I started with the 18-135mm as a kitlens and I didn't regret it one bit. I know from a technical point of view it's one of the lesser lenses in the Fuji landscape, but its versatility is unbeatable. In the mean time I have bought other prime lenses (35mm f/2, 16mm f/1.4 and 56mm f/1.2), but when I go for a hike and take pictures it's nearly always the 18-135mm that's on my Fuji.
I also started with the 18-135mm as the kit lens and I am loving it. I am trying to decide on a prime lens to purchase next, can I please have your opinion which prime lens you would recommend? Cheers!
@@peterc66 I would recommend a compact prime such as the 35mm f/2 or 23mm f/2 as your first prime lens. If you can find one used, it's quite cheap and it packs other advantages such as its (lack of) weight, weather resistance, fast autofocus and great image quality. These are general purpose lenses and can do pretty much everything: portraits, landscape, street photography and even sports if you want. The 16mm f/1.4 and 56mm f/1.2 sound appealing on paper, but have a very specific character. The 16mm is a wide angle lens that requires you to stay really close to the subject, unlike the 18mm of the 18-135mm. It can aditionally be used as a semi-macro lens. The 56mm is great for portraits, but has little use outside portrait photography and the autofocus is kind of horrible. Great lenses and one stop faster, but not my first choice if you want to purchase a prime lens for the first time.
@@Optidorf Ohh wow, you are making this so much easier to decide! I think a general-purpose prime lens is what I would look for, so probably a 23mm f/2, and then the wide-angle 16mm f/1.4 if I ever find it necessary. And I will also try to find a used one. Thanks for your insight opinions!
Excellent!! I really enjoy it when you weigh in on Fuji. As much as I really love their lenses, I'm not all that high on the 18-55. The images that come out of it seem flat and lacking in micro-contrast. I've owned several copies of the 18-55 and I finally just moved onto all primes. Also, at 4:58 you've got a picture of the 16mm f/2.8 WR (which is a better value than the 16mm f/1.4, IMO) instead of the f/1.4
There is definitely a lot of variation between copies so it’s Key to find a good one. It’s strangely one of those lenses that does a lot of things pretty well for the size so when I’m traveling for long periods of time I find myself grabbing it
Thanks a lot. I'm really impressed with fuji... I'm weighing a decision... Whether I should dump my sony A mount and lenses and get into fuji full on...
What an amazing clarity. Point specific and excellent advise. I am planning to buy XT4. What do you suggest for regular use and also want crisp images. Please suggest. Thanks for the review
LOL. You mention rebuying the kit lens after selling it. A guy at my local shop has the same story. He says he's sold three lenses to people who ditched the kit lens and then later regretted it.
Jeff Adrian www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1138987-REG/fujifilm_xf_16mm_f_1_4_r.html?ap=y&gclid=CjwKCAjwyqTqBRAyEiwA8K_4OxLd8mayBUmZidFxXltNU4vtMWcwQSvCu4UFI8yiIIUmaZAQ3Hf6_RoCSOQQAvD_BwE&lsft=BI%3A514&smp=y
Awesome breakdown Michael. I'm looking at getting the XT-4 and couldn't decide exactly on the first lens. I think ill now go the 18-55mm. There is a lot of good feedback on that lens.
Gerner Christensen It’s interesting you came to this conclusion - I thought I was being pretty clear talking about the specific lenses for specific shooting types, and even having them on your radar for consideration for those jobs. But that’s the beauty of RUclips, it’s easy to ignore these details.
Gerner Christensen What you really mean is “I” don’t need more than the . . . People have different use cases which require different lenses. That, in addition to good old personal preference, dictates the need for different lenses.
@@808islandlife_HI 808Island Life Yes I guess this what I mean. I had 5 Fuji APS-c cameras and all the lenses existing except the big tele zoom and 200mm. Found the 2 lenses I mentionen actually covered all my needs even for lens perfection :)
Gerner Christensen I think I could get by with just those two lenses too, but I really want the 50-140 for the 2.8 aperture and weather sealing.
5 лет назад
Get an enlarger (not talking about viagra). Get a film body (preferably Canon, Nikon bodies get sticky over time.) Shoot film. Make own prints in darkroom.
Great video as always. I only have the 16-55 for video, but I always see people recommending 18-55 over 16-55 for video because the kit lens has OIS. Is there a noticeable difference in sharpness in video? Also, I find the 7artisan lenses to be pretty attractive for someone who doesn't want the absolute best sharpness and just wants to have something that can give them that particular focal length they don't have. (For example I am eyeing the 7artisans 60mm Macro), would be great if you cover them too.
There is absolutely a sharpness difference between the 16-55 and 18-55. It’s easy to see. The motors are better, more quiet, faster. The 16-55 has the advantage for image quality.
I would think the 200mm f2 would be excellent for sports and BIF? Expensive yes, but it's probably the best XF lens optically. Worth a mention in my opinion 😊
@@MMaven Yes, I've seen your review, and my experience with the lens seems to be a bit different from yours, as I've had no focusing issues with it. Granted, I don't shoot BIF with it regularly, but I do use it for live music and event photography, as well as for certain weddings, and for conference photography. Anyway, my post was mostly a response to the statement about there not existing any other long lenses for sports and BIF than the 100-400mm in Fujifilm's lineup.
Johannes Granseth interesting- I don’t remember saying it had terrible focusing issues, and for me, 400mm is quite different than 200. But that could just be preference. My dad and I preferred the 100-400 for the range of focal lengths and lightweightness. Was there another 400mm Fuji lens I was not aware of?
@@MMaven I never said that you did. But you did make it very clear that you encountered focusing issues when you tested the XF200mm. And that is very different from my experience, since I've had virtually no focusing issues with my XF200mm. In this video you said "If you get involved in any type of sports shooting, especially birds in flight, you only have one choice, it's the 100-400 variable aperture, it's the only one that Fuji makes." If your criteria is that it should be a 400mm, then you are right, because, no, Fuji doesn't make another 400mm as of now. But it sounded to me like your criteria was a good lens for sports and BIF. And that's were I think the 200mm makes the above statement a bit inaccurate. But it's no big deal, just thought I'd share my opinion.
I would also suggest the 16-80mm F4 that is coming out soon (sept 26th), when i was shooting with Canon, 95% of the time i was using my 24-105MM F4. it is sooo versatile. so the Fuji will be the equivalent of that. just a thought.
See, that's the problem with many videos like this. Why on earth is 16-55 f2.8 recommended for beginners ? Its too expensive and beginners should not spend much until they have experience and they know what to do.
The Picture from the 16mm is NOT the 16mm 1.4!! This is the 16mm 2.8 for round about 350€! And I don't think, that the 16-55mm is a good lense for videos, because the lense has no OIS!
@@808islandlife_HI The 'red badge' flagship lenses are heavy, expensive and aimed more at the professional. My comments were targeted primarily at these options. Of course, I agree that the 18-55 is ideal for beginners.
@@petercookson135 IM still trying to understand the logic that beginners cannot / should not buy red tab lenses? What does skill level have to do with what they can afford? Just honestly curious?
Michael The Maven I think for beginners, it would be best to suggest a prime so they can work on composing and learning how to take use the camera. It’s similar to driving for the first time. Learning how to drive a stick on a old car before purchasing a full on sports car.
Amazes me .. when it comes to lens comparison .. no youtuber is considering the third party options. If you take tamron and sigma into consideration for sony it literally blows fuji out of the water in terms of price...
"for beginners"... 8-16, 16-55, 50-140 :))))))))))))) Why not GFX100 with 32-64? Camera for complete (photography) beginner is Huawei. For advanced enthusiast that is NEW in Fuji is x-t30+18-55 or 18-135.
Piotr Stępień Gerner Christensen It’s interesting you came to this conclusion - I thought I was being pretty clear talking about the specific lenses for specific shooting types, and even having them on your radar for consideration for those jobs. But that’s the beauty of RUclips, it’s easy to ignore these details.
@@MMaven in my opinion if someone is new to photography or new to the system (if is not professional and knows his/her needs) should start from basic, cheap gear. How new photographer can know that this is for him? Why to recommend him the most expensive gear from beginning? I was Nikon shooter and made soft transition to Fuji. Started from x-t20 with 18-135. I felt in love with Fuii, sold Nikon and now collecting Fuji lenses which I know I'm going to use.
![Twenty One Pilots - The Line (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XCz7WUotXs8/mqdefault.jpg)
After owning various fujinon lenses, I ended up with the 18-55mm f2.8-4, 50-140mm f2.8, and the pancake 27mm f2.8. ☺️
Hope you never have to shoot in low light
Andrew Espectacion I have the 27mm, 50-230mm (XC) and 18-55mm (XF)
I started with the 18-135mm as a kitlens and I didn't regret it one bit. I know from a technical point of view it's one of the lesser lenses in the Fuji landscape, but its versatility is unbeatable. In the mean time I have bought other prime lenses (35mm f/2, 16mm f/1.4 and 56mm f/1.2), but when I go for a hike and take pictures it's nearly always the 18-135mm that's on my Fuji.
I also started with the 18-135mm as the kit lens and I am loving it. I am trying to decide on a prime lens to purchase next, can I please have your opinion which prime lens you would recommend? Cheers!
@@peterc66 I would recommend a compact prime such as the 35mm f/2 or 23mm f/2 as your first prime lens. If you can find one used, it's quite cheap and it packs other advantages such as its (lack of) weight, weather resistance, fast autofocus and great image quality. These are general purpose lenses and can do pretty much everything: portraits, landscape, street photography and even sports if you want. The 16mm f/1.4 and 56mm f/1.2 sound appealing on paper, but have a very specific character.
The 16mm is a wide angle lens that requires you to stay really close to the subject, unlike the 18mm of the 18-135mm. It can aditionally be used as a semi-macro lens. The 56mm is great for portraits, but has little use outside portrait photography and the autofocus is kind of horrible. Great lenses and one stop faster, but not my first choice if you want to purchase a prime lens for the first time.
@@Optidorf Ohh wow, you are making this so much easier to decide! I think a general-purpose prime lens is what I would look for, so probably a 23mm f/2, and then the wide-angle 16mm f/1.4 if I ever find it necessary. And I will also try to find a used one. Thanks for your insight opinions!
Heavily oriented to the long end. And those prices are eye watering!
I picked up a 50-230 for $140 as I'm just getting into photography, it works fine for me with my current applications
Nice video but you forgot their best two lenses: 35mm 1.4 and 90mm f2
True and the 56 mm
Only 18-55 is the best for video, good OIS and important very silence focus and also zoom and compact
Excellent!! I really enjoy it when you weigh in on Fuji. As much as I really love their lenses, I'm not all that high on the 18-55. The images that come out of it seem flat and lacking in micro-contrast. I've owned several copies of the 18-55 and I finally just moved onto all primes. Also, at 4:58 you've got a picture of the 16mm f/2.8 WR (which is a better value than the 16mm f/1.4, IMO) instead of the f/1.4
There is definitely a lot of variation between copies so it’s Key to find a good one. It’s strangely one of those lenses that does a lot of things pretty well for the size so when I’m traveling for long periods of time I find myself grabbing it
Thanks a lot. I'm really impressed with fuji... I'm weighing a decision... Whether I should dump my sony A mount and lenses and get into fuji full on...
What an amazing clarity. Point specific and excellent advise. I am planning to buy XT4. What do you suggest for regular use and also want crisp images. Please suggest. Thanks for the review
LOL. You mention rebuying the kit lens after selling it. A guy at my local shop has the same story. He says he's sold three lenses to people who ditched the kit lens and then later regretted it.
The picture with the prime lenses (5:00) shows the 16mm f/2, NOT the 16mm f/1.4 as provided by the text
Dang, sometimes my assistant makes these errors. I didn’t catch it. Thanks.
Actually, it is 16mm f/2.8 and sells generally for $400. Guess you didn't catch that as well.
Jeff Adrian www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1138987-REG/fujifilm_xf_16mm_f_1_4_r.html?ap=y&gclid=CjwKCAjwyqTqBRAyEiwA8K_4OxLd8mayBUmZidFxXltNU4vtMWcwQSvCu4UFI8yiIIUmaZAQ3Hf6_RoCSOQQAvD_BwE&lsft=BI%3A514&smp=y
Awesome breakdown Michael. I'm looking at getting the XT-4 and couldn't decide exactly on the first lens. I think ill now go the 18-55mm. There is a lot of good feedback on that lens.
I’d prefer the 16-80 with body only as a better starter kit.
Great video and very helpful - Would you take out one of these lenses in exchange for the new 16-80mm??
The 50-140 is a lens that I cannot part with except if Fuji release a faster aperture version of it which I guess would be in a long time.
Got a 10-24 for cheap, combined with my 18-55 and 55-200 I’ve pretty much got the budget holy trinity
Thank you for the video! Do you think you will do a tutorial on the new XS10?
I’ve been thinking about it
@@MMaven would be amazing! 😍😍😍
This was so helpful. Thank you
You don't need more than the 18-55 and the 55-200 lens and forget the rest. How the Maven came to his conclusing he speaks for himself.
If YOU don't need then go for it! Maybe someone else needs some other lenses?
Gerner Christensen It’s interesting you came to this conclusion - I thought I was being pretty clear talking about the specific lenses for specific shooting types, and even having them on your radar for consideration for those jobs. But that’s the beauty of RUclips, it’s easy to ignore these details.
Gerner Christensen What you really mean is “I” don’t need more than the . . . People have different use cases which require different lenses. That, in addition to good old personal preference, dictates the need for different lenses.
@@808islandlife_HI 808Island Life Yes I guess this what I mean. I had 5 Fuji APS-c cameras and all the lenses existing except the big tele zoom and 200mm. Found the 2 lenses I mentionen actually covered all my needs even for lens perfection :)
Gerner Christensen I think I could get by with just those two lenses too, but I really want the 50-140 for the 2.8 aperture and weather sealing.
Get an enlarger (not talking about viagra). Get a film body (preferably Canon, Nikon bodies get sticky over time.) Shoot film. Make own prints in darkroom.
Can you do a Fujifilm XH 1 review 😍
Great video as always. I only have the 16-55 for video, but I always see people recommending 18-55 over 16-55 for video because the kit lens has OIS. Is there a noticeable difference in sharpness in video?
Also, I find the 7artisan lenses to be pretty attractive for someone who doesn't want the absolute best sharpness and just wants to have something that can give them that particular focal length they don't have. (For example I am eyeing the 7artisans 60mm Macro), would be great if you cover them too.
There is absolutely a sharpness difference between the 16-55 and 18-55. It’s easy to see. The motors are better, more quiet, faster. The 16-55 has the advantage for image quality.
@@MMaven Thanks for the response, great to hear that.
I love Fuji lenses better than Canon, can it be adapted to M43 sucessfully ?
I would think the 200mm f2 would be excellent for sports and BIF? Expensive yes, but it's probably the best XF lens optically. Worth a mention in my opinion 😊
Johannes Granseth I have a review on it, and we shot birds. We liked the 100-400 more even those the 200 f2 was much better optically
@@MMaven Yes, I've seen your review, and my experience with the lens seems to be a bit different from yours, as I've had no focusing issues with it. Granted, I don't shoot BIF with it regularly, but I do use it for live music and event photography, as well as for certain weddings, and for conference photography.
Anyway, my post was mostly a response to the statement about there not existing any other long lenses for sports and BIF than the 100-400mm in Fujifilm's lineup.
Johannes Granseth interesting- I don’t remember saying it had terrible focusing issues, and for me, 400mm is quite different than 200. But that could just be preference. My dad and I preferred the 100-400 for the range of focal lengths and lightweightness. Was there another 400mm Fuji lens I was not aware of?
@@MMaven I never said that you did. But you did make it very clear that you encountered focusing issues when you tested the XF200mm. And that is very different from my experience, since I've had virtually no focusing issues with my XF200mm.
In this video you said "If you get involved in any type of sports shooting, especially birds in flight, you only have one choice, it's the 100-400 variable aperture, it's the only one that Fuji makes."
If your criteria is that it should be a 400mm, then you are right, because, no, Fuji doesn't make another 400mm as of now. But it sounded to me like your criteria was a good lens for sports and BIF. And that's were I think the 200mm makes the above statement a bit inaccurate.
But it's no big deal, just thought I'd share my opinion.
Johannes Granseth I see, but we are talking about birds in flight. Go shoot some birds in flight with the 200 f2 and get back to me.
I would also suggest the 16-80mm F4 that is coming out soon (sept 26th), when i was shooting with Canon, 95% of the time i was using my 24-105MM F4. it is sooo versatile. so the Fuji will be the equivalent of that. just a thought.
Definitely want to try it as soon as its available.
@@MMaven Based on the reviews of the 16-80mm F4 out there, would you still recommend the 18-55 as the very first lens to pick up?
Life is too short to shoot zoom lenses, get yourself a fast prime for Crist sakes
@@JungleCatImages Amen!
but what about 50-140 + 2x teleconverter (for wildlife etc) ?
hi guys, can I use Sigma 56mm F/1.4 DC DN lens for Fuji xt-30? thank you
An amazing review!
Have you ever seen the 50-140 go on sale? The used prices aren’t much cheaper than new. Thoughts on where the 16 - 80 will fit into the mix?
Yes, it was on sale just a few months ago. Its definitely one of my favorites.
@@MMaven Oh man, do you happen to remeber which vendor? I'll have to keep an eye out for when it goes on sale again
@@808islandlife_HI It was a global sale - so everywhere. I got the 100-400 for about $300 off at BHphoto.com
I thought the 16mm 1.4 was a little bigger
Thanks!
You talked about all the lences bit you you did not told the top 5
See, that's the problem with many videos like this. Why on earth is 16-55 f2.8 recommended for beginners ? Its too expensive and beginners should not spend much until they have experience and they know what to do.
The Picture from the 16mm is NOT the 16mm 1.4!! This is the 16mm 2.8 for round about 350€! And I don't think, that the 16-55mm is a good lense for videos, because the lense has no OIS!
Great lenses, yes, but not for "beginners".
Peter Cookson Why not? Because they are expensive? You do realize that many beginners can afford these lenses right?
Peter Cookson So the kit lens isn’t for beginners? Isn’t that the purpose of a kit lens, to set up the user so that they can begin to shoot pics ASAP?
@@808islandlife_HI The 'red badge' flagship lenses are heavy, expensive and aimed more at the professional. My comments were targeted primarily at these options. Of course, I agree that the 18-55 is ideal for beginners.
@@petercookson135 IM still trying to understand the logic that beginners cannot / should not buy red tab lenses? What does skill level have to do with what they can afford? Just honestly curious?
Michael The Maven I think for beginners, it would be best to suggest a prime so they can work on composing and learning how to take use the camera. It’s similar to driving for the first time. Learning how to drive a stick on a old car before purchasing a full on sports car.
Amazes me .. when it comes to lens comparison .. no youtuber is considering the third party options. If you take tamron and sigma into consideration for sony it literally blows fuji out of the water in terms of price...
Not many 3rd party options for Fujifilm
"for beginners"... 8-16, 16-55, 50-140 :))))))))))))) Why not GFX100 with 32-64? Camera for complete (photography) beginner is Huawei. For advanced enthusiast that is NEW in Fuji is x-t30+18-55 or 18-135.
Piotr Stępień Gerner Christensen It’s interesting you came to this conclusion - I thought I was being pretty clear talking about the specific lenses for specific shooting types, and even having them on your radar for consideration for those jobs. But that’s the beauty of RUclips, it’s easy to ignore these details.
Piotr Stępień yeah I didn’t recommend the 8-16 either.
Piotr Stępień Is price your only consideration?
@@MMaven in my opinion if someone is new to photography or new to the system (if is not professional and knows his/her needs) should start from basic, cheap gear. How new photographer can know that this is for him? Why to recommend him the most expensive gear from beginning? I was Nikon shooter and made soft transition to Fuji. Started from x-t20 with 18-135. I felt in love with Fuii, sold Nikon and now collecting Fuji lenses which I know I'm going to use.