March 13, 2018
Like: “Micro Monday”
I don’t need a 56mm f1.2 I don’t need a 56mm I don’t need a 56mm
Got my soft blackwings. First time I’ve paid for pencils. So, what’s the recommended way to carry pencils?
I assume pencil sharpeners is a rabbit hole within my horizon
I think I’m going to add a context to my micropub server called “facepalm-of”
I own both the 35mm f2 and the 50mm f2 for my X-Pro 2, and I plan on buying the 23mm as well as a zoom, probably the 18-135.
The reasons I want both fast primes to cover some of the more commonly used focal lengths is about convenience. I love having a fast enough zoom, with a wide range when traveling or attending family stuff. The 18-135 seems like the best option in the current Fuji lineup because I most of them either start to long or stop too short. I actually love getting full frame 24-70 zooms and putting them on crop cameras for this reason. You get something like a 38-112 (on Canon). Everything from a little bit wide to a excellent portrait lens.
Back to the 18-135. It is not the fastest, but it has a excellent optical image stabilisation system, which more than makes up for the slower aperture on it.
The reason I want to have fast primes to cover some of the more common focal lengths is because they are faster and much lighter. A 23mm is a excellent walking around lens, and for family stuff because you can capture whole groups without having to step too far away. I love the 35mm for my “default” lens because it is great for shooting more or less everything, without being too long for portraits (something I think the 23mm is). And I love the 50mm for shooting portraits.
Fuji often have faster versions of their F2 lenses, like the 56 f1.2 and there are 1.2 or 1.4 versions of the 23 and 35. But I think the F2 lenses are better, at least for me. Because they are lighter, fast enough, and the lower weight means, less glass, which means faster auto focus.
The zoom on the other hand is something I want to use when I know that I will use many different focal lengths, for example while traveling or a family gatherings. Or when I want to get closer without moving: in other words family stuff.
I could go for the 16-55 f2.8, but I think it ends a little bit too short, and all the zooms that start at 50 start a little bit too long to make sense. That leaves me with the 18-135. It looks like a great compromise between versatility and weight. A f2.8 version of it would be way too heavy and expensive.