms ... 16-55, 50-140, 150-600! All set now! I love the way you get excited about these lenses. How do you feel about your lenses after 1 year?
After a year I still love my choices. I still love my 16-80 because of the size, weight, and cost not to mention the range. The 70-300 is one of the best Tele zooms I have owned. The 50-140 is amazing but I only use it for sports because of its weight.
I would grab the 70-300. Unless you are shooting indoor sports then the other. For every day shooting the 79-300 gives you so many more opportunities. It’s waaaay lighter and much longer. The 50-140 is a red badge lens with internal zoom. It’s a stunning lens but for me I want more reach.
Thank you! Thats the way I was leaning, my only hesitation is I have 3 toddlers, I foresee taking indoor low light photos at recitals and what not, my understanding is the 50-140 would be better for that. If I got both my Wife would string me up from the greasy pole
Great photos, Kirk! I especially love the bowlarama in the fog shot. I bought the 16-80 instead of the 16-55 because of weight, even though some have dissed the 16-80 over the 16-55 for being a little soft. The 16-80 is sharp for me, and it's always on my X-T4. I sold my 55-200 to get the 70-300 and have no regrets. You got some killer deals on your 50-140 and 100-400. If I was shooting sports I might consider getting one of those. Anyway, nice episode! Thanks!
I have an xt3 that I bought new a few years ago and it’s sat in the closet this whole time .. I’m wanting to get a zoom lens to photograph indoor sports of my kids . I have people telling me I should cut my losses and sell it and go to a canon mirrorless … If I was to buy the 50-140 paired with the xt3 will I get the same Images as say a canon with the70-200 if the person running the camera is competent?
Brad - I have done sports photography for many years and for most of them I used Canon. If I had my choice and I was still working full time I would still be using Canon. But that being said I have used the XT3 and the 50-140 and have found that it can give you great results but you need to practice using it for it to come through for you.
I have the 16-55, 50-140 and 100-400. Other than the 100-400 I got smoking used deals on them. I think I paid 700 for the 16-55 and 850 for the 50-140. And the 1.4 came with my 100-400, which I I before the 70-300 came out. So I can't complain. I shouldn't have ever sold my 18-55 though. Those red badge lenses are big though, and I don't use them super often due to that. I usually just use my primes.
John you are right those are great deals! I’m planning on getting investing in the other two Fujicrons the 35 and 50 f2’s to go for and even lighter setup.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography I commented on another one of your videos that I have the 50 f2 and it's lovely. The 35 f2 is a great lens as well, but I am getting rid of mine because I got the new 33. I use that and the 16 for my own personal family photos inside where I need the light. The new 33 is frigging outstanding.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography haha more of a point to evolve the conversation than catch you on a mistake. Short story is I have too many lenses. Probably could downsize.
One lens that sadly gets overlooked is the XC50-230mm. It is not fast, it is not fancy, but at 375 g and f/11 you get fine pictures. The 70-300mm is 50% heavier and gets good sharpness at f/5.6. Sometimes the extra range and f/5.6 would be nice. I would really like to see you give the Tamron 18-300mm for x-mount a spin. Seems like a really useful lens.
I’ve never used the 50-230 so I can’t speak to it. The 70-300 is 50% heavier because it’s made better has weather sealing etc. I won’t reviewing the do everything lens from Tamron. Others that get that lens from Tamron to review and sometimes keep can pixel peep all they want. Most of them rarely use them beyond some test photos. I use the lenses I picked extensively. So I know everything about them.I will just keep myself to Fuji’s offerings.
Very nice & informative. I'm interested to purchase xt3 . Kindly suggest me which one lens to buy 18-55 or 16-80 for still photography & videography (wedding & traveling).At this moment I'm Nikon user. Kindly reply me.
I’d go with a straight B+W xspro CPL. The VND filter is a bit different because you will need a holder for a 100x100 3 stop soft or hard VND. Look at The Nisi system.
I use the 16-80 all the time for editorial work and the same for the 50-140. I’m a semi retired photojournalist. I do 3-4 News and sports assignments a week for a 30k circ paper.
Yes it does but the 16-80 has it beat with weather resistance, and range 24-120 ff equivalent. I’d say the quality is about the same but the range is hard to beat and the WR makes it the perfect combo for the XT5
Great demonstration of what the gear is capable of. You have some great photographs. I use a 35mm f1.4, a 16-80mm f4 and a 55-200mm f3.5-4.8 and I really like landscapes and portraits with these.
George - Thanks so much! I use my 16-80 all the time for work and pleasure. I upgraded to the 70-300 from the 55-200 which I loved and still feel is an awesome lens. I’m not much of a 50mm full frame guy so I just bought the 23mm 1.4 and am enjoying it.
Gorgeous images! Love those 70-300 images, amazed how shard they are and the contrast. I haven’t shot too much with it yet.
Mark it really is an outstanding lens!
I love the sunrise lighthouse, Oregon Pine trees, and the black & white waves from the long lenses. All beautiful images, mind blown 🤯👍
Many thanks!
Thanks for sharing your favorites. I’ve got the triumvirate (10-24/16-80/70-300) for landscapes plus a couple of primes for light walkaounds and portraits. I was considering selling the 16-80 but after seeing the variety of shots you got with it, I remembered how flexible it is. I think it’s a keeper!
Thanks David! The 16-80 for me is my all rounder! I love it. You should keep it. I have the 10-24 and love it but it does not get as much use.
That’s the same lens combo I use. All three are great for what I do.
Good video! I use the 10-24, 16-80, and the 55-200. I have the 100-400, but it’s too big. I’ll have to look at the 70-300. Nice pix too! This is the first I’ve seen of the range of your images. I may have to join you on a workshop!!! Thanks. Geoff
Thanks Geoff! I have been at it for over 40 years as a photojournalist so with that much practice some things are second nature.
Wow wow wow, what amazing shots, love those b&w of the sea. But first, a very personal and nice Reviewe, thank you. I also love the 70-300, 18-55 is coming this weak, also 18-135 and I'm curios of the 568 1.2 I also got the 10-24, and like you said, very good lens for special shots, not so often used.
Thanks Gunter! I have not shot with the 56 or the 18-135 so let me know how you like them.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography I will do Kirk.
Well done, you picked my 3 Fuji lens. For Fuji users who might have been put off the 16-80 by a faint hot spot, be aware it fades to zero within a a year. At least mine did.
Hi Rodney - I got mine as soon as they started shipping. So I got a really good copy, I guess. I shoot a lot wide open at f4 and the images are really sharp.
Hi Kirk and Merry Christmas! My 16-80 F4 lens is practically glued onto my XT4 and handles about 90% of what I want it to do. Love your videos and comments. May Leica get a BIG bag of milk bones for Christmas !!
Thanks Fairstamp. Leica got a giant rubber non destructive chew toy. It’s been either in her mouth or at her feet all day. Merry Christmas to you as well.
You talked about shooting with the X-T3. Are all the photos taken with the X-T3? Thanks ... Love the video and I do really enjoy my 16-80 on my X-T1
All the images in this video were taken either with the XT3, XT30, or XH1
Kirk, Happy Holidays, Very interesting perspective. I have 4 Fuji zooms. (18-55 (came with X-T3) ,then 55-200, then 100-400 (before 70-300 announced) 70-300, then 1.4tc. They are all great lenses but in the interest of weight, size versatility I'm always packing the 18-55, 70-300 and 1.4tc. The 70-300 with the 1.4tc is still a few inches shorter and about 1 lb. lighter than the 100-400 alone. With the 1.4tc attached the 70-300 becomes a 98-420mm lens. Keep up the great work.
The 100-400 only comes out for me for outside sports on a monopod. Sometimes for long landscape shots on a tripod. Big tripod! The 50-140 just gets used a lot for inside sports and outside at night with the 1.4TC. Otherwise my choice would have been the three i mentioned the 10-24, 16-80, 70-300
Great choices Kirk. I really liked those monochrome wave shots. Thanks for sharing.
Thanks Jaime! Those are among my favorites as well.
Just love the images. Gorgeous colors on most. Really special.
Thanks John! Love my zooms for the color, contrast and size weight and cost.
Hi Kirk,
Just watched this and enjoyed your content. Subscribed. Looking forward to seeing the rest of your videos.
Many thanks - lots of content with more to come.
Hello Kirk. First of all, thank you for this video. You showed some great shots you've taken with these lenses and I loved them. I am hoping to get the 16-80 some time and I came across your video. What I would actually like to say is that I love your enthusiasm after many years of experience behind the camera. I just started photography and my only wish is that to be as enthusiastic and loving for photography even when I am your age. Love from Turkey!
Many thanks for your kind comments! I took some time off for the past couple of months from shooting and doing videos as I was a bit burned out. I still shoot some commercial jobs and freelance for our local paper which will be picking up this fall. More videos to come. I hope you pick up the 16-80 it’s a great lens.
Fantastic video, full of enthusiasm, well produced and informative, spectacular images. Good luck for 2022
Many thanks Alan! I am getting better at it. We shall see what the new year brings.
Great video, love the images and enthusiasm, thanks
Many thanks David!
I don't understand why the criticism of the 16-55mm F2.8 being labeled as "big, heavy, and expensive" doesn't seem to extend to its larger, heavier, and more expensive counterpart, the 50-140mm. In my view, the 16-55mm serves as the ideal complement to the 50-140mm.
They are both superb lenses. But I stand by my feeling that even though the 50-140 is big, heavy, and expensive it’s one of “my favorites” the 16-55 2.8 is also superb but for everyday use I’ll take the 16-80 every time.
I made that decision also.
Great shots Kirk, I have my eye on that 16-80mm or a medium prime for 2022 to go with my 70-300 and 18-55 kit.
Thanks Rich! I think you would really love the 16-80. But that 33 1.4 or 35 f2 are pretty sweet.
Three beauties there Kirk. I only have the 18 - 55 myself. I got side tracked by manual focus and mainly smaller primes. but I do quite fancy the 70 - 300. Have a great Christmas and all the best for the new year.
Same to you Neville have a great Christmas and New Year!
I’ve been a NIKON person for “years”; selling off my D850 + lots of F mount lenses to go with the Z7 II (which I still use and love). Mirrorless to reduce weigh on those long hikes. I have just ‘bumped’ into Fujifilm (never used before) and after a ‘good’ deal of research have bought (still in transit) the X-T5 which comes with the 16-80 lens that you have mentioned. I am so so glad you were extremely pleased with it since I suddenly thought it was another of those ‘iffy’ KIT lenses 😢 I have just subscribed and LIKED - I will visit your channel often. Thank you for your reviews here 🏴
I have been very happy with my 16-80. Others have complained about it not being as sharp as they would like but I have found just the opposite. It will be different than your Z7 ll that’s for sure full frame vs aps-c. Make sure the firmware is at 2.0 so you are up to date with the autofocus system. I love mine and am now using it for sports as well as everything else.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography thanks, I've been RUclips'ing like mad to get the basics in my mind ~ but it'll only be when I have it that I'll be able to get to grips. As a second camera I'm hoping for good images.
Maybe you can help? My X-T5 just arrived and charging .... I just watched your video on this subject so also just ordered dual charger + spare battery 🙊🏴
I'm very confused ~ how do I update firmware?
I have to agree, I have the 16-80 and the 70-300 and I love them both.
It’s such a great two lens setup for the X series. I love it.
You take beautiful photos!
Thank you!
Hi Kirk,
Stellar video…
The stills on 16-80 are amazing. Just curious
what the film stimulation was?
All the images are Raw with the Astia film sim added in post.
Great Video Kirk. I use the 16-80 F4 on my XT3, and I love it.
Thanks Tony same rig as me. I love it.
That 18-55 is ridiculously sharp throughout. Just got a used one for $275 about a month ago. Could not be happier.
Absolutely the best dam kit lens made. It’s a great little lens. Awesome for video as well.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography its really not a kit lens. Even though ir is offered as a kit 😁
Yes this is true
My always-on lens is the 18-135 F3.5-5.6 - I love the flexibility of the zoomrange and that it has OIS. I opted for that instead of the Kit-lense and I'm super happy with it. Your words and love for the 100-400 lense are so true. That is my 2nd lense (plus the 1.4 TC). Since I shoot landscape 99% of the time, I only need these two lenses. Maybe I'll get a faster wide-angle in the future for night and milkyway fotography, but the lightpolution in this part of Europe doesn't make it an instant buy 😉
I’ve used my 16 1.4 for that and it’s awesome but the light pollution is terrible here as well.
You really know how to make Fuji happy.
I have two Fuji zooms, the much-maligned 8-16 f2.8 and the 50-140 f2.8.
The 8-16 is fabulous. All of the complaints about weight, size and cost -- well, everyone can decide for themselves what matters. All I can say is that the 8-16mm takes great photos. At 8mm, it is remarkably well-corrected, it is sharp, and, if sunstars are your thing, you can even go there. And there is quite a difference between 8mm and 10mm at the wide end if your default is the very competent 10-24mm f4.
The 50-140mm is very good. It probably doesn't measure up to, say, the Nikon 70-200mm FL -- it has a rep of a sometimes busy bokeh -- but for maybe 90% of your shots is as good as any of that range.
I sold my 18-55mm. I think I just find midrange zooms kind of boring. I swap in either the 23mm f1.4 or the 50mm f1 for that range.
For super telephoto, I bring out the bad boy 200mm f2, which is a joy to use.
Tony you have some great lenses there. Yes I agree the 8-16 is outstanding. But for me it’s too large and the front element is too big for normal size filters. I don’t use lenses that wide enough to consider it. I love my 50-140 and yes it is close but not quite as good as my Canon 70-200 f2.8 was. Yes it’s all about personal taste which I talk about.
I've got 10-24 and 16-80, both bought used. Aiming to get 70-300 within a year or so. The latter seems to be very hard to come by used.
Yes the 70-300 will be hard to find used since only now can people get it new.
Admittedly, I am not a fan of the 16-80, only because the 16-55 is so good - personally, I don't mind a little extra weight. I thought the best set of images (by a fairly wide margin) were the ones taken with your 70-300. Everyone "sees" a scene differently and clearly you tend to compose an image in the telephoto range. I have the 55-200 but only use it for my kids outdoor sports. I'm a sucker for wider angle shots. If you get a chance to try out the new 18 1.4 - do it!! I sold my 16 1.4 to make room for it and I have zero regrets. Really enjoy your content Kirk - thanks for sharing your 3 favorite lenses!
Thanks Brian! I do agree that the 16-55 is a beautiful lens, no question. I have found the 16-80 to be outstanding for what I like to do and its cost and weight suite me better than the 16-55. I have found that the 55-200 and the 70-300 were severely handicapped by their inability to focus while zooming for my sports work that's why I use the 50-140 and the 100-400. When Fuji gives me the chance I'll borrow the 18 1.4 and see what it's all about. Thanks for the positive comments they are much appreciated.
The 16-80 is actually sharper overall than the 16-55 from f5 to f10 based on mtf tests and other sharpness measurements. Initial reviews weren't great because of shutter shock affecting image quality from OIS at high shutter speed. I don't think there's much of an advantage with the 16-55, some consider its bokeh worse so it relies mainly on the aperture advantage and slight t-stop advantage. No OIS, less range, far heavier, and virtually double the price used.
The 18 f/1.4 is indeed an amazing lens, quite possibly Fuji's sharpest lens to date.
@@anonymousl5150 mine is not sharp do I have to update a firmware?
@@michalmaly7794 update it and use it with the efc + es + ms shutter setting. If it doesn't look sharp off a tripod, then yes it could be a bad copy. Zoom lenses have the highest variance due to the sheer number of elements in it.
The images from that 16-80 were outstanding! I’m thinking of picking it up as an all in one travel lens. Maybe with the 35F2 for low light. I have the 18-55 and love it. I’ll hang in to it even if I get the 16-80.
Bob you can’t go wrong!
I completely agree with you Kirk, my favorites are the XF16-80 and the XF70-300, always on my X-T4. Have a very Merry Christmas and a happy new year.
Happy holidays Enrique! I knew you would feel about the same as I on these zoom lenses.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography Kirk, I don’t disagree with you on the XF50-140, but I have the XF55-200 (which I’m not selling, I have a great copy) and the XF70-300, so it’s definitely not a lens that I need.
So in agreement, the 16-80mm, and the 70-300mm is my "twin lens kit", I never leave home without them.
They continue to be my favorites!
Clicked on this video because I was looking for a telephoto for my XS-10. Lets just say I'm not longer looking haha great video
Thanks, enjoy!
Great selection of zoom lenses Kirk. I am very hapy so far with my compact 18-55mm f2.8-4 lens; it's very nifty! I would love to try the 70-300mm but still seems to be on pre-order here in the UK! Have you noticed that Fujifilm have updated their lens roadmap to include a 150-600mm zoom lens? Now that would be worth testing out when it gets released!
Steve - I hope you can find one soon. The supply chain issues with Fujifilm are pretty bad. I don't think the 150-600 has been included on the map. I'll have to check.
I prefer prime lenses to zoom lenses.
I prefer fixed aperture zoom lenses to variable aperture zoom lenses.
I only need two Fuji zoom lenses:
1. 16-55mm f/2.8
2. 50-140mm f/2.8
When I shoot weddings, I use my Fuji zooms as backup to my Fuji primes (16mm f/1.4, 23mm f/1.4, and 56mm f/1.2)
When I need a lens longer than the 140mm focal length on my Fuji zoom, I use an adapted Nikon 400mm f/5.6
When I need a lens wider than the 16mm focal length on my Fuji zoom, I use a Zeiss 12mm f/2.8 (Fuji X mount)
That’s why I like the Fujicrons. The 16-80 f4 is outstanding but it’s not the 16-55. But the 16-55 weighs a ton more and cost a ton more.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography
I gladly put up with the weight and cost of the 16-55 because I do a lot of low-light shooting and need the extra stop of light gathering.
Hello from Scotland
Firstly, many thanks for the time and trouble you take in creating and posting your enjoyable and interesting videos. I am of a similar vintage to yourself and greatly appreciate watching someone who takes a real-world approach rather than someone who is besotted with “on paper” facts and figures.
I would be very interested in your thoughts on which longer lens I should consider.
For many, many years I was a devout Canon user. Several times I went out with the specific aim of purchasing something different but always came away with Canon. Using their products was 2nd nature to me. Following a couple of heart attacks I found I could no longer cope with the weight and changed over to MFT. I managed to get excellent results from several bodies and a plethora of high-end lenses. Using the bodies, though, was never 2nd nature and I always had to think about what I was doing.
My health steadily improved thanks largely to the drugs regime I was on. Eventually I reached the conclusion I could cope with a bit more weight and sold my MFT equipment and replaced it with Fujifilm. On balance, I think the results from Fuji equipment is probably slightly higher quality than from MFT, but, despite what many RUclipsrs would have us believe, there is not an awful lot in it. The main benefit, to me, of Fujifilm, is in the tactile nature of the controls and the sheer pleasure of using their equipment which takes me back to the golden age of the 1970s and 1980s.
Without going into boring detail about all the lenses I have tried and gone through I have whittled down my collection to:
• 10-24 Mkii
• 16-55
• 50-140
• 2x TC
I had hoped that the 50 - 140 with converter would be long enough but I feel I need a little bit more.
At the moment I’m debating between the 70 - 300 or the 100 - 400. The shorter lens has the obvious benefits in terms of weight and cost, neither of which is insignificant. Assuming that image quality is paramount, my question is whether using the 70 - 300 with the converter to reach 400 would produce an image significantly less than the 100 to 400 at full length.
I want to capture birds feeding and birds in flight. The shooting scenarios would not involve me carrying equipment for any great length, so weight, whilst relevant, is not such as to rule out the 100 - 400 on the basis of weight alone. I am really only interested in the end results. I’d be very interested to find out what your thoughts are.
Best wishes
Donald
Hi Donald, If you don't mind the weight and you will be shooting birds in flight I would go with the 100-400 it handles action photography much better than the 70-300. The 70-300 with the TC is in FF terms is about a 638 mm. It's fine for birds if you set the focal length before you shoot. It does not handle zooming and focusing well at all. The 100-400 is a beast no doubt about it.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography many thanks. That's an answer based on actual experience! I'm about to order the 100 - 400!
I loved that kit lens! I'm sorry I sold it. I had a ball roaming San Francisco with it some years ago. . Even at night, in the city, it came through for me. People did not seem put off by the lens vs. larger zooms. I eventually replaced the kit lens with the 16-55mm. I love it but it is big and heavy, as you have said. Variable aperture lenses take some getting used to like my 100-400mm vs. some of my other lenses. My favorite, of all the lenses I own are is the 50-140mm with or without the 1.4/2.0X teleconverters (when needed).
Yes I love that lens but it’s the same size and weight as my Canon 70-200 was.
Love your videos! I've been a fuji shooter for 5 years, I would love to know your fav Leica body and lens for street photography. A video on that would be awesome👌
For street shooting, which I don't do a lot of I would have to go with my Leica M-P 240 and the 28 Elmarit. I don't live near the city so street shooting has been slim.
Fuji makes great lenses. One weakness that frustrates me is the lack of weather sealing in the older lenses. I agree the red badge lenses are pretty big for an APS-C lens. Great quality though. I had all 3 but sold them for the same reason as you….too bulky. Any plans on expanding your Leica kit? Would love to see more M lenses on your Fuji bodies. Great stuff Kirk. Always watching your videos. Love the shot of the moon at Thatcher light. Wow!
Thanks @illumigraphic for hanging in there with me. I used the 50-140 with the XT3 and battery grip last night for high school basketball. It was painful. Very heavy. I much prefer the 90 f2 and will go back to it. I have some more Leica lenses to use. But I'm not going to expand the kit anymore. I have a version 1 Summicron f2 which I may compare images with the aspherical version I have. I have a friend that has the v4 of that lens which is popular for the bokeh. I'd like to compare that as well. The moon shot was done with the 100-400 on a tripod next to me and I just happened to pick up the xt3 with the 70-300 with 1.4 to make a shot or two and this goose came by for a cameo. I guess you just have to be ready .... or lucky!
Love your zoom choices...but then I am a zoom fan since film days. We also love the 100-400 but keep it on a tripod with the xh1 for backyard woods shots. I like the 10-24, 16-80, 50-140 (good though heavy, best with a monopod). Am waiting for the 70-300 to come back in stock, meanwhile miss the range of the under-rated lightweight xc 50-230 we gifted with our old xt3.
You will love the 70-300. It is outstanding. I love my 10-24 but I only use it for landscape work which have not been doing that much of. I’ve been using it as my standup video lens.
I have three Fuji X cameras. When I bought my X-T20, it came with two cheap zooms- XC-16-50 and XC-50-230. I thought they would be junk, I'd use them for paperweights and door-stops. To my astonishment, both were damn good lenses, especially the latter. I can imagine how good the XF Fuji zooms are, next level for sure. I'd buy one, but I am a prime and vintage lens guy.
That has been my experience Barry. The reason I went with Fuji instead of Sony was the quality of its prime lenses. My first zoom was the 18-55. I knew it was top notch. The second was the 55-200 it came highly recommended. I have replaced those with the 16-80 and 70-300. Very happy with those.
That XC 50-230 is an amazing lens. OK, it is slow, but in the right light it is capable of producing remarkable images. I was hugely impressed by it!
@@donaldpirie5485 Hell yeah brutha, I love that lens.
My travel kit; 10-24mm,16-80mm and 70-300mm. The 16-80 mm in on my XT3 85% of the time.
Yes exactly what I use.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography maybe throw in a 1.4 prime for low light
I use the 23 f2, 50 f2, and the 90 f2 for low light stuff
Great photos, Kirk. I have the 55-200mm. It's the only zoom I own. I love the way it renders colour, but I find it so difficult to focus on the X-E1 that I find myself hesitating to use it. But when it hits focus, all the missed shots fade into insignificance. All your example images throughout the video seemed imbued with that 'magic something', which makes me think I won't lose that by upgrading to something else. Cheers Brian
Thanks Brian, it’s a beautiful lens. It’s older and so is the X-E1 that may be why it’s missing focus. The other choice would be to go manual focus. Good luck it’s a great lens.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography its missing focus because its contrast detect. I have an xe1 and an xt1 and focus is night and day
Great video Kirk merry Christmas and GOD BLESS
Thanks Steve! Merry Christmas and God Bless you and your family.
As a shooter who owns and uses many much more expensive Fujinon, a sleeper of sorts is the dirt cheap, light as a feather plastic Fujinon 15-45mm wide angle zoom. Cheap construction, weird power zoom, but excellent optics, sharpest at the widest angle, great for a walk around street shooter, small as a Fujicron. Most on EBay are unused, due to the fact that most new camera buyers don’t give this kit lens a shot & put them up for bargain basement prices. Not the very best on the block, but a steal for what it is, especially for those not swimming in dough.
Interesting Ray. I have never tried any of those XC lenses.
Nice video! For me it’s
1. 70-300 (I can’t believe how much I love this lens. It’s so lightweight for hikes, is really sharp, nice pseudo macro shots for flowers and insects, and good reach for wildlife. Especially if shooting electronic 30fps with the 1.25 crop. You are approaching 600mm FF equivalent when doing so)
2. 16-55 2.8 (is my workhorse. I shoot tons of events, weddings, and family photos with it. It also serves me well as a landscape lens. I find it boring but very useful at the same time. However id likely go with the 16-80 If I didn’t have to have the 2.8 for my paid work)
3. 40-150 2.8 (sports and portraits. Really fast focusing lens with good results)
Bob - Great setup. Yes the 70-300 is addictive.
You have had a long career as a photographer if I've understood it correctly. You probably used mostly fixed prime lenses early in your career. This was a very inspirational video. How do you personally see it now, do you see it now that the zoom lenses and camera technology has developed so much that you nowadays prefer zoom lenses?
I shoot more with zooms now. When I shot Canon I slowly moved to the professional f2.8 zooms because they were just as good as the primes. With Fuji it's a tossup. All their lenses are great. The little Fujicron primes are amazing.
Por que não estava 18-135 F3.5-5.6 na sua lista ?
Voy a ser honesto, nunca he usado el 18-135 porque tiene muy malas críticas.
I've finally got my trifecta zooms ... 16-55, 50-140, 150-600! All set now! I love the way you get excited about these lenses. How do you feel about your lenses after 1 year?
After a year I still love my choices. I still love my 16-80 because of the size, weight, and cost not to mention the range. The 70-300 is one of the best Tele zooms I have owned. The 50-140 is amazing but I only use it for sports because of its weight.
Just picked up the x-t5 with the 18-55 kit lens. If you could only have one for the foreseeable future which would you get 70-300 or the 50-140?
I would grab the 70-300. Unless you are shooting indoor sports then the other. For every day shooting the 79-300 gives you so many more opportunities. It’s waaaay lighter and much longer. The 50-140 is a red badge lens with internal zoom. It’s a stunning lens but for me I want more reach.
Thank you! Thats the way I was leaning, my only hesitation is I have 3 toddlers, I foresee taking indoor low light photos at recitals and what not, my understanding is the 50-140 would be better for that. If I got both my Wife would string me up from the greasy pole
Yes that is a problem. Look for a used 50-140. You never know what you might find. The 70-300 is much less expensive.
70-300 is back order. They can’t make enough of them.
Ya it's kind of a bummer for many folks.
Great photos, Kirk! I especially love the bowlarama in the fog shot. I bought the 16-80 instead of the 16-55 because of weight, even though some have dissed the 16-80 over the 16-55 for being a little soft. The 16-80 is sharp for me, and it's always on my X-T4. I sold my 55-200 to get the 70-300 and have no regrets. You got some killer deals on your 50-140 and 100-400. If I was shooting sports I might consider getting one of those. Anyway, nice episode! Thanks!
Thanks Geoff! Yes I love that shot as well. The 16-55 is a beautiful lens but I don't think it's much sharper than the 16-80.
Great video as always Kirk. I don't own any zoom lens but I have to admit I'm a little tempted by the 70-300mm!
Matt it's a great lens for all the reach it gives you!
Could have watched this all day Kirk. Great video, stunning shots!
Now that would be a long video! Glad you enjoyed it.
I have an xt3 that I bought new a few years ago and it’s sat in the closet this whole time .. I’m wanting to get a zoom lens to photograph indoor sports of my kids . I have people telling me I should cut my losses and sell it and go to a canon mirrorless … If I was to buy the 50-140 paired with the xt3 will I get the same Images as say a canon with the70-200 if the person running the camera is competent?
Brad - I have done sports photography for many years and for most of them I used Canon. If I had my choice and I was still working full time I would still be using Canon. But that being said I have used the XT3 and the 50-140 and have found that it can give you great results but you need to practice using it for it to come through for you.
I have the 16-55, 50-140 and 100-400. Other than the 100-400 I got smoking used deals on them. I think I paid 700 for the 16-55 and 850 for the 50-140. And the 1.4 came with my 100-400, which I I before the 70-300 came out. So I can't complain. I shouldn't have ever sold my 18-55 though. Those red badge lenses are big though, and I don't use them super often due to that. I usually just use my primes.
John you are right those are great deals! I’m planning on getting investing in the other two Fujicrons the 35 and 50 f2’s to go for and even lighter setup.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography I commented on another one of your videos that I have the 50 f2 and it's lovely. The 35 f2 is a great lens as well, but I am getting rid of mine because I got the new 33. I use that and the 16 for my own personal family photos inside where I need the light. The new 33 is frigging outstanding.
Oops yes I remember you saying that.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography haha more of a point to evolve the conversation than catch you on a mistake. Short story is I have too many lenses. Probably could downsize.
Do you think that there are bad copies of the 16-80? I am not impressed by mine...how to get a good copy?
Michael I’m sure there are bad copies out there. The only thing you can do is buy from a camera store that lets you take it for a spin to test it.
One lens that sadly gets overlooked is the XC50-230mm. It is not fast, it is not fancy, but at 375 g and f/11 you get fine pictures. The 70-300mm is 50% heavier and gets good sharpness at f/5.6. Sometimes the extra range and f/5.6 would be nice. I would really like to see you give the Tamron 18-300mm for x-mount a spin. Seems like a really useful lens.
I’ve never used the 50-230 so I can’t speak to it. The 70-300 is 50% heavier because it’s made better has weather sealing etc. I won’t reviewing the do everything lens from Tamron. Others that get that lens from Tamron to review and sometimes keep can pixel peep all they want. Most of them rarely use them beyond some test photos. I use the lenses I picked extensively. So I know everything about them.I will just keep myself to Fuji’s offerings.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography I understand, merry xmas!
Same to you and your family Merry Christmas!
Very nice & informative.
I'm interested to purchase xt3 .
Kindly suggest me which one lens to buy 18-55 or 16-80 for still photography & videography (wedding & traveling).At this moment I'm Nikon user.
Kindly reply me.
I would go with the 16-80. Better ois and more at the short end and the long end.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography
Thank you sir for replying me.
Sir give me one suggestion plz.about
CPL FILTER & VND FILTER..
I’d go with a straight B+W xspro CPL. The VND filter is a bit different because you will need a holder for a 100x100 3 stop soft or hard VND. Look at The Nisi system.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography
Ok. thank you sir.
Hey! am also in the exact situation that you had been… which lens did you go with 18-55 or 16-80 ??
Cool! But, out of interest, what "work" do you actually do with such lenses professionally?
I use the 16-80 all the time for editorial work and the same for the 50-140. I’m a semi retired photojournalist. I do 3-4 News and sports assignments a week for a 30k circ paper.
Does 50-140 keep focus while zooming? Thanks.
Hi John, It's not an anamorphic cine lens but it does a great job keeping up with the focusing while you are zooming.
Doesn't the 18 -55 have the 16-80 beat on size weight and cost? Or is the quality that much better?
Yes it does but the 16-80 has it beat with weather resistance, and range 24-120 ff equivalent. I’d say the quality is about the same but the range is hard to beat and the WR makes it the perfect combo for the XT5
Would love to see the 200mm f2 beast.
I would too!
Too much money? Don't you own a $3,000 35mm f/2 Leitz Summicron?
Yes but I don’t use it for work.