For the last 6 years I was shooting the full frame Canon 5DII and their 24-105mm f/4 lens hardly left the body.
I was spoiled, I think I am finding 18mm (FF 27mm) not quite wide enough and 55mm (FF 83mm) not quite long enough. Do I need another lens or two? If so which lens should I get?
The first decision I made: stick with Fuji lenses as there are no easy alternatives on the market. Those that fit typically have, as far as I can tell, no automatic focusing and possibly no auto aperture when fitted to the Fuji body. Perhaps one day Sigma/Tamron will make some less-expensive, compatible lenses but no sign of that happening anytime soon.
Looking through the Fuji catalogue I have narrowed my possibilities down to the following...
- 10-24mm f/4 (FF 15-36mm, for wide angles)
- 18-135mm f/3.5 to 5.6 (FF 27-203mm - sounds like a good walk-about lens)
- 60mm 2.4 macro (FF 90mm for portraits and macro)
Being lazy and reluctant to change lenses I figured the 18-135 would probably stay on the body most of the time, but is it a good enough lens?
I don't do that many but I enjoy taking macros and portraits. I had an inexpensive Sigma 105mm macro for the Canon so I know the 60mm macro would get some use.
I can't afford every lens in the catalogue so need some hard information to justify my decision. That is where Lightroom (LR) comes in. Do I need a wide aperture? Do I need really use 24mm and 105mm much on the Canon? This information will help me choose a suitable lens or two.
In my personal LR catalogue (I have other catalogues for my commercial work) I have around 90,000 images from the past 14 years. I took a lot more but many have been culled. So let's get some stats out of LR. These are not difficult to do. I have been using the 5DII and 24-105 lens for 6 years so decide to concentrate on those last 6 years.
I created a series of Smart Collections to count the number of images I have taken at various apertures and focal lengths. For instance: How many of my images were taken in the f/4 to f/5.6 range
This ensured images for the correct camera+lens and aperture range are selected as I may have some images from other photographers in there.
I did this for a range of apertures and then some for various focal lengths.
These are my stats from the Canon...
There is a small margin of error. Not sure why, possibly due to images not quite fitting in the ranges specified, e.g. one range being f/4 to f/5.6 and the next smart collection range being f/5.7 to f/11, but maybe an image was recorded at 5.61 and got missed. Not to worry, it is not a long way out so I can live with that.
I can see that 17% of my keepers came from the 24-27mm range and the X-T2 18-55 doesn't cover that range. I could probably live without it and usually stand further back for a wider shot or take a 2-shot panorama. But 26% of the time I used a longer range than the X-T2 18-55 and I know that I would not have often used that longer focal length if I didn't need it.
Also on the aperture side I use f/4 to f/5.6 for 44% of the time. The X-T2 18-55 covers that and more (f/2.8 - f/4) so it scores well on that but if I bought the 18-135 it wouldn't be so good.
So now onto the reviews. Search the web for some good review sites. I like those where they review and test a lot of lenses in technical detail. I know that one can't just rely on the technical specs but they tend to be a lot more reliable than some of the posts on public forums (you know the ones, where someone gives a product 5 stars based on the marketing spec before the item has even been released!)
The 18-135 had some reasonable reviews but one too many poor ones. It seems it would be a usable lens but not the best.
So given that doubt, the lack of wide angle and large apertures I decided to hold off on buying that lens. I know if I had it I would use it 80% of the time but would I be happy?
So I have settled for two lenses, the wide angle 10-24mm and the 60mm macro. Hopefully this will cover and expand my wide angle needs and give me a portrait ad macro lens. Both lenses have had excellent reviews. I know the 60mm macro is not looking as useful as the better spec'd and newer 80mm macro but it is less than half the price.
What about the longer lens? I have not often found a need for more than FF 105mm. So I will live with using the XC 50-230mm when I want anything in that range. I have tested it out and it is not too shoddy, in fact better than my cheap Sigma FF 70-300mm lens I used on the Canon.
Now I just need to get used to the Fuji instead of the Canon. And get used to carrying and changing lenses. The sensor is smaller but has more pixels, I think the image quality is better than the 5DII which shows it age when pushing the ISO up.
I can use the EVF normally but make good use of the articulated LCD when I need it. The WYSIWYG viewfinders are good, I tend to shoot Av or manually and both are helped by this. The menus are different and a bit convoluted but I am getting used to them.
Do I prefer it over the Canon? Not yet. I would have loved to have the new 5DIV and stayed with my 24-105 but the body is too expensive and has no articulated LCD. Despite the many advantages of an electronic viewfinder I still prefer the optical viewfinder of the Canon.
There are other good FF systems now, the new Nikon 850 and the Sony whatever, but they would be even more expensive than the Canon 5DIV would have been for me.
I have had need to use the Fuji support to get my tethering sorted out and they were very helpful. I can't imagine Canon would have done the same.
BTW I have ignored the fact that the aperture effects on DoF for an APS-C sensor (as used on the Fuji) are not identical to those of a FF sensor. Roughly an APS-C sensor will have a DoF of 1.5x that of the FF sensor. This means the Fuji backgrounds will not be as soft focus as the Canon for the same aperture. But this won't be noticeable for much of my work and both the 60mm and the 18-55 can work down to f/2.8 which is better for this than the f/4 of the Canon.
