• Introducing Image Options for ResetEra 2.0! Check the left side navigation bar to show or hide images, avatars, covers, and embedded media. More details at the link.

CamERA Equipment |OT| Photon Capturing Comparison Club

Oct 25, 2017
271
So would it be worth it to grab the extra 35mm prime with the XT-30, 18-55 Kit? It only adds an extra hundred bucks but I wasn’t sure if I could pretty much just do the same stuff with the 18-55 alone. I just want a small, easy to use camera that will last me a while. Probably some street photography and occasional landscapes. Thanks for any pointers, this thread already kinda led me to the Fuji ecosystem.
 
Oct 25, 2017
14,634
So would it be worth it to grab the extra 35mm prime with the XT-30, 18-55 Kit? It only adds an extra hundred bucks but I wasn’t sure if I could pretty much just do the same stuff with the 18-55 alone. I just want a small, easy to use camera that will last me a while. Probably some street photography and occasional landscapes. Thanks for any pointers, this thread already kinda led me to the Fuji ecosystem.
I do a lot of my street photography on the 23 1.4 and 90F2, that kit lens...is a lens, the 35F2 is good as well if you want a nicer, tighter field of vision that's better in low light than the kit lens.
 
Nov 29, 2017
626
So would it be worth it to grab the extra 35mm prime with the XT-30, 18-55 Kit? It only adds an extra hundred bucks but I wasn’t sure if I could pretty much just do the same stuff with the 18-55 alone. I just want a small, easy to use camera that will last me a while. Probably some street photography and occasional landscapes. Thanks for any pointers, this thread already kinda led me to the Fuji ecosystem.
From my reading and research, that kit will cover 80% to 90% of what the pro grade zoom will do, and at daylight with f/4 and above, no one would be able to tell the difference. Moreover, internal static shots would be better/steady due to the OIS. Now that's just to say that's a great lens and you should be covered. It'll cover the 23mm and 35mm primes, unless you need that 1 - 1.5 stop of opening, keeping in mind those ranges aren't really the best to isolate subjects and blur the backgrounds anyway. Essentially, your next lens should be either a wide prime like the 16mm f/2.8 or f/1.4 or a longer zoom/prime (50 - 150 f/2.8 or the 90mm f/2), based on your style of photography.
 
Oct 25, 2017
14,634
From my reading and research, that kit will cover 80% to 90% of what the pro grade zoom will do, and at daylight with f/4 and above, no one would be able to tell the difference. Moreover, internal static shots would be better/steady due to the OIS. Now that's just to say that's a great lens and you should be covered. It'll cover the 23mm and 35mm primes, unless you need that 1 - 1.5 stop of opening, keeping in mind those ranges aren't really the best to isolate subjects and blur the backgrounds anyway. Essentially, your next lens should be either a wide prime like the 16mm f/2.8 or f/1.4 or a longer zoom/prime (50 - 150 f/2.8 or the 90mm f/2), based on your style of photography.
I have done actual legit work with the 16-55, it serves a purpose and I like it way more than the 18-55. If you're doing nothing more than landscape work then the kit lens is fine, if you're doing an indoor event then you get the 16-55, also good for video work as well. For portraiture, if you're a studio photographer than the kit lens is fine, if you do natural light work then get the 16-55. I don't really like a lot of my street portraits with the kit lens.
 
Oct 25, 2017
271
I do a lot of my street photography on the 23 1.4 and 90F2, that kit lens...is a lens, the 35F2 is good as well if you want a nicer, tighter field of vision that's better in low light than the kit lens.
From my reading and research, that kit will cover 80% to 90% of what the pro grade zoom will do, and at daylight with f/4 and above, no one would be able to tell the difference. Moreover, internal static shots would be better/steady due to the OIS. Now that's just to say that's a great lens and you should be covered. It'll cover the 23mm and 35mm primes, unless you need that 1 - 1.5 stop of opening, keeping in mind those ranges aren't really the best to isolate subjects and blur the backgrounds anyway. Essentially, your next lens should be either a wide prime like the 16mm f/2.8 or f/1.4 or a longer zoom/prime (50 - 150 f/2.8 or the 90mm f/2), based on your style of photography.
These are both pretty helpful. I'll sit on it for a few days before I put down the cash, but maybe I'll just run with the 18-55 and put the leftover money towards a bag or monopod. Initially I thought about just doing the 14-45 kit, but almost everywhere said the 18-55mm was just all around a better lens. Perhaps in 4 or 5 months, depending on how much I use the camera, I may get a better lens to match what I find myself taking photos of. I definitely won't be doing anything professional.
 
Oct 25, 2017
14,634
These are both pretty helpful. I'll sit on it for a few days before I put down the cash, but maybe I'll just run with the 18-55 and put the leftover money towards a bag or monopod. Initially I thought about just doing the 14-45 kit, but almost everywhere said the 18-55mm was just all around a better lens. Perhaps in 4 or 5 months, depending on how much I use the camera, I may get a better lens to match what I find myself taking photos of. I definitely won't be doing anything professional.
Don't touch that 14-45...I've had a good amount of cameras and I actually get a lot of enjoyment out of shooting primes because it teaches you to bone down, get creative and get more into your shooting, it's bit "interactive" having the benefits of a wider aperture help as well. I own more primes than zooms actually, I have 3 35mm's even after having zoom coverage for that focal length. Pretty much get the camera and kit lens, have fun with it and just start figuring out how and what you shoot and that's how you're going to make your lens buying decisions. I find 35's and 85's essential with something like a 135mm being something that you don't buy unless you really know how to work with it. My dad for example is very zoom focused and I find the amount of overlap he's got to be borderline fucking stupid, but we don't talk anymore and it's a whatever thing, but everybody has their own style and vision for this shit.
 
Nov 29, 2017
626
These are both pretty helpful. I'll sit on it for a few days before I put down the cash, but maybe I'll just run with the 18-55 and put the leftover money towards a bag or monopod. Initially I thought about just doing the 14-45 kit, but almost everywhere said the 18-55mm was just all around a better lens. Perhaps in 4 or 5 months, depending on how much I use the camera, I may get a better lens to match what I find myself taking photos of. I definitely won't be doing anything professional.
Yeah I'd test it out for a few weeks...I mean trust me, I have done pretty good research on this, and I get the allure of a pro grade 24 - 70 f/2.8 equivalent, and I had my share of that on Canon as an amateur. I loved my 17 - 55 f/2.8 stabilized lens on Canon APS-C, but it was a beast and yo, I wasn't shooting weddings indoors and getting paid for it.

Plus the Canikon kit zooms were/are really shitty. So there was no confidence in having those shitty kit zooms.

The first taste of a great kit zoom I had was the 14 45 Panny MFT kit zoom, it was cheap as shit, but sharp across the board. Just not fast. But for indoors, I would use a fast prime anyway. Still that stabilizer is very handy if you're taking shots inside a museum, church, mosque, whatever. This Fuji is like that Panny lens, but MUCH better. It'll actually do...I mean it's pretty fast, stabilized, light weight and very sharp. So unless you're doing gigs, it won't make much difference aside from having a pro lens as a point of pride, which I also understand. But I'd say buy the 40 - 150mm f/2.8 for that, which will get you all the creamy bokeh you want, it'll cover the other end, portrait to landscape.
 
Oct 25, 2017
14,634
Yeah I'd test it out for a few weeks...I mean trust me, I have done pretty good research on this, and I get the allure of a pro grade 24 - 70 f/2.8 equivalent, and I had my share of that on Canon as an amateur. I loved my 17 - 55 f/2.8 stabilized lens on Canon APS-C, but it was a beast and yo, I wasn't shooting weddings indoors and getting paid for it.

Plus the Canikon kit zooms were/are really shitty. So there was no confidence in having those shitty kit zooms.

The first taste of a great kit zoom I had was the 14 45 Panny MFT kit zoom, it was cheap as shit, but sharp across the board. Just not fast. But for indoors, I would use a fast prime anyway. Still that stabilizer is very handy if you're taking shots inside a museum, church, mosque, whatever. This Fuji is like that Panny lens, but MUCH better. It'll actually do...I mean it's pretty fast, stabilized, light weight and very sharp. So unless you're doing gigs, it won't make much difference aside from having a pro lens as a point of pride, which I also understand. But I'd say buy the 40 - 150mm f/2.8 for that, which will get you all the creamy bokeh you want, it'll cover the other end, portrait to landscape.
The 90F2 and the 56 1.2 are the bokeh lenses not the 50-140, trust me I own all three. If he's not really making money or doing this for work then yeah kit lens, even if I didn't like it personally. The 2.8 zooms honestly are my least used lenses for street photography, I use them mostly for video work and events if I can get away with flash and even then I don't like the high iso on the Fuji's enough to use the 50-140, which is why I do most of my events on full frame. I use the 50-140 mostly for park photography, street fashion and that's probably about it. I'd honestly just use two primes on the two extreme ends and just stay away from zooms period, but that's just me. Probably a 16 1.4, 23 1.4 and either the 56 or 90 depending on what it is that you prefer and call it quits. Keep in mind that I find 50mm boring as a focal length, you can probably google my rants on this at this point.
 
Nov 29, 2017
626
Well his question is primarily one about overlap, and the 35mm f/2 would be redundant for either city or portraits (how much would that one extra stop allow that the kit zoom wouldn't?). He has the kit zoom, and is wondering whether to ALSO buy the prime. I prefer primes as well, but that's not the question. It all depends on the use case. In city I obviously just use the 23mm f/2, and I'll soon pair that with the 16mm f/1.4. But if I'm hiking in the Catskills, Bavarian Alps or the Grand Canyon, I'd carry the kit zoom for everything, and an ultra wide lens for dramatic landscapes. As for the 50 - 140, it's more than just a portrait lens, that 70 - 200 will get you portraits, landscapes and street depending on your skill set and experience. It all depends on his use case. I mean that's the progression I am looking at, obviously others may disagree.
 
Oct 25, 2017
14,634
Well his question is primarily one about overlap, and the 35mm f/2 would be redundant for either city or portraits (how much would that one extra stop allow that the kit zoom wouldn't?). He has the kit zoom, and is wondering whether to ALSO buy the prime. I prefer primes as well, but that's not the question. It all depends on the use case. In city I obviously just use the 23mm f/2, and I'll soon pair that with the 16mm f/1.4. But if I'm hiking in the Catskills, Bavarian Alps or the Grand Canyon, I'd carry the kit zoom for everything, and an ultra wide lens for dramatic landscapes. As for the 50 - 140, it's more than just a portrait lens, that 70 - 200 will get you portraits, landscapes and street depending on your skill set and experience. It all depends on his use case. I mean that's the progression I am looking at, obviously others may disagree.
I tend to not use 70-200's for my street photography these days. Unless I'm going to test around I use the 70-200's for park stuff, they do work well for landscape purposes. I do know what 70-200's are good for since I own 3 of these things, they're great all rounders and the compression that they allow you for portraits are great, I use them for event and head shot work. Regarding the kit zoom vs the 35. That one extra stop gets you more than you think if you're running around at night, plus the F2 lenses have great AF and are weather sealed are a lot better for portrait work since you can't even get the same amount of bokeh at the same focal length on the kit lens. Landscape, matters less, portrait work is something completely different. The F2 is at least dof wise a 2.8, the kit lens isn't that period, it's an F4-5.6 kit lens, that makes a difference. I probably haven't used the 35F2 so it's not really a lens that I'm passionate about fighting about, then again neither is the kit lens since when it came time for me to make some trade ins for my D4 that's what got traded in, don't even miss it since I kept my 16-55. They're both good starter lenses to use to train your eye a bit till you figure out what you like. I think long story short I'd rather trade stabilization for aperture considering I do a lot of people photography, that kit lens did nothing for me, there's also the matter that the 35F2 is sharper than the kit lens. Also regarding overlap, pretty much every prime and zoom shooter has some form of overlap somewhere unless they're using a football lens. My thing is not to buy a prime that shares the same aperture as one of my zooms, which is why I'm very picky about Fuji primes, I have 4 primes for a reason though I mainly use three because 50mm is just boring. I'm not buying the 16 2.8 for example because that's pretty much rolled into my 16-55. I'm most likely not getting the Zeiss Batis 135 2.8 either unless I fall into stupid money and want a lighter 135mm for street photography work.
 
Nov 29, 2017
626
But I mean he mentioned landscape and street which will require wide depth of field to begin with which would negate the purpose of a wide prime if he’s covered within that range, unless he’s out wondering around at night, which isn’t a typical landscape or street use case. Or is he’s taking close up portraits to blur the backgrounds...but he didn’t mention that either. However if it’s $100 only, I’d buy it, sell it and put that money towards the next lens.
 
Oct 25, 2017
14,634
But I mean he mentioned landscape and street which will require wide depth of field to begin with which would negate the purpose of a wide prime if he’s covered within that range, unless he’s out wondering around at night, which isn’t a typical landscape or street use case. Or is he’s taking close up portraits to blur the backgrounds...but he didn’t mention that either. However if it’s $100 only, I’d buy it, sell it and put that money towards the next lens.
I mean...you can do street photography at night unless I've been doing my street photography wrong over the last couple of years. If you're taking shots at people from the hip then yes drop it to 5.6 if not even more and don't even bother, but considering the fact that I'm stupid and aim through my EVF I just shoot as wide as need be and aim. There's more than one way to do this thing.