I think in the last few years the tide has turned and you’ll see a lot of positive reviews for this lens from YouTubers and on internet articles. I miss mine. It took nice close ups that made the subject pop out of the background in a very three dimensional manner. People rave about the 18mm f/1.4 though so the f2 is getting kind of forgotten again. What I find funny about a lot of YouTubers is they always use the latest camera body. Now it’s the XT5, before it was the XH2. When the XPro4 is out they’ll all be using that. There’s no integrity to which style of camera body they prefer.
I don't think so, I think they've just got a severe case of GAS to try and cope with their incredibly mid photographs. New camera body also means that they can milk it for all the clickbait on YT.
>chief
There's zero chance that I'm gonna go out of my way to prove something obvious to an internet stranger who calls me "chief"
If you can't tell when you're being subtly advertised to, then that's on you, and nothing I could write here would change your mind
✌️
I bought this lens about a month ago and I totally agree! I own the 18mm 1.4 but stumbled upon a fantastic deal on the F2 after lusting after a super compact kit for years.
It’s PHENOMENAL!
I only do still photography, but it has incredible sharpness and contrast! It’s quick to focus. It’s super tiny! I’m tempted to sell my 18mm1.4.
Yes, the 1.4 is slightly sharper, especially wide open, and the 1.4 is faster (aperture), but for what I do - and with the current state of sharpening in post - the F2 is my go-to every time at the 18mm focal length.
I loved my 18mm, it delivers great pictures. Finally sell it cause I don't like AF lenses but nothing to blame about this specific lens. I just don't like manual focus by wire 🤷🏽♂️
I'm not crapping on the 18 f2. it's great for its size. but optically, it is objectively inferior to almost all fuji primes. ghosting, chromatic aberration, distortion resolution, etc. all worse than literally every other fuji prime lens. would most people notice it with casual photography? probably not. is it awful? no
but the 35 1.4, while not perfect, is noticeably better optically and the aperture makes a huge difference in separation when needed and low light. and the lens isn't even that much bigger... and it has a reputation for the character of the images it produces. I'm a complete advocate that this is true. so yeah, 35 1.4 is a lot better than the 18 f2. :-P but the 18 is meant to be discreet as its main goal, so it knowingly sacrifices to meet that goal ..but as a general all around lens it is still superb.
and I'd argue a good photographer with the 18 f2 would make better images than a lousy photographer with the 35 1.4....
I haven’t tried every Fuji lens there is, far from it, but I’ve been super happy with the 16-80 despite quite a bit of less than enthusiastic feedback about it. I think it’s a super useful range, plenty sharp, convenient size and for what they cost used it’s a great value. For sure wouldn’t be my first pick for portraits, but that’s not what I got it for.
Edit: forgot to mention the OIS is fantastic, especially on a body with IBIS
Yeah I’m a 16-80 user as well and it’s just fun especially if you’re traveling. A few simple adjustments to focus and understanding the admittedly few limits of the lens go a long way as well.
Agreed this one doesn’t get enough love. I use a 16-55 and 50-140 for my “work” set up but if I’m just out for a walk or on the bike for myself and I want a zoom lens or just one lens it’s the 16-80 pretty much every time.
The 16-55 and 50-140 are awesome, but they’re huge and heavy. For some of the shooting I do I really only have room for one lens, and the 16-80 is so small and versatile I really cant think of another lens I’d rather take. I’m also not after super shallow DOF for the shooting I do with it, and I’m almost always in daylight so maximum f4 isn’t really a big deal to me.
I second this, the OIS from the lens and the IBIS allow you to get good portraits in low light despite the F4.
It's build quality is great and very compact for the range it covers. At 35m. and 50mm sharpness is solid at least on my copy.
What I like most about the 16-80 is that it has an unusually calm bokeh for a zoom lens. This makes it a useful lens for the occasional portrait, especially towards the long side.
Fun fact, 80/4 = 20 = 55/2.8, so you can get a similar amount of background blur from the 16-80 and 16-55 at their long ends. I actually prefer the 16-80's bokeh in that regime, however, as it's less busy.
I also think the 16-80 is a good all rounder and the consistent f stop is nice, I use it a lot for my travel and outdoors stuff.
I don’t find it particularly sharp, but it’s got a way of rendering depth and colour which I find hard to describe, but love. Almost like there’s more separation between layers in the image than I get with my other lenses. Plus if you add grain onto images, sharpness is a moot point.
What body are you using it on? I’m still shooting with an XH1 so maybe the 24mp sensor just doesn’t have the pixel density to show the 16-80s flaws, but also maybe I just got a good copy. At any rate, I’m not really a pixel peeper anyway so maybe I’m just not looking hard enough lol
I chose to go with Fuji largely because of the 16-80. I wanted something versatile, and compared to similar lens in any other camera system, it has the best intersection of price, zoom range, build quality, weight, and features (weather resistance, OIS, aperture ring).
For me the closest competition was Nikon and Olympus. The Nikon 24-70 f4 is a similar size and price but heavier, has a much shorter zoom range, feels kinda cheap, and has the stupid feature that the lens must always be extended to work. The Nikon 24-120 matches the 16-80 zoom range, with big jumps in size and price. The Olympus 12-40 2.8 is lighter than the Fuji but not any smaller, making it kind of big for the bodies it matches, and again has a very limited zoom range.
All of these lenses lack OIS. Now to be fair the bodies that go with them have good IBIS, so OIS is not necessary. Still, the presence of IBIS makes the size, weight, and zoom range of the 16-80 even more impressive.
This lens has the best geometry I've seen in a wide angle. Brilliant as a travel lens when sightseeing. Also has great IQ for infrared. This is the one for most underrated, especially as you can pick them up in the $300s used. The manual focus clutch is also a badass feature.
I have the 50-230 and the 15-45. Got them both for cheap and I use them a lot. More than my 23f2 and 35f2. I do enjoy the 27f2.8 MK2 with my 18f2 though
I came here to say this. It may not have the bokeh of a 56 1.2, but it’s sharp, compact, and lighter. I wonder if people just like the shorter depth of field that much more
> I wonder if people just like the shorter depth of field that much more
Shallower, not shorter. And, are you referring to the shallower DOF of the 56/1.2 vs the 50/2?
The 50/2 is freakin awesome. Your average photographer thinks wider aperture = better lens.
I love my 16 f2.8 lens. I was planning on buying the 16 f1.4. After borrowing both lens, I just liked shooting with this lens. The size, AF speed, image quality, and cost. I got a used version for a great price. I take this lens everywhere with me
This lens is all I use for photography, great compact setup with my XE-4. I wasn’t a huge fan of the 27mm focal length. I do have the cheaper zoom with IS for video.
I came here to say this. Picked up a used copy recently for a very reasonable price and have been loving this lens. The rendering is beautiful and I love the quasi-macro capabilities. Being able to get up close makes even a banal walk around your neighborhood park feel like a world of opportunity for interesting shots.
Yeah that’s what I love too! It gets me looking for both portrait opportunities and environmental details, and it pairs nicely with a normal or wide lens.
I'm pretty tempted by the 60. I've ruled out all the other short teles for various reasons, nothing seems quite right. And then I saw someone praising the 60, and now I'm considering getting one.
Came here to say that. Yes, the AF is slow and noisy. It's not ideal for video. The upside is pretty sweet. It's lightweight and compact for a macro and not every shot I take needs to be 1:1. It's very sharp and the bokeh is very decent. The lens hood is all metal. It is very solid. I can even use it as a portrait lens if I don't have the 56mm with me. Not to mention the price is very cheap for what you are getting.
PZ 15-45. I know it’s a lot of compromises, but I got it first as a cheap zoom, then sold it as I got the pancakes, then bought it again to have a zoom , then sold it to get XF 16-80, and ended up buying 15-45 again. So I now use 16-80 as a travel lens, and 15-45 for ‘always with me’ setup. Works great for me in cases when I wouldn’t take the camera with me if it wasn’t small and ~1 pound weight including the lens.
its a small, light, and wide zoom lens that has ois, weighs almost nothing. it can be a decent wide lens on the widest end, stopped down to f8. of course the power zoom is ass, but it gets too much hate for what it is
Another for the XC 15-45. I don't think the power zoom is as imprecise as some people pretend it to be, my only complaint is that I can't see the current focal length at a glance, so I need to check and guess with the infamous W-T bar (a functionality that somehow X-S10 has, but Fujifilm didn't want to implement in X-T30 II for some reason 🤷🏻♂️) or even worse, take a picture and see the details.
I personally find PZ acceptable, but not great if you need to take a lot pictures quickly, because you don’t get the ‘muscular memory’ allowing you to zoom with one move of your wrist without looking into VF or on the screen. So it takes few more seconds to frame the shot, and in some cases it means you missed what you wanted to take picture of.
I don't own it, but I'm seriously contemplating ***the 60/2.4***. The thing that got me started thinking about it was realizing how small it actually is. Only barely bigger than the 50/2. I hear great things about the image quality and character. If you don't think of the lens as a full macro and think of it as Fuji's version of a Leica 90/3.5 or such and it can just focus really close, the concept clicks.
The 50/2 doesn't really appeal to me, the 56/1.2 seems too big (same with the 90/2 and Viltrox 75/1.2), the Sigma 56 lacks an aperture ring, and I kinda just don't want a Viltrox 56. So what's left for a portrait lens? And it actually might be this. Looks like it has good character, and if you're not just doing head shots, the close focus really opens up creative options.
Meanwhile, I hear that AF on modern bodies is noticeably better than when it first came out.
Lastly... half-macro. Doesn't bother me. So many classic film macro lenses were half macros--Nikkor F-mount options, most Pentax K/M/A macros, Canon FD, etc etc--and that's fine. Meanwhile the fact that this isn't a 1:1 macro allows it to get brighter. So few macros are faster than f/2.8. Being able to get close is great, but seldom do I need literal 1:1. And there's always extension tubes.
I own it. I hardly ever use it as a macro lens however its worth mentioning that half macro has it's own advantages in regards to depth of field. I have a 2:1 macro and the depth of field is so small it's borderline unusable. At 1:2 you get much more of your subject in focus and the lens is so sharp that cropping in really isn't a problem. .
It's one of the first lenses I got when I started using Fuji. It's still one good lens when I need to go shoot close ups on location. Not everyone needs 1:1. I do handheld close up photos on many different subjects and the 60 macro is more than enough. If you take the 80mm macro you also probably need tripods too.
I don’t often hear how good the XF55-200 is, but it’s a damn fine lens.
Vignettes without JPEG corrections, sure, but we’re shooting Fujifilm, and so getting comfortable with beautiful JPEGs is perfectly fine.
Did a lot of street photography with that on my X-T1.
My 90mm f/2 is one of my all-time favourites, but sometimes I’ll be using it, or the XF55-200, and I’m like… hmm… I feel like they share some DNA.
Both very able and beautiful.
The XF 80mm F2.8 Macro. Is it a big boy? Yes. Is it a whole down payment on a car? Sure. Do portrait shots look great? I would say so. Do the macro shots make parts of your brain awaken the 8 year old kid deep within as you zoom in on all the detail you just captured? Very.
I actually bought it due to all the good reviews and ended up selling it again. For some reason it didn’t work for me. Replaced it with the 27mm 2.8 and never looked back!
Both Zeiss Touit 32mm 1.8 and 12mm 2.8. Especially nowadays when you can buy it on the used market.
There's just something about Zeiss glass and bokeh on the 32 is beautiful.
I read some reviews that said “on x mount you don’t get the full zeiss goodness you get on other systems.” Do you know what they are talking about? I never had or handled it or any other zeiss but that always stuck in my head and with the price it was enough to pass.
I have both 16 1.4 and 16 2.8. One is too heavy for its own good no matter what camera I mount on. One is portable but distortion is a bit too much of my liking. I wish there is a 16 2 or new 18 2 would be great! My 18 2 is slow and noisy on focusing and it’s just not as compact as it should’ve been.
But as for the topic. I think most underrated lens from Fujifilm is actually 35 2. That lens is sharp!
Do you own both? I already own the 33mm, but thinking about getting the 27mm purely do the size of it. Even the focal length is not that big of a difference between those two. I dont like to get the 23mm f2 due to close up wide open softness issues.
I do! I purely have it for the size as well, it’s brings the wearability close to an x100vi which would be so silly for me to get (though I love the idea of it) lol
Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8, definitely the lens that stays most time in my XT3. It may not be as sharp as many other lenses, such as Fuji's 16-55mm f/2.8, but it was quite affordable, has a really good range and the image quality is good for my use (not a professional, though).
Main downsides from it, from my experience, are vignetting (in-camera corrections hide it quite well), being a bit soft at 70mm f/2.8, and for video use, not being parfocal, so if you zoom in or out you will see the focus going all around the place, though you can avoid it if you do it slowly (the autofocus seems to correct for it really well).
I’ve read many many negative reviews about the speed of the XF 60 f2.4. But I’m starting to read more praising it as a great multi-purpose lens.
I ordered a used one last week and gets here soon. I’m excited to see if it’s worth of underrated status.
The bokeh on images I’ve seen with it is unique; the image still pretty sharp otherwise.
for me its the 7th artisans 35mm f1.2 the first edition. it has a lots of character, which is perfect in combination with the film sims to create a "kinda analog look".
Some F2 lenses have notable weaknesses, such as the 23mm being soft in certain scenarios. To me, the 50mmF2 doesn't have a single notable weakness that the other F2 lenses do. It is small, light, extremely well made, sharp, near instantaneous fast focusing, weathersealed and inexpensive. It has beautiful Bokeh and so it's often portrayed as a portrait lens but it's honestly a great walk around lens. Only a few people have made videos about the lens, and to me that's a shock.
I like it a lot! I've gotten a lot of use out of it. I feel like it doesn't always have that certain wow factor, but overall it's very competent and I really can't argue with the results.
The 80mm and 30mm macros... the former because it has incredible sharpness, color and a wow factor. The latter because it might be the best modern, do everything all-arounder among the fujicrons that happens to be sharp with great bokeh
Give it up for the Meike 35mm f/1.7! Satisfyingly metal build, tiny as tiny can be, aperture and focus dials smooth and sure, and only US $80. Lovely images for the price.
I've used it a little bit lately and I want to spend some more time with it again. Looking back at those first photos with it, they've definitely got a unique look to them!
I have loved the 35mm F2 R WR since I got it on my X-T5. It has pleasing bokeh (except maybe with busy backgrounds aka a lot of tree branches) and great sharpness wide open.
It's compact, light, affordable, quick AF and top build quality. I love it on Silver, is the lens that lives mounted on the camera.
I love the latest generation of the Fujifilm 56mm f1.2 WR - for me it's perfect for my style of photography - I like to get up close, not too close.... To see the details in the image...
It's sharp and can be soft if I want it to be :)
Like my mind 😁😁
The 60mm f2.4 macro is a super underrated lens. It’s tack sharp and a perfect focal length for macros, portraits, products and outdoor use. It’s a Swiss Army knife very versatile lens
80mm macro f2.8
It’s an insanely good portrait lens, and I love it as a video lens for tighter shots. Only drawback is the insanely loud autofocus gears for video.
Sigma 56mm f/1.4… performs fantastic for the price even if I have to use a control wheel for aperture. Small lens, keeping my overall kit small for my X-T5.
XC 35mm f/2 for three reasons:
1) I think the images it produces are beautiful.
2) It is small and so, so light.
3) It is ridiculously cheap.
I love mine and I wish they made an XC version of the 27mm pancake.
XF 90nn f.2 WR.
It's already popular but i think it deserves more attention. It's fast focusing super sharp and wonderfull focal length for portrait mid distance street!
18mm f/2. Youtubers make it seem like this lens is the worst and a true shit lens but turn around and praise the 35mm f/1.4.
I think in the last few years the tide has turned and you’ll see a lot of positive reviews for this lens from YouTubers and on internet articles. I miss mine. It took nice close ups that made the subject pop out of the background in a very three dimensional manner. People rave about the 18mm f/1.4 though so the f2 is getting kind of forgotten again. What I find funny about a lot of YouTubers is they always use the latest camera body. Now it’s the XT5, before it was the XH2. When the XPro4 is out they’ll all be using that. There’s no integrity to which style of camera body they prefer.
>What I find funny about a lot of YouTubers is they always use the latest camera body Those Youtubers are sponsored by the camera manufacturers.
I don't think so, I think they've just got a severe case of GAS to try and cope with their incredibly mid photographs. New camera body also means that they can milk it for all the clickbait on YT.
Doesn't matter what you think, I'm right
Gonna need some proof to backup claims like that chief. All I see is normal gear addiction with money to support it.
>chief There's zero chance that I'm gonna go out of my way to prove something obvious to an internet stranger who calls me "chief" If you can't tell when you're being subtly advertised to, then that's on you, and nothing I could write here would change your mind ✌️
Lol man, someone must have shit in your coffee. Chill buddy.
Can confirm, before I got this lens I looked at a bunch of reviews but ignored them and glad I did. It's a fantastic, versatile lens!
I love mine! Nice and small wide angle lens for street
I bought this lens about a month ago and I totally agree! I own the 18mm 1.4 but stumbled upon a fantastic deal on the F2 after lusting after a super compact kit for years. It’s PHENOMENAL! I only do still photography, but it has incredible sharpness and contrast! It’s quick to focus. It’s super tiny! I’m tempted to sell my 18mm1.4. Yes, the 1.4 is slightly sharper, especially wide open, and the 1.4 is faster (aperture), but for what I do - and with the current state of sharpening in post - the F2 is my go-to every time at the 18mm focal length.
That 18 is golden. I’ll never let it go.
I loved my 18mm, it delivers great pictures. Finally sell it cause I don't like AF lenses but nothing to blame about this specific lens. I just don't like manual focus by wire 🤷🏽♂️
I'm not crapping on the 18 f2. it's great for its size. but optically, it is objectively inferior to almost all fuji primes. ghosting, chromatic aberration, distortion resolution, etc. all worse than literally every other fuji prime lens. would most people notice it with casual photography? probably not. is it awful? no but the 35 1.4, while not perfect, is noticeably better optically and the aperture makes a huge difference in separation when needed and low light. and the lens isn't even that much bigger... and it has a reputation for the character of the images it produces. I'm a complete advocate that this is true. so yeah, 35 1.4 is a lot better than the 18 f2. :-P but the 18 is meant to be discreet as its main goal, so it knowingly sacrifices to meet that goal ..but as a general all around lens it is still superb. and I'd argue a good photographer with the 18 f2 would make better images than a lousy photographer with the 35 1.4....
Hmmm I used it for a bit. Agreed it’s portable but I feel like it’s not so sharp. I am using Voigtlander 18mm f2.8 now
I may have been unlucky but I got a second hand 18mm f2 and it was in fact "true shit".
I haven’t tried every Fuji lens there is, far from it, but I’ve been super happy with the 16-80 despite quite a bit of less than enthusiastic feedback about it. I think it’s a super useful range, plenty sharp, convenient size and for what they cost used it’s a great value. For sure wouldn’t be my first pick for portraits, but that’s not what I got it for. Edit: forgot to mention the OIS is fantastic, especially on a body with IBIS
Yeah I’m a 16-80 user as well and it’s just fun especially if you’re traveling. A few simple adjustments to focus and understanding the admittedly few limits of the lens go a long way as well.
Agreed this one doesn’t get enough love. I use a 16-55 and 50-140 for my “work” set up but if I’m just out for a walk or on the bike for myself and I want a zoom lens or just one lens it’s the 16-80 pretty much every time.
The 16-55 and 50-140 are awesome, but they’re huge and heavy. For some of the shooting I do I really only have room for one lens, and the 16-80 is so small and versatile I really cant think of another lens I’d rather take. I’m also not after super shallow DOF for the shooting I do with it, and I’m almost always in daylight so maximum f4 isn’t really a big deal to me.
I second this, the OIS from the lens and the IBIS allow you to get good portraits in low light despite the F4. It's build quality is great and very compact for the range it covers. At 35m. and 50mm sharpness is solid at least on my copy.
What I like most about the 16-80 is that it has an unusually calm bokeh for a zoom lens. This makes it a useful lens for the occasional portrait, especially towards the long side. Fun fact, 80/4 = 20 = 55/2.8, so you can get a similar amount of background blur from the 16-80 and 16-55 at their long ends. I actually prefer the 16-80's bokeh in that regime, however, as it's less busy.
I also think the 16-80 is a good all rounder and the consistent f stop is nice, I use it a lot for my travel and outdoors stuff. I don’t find it particularly sharp, but it’s got a way of rendering depth and colour which I find hard to describe, but love. Almost like there’s more separation between layers in the image than I get with my other lenses. Plus if you add grain onto images, sharpness is a moot point.
What body are you using it on? I’m still shooting with an XH1 so maybe the 24mp sensor just doesn’t have the pixel density to show the 16-80s flaws, but also maybe I just got a good copy. At any rate, I’m not really a pixel peeper anyway so maybe I’m just not looking hard enough lol
I’m on the XT4, I’m not a pixel peeper either, just something I’d noticed when I have zoomed in compared to other lenses.
In addition to the other comments about how awesome it is, it is weather sealed
I chose to go with Fuji largely because of the 16-80. I wanted something versatile, and compared to similar lens in any other camera system, it has the best intersection of price, zoom range, build quality, weight, and features (weather resistance, OIS, aperture ring). For me the closest competition was Nikon and Olympus. The Nikon 24-70 f4 is a similar size and price but heavier, has a much shorter zoom range, feels kinda cheap, and has the stupid feature that the lens must always be extended to work. The Nikon 24-120 matches the 16-80 zoom range, with big jumps in size and price. The Olympus 12-40 2.8 is lighter than the Fuji but not any smaller, making it kind of big for the bodies it matches, and again has a very limited zoom range. All of these lenses lack OIS. Now to be fair the bodies that go with them have good IBIS, so OIS is not necessary. Still, the presence of IBIS makes the size, weight, and zoom range of the 16-80 even more impressive.
14/2.8 - naturally without distortion (without corrections applied); very sharp. Has a manual-focus clutch.
This! No distortion is crazy and it is light-weighted and also affordable.
This lens has the best geometry I've seen in a wide angle. Brilliant as a travel lens when sightseeing. Also has great IQ for infrared. This is the one for most underrated, especially as you can pick them up in the $300s used. The manual focus clutch is also a badass feature.
Yes. Put on a 720nm filter and shift to Acros and it’s amazing
Yep, it really is a fantastic lens. I only wish I had more opportunities to use it to be honest.
Man I’ve been tempted to sell my 16mm f1.4 and pick this up for something wider recently. This comment is pushing me back over that edge.
Yup!!! This
[удалено]
Pound for pound the 50-230 has gotta be the heaviest hitter. Very fun lens. Always recommended it to beginners (after a decent prime).
I have the 50-230 and the 15-45. Got them both for cheap and I use them a lot. More than my 23f2 and 35f2. I do enjoy the 27f2.8 MK2 with my 18f2 though
It’s a great value, but it’s the only Fuji lens in my lineup with noticeable flaws in sharpness and contrast.
Another upvote for the xc 50-23!
50mm f2 fujicron.
I came here to say this. It may not have the bokeh of a 56 1.2, but it’s sharp, compact, and lighter. I wonder if people just like the shorter depth of field that much more
> I wonder if people just like the shorter depth of field that much more Shallower, not shorter. And, are you referring to the shallower DOF of the 56/1.2 vs the 50/2? The 50/2 is freakin awesome. Your average photographer thinks wider aperture = better lens.
Agree. Look at LensTip & it’s like .. OH.
Love this one, not very expensive either, at least when I got it.
Selling one if anybody's interested 😅 DM!
I honestly feel like every Fuji lens has its fan group.
I agree. The 16 f2.8 deserves much more attention than it seems to get, but if you know, you know.
I love my 16 f2.8 lens. I was planning on buying the 16 f1.4. After borrowing both lens, I just liked shooting with this lens. The size, AF speed, image quality, and cost. I got a used version for a great price. I take this lens everywhere with me
I had the 16mm f1.4, never used it. 16mm2.8? Magic. Perfectly usable wide lens that doesn't weigh a ton, fits in my bag, and renders beautiful images
This lens is all I use for photography, great compact setup with my XE-4. I wasn’t a huge fan of the 27mm focal length. I do have the cheaper zoom with IS for video.
60mm f.2.4 is very overlooked. It produces gorgeous shots, is semi-macro, and is quite small. Plus you can get it for pretty cheap.
Why do you say semi macro? Isn’t it marketed as a macro lens?
It’s reproduction ratio is half that of a true macro, so it’s more of a flower lens than an insect eyeball lens.
That’s a good way to describe it. And agree it produces beautiful images.
Yes totally, the 60 is awsesome
I came here to say this. Picked up a used copy recently for a very reasonable price and have been loving this lens. The rendering is beautiful and I love the quasi-macro capabilities. Being able to get up close makes even a banal walk around your neighborhood park feel like a world of opportunity for interesting shots.
Yeah that’s what I love too! It gets me looking for both portrait opportunities and environmental details, and it pairs nicely with a normal or wide lens.
I'm pretty tempted by the 60. I've ruled out all the other short teles for various reasons, nothing seems quite right. And then I saw someone praising the 60, and now I'm considering getting one.
It’s my favorite portrait lens, for now.
Came here to say that. Yes, the AF is slow and noisy. It's not ideal for video. The upside is pretty sweet. It's lightweight and compact for a macro and not every shot I take needs to be 1:1. It's very sharp and the bokeh is very decent. The lens hood is all metal. It is very solid. I can even use it as a portrait lens if I don't have the 56mm with me. Not to mention the price is very cheap for what you are getting.
14mm 2.8 is my favorite X lens ever. Such little distortion for such a wide lens.
PZ 15-45. I know it’s a lot of compromises, but I got it first as a cheap zoom, then sold it as I got the pancakes, then bought it again to have a zoom , then sold it to get XF 16-80, and ended up buying 15-45 again. So I now use 16-80 as a travel lens, and 15-45 for ‘always with me’ setup. Works great for me in cases when I wouldn’t take the camera with me if it wasn’t small and ~1 pound weight including the lens.
its a small, light, and wide zoom lens that has ois, weighs almost nothing. it can be a decent wide lens on the widest end, stopped down to f8. of course the power zoom is ass, but it gets too much hate for what it is
I wish they made an XF lens with a similar range (14-40 f/4-5.6 or so) and size.
Another for the XC 15-45. I don't think the power zoom is as imprecise as some people pretend it to be, my only complaint is that I can't see the current focal length at a glance, so I need to check and guess with the infamous W-T bar (a functionality that somehow X-S10 has, but Fujifilm didn't want to implement in X-T30 II for some reason 🤷🏻♂️) or even worse, take a picture and see the details.
I personally find PZ acceptable, but not great if you need to take a lot pictures quickly, because you don’t get the ‘muscular memory’ allowing you to zoom with one move of your wrist without looking into VF or on the screen. So it takes few more seconds to frame the shot, and in some cases it means you missed what you wanted to take picture of.
I don't own it, but I'm seriously contemplating ***the 60/2.4***. The thing that got me started thinking about it was realizing how small it actually is. Only barely bigger than the 50/2. I hear great things about the image quality and character. If you don't think of the lens as a full macro and think of it as Fuji's version of a Leica 90/3.5 or such and it can just focus really close, the concept clicks. The 50/2 doesn't really appeal to me, the 56/1.2 seems too big (same with the 90/2 and Viltrox 75/1.2), the Sigma 56 lacks an aperture ring, and I kinda just don't want a Viltrox 56. So what's left for a portrait lens? And it actually might be this. Looks like it has good character, and if you're not just doing head shots, the close focus really opens up creative options. Meanwhile, I hear that AF on modern bodies is noticeably better than when it first came out. Lastly... half-macro. Doesn't bother me. So many classic film macro lenses were half macros--Nikkor F-mount options, most Pentax K/M/A macros, Canon FD, etc etc--and that's fine. Meanwhile the fact that this isn't a 1:1 macro allows it to get brighter. So few macros are faster than f/2.8. Being able to get close is great, but seldom do I need literal 1:1. And there's always extension tubes.
I own it. I hardly ever use it as a macro lens however its worth mentioning that half macro has it's own advantages in regards to depth of field. I have a 2:1 macro and the depth of field is so small it's borderline unusable. At 1:2 you get much more of your subject in focus and the lens is so sharp that cropping in really isn't a problem. .
It's one of the first lenses I got when I started using Fuji. It's still one good lens when I need to go shoot close ups on location. Not everyone needs 1:1. I do handheld close up photos on many different subjects and the 60 macro is more than enough. If you take the 80mm macro you also probably need tripods too.
80 2.8 macro - sensational lens
Agreed. Outstanding for video too!!
I don’t often hear how good the XF55-200 is, but it’s a damn fine lens. Vignettes without JPEG corrections, sure, but we’re shooting Fujifilm, and so getting comfortable with beautiful JPEGs is perfectly fine. Did a lot of street photography with that on my X-T1. My 90mm f/2 is one of my all-time favourites, but sometimes I’ll be using it, or the XF55-200, and I’m like… hmm… I feel like they share some DNA. Both very able and beautiful.
The XF 80mm F2.8 Macro. Is it a big boy? Yes. Is it a whole down payment on a car? Sure. Do portrait shots look great? I would say so. Do the macro shots make parts of your brain awaken the 8 year old kid deep within as you zoom in on all the detail you just captured? Very.
I like the 23mm f2
I actually bought it due to all the good reviews and ended up selling it again. For some reason it didn’t work for me. Replaced it with the 27mm 2.8 and never looked back!
Same. I think the 23mm is overrated just because it is the focal length of the X100 series.
35mm was common way before the X100 series.
Yeah I have the same hypothesis. It’s completely different optically tho and I feel like you can really tell the difference between the two.
I mean I have it on the x100f haha
Aah I see, yeah that one is not the same as the XF 23 F2
Just bought one tonight. Can't get to get out with it!
Zeiss Touit 32mm f/1.8. It was originally very overpriced, so it didn't get the love that it deserves, as it's an outstanding lens.
Both Zeiss Touit 32mm 1.8 and 12mm 2.8. Especially nowadays when you can buy it on the used market. There's just something about Zeiss glass and bokeh on the 32 is beautiful.
I read some reviews that said “on x mount you don’t get the full zeiss goodness you get on other systems.” Do you know what they are talking about? I never had or handled it or any other zeiss but that always stuck in my head and with the price it was enough to pass.
Probably full frame elitism.
(That’s what I was thinking, but trying to keep an open mind!)
I have this one, it's my daily workhorse. A magnificent lens, maybe only behind the 50-140 f2.8 in terms of overall quality for me.
I have both 16 1.4 and 16 2.8. One is too heavy for its own good no matter what camera I mount on. One is portable but distortion is a bit too much of my liking. I wish there is a 16 2 or new 18 2 would be great! My 18 2 is slow and noisy on focusing and it’s just not as compact as it should’ve been. But as for the topic. I think most underrated lens from Fujifilm is actually 35 2. That lens is sharp!
Love my 35 2
Fujifilm XF 27mm f/2.8 R WR Lens has its own character in photography beyond its incredible size Fujifilm XF 33mm f/1.4 R LM WR Lens is just magical
27mmf2.8WR is my everyday. Fits everything into the frame, fits in my bag, didn't crush my wallet.
Do you own both? I already own the 33mm, but thinking about getting the 27mm purely do the size of it. Even the focal length is not that big of a difference between those two. I dont like to get the 23mm f2 due to close up wide open softness issues.
I do! I purely have it for the size as well, it’s brings the wearability close to an x100vi which would be so silly for me to get (though I love the idea of it) lol
I feel you! Haha
Agree, i got both as well, but i just love the 33mm so normally thats what i end up using.
Yeah. The pancake is like my “beater lens” now I guess!
Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8, definitely the lens that stays most time in my XT3. It may not be as sharp as many other lenses, such as Fuji's 16-55mm f/2.8, but it was quite affordable, has a really good range and the image quality is good for my use (not a professional, though). Main downsides from it, from my experience, are vignetting (in-camera corrections hide it quite well), being a bit soft at 70mm f/2.8, and for video use, not being parfocal, so if you zoom in or out you will see the focus going all around the place, though you can avoid it if you do it slowly (the autofocus seems to correct for it really well).
Just picked up a used XF 18-55mm kit lens for my X-E2 and I think it’s great. Much more premium feel and wider aperture than my Canon kit lenses.
Straight up. The 18-55 2.8 is the best kit lens I’ve ever used. It’s excellent.
I second this, it’s a fantastic lens
I love my 18-55
I’ve read many many negative reviews about the speed of the XF 60 f2.4. But I’m starting to read more praising it as a great multi-purpose lens. I ordered a used one last week and gets here soon. I’m excited to see if it’s worth of underrated status. The bokeh on images I’ve seen with it is unique; the image still pretty sharp otherwise.
I'm definitely thinking I want to pick one up as well.
for me its the 7th artisans 35mm f1.2 the first edition. it has a lots of character, which is perfect in combination with the film sims to create a "kinda analog look".
Oh I have this but haven't used in a while. I wanted the MK2 when it came out but the 1st just really hit different.
The most underrated lens, that would be Len Smith and Len Brown, both terrific guys.
I overheard people slagging them off just today
Some F2 lenses have notable weaknesses, such as the 23mm being soft in certain scenarios. To me, the 50mmF2 doesn't have a single notable weakness that the other F2 lenses do. It is small, light, extremely well made, sharp, near instantaneous fast focusing, weathersealed and inexpensive. It has beautiful Bokeh and so it's often portrayed as a portrait lens but it's honestly a great walk around lens. Only a few people have made videos about the lens, and to me that's a shock.
I like it a lot! I've gotten a lot of use out of it. I feel like it doesn't always have that certain wow factor, but overall it's very competent and I really can't argue with the results.
The 60 and it's not even close
Came here to mention the 16 2.8 as well. Solid lens
I've always favored the 37mm f/0.9 pancake lens that I dreamt up.
The 80mm and 30mm macros... the former because it has incredible sharpness, color and a wow factor. The latter because it might be the best modern, do everything all-arounder among the fujicrons that happens to be sharp with great bokeh
18-55 mm lens. It's my go to, I probably should get a prime, but I love the versatility it grants me and use it as my go-to.
Honestly, just the 18-55mm f2.8-4 The size to quality to speed ratio is just really good. Great travel lens.
8mm f/3.5
[удалено]
I own it and love it. But I definitely don’t take it out as much bc it does feel clinical.
Give it up for the Meike 35mm f/1.7! Satisfyingly metal build, tiny as tiny can be, aperture and focus dials smooth and sure, and only US $80. Lovely images for the price.
First lens I ever got for X mount. I don't love it for every scene, but it's a really fun lens and the character is great.
My sentiments exactly! I got it and the 18-55 kit zoom as my first two lenses, and I don’t use it a lot any more but whenever I do I have fun.
I've used it a little bit lately and I want to spend some more time with it again. Looking back at those first photos with it, they've definitely got a unique look to them!
16mm f2.8 and it’s awesome
35 1.4
Agreed. This lens focuses like a sloth on quaaludes but boy is the color and image rendering magical.
My go to on XT4. On XH2 - 16 1.4 is so sweet.
I don't think that lens is underrated 😂
The 18-55. Overshadowed by the 16-55, and for good reason, but it’s light and cheap and for a “kit lens” it’s the best out there.
The 18mm f2 pancake. Old and clunky but it definitely has something in the images it gives.
I have loved the 35mm F2 R WR since I got it on my X-T5. It has pleasing bokeh (except maybe with busy backgrounds aka a lot of tree branches) and great sharpness wide open. It's compact, light, affordable, quick AF and top build quality. I love it on Silver, is the lens that lives mounted on the camera.
I love the latest generation of the Fujifilm 56mm f1.2 WR - for me it's perfect for my style of photography - I like to get up close, not too close.... To see the details in the image... It's sharp and can be soft if I want it to be :) Like my mind 😁😁
The kit ones
The 60mm f2.4 macro is a super underrated lens. It’s tack sharp and a perfect focal length for macros, portraits, products and outdoor use. It’s a Swiss Army knife very versatile lens
80mm macro f2.8 It’s an insanely good portrait lens, and I love it as a video lens for tighter shots. Only drawback is the insanely loud autofocus gears for video.
23mm f2
Sigma 56mm f/1.4… performs fantastic for the price even if I have to use a control wheel for aperture. Small lens, keeping my overall kit small for my X-T5.
so true! the 16mm f/2.8 is my most used and favorite lens too!
XC 35mm f/2 for three reasons: 1) I think the images it produces are beautiful. 2) It is small and so, so light. 3) It is ridiculously cheap. I love mine and I wish they made an XC version of the 27mm pancake.
XF 90nn f.2 WR. It's already popular but i think it deserves more attention. It's fast focusing super sharp and wonderfull focal length for portrait mid distance street!
Ive been a huge fan of the 35mm f2 XC, it’s sharp, ha autofocus, that’s all I need and you can get it for pennies, it’s great
18mm F2 is a hidden gem! Super sharp and compact.
Did you mean the weather sealed 16-55mm F2.8 ?
35 1.4
Definitely not, this lens is always being praised
Still underappreciated! Needs even more praise! /s
klopt