Lenses for Fuji X System?

[Dave Maze]

Ok, so now that the X-H1 is here, along with the Fujinon cine lenses, I can count on Fuji to continue to innovate and be a player in the video space. I’m considering getting a full Fuji kit (and still hold onto my 1DC because...still the best) because I love the color science and jpeg image quality. Also, I hear the autofocus is good enough on Fuji to be reliable for pro work. I’m willing to invest in this system and treat it as my workhorse potentially  

Im conflicted with what lenses to get. 

The Fujinon Cine lenses are expensive...but not unobtainable. If anything, that’s all I could afford. Just the one 18-55 for now and maybe later the telephoto one. I’d get parfocal, better focusing, and Cine optics. 

Id loose autofocus though, and if I’m going to loose autofocus I’d rather just put a speed booster on it and use my CONTAX ZEISS glass. 

So that takes me to the Fuji XF mount lenses. The 10-24, 16-55, 50-140 make the most sense for the range, but they are big and heavy, plus... they zoom the wrong way.... not a huge deal but annoying for sure! 

So then I go to the smaller 23, 35, 50 WR lenses. Probably paired with the 18mm f2 to round it out. Are they any good? Compared to the top end lenses do they have sexy bokeh? Or should I just bite the bullet and go to the top end primes?

which takes me to the 14mm f2.8, 16mm f1.4, 23mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 56mm f1.2. With all of these lenses I get most all the focal ranges I need, with fast optics. Is it worth the $4,000 to get these lenses over the smaller more convenient f2 WR’s? And at this price shouldn’t I just prefer the Fujinon Cine lens anyways? Is it worth doing this for the ability to have autofocus and fast aperture? I mean, I already have small fast primes using a speed booster and my Contax glass... so should I get the Fuji XF zooms then? 

As you can see... I have a problem. Good thing I review gear for a living now, otherwise my wife would throw me in an insane asylum. 

[jonpais]

@DaveAltizer First, the best lenses to pair with Fuji are without question their own lineup of lenses. There is hardly a dog among them, and their build quality is exceptional. I can't think of a single camera manufacturer in Asia that builds higher quality AF lenses.

I wouldn't bother with the relatively slow, huge, plastic, expensive MK cine lenses though, unless you're planning to do rack focus. A far less expensive alternative is to go with the faster, optically sound, compact and reasonably priced Veydras if you need gears. You can buy four T2.2 Mini Primes for the price of one MK. I know some here will disagree, arguing that if you've got ten scenes to shoot in five hours, a zoom is indispensable, but if you're shooting with cine lenses, you should probably be factoring in longer setup times in your schedule anyhow. And how many of us are shooting ten scenes in different locations in two hours? In fact, cinema lenses are designed for speed of operation - the gears are all in the same spot, the length and diameter are identical, making switching lenses painless - no need to re-adjust the matte box or move the follow focus up or down the rails. Shooting an interview, documentary or narrative film isn't always like competing in the Indie 500!

The f/2 lenses are optically excellent and perfect for flying on a gimbal, for street photography or just about any other situation where size matters. I own both the 35mm f/2 and the 50mm f/2.

The 16-55 is a monstrous lens. Most filmmakers would probably be better off getting the slower, less expensive stabilized 18-55mm.

The 90mm f/2 is a virtually flawless instrument and the 50-140mm is no slouch either. 

[Mattias Burling]

23mm wr and 56mm and I was set.

[jonpais]

Mattias is probably correct. Anyhow, it's kind of putting the cart before the horse at this point. Better to shoot with the camera for a while first before deciding whether to sink your entire life savings into lenses.

[Mattias Burling]

Yes, definitely try it first.

[Emanuel]

https://www.fujirumors.com/kipon-announces-3-canon-ef-fujifilm-fx-gfx-autofocus-adapters/

As well, any EF lenses to cover full frame, even those made for crop format but to cover the larger size in the higher end of the range (v.g. Tokina and Sigma wide zooms) if/when coupled to a focal reducer.

So, smart adapters will apply too.

[IronFilm]

2 hours ago, DaveAltizer said:

Ok, so now that the X-H1 is here, along with the Fujinon cine lenses, I can count on Fuji to continue to innovate and be a player in the video space.

I wonder if next Fuji will bring out a set of cine prime lenses for MFT / E / FZ / X mount. 

 

 

[Tim Sewell]

I have the 35mm f2, the 18mm f2 and the 18-55 f-whatever and they are all among the best modern lenses I have ever used. The 35, especially, rarely leaves one of my bodies. I also use my Samyang cines via both a straight adapter and a speedbooster clone; all work very well with the excellent X-T2 EVF (which has been considerably improved in the new cam).  In addition I use a plethora of old Tamron Adaptall and OM Zuiko lenses which are all, again, extremely easy to work with. So I would say have no fears about the small, light f2 range of Fuji primes, but also know that your existing adapted lenses will fit right in to a Fuji kit. Of the Fuji zooms, Fuji forum dwellers seem to rate the 16-55 and the 50-140 most of all.

[Inazuma]

I prefer the f1.4's over the WR versions. The 35mm in particular has a really nice characterful flare. Terrible focus ring though. 

[Mattias Burling]

Regarding the 50mm and 56mm I bought both and decided to keep the 56mm. For 23mm and 35mm I prefer the f2 WR versions.

 

[Tim Sewell]

9 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

Regarding the 50mm and 56mm I bought both and decided to keep the 56mm. For 23mm and 35mm I prefer the f2 WR versions.

That's interesting. I was intending to get the 50/2 as my next purchase (although that's been put off for a while as I'm enjoying the 7Artisans 55/1.4 far too much to take it off the camera right now). Obviously there's a major price difference with the 56/1.2 - is it £300 better?

[Mattias Burling]

9 minutes ago, Tim Sewell said:

That's interesting. I was intending to get the 50/2 as my next purchase (although that's been put off for a while as I'm enjoying the 7Artisans 55/1.4 far too much to take it off the camera right now). Obviously there's a major price difference with the 56/1.2 - is it £300 better?

I really think it is. Its hard to explain but I guess its a combination of the very high quality wide open, the extra reach and speed that makes it just lovely. Bokeh is very sweet as well.
Size is the only downside. But on a X-T2 or even better Xpro2 it balances well.

[Trek of Joy]

@DaveAltizer I have the 10-24, 18-55, 16-55, 50-140, 55-200, 23/1.4 and 56/1.2 right now. Shop used on Fred Miranda, you can get everything far less than new and most of the gear hounds there don't abuse their gear, easy to find cheap, pristine copies of everything. If you're looking at the XH1 - personally I'd skip the 18-55 and just get the 16-55/2.8. Its a much better lens in every way compared to the 18-55, its wider, constant 2.8, sharper through the range, weather sealed (a big deal IMO) and uses the newer linear focusing motors so its quieter and faster to focus - and according to Fuji you get more stops with IBIS using the 16-55. Some like Jon call it huge - which I really don't get since its a standard 2.8 zoom, look at others in the same range. The 18-55 is smaller, that's really all it has going for it, its not weather sealed either, mine has dust since the lens extends and sucks in whatever is in the air and its not as sharp through the range.

The 10-24 is a great UWA - its compact, its sharp on the wide end and the OIS works really well. Its only drawback is that its not weather sealed, mine has dust inside. The 50-140 is really, really good, OIS is brilliant, weather sealed and its very sharp. I haven't done side-by-sides, but IMO its as good as the Canon 70-200/2.8 mkII I shot with back in my Canon days. If you want a smaller zoom the 55-200 is also very good, but its a variable aperture lens so less light gathering and not as shallow DOF, especially on the long end. It's also not weather sealed, and again mine has dust.

Right now my only primes are the 23 and 56 as mentioned. I bought them for low light capabilities and subject separation. The f/2 WR primes are much faster to focus with newer linear focusing motors and far less glass. Personally 23mm is my favorite walk around FL on APS-c (35mm FF), and I don't like the bokeh on the 23/2, so I live with the slower focusing lens. The faster primes struggle a little more in low light and their focusing makes a little noise. Though they're still far quieter than something like the Sony 85GM.

There is a 8-16/2.8 coming that I'm going to swap my with my 10-24 when it drops. I'm going to get the 16/1.4 as well as I love the look of fast wides wide open, if you shoot events its a great lens along with the 2.8 zooms. If you're doing gimbal work, the 14 is a really light lens with virtually no distortion, and its very sharp. But that might be too wide. There's also the 18mm pancake that weighs next to nothing, that's probably going to be my go-to gimbal lens.

Can't offer a lot of video samples right now as I'm traveling around the world, but I have plenty of stills linked below. All photos in the galleries from Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia, Myanmar, India, Nepal, Japan and the NZ Penguins are XT2 only - mostly with the 10-24, 18-55, 55-200 and a few with the 23/56, but not many because I don't like to change lenses in the field due to dust and crud getting on the sensor. The galleries from the other 40 countries we've visited are a mix of Sony and Fuji.

https://www.facebook.com/pg/trekofjoy/photos/?tab=albums

Cheers

Chris

[Dave Maze]

Wow. Got some great feedback here. I’m thinking I won’t be satisfied with the smaller WR lenses so I’ll get the 23mm 1.4 and 56mm 1.2 for sure. I think I’ll wait for the 8-16 for my UWA. Especially for the WR and the constant f2.8. Also, since I’m shooting 4K with the slight crop, 8-16 is more usable. I’ll also pickup the 16-55 as my workhorse. 

[Mattias Burling]

Then you could get the 35mm WR later on as a smaller in between option. Because the WRs are really small and light compared to the others and sometimes its nice to be able to strip it down a bit.
And of course you get the WR for some harsh conditions.

But either way they are all very capable lenses. And IQ/€ they are top notch imo.

[mkabi]

@DaveAltizer I'm envious of your acquisitions... but at least... you will be a barometer that will be able to test the X-H1 against the 1DC. I'm sure Andrew will do the same, 2 reviews are better than one :D

I know you have a youtube channel, and I will definitely check it out when you review the X-H1.

Nonetheless, do me a favor:

- do an IQ test (some side by side comparisons to 1DC at differing resolutions)

- compare the size and weight next to the 1DC & 80D (if you opt for the grip, show that next to the 1DC & 80D too)

- Lastly, do a comparison of the user interface and handling next to the 1DC and/or 80D

I'm sure if I opt for the X-H1, I can get past the user interface/handling issue (through constant use and practice), but still want to see how bad it is and how long it will take me to get past that little heap of the learning curve.

Of course, I want your personal opinion too. Can't wait.