• […] with the Fujinon XF10-24mm f4R OIS at macleancomms / My 4 Favorite Lenses for The Fuji X Cameras at danbaileyphoto / Why the Fuji 55-200 is still a good choice at martincastein / Minimalism – A macro afternoon […]

  • […] After shooting with Fuji X cameras for over two years, I've narrowed down which of the four Fuji XF lenses I like the best for my style of photography.  […]

  • […] After shooting with Fuji X cameras for over two years, I've narrowed down which of the four Fuji XF lenses I like the best for my style of photography.  […]

  • […] Support this site: Please consider purchasing gear through these links. It’s a way that you can show your appreciation for the time and effort that it takes me to compile and write these reviews, and it won’t cost you anything extra. It’s like a virtual pat on the back. Thanks so much! Also, click here to see my 4 favorite lenses for the Fuji X cameras. […]

  • […] After shooting with Fuji X cameras for over two years, I've narrowed down which of the four Fuji XF lenses I like the best for my style of photography.  […]

  • Bel says:

    What do you think of the new 16mm F1.2 lens? I’m wondering about getting that for astro photography, landscapes etc. It is not quite a wide as the amazing 14mm, but still fairly wide.

  • Dan Bailey says:

    Bel, I haven’t seen the new 16 1.24 in person yet, but I imagine that it’s a fantastic lens!! I love the 14 2.8 for landscapes, but the extra speed and slightly less-wide focal length would no doubt make it a great lens for astrophotography. It’s a little heavier, and you’re right, it’s slightly less wide, but if you need the speed, that could be the one! -Dan

  • Abhishek says:

    Which is better the fujifilm xf35mm f1.4 or the xf23mm f1.4. I have just bought a fujifilm xt10 & need my first prime lense. Looking for the best quality image.Thanks

  • Dan Bailey says:

    I think they’re both of comparable quality. Between those two lenses, it will come down to whether you want a “normal” style view, similar to a classic 50mm lens (XF35) or a somewhat wider view, similar to the classic 35mm lens (XF23).

  • […] After shooting with Fuji X cameras for over two years, I've narrowed down which of the four Fuji XF lenses I like the best for my style of photography.  […]

  • […] After shooting with Fuji X cameras for over two years, I've narrowed down which of the four Fuji XF lenses I like the best for my style of photography.  […]

  • Jessica says:

    Great post! I’ve been using the X Pro2 and 18-135 on rental, and am ready to make the jump. I’d be doing landscapes, wildlife, macro and travel, and I’ve got a trip to Costa Rica coming up. I’m impressed with the 18-135, just don’t know if the aperture will be sufficient in darker conditions like the rain forest. However, I am pleased with the minimum focus distance on the 18-135. I’ve gotten some decent macro function at the longest telephoto.

    I’d be selling photos at fairly large sizes, so I need great IQ. I’d also like to keep my bag light – if possible, since the 100-400 is definitely on the list for wildlife.

    Sorry to ramble, any insight is appreciated.

  • Dan Bailey says:

    Hi Jessica- Thanks for your comment. The 18-135 is a good lens, but you’re right, it’s not very fast. My favorite fast telephoto for travel is the 90mm f/2. It’s about the same size as the 18-135, but much faster, and overall, I’ve found it to be a sharper lens, especially if you’re focusing on a subjects that are relatively far away. IQ is outstanding with the 90. You obviously lose the zoom flexibility, but I feel this is worth it for the quality it produces.

    The other option would be to go with the 35 f/2. It’s extremely small and compact, and it could serve as your “fast” lens during times when you’re shooting in dim light. It also focuses pretty close- down to 8″, but for very close macro, you could look at getting the MCEX-11 or MCEX-16 extension tube. Or the 23 f/1.4. It’s even faster and focuses very close. It’s not weather sealed, but it’s an extremely sharp lens.

  • I have the XT1 and now the XT 2 on order. I use the 14mm, the 27mm (as a short normal) the 55-200 as my lightweight telephoto and the new 100-400mm long lens. I have the equivalent for my Nikon d800e system, I find these focal lengths do what I need. The Fuji system is top notch, and now with the 24 MP coming out I feel very confident that anyone who wants a serious lightweight system that will do many things quite well, this is the system.

  • Dan Bailey says:

    Joseph, Thanks for the comment. If you like using the X-T1, I promise you, you’ll LOVE the X-T2, it’s an amazing upgrade!

  • kirsten hermsen says:

    I’m going to buy the Xpro2 but not sure which lens to buy 16-55 or 18-50. I know the 16-55 has no IOS. At the moment I shoot with my Nikon D600 (35mm, 50mm and 24-120), which I like but it’s very heavy. I’m looking for a stable, very quick lens because I’m shooting kids a lot and have to be flexible. Any advise? Thanks

  • Josh Kato says:

    Just got the 90mm f2. I also am an avid bike packer and almost always carry my camera with me. Just wondering if you’ve had any problem with your 90mm. Namely the “rattle” from the focusing mechanism inside the lens when not mounted. I kind of wonder how it’ll hold up over the course of several thousand miles on a bouncy bike.

  • Dan Bailey says:

    Kristen, those are two very different lenses. The 18-55 is more of a “kit” lens, and while it’s a great performer for the price, and very lightweight, the 16-55 is definitely more of a “pro” lens. It’s going to have a faster AF tracking and speed than the 18-55, so probably a better choice when shooting fast action and moving kids. And it’s weather sealed. While it’s a little heavier, the X-Pro2 and 16-55 will probably still be smaller, lighter setup than what you’re used to, and you’ll get incredible image quality.

  • Dan Bailey says:

    Hi Josh,

    Awesome, I think you’ll really like the 90 for bike touring, it’s an amazing lens. I’ve used it extensively during the past year on various outdoor and bikepacking trips and I’ve never had a problem with it. Still razor sharp after many months of continuous use. I keep it inside a padded camera pack when I’m riding and hiking, so vibration is minimized, even on bumpy surfaces. The “rattle” is a little odd to get used to, but the Fuji WR lenses are designed to professional standards, so they’re built pretty tough. Where are you headed next on your bike?

  • Josh Kato says:

    Thanks for the reply Dan. The rattle in the 90mm gave me pause when I first thought of taking it on my next bikepacking trip. If it has held up well for you then I’d guess I’ll have little to worry about. I’ll have the lens with me on my next trip this month into northern Idaho and Montana for some bikefishing.

  • […] question. Everyone has their favorites, just as everyone has their own style of shooting. (Here are my 4 favorite lenses in the lineup.) I’ve used most of the X Series lenses, and I can attest to their performance and build […]

  • John says:

    Dear Dan,

    thanks for your very insightful website and posts regarding gear. I do own an X-T2 (offer I couldn’t refuse) as well as a X-T1. Not sure if an amateur like me needs two bodies so I might sell the X-T1. But to the point; my current lenses are the 23mm 1.4, 32mm f2 and 56mm 1.2 . I do like the results but I tend to read on regularly and realized, that the new 50mm F2 has a much better resolution throughout than the 56mm. That surprised me as everyone was raving about the sharpness of the 56mm (and it is plenty sharp, I find). Is image resolution the same as sharpness? Is it worth owning both?
    Same goes for the 23mm 1.4 compared to the 23mm F2 ( loves the lens for it’s resolution). Should one downsize and switch? While I love the extra stop of light of my own lenses I am a sucker for sharp Images and the tend to soften up when opened wide. However, almost any pro raves about them despite the technical finding.

    Also, with many lenses the guys from lenstip point out a flaw that Fuji often corrects the distortion of a lens in camera through software instead of keeping the optics physically accurate. Is that something to be concerned about? Should one only pick lenses that don’t need in camera correction? (that would limit the selection a bit).

    Sorry for rambling. I appreciate you taking the time to reply. Thanks in advance.


  • Dan Bailey says:

    Hi John, I can attest that the 50mm is an incredibly sharp lens. I haven’t compared it agains the 56, but it’s awesome quality glass. And given that it’s half the size, weight and price of the 56, and weather sealed, if you like the idea of going smaller and lighter, then yes- I think it’s worth downsizing and switching. Unless you absolutely need that extra stop, which you probably won’t. The 50 actually focuses much closer than the 56, which means you can in nice and tight and get awesome bokeh. I own both lenses and since getting the 50, I haven’t used the 56 once. I see no need. I’d probably say the same thing about the 23. Overall, I think the new compact f/2 series hits the mark in every single way. And I wouldn’t worry about the correction issue. It’s not a factor in real life shooting. I’ve never noticed any problems. 🙂 -Dan

  • >


    Sign up for my newsletter and I'll send you an exclusive discount code. 

    Terry Bourk

    I have read you new book “Behind the Landscape.” I could not “put it down” meaning that I kept at it because each photo you presented/analyzed was interesting and informative. I am trying to develop an eye for composition (both the scene and the light).

    Thank you! The examples you present and the suggestions are very helpful. Purple Mountains, McKinley River and Wonder Lake are fascinating.

    Roger Sinclair

    You have done it again! Another triumph.

    Your generosity to share, the clarity of thought and concise explanation thereof is brilliant. Perhaps I should also mention the beautiful photos and the talent necessary to produce them.

    Thank you, Dan.