I was given to believe that my life as a sometimes Fuji camera system user would not begin until I jettisoned the "decent" but underwhelming 18-55mm "kit" lens and bought the real Fuji prime lenses. Then I'd be able to realize the potential of their "awesome" sensor...
But I'm a bit of a contrarian so I've been using the "kit" lens nearly non-stop. Yes, at a wide open aperture it does vignette a bit. But what do I care? I didn't buy the lens to shoot flat art documentation, or brick walls. I've also heard that it's very, very sharp in the center but less "convincing" in the corners. And they say that as if it's negative thing. I'm thrilled that it's sharp in the center and I'm happy I don't have to worry about distractions in the corners.
Oh hell. Just try a lens you are interested in and see if it works for what you do. Most reviewers; like the dim bulbs masquerading as technical experts at the big website, have a weird set of parameters for "measuring" the value of lenses, but the stuff they think is important; like dead even exposure across the frame or total lack of field curvature, are part and parcel of some of the best lenses ever made.
Bottom line. I think you can do great work with this kit lens. You might save yourself from some carpel tunnel syndrome and you might save some cash by passing by the "prestige" lenses and learning how to best use all around "good" lenses to make photographs.
These two shots are handheld, in low light, and shot with the aperture of the 18-55mm lens wide open. It's pretty much a worst case basket of settings for any lens. But with a centered subject all I see is sharpness and clarity.
I finally believe it's true; you can "over buy."
21 comments:
The 18-55 is the lens that convinced me to go with the Fuji system. It's smaller and lighter than the big "pro" lenses with adequate (as in excellent) quality. Unless of course you make a living photographing brick walls it's a great take-everywhere lens. The big lenses like the 16-55 are great but defeat one of the main reasons for going with a compact camera.
A very special face, serene - yet totally aware and interested.
An angel looking down at our - in his/her eyes - futile efforts?
- - -
Thanks for posting!
Thank you. I see endless online debates over matters that are almost totally unimportant to most practical photograph.
For one example, I recently tried to think of any photos of mine where the corners were both (A) in the plane of focus and (B) important. I came up with ZERO.
And a bit of vignetting can help keep the viewer's eye on the subject, not drifting off the the edges or corners.
-- end of rant --
Agree, the Fuji kit lens is quite good. I sometimes needed the faster primes to avoid shooting above 1600 or for shallow depth of field but never felt the need for the 2.8 Fuji Pro lenses when I shot Fuji.
You are so right about over buying. I just bought a Godox flash to use with my Oly kit. First, under $100 flash I have bought since my film days. Best flash I have used.
I own, use and like both the 18-55 and the 16-55. I think that they both are a bit short on the long end, which often matters to me.
The 18-55 also is a tad (2mm) narrow on the wide end, which sometimes, but not very often, matters to me.
The 18-55 balances nicely on the XE3 and the 16-55 does the same on the XT2.
Bottom line, I agree with your assessment of the 18-55. Given the smaller size, IS and price difference, it is a bargain (especially used) with no significant sacrifices.
As far as I can tell, when I look at almost anything, the area in the center is sharp and gets more out of focus toward the edges. If a lens does this it doesn’t bother me.
Kirk, I'm with you. That Fuji 18-55 f/2.8-4 just keeps delivering. When I first traded into this system, I was convinced that I would want the big, brighter 18-55 f/2.8 lens, but aside from the rare occasion that f/4 feels a bit restricting on the long end, I can't find any argument to haul around the bigger lens (plus it lacks OIS). Plus, I have the lovely, tiny 50mm f/2 and so when I want brighter at around 75mm equivalent I just put that lens on.
I agree with your earlier post that we need a proper 60mm portrait lens for this system. It doesn't have to be esoteric, it could even be "just" another f/2, but it would hit that sweet spot for portraiture. The 90mm is lovely, but it ends up a bit long for me, not unlike the otherwise lovely Olympus 75mm f/1.8. By that length I really want a 70-200 equivalent f/2.8 zoom.
But try to resolve the blades of grass.:-) I am an Ansel Adams fan and thus have spent time looking at a number of his prints fairly closely. I have also read his writing and know a bit about the equipment he used. His pictures are not sharp and until relatively late in his career, his lenses were not great. But his mastery of light and composition creates an impression of sharpness and creates wonderful images. Edward Weston's peppers were shot with a lens that is closer to coke bottle bottom (for older readers) that a modern lens, which probably enhanced the luminous quality of the images. I could go on through many master photographers and their images which was were made with meh or worse lenses and grainy, harsh film.
I've been following your blog for several years - which means I've been tempted to buy into about 27 different systems - but, for my purposes, primarily sports, I've been happy enough with my Canon 7dii and 70-200 2.8 (My only other lens is a Sigma 17-50 2.8, so not hugely wed to this system). Lately, I've been shooting more small venue music shows in the inconsistently varied lighting and conditions that implies I've also been shooting more walk around "urban landscape" and architecture stuff. Of course, my 7dii and phone can do all of this - so I don't "need" anything else, but I would "like" something that does better in low and crazy lighting, but also something easier and less conspicuous to carry around. On a somewhat limited budget, I got caught up in your adventures with the Nikon D700 and considered buying one of those and a lens or two for the low-light and architecture stuff, but, now your adventures with Fuji have me looking at the xt20 and 18-50 kit lens. If I could swing it, I'd have 3 cameras - A FF low light kit, my 7dii or a Nikon d500 for sports, and something smaller - but that's not in the cards - even used - so - what's your thought on which would add the most versatility to my current set-up? Go big, go small, or stay home? Thanks.
I have this lens. It’s a better lens than I am a photographer. My time (and money) is better spent on improving my skills rather than seeking the ultimate gear.
Meh. Isn't that the name of an obscure lens manufacturer that hasn't received the gold seal of approval from the basement illiterati?
As I swiped and clicked my way from blog to blog, each reviewer at some point made peace with the Fujinon 18-55 kit lens. Yes, many said the more expensive and larger 16-55 is preferred, if no OIS at double the price. Albeit, one should pick up this lens at the combo price. Meanwhile, the T3 was praised as a significant advance over the T2.
Yes, every blog.
Yes too, when I walked outside the LCS with my copy I immediately turned to the adjacent brick wall and performed the obligatory ritual. Sure enough. (Sigh)
Or a Sigma 60 does it.
In the motorcycling community we have a saying, "You can't ride a spec sheet". It seems, with few exceptions, someone with the better skill-set will always produce the greater outcome, regardless of gear. At the end of the day it's the result, or content, which matters. The so called "Content Creators" enjoying the most success have something of interest to a large(r) audience, or provide the desired product for a client. Unless there is a glaring problem with the image or audio most seem to not notice (or at least do not comment....).
All that said, I like nice gear. Whether it be a motorcycle, racing bicycle or photo/video gear, the good stuff is cool to have. I'm a gear-head so understand the attraction, and I don't judge those with the best stuff until they start trying to justify it by stating they just can't make good content, or have good results, without it. Give me a break, and show me the evidence.
I'm shooting my Nikon D750 with a small collection of good to great glass and cannot justify "upgrading" for the work I do. The Nikon system still knocks it out of the park. I recently bought into the Fuji system for use as my primary video rig. I am not interested in collecting a lens collection for this system, so found the 16-55 f/2.8 to be the best cover-all glass for the work I'm doing with the X-T3. It's an awesome lens, and many Fuji fans consider it to be "a bag of primes". I'll probably never know (nor care), but what I do know is the 16-55 works beautifully for my work, and that it can shoot at 2.8 all the way through is a bonus. And even at the $900 price-point I paid it's less expensive than investing into a second lens system.
As for the "meh", it seems to come from those who would rather be argumentative than choose to read and learn.
Always enjoy your blog, Kirk. You are a true "content creator", regardless of equipment used.
~Ron
My Olympus 14-150mm f4-5.6 delivers the goods over and over for the last 6.5 years all over the world. I don't care what the ridiculous, neurotic, maladjusted twerps on the internet say.
Coincidentally, I saw this about 10 minutes ago. :-) I learned on my own when I was a kid to not let other people's opinions (which are often much less informed than my own) have power over me.
Payless, disguised as fictional high fashion brand “Palessi,” invited Instagram personalities to make offers on their footwear. In a new advertising campaign, Payless attempts to make a statement about the quality of its craftsmanship by trying to convince the would-be online socialites that $19.99 pumps and $39.99 boots are worth far more — and it worked.
Payless Tricks Social Media Influencers into Paying Haute Couture Prices for Discount Shoes -- Payless sold its discount shoes for $600 a pair at mock luxury influencer event
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2018/11/29/payless-marked-up-discount-shoes-600-luxury-event-palessi/2146971002/
I have the Fujinon 18-55 and think it is just fine. But I admit, when there is a car to carry the camera bag, I typically use the Fujifilm 14mm, 18mm and 27mm lenses as well as Leica 35mm and 50mm Summicrons. As for lens reviewers, did you mean the pseudo-photographer commenters "like the dim bulbs masquerading as technical experts at the big website, have a weird set of parameters for "measuring" the value of lenses..."? I do not see much photography from that set, just endless trivial arguments about things that make almost no difference in taking pictures (like dual card slots and "sharpness").
Kirk,
I have used the 18 to 55 since it first came out so I qualify to offer a long term review. The bottom line is “it’s great”. Any way you evaluate the lens it is a winner. I have 8 other Fuji lens but I always seem to use the 18 to 55 the most.
I can only think of 2 really bad lenses of the many I've used over the years. I won't mention them other than one was made by Nikon and one by Sony. One was soft all over and one had the worst corners I ever saw. Other than that I am not a lens snob.
I recently attached an inexpensive Sigma 19 to my Panasonic GX85 as the 38mm equiv view is perfect for me as a general purpose walk around. I am very pleased with the lens overall Yet when you read about reviewers say no big deal.
Hi Kirk, Great comparison you did a few posts back between the Panasonic and Fuji. I've been using Fujis since 2012, starting with the X100. For portrait work, I really think you should at least try the Fuji 60/2.4. Many Fuji users prefer it to the 56. I love mine and chose not to go for the 56 because it was too big and too heavy. The critique of the 60’s AF as slow is based on the first generation bodies (XP1 & XE1). I just put it on the XT2 yesterday and the focus seemed snappy to me. It is much, much more than a macro lens. Borrow one and give it go. Cheers, John
Here's the thing: Most modern lenses for inter-changeable lens cameras are very good, and some are better than others. For most purposes, however, the differences are academic, or "differences without distinction." I have some great prime lenses, and I use them when appropriate. I have three different macro primes (30mm, 50mm, and 100mm) and two wide aperture lenses (50mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.4), but the lens I use more than the others combined is a Tamron 16-300mm zoom. I can make 20x30 prints from the images shot with that lens. This is the lens that stays on my camera unless I need one of the others for a specific purpose.
Post a Comment