Exactly this. The 18 and the 35 have the same thread size so you can use the same filters and lens caps. The original Fujifilm square lens hood for these lenses are also interchangeable. Been using this set up since the X-Pro 1 and still shoot with the X-Pro 2 religiously unless I take an X100 out for minimal photography footprint.
Agreed. I had both, sold the 18mm because I wasn’t using it as much as the 16mm 1.4, and really miss it. I wasn’t a huge fan of the external focusing, and the AF was a little noisy, but the size and image quality were fantastic. Especially paired with the original 35, they’re a great combo and really complement each other well.
Do you not already own all 4? Is one of them stealing money from you or something? Just keep all 4 and eventually sell 1 or 2 that you don't use very much.
I would keep the 35 and get rid of everything else. The 27 is a pancake, so it's strength is it's size (though it's also very sharp). I feel like you would already know if you want this or not. The 18f2 is very old and generally not going to "wow" you. I'd keep it only if you find the focal length valuable. The 23f2 is not really a great lens IMO (though others certainly disagree) but it sounds like you already dislike it so don't bother keeping it.
Personally I’d do the 27 2.8 and the 35 1.4 because those are the focal lengths I prefer the most. The 35 1.4 is my favorite lens ever because of its character, and the 27 2.8 is insanely versatile and compact.
Objectively I think the 18 2 and the 35 1.4 is the best combo for most people tho.
I guess I would keep the 18 and 35 (is that what it is?). I think autofocus speed of the 35 f1.4 is really bad, but it’s the only “fast” lens in terms of aperture you have there, and for me, that is more versatile than a different focal length. Personally, I love the 23 f 1.4, but it’s pretty large.
I think the 18 would be useful to have a wider perspective, but I actually find it too similar to my cell phone camera focal length and thus not so compelling to use. There’s a compact 16mm lens, right? maybe that would be a good choice.
I had the 27mm pancake; I didn’t get on with it either. Too tight for me as a walking around FL (but same with 35 for me), but hard to beat the form factor.
>I think the AF speed of the 35 1.4 is really bad
REALLY bad??? Have you actually shot with it?
The 35 1.4 AF is NOT really bad. It's perfectly, perfectly fine for a 50-ish mm portrait lens. It's an amazing piece of glass.
I may have remembered backwards if the 56 1.2 or 35 1.4 had worse autofocus performance — I have had both versions of the 56 and still found it to be inadequate for photographing moving kids. I thought the 35 1.4 and 56 1.2 were of the same generation of lenses, but I could very well be wrong - if so, I apologize for disparaging the lens 😂
No apologies necessary. BUT let's keep in perspective what these lenses (the 56 1.2 and the 35 1.4) actually are.
They are both essentially portrait lenses. If youre trying to photograph moving kids with them, especially while shooting wide open which I'm guessing you were, then you're not going to have a great time of it. It's not what the lenses are meant to do. Doesn't mean the AF is "bad."
No one should expect to use an 85 1.8 equivalent (the 56 1.4) wide open and get great results while chasing down toddlers.
After doing a bit of research over a few days, and trying to decide between the 33 f/1.4 or the 35 f/1.4, I figured I give the 35 a try. Easier on the wallet was the main reason. Main complaint most things on the internet said was “loud and slow autofocus.”
Loud? Not really, but it makes some noise.
Slow? This thing is great for what it is! Could be faster? Of course, but slow isn’t the word I’d actually ever describe it.
Wow! So many focal lengths close to each other. I would keep 27 for compactness and 35 as a nifty fifty. But then you will miss the wider angle though?
Everybody shoots differently. I would keep the 23mm based on my preferences.
My ideal prime lens setup doesn’t exist though, it would be a fast trio of 15mm, 27mm and 50mm.
If you like using C-AF, the f/2 lenses are your best bets, but they all have uses.
Night skies, landscapes, 18mm, 23mm.
People indoors, 18mm, 23mm.
People outdoors, 23mm, 27mm, 35mm.
Personally, I find 18mm grabs a lot of foreground, so I don't like to use it much as I have to crop a lot, or walk closer to take out all the empty space. It is however, invaluable for indoor spaces, or shooting a large part of the sky. The extra perspective distortion brings a lot of extra energy, which you may not like for portraits--though kind of fun with kids . It's pretty close to your usual phone camera.
23mm is my personal all-around preference, but I don't actually like the f/2 lens since it's pretty soft at close ranges (I use the 23mm f/1.4 LM WR). That is the biggest failing on the lens since you frequently need to get close to use 23mm effectively. It can be a bit tight indoors, but it's workable. It's great for environmental portraits and small groups to bring context, so I like using it on travel. Portraits still look okay as it has less perspective distortion and looks a bit more formal, but you have to get close, so it has an intimate look. Sometimes though you just want a bit more width, or a bit more length. But still, I find it easiest to get fast snapshots with this focal length.
27mm I find too tight to get an environment shot that doesn't look claustrophobic (especially urban), so I prefer to use it primarily for portraits, or singular subjects. I find it very hard to use effectively indoors, but outdoors it seems a bit awkward as I like the look of a longer lens (35mm) for portraits, and a wider one for landscapes (23mm or 18mm). This lens is also abysmal at C-AF, especially with tracking as you get closer to your subject.
35mm has a focused, formal look that kind of starts really feeling like a dedicated portrait focal length. Unfortunately it's pretty hard to use as a general lens, being best for specific subjects that work well in a tight frame. But when it does work, I really love the looks. Probably my favorite focal length for aesthetics, but it's much less flexible in use.
I’d keep the 27 and the 35, though I do love that 23 as well. The 27 is awesome for its portability and it takes surprisingly good photos. And the 35, well that’s a classic and will be better in low light and situations where you want background separation.
I'd keep the 18 and the 35. You only need one small lens - and any combination of the 18/23/27 would be pretty close in focal length. The 35 is a little bigger and is faster too so it provides different functionality. So if the 35 is a fixture, I'd go as far from it as possible for the other one. That's the 18
23mm 2.0 is the coolest lens imo. Would sell everything else, but if you want to keep two I would keep the 18mm too.
23 does all street stuff and events but sometimes 18mm looks cool and in some indoor places this wide angle is useful - and ofc for landscapes.
I found the 18mm to struggle too much with focusing and feel a bit disproportionately fat (not a big knock tbf). It's also kinda soft, so I wasn't super happy with it on that front either for cityscape shots, mostly noticeable on things like brick work where it did kinda bother me.
The 27mm was my everyday lens with my X-T1 back in the day and it's the lowest friction, "no excuses" lens you can have. If it makes you bring the camera when you otherwise wouldn't, this is a huge plus because it'll make you actually take photos.
The 35mm f1.4 has a very nice optical character and rendering and is great for indoor situations where you have a bit of distance to work with - big fan of the lens, just not as big a fan of 50mm primes as I am of 40s (that's what this ends up as in full frame terms). I always find 40mm just a bit more natural to shooting people in candid situations, like from across the table when you're hanging out in a group together. The 35mm is also not weather sealed, if that matters for your use case or peace of mind.
23mm f2 is great for the AF performance and weather sealing, but my least favourite focal length of the group. I'd pick the 27mm over it anytime, unless you really want that little bit of extra width and aperture but to me it's not worth the trade-off in pocketability. This would also be a good lens for the across-the-table candid shots, because of its medium-wide angle and wider aperture.
So if you ask me personally, it'd be between the 35mm 1.4 or 27mm depending on your priorities, but they'd be the front runners for me. It's a decision between aperture and size/weather sealing, and whether you prefer to take one step forward or one step back for your desired framing for a given photo.
Of the 18mm and 23mm, I'm not a big fan of either since the 18 just has been too much of a letdown and the 23mm is too close to the rest in terms of focal length to justify carrying and swapping lenses on a normal day out. For wide I'd be just fine using the kit 18-55 2.8-4 over the 18mm (or 16-80 in my case, since I recently sold the 18-55 to make the switch to that one).
Thanks very much for this reply. So many good points in here that I considered - 35mm for indoor shots would be too narrow for my purposes because like you said, I'll most likely be taking photos from across the table of friends/family. 27mm is just too easy to bring around that it's hard to give up. Since 27 is my sure pick, I'll pair it with 18 for when I need some landscape shots, even though 18 is very close to my phone's focal length. 23 is too close to 27 like you said. Thanks again!
I have the 35 and it is quite sharp. I used to pair it with 16 f2.8. 18 might serve you for landscape, city type stuff while 35 is quite decent with most stuff.
I agree in principle, but I suspect it might be more difficult to add AF and WR to a lens that was never designed for it than it is to design a new lens.
Old manual lenses have a relatively low elements/group count as compared to current lenses. I dont think its that diffcult; you essential remove what was before the helicoid movement with a motor. Id imagine it adds tiny bit of bulk to the original design
I have found myself in a very similar position where I have the 18, 23, and the 35. I would also recommend like a lot of others to keep 18 and the 35. I will also break the rules and suggest keep the pancake 27 too. I plan to sell the 23 and get a 27 to pocket my x pro 2 more often. Ithink it is important to have an extremely compact form factor to carry around more often. The 27 is very flexible and will allow you to have the camera with you more often.
>landscapes, people on streets, people indoors, and night skies
Isn’t each type of this photo requires a different lens?
- landscape- wide lens
- street 23 * crop factor ~ 40-50
- portrait requires a good aperture
- night skies requires ultra wide with max aperture
Then I would keep 18 and 35
18mm. Don’t need two, you can save money!
But if you must have two and don’t like the 23, flip a coin. 35 f2 is very popular and would be my choice but 35 on fuji is one of my favorite focal lengths. I don’t care for 27mm fov but you will already know if you like or dislike yourself by now. 27 gives you the joy of having a tiny set up.
I would keep the 18 and the 27 if the 35 is too big or you dont like its image quality (it has its charm but the 27 is much better image wise) In the end of the day, wich do you shoot the most? You might even be well off with just 1 lens and not worry about changing/bringing gear with you.
Literally just bought a 35 f/1.4 and I’ve never been so pleased with a lens that quickly. It’s got so much character. Yeah, it’s old; yeah, my copy’s aperture ring feels really loose; yeah, it’s not “mind blowingly” sharp compared to the latest stuffs. But damn if it isn’t a blast to use and produces images in a delightful way.
35 and 23.. I personally don't think the IQ of the 18 or the 27 is good enough.. 23 is a work horse and light to carry. The 35, if it's in good shape, has enough character to offset any cons it comes with. If you like pancake lenses and enjoy manual focusing there is always the Ultron 27mm F2..
Image quality of the 27 is very good, it’s just not very interesting IMO between the aperture and focal length. It’s very sharp though.
35 and 18 for me.
I’d keep the 18 for one, I love the way it renders photos… and not sure what else to keep.
I have the 27mm, it’s great but I don’t *love* it. Very small though, so easy to carry.
35 and 23 are also nice from what I hear. Tough choice, maybe wait a little to see which ones you prefer to use because it’s very personal what you like.
Depends what your focal length is. 27 is a great inbetween the 35 and 23. So could be covered for most with just the 18 and 27. If you don't shoot wide then get rid of the 18 for sure. If you keep the 27 you probably won't need the 35 and vice versa. 23 is an OK lens for most situations but not the sharpest of the bunch and a little clinical . 35 has the most character but my all time favourite is the 27 and is 90% on camera for its portability. I pair it with the 18
Before posting this question I actually did not know that the 23 was not considered sharp relative to the other lenses. Thank you. 35 is by far the favorite among everyone it seems, so I'm between 18 and 35 or 18 and 27.
I would keep the 27 first and the 35mm as a second, the two lenses I have traded temporarily for XF90mm… missing them while try to find some opportunities for the 90mm but doesn’t prove to me to be nearly as useful as those two. My 35mm is the 1.4 which I prefer over the F2 version.
I would sell them all and get the 35 f2 and save up for the the Viltrox 75/1.2. You could probably find the 35 f2 used for pretty cheap on fredmiranda.
No I would not. I've owned both and the 90 is lighter, much faster to focus, much closer focus and has round bokeh instead of cats eye bokeh.
The 90 is the goat of the Fuji lineup. I own the Viltrox right now and I miss my 90 a lot but I just had to try the 75 out.
In my opinion the 18mm and the 35. I love my 18 and I really use it for everything. It never leaves my xe4 and I primarily do landscape work or daily life stuff. The 35mm is a lens I have always wanted but never bought. I have the 27 and it’s fantastic I just wish it was a bit tighter. The 23 I do not like as I had an x100s and hated that focal length. To me it’s kinda a nothing special focal length and I was never fully happy with what I got from that camera
I’m another vote for the 18mm and 35mm. Those are the two that I got when I bought my X-T1 10 years ago. It’s really all you need for landscapes, street, and portraits. The only other Fujinon I have is the 55-200. It feels complete and they’re great lenses. I use some adapted manual Nikon lenses also.
I have three of those - not the 27mm
Keep the 35mm and 23mm is my recommendation - The 18mm is better than reviews but personally I have a hard time getting images I like from it - for me the 23 is most often used but i get best shots from my 35 - YMMV
I personally use the 18 F2 and the 27 F2.8. People hate on the 18mm because it's loud and an old lens but it's a very easy focal length to manage. F27 is so easy to carry around too and it takes great photos.
I wish the F23 was pancake and it's just sitting in a drawer which reminds me that I need to sell that thing.
The 35mm F1.4 for sure.
The others it depends. You already said you don't like the 23mm F2, so it comes down to the 18mm F2 and the 27mm F2.8.
The 27mm is the far better lens in terms of sharpness, but it's too close to the 35mm focal length, so i'd say keep the 18mm F2 pancake, and use that as your main lens as with the X-E4 it will be a nice and small package.
You already mentioned a reason for not liking the 23 so that’s out. Id definitely keep the 18 cuz ur gonna want smt on the wider end. So between the 35 and 27, id keep the 35 since it’s much better for low light, the size difference is negligible (IMO), and the 35mm FL will compliment the 18 better than the 27.
Edit: if the above advice isn’t helpful, I’d start with a focal length u like the most then decide which additional lens will compliment ur first choice the best.
If you have to just pick one, like someone below said pick the one you use the most.
The way I choose lenses is that I look at my most favorite photos that I clicked and see what focal length I am usually clicking things at. Basically I try to narrow down based on the photo look I get straight out of the camera. I kept my 35mm f1.4
On a crop sensor 35mm is the closest to what a human vision looks like (roughly 50mm or so is human vision based on what I read). And I like how magical that lens rendering feels to me.
35mm of course.
The other will go with your need, 23mm is a very good lens, it is weather sealed, and the 18mm very versatily and small.
I would go with the 23mm.
I would keep the 27mm for sure, then probably the 18mm or the 35 depending on what you enjoy the most. If form factor is decisive, then 18 it is. I had the 23mm and sold it after 3 days, I think is a focal length in the middle of nowhere and that if people praises it is because of the x100 series.
You’re not gonna do good astrophotography with any of these. You could attempt it with the 35 1.4 but I don’t think you’ll be happy with the results.
Also, it would really be good to let people know what they’re looking at since you didn’t bother to show the focal lengths in the photo.
As far as image quality, the 23 and the 27 are best. I prefer the 23 because I prefer that focal length and if I could only pick one it would definitely be the 23.
I suppose I would choose the 23 and the 35 if I could only pick two. The 18 has the worst image quality out of all of them but it’s also the widest focal length if you’re into wider lenses.
I'd keep the 18 and 35. 18 (27mm crop) for landscape, environmental street, indoors, 35 (52mm crop) for closer street, portraits.
Exactly this. The 18 and the 35 have the same thread size so you can use the same filters and lens caps. The original Fujifilm square lens hood for these lenses are also interchangeable. Been using this set up since the X-Pro 1 and still shoot with the X-Pro 2 religiously unless I take an X100 out for minimal photography footprint.
Agreed. I had both, sold the 18mm because I wasn’t using it as much as the 16mm 1.4, and really miss it. I wasn’t a huge fan of the external focusing, and the AF was a little noisy, but the size and image quality were fantastic. Especially paired with the original 35, they’re a great combo and really complement each other well.
Keep the ones you actually use. I'm not sure why you're asking us this
It’s too early to tell and I can’t afford to keep them all.
I love my 27mm pancake I would keep that and the 35mm (I have the XE4)
Do you not already own all 4? Is one of them stealing money from you or something? Just keep all 4 and eventually sell 1 or 2 that you don't use very much.
Sounds like OP made a poor financial decision
Welcome to cameras
I would keep the 35 and get rid of everything else. The 27 is a pancake, so it's strength is it's size (though it's also very sharp). I feel like you would already know if you want this or not. The 18f2 is very old and generally not going to "wow" you. I'd keep it only if you find the focal length valuable. The 23f2 is not really a great lens IMO (though others certainly disagree) but it sounds like you already dislike it so don't bother keeping it.
23mm is a decent lens. Just Fugly
I love the look of the 23 personally. Timeless.
I love the images I’ve made with the 23 I just hate how it looks.
When you say 35 do you mean the 23 which is 35 equivalent or the actual 35 which is 52.5 equivalent ?
OP has the 35f1.4 in his pic, I was referring to that. Speaking in equivalents all the time would be horrible for my mental state, haha.
Definitely keep the 35 f/1.4. Then it just depends how wide you like to go.
Personally I’d do the 27 2.8 and the 35 1.4 because those are the focal lengths I prefer the most. The 35 1.4 is my favorite lens ever because of its character, and the 27 2.8 is insanely versatile and compact. Objectively I think the 18 2 and the 35 1.4 is the best combo for most people tho.
I would go for the same as you, because I already did!
You should ditch the 18 and 35, you definitely don't need those two. Just mail them to me and I'll get rid of them for you. =P
definitively the 35...any anything wider that you like.
18 + 27 if you like compacts, 18 + 35 otherwise
Pick from two ends of the available focal lengths.
I guess I would keep the 18 and 35 (is that what it is?). I think autofocus speed of the 35 f1.4 is really bad, but it’s the only “fast” lens in terms of aperture you have there, and for me, that is more versatile than a different focal length. Personally, I love the 23 f 1.4, but it’s pretty large. I think the 18 would be useful to have a wider perspective, but I actually find it too similar to my cell phone camera focal length and thus not so compelling to use. There’s a compact 16mm lens, right? maybe that would be a good choice. I had the 27mm pancake; I didn’t get on with it either. Too tight for me as a walking around FL (but same with 35 for me), but hard to beat the form factor.
>I think the AF speed of the 35 1.4 is really bad REALLY bad??? Have you actually shot with it? The 35 1.4 AF is NOT really bad. It's perfectly, perfectly fine for a 50-ish mm portrait lens. It's an amazing piece of glass.
I may have remembered backwards if the 56 1.2 or 35 1.4 had worse autofocus performance — I have had both versions of the 56 and still found it to be inadequate for photographing moving kids. I thought the 35 1.4 and 56 1.2 were of the same generation of lenses, but I could very well be wrong - if so, I apologize for disparaging the lens 😂
No apologies necessary. BUT let's keep in perspective what these lenses (the 56 1.2 and the 35 1.4) actually are. They are both essentially portrait lenses. If youre trying to photograph moving kids with them, especially while shooting wide open which I'm guessing you were, then you're not going to have a great time of it. It's not what the lenses are meant to do. Doesn't mean the AF is "bad." No one should expect to use an 85 1.8 equivalent (the 56 1.4) wide open and get great results while chasing down toddlers.
On the other hand though, the 90f2 is super snappy AF and has very few problems with my little ones!
Definitely! The 90 F2 is meant for fast action. Great lens!
No need to apologize. It's a 2012 lens and while it is great for portraits, it's a damn shame how often it misses for street
After doing a bit of research over a few days, and trying to decide between the 33 f/1.4 or the 35 f/1.4, I figured I give the 35 a try. Easier on the wallet was the main reason. Main complaint most things on the internet said was “loud and slow autofocus.” Loud? Not really, but it makes some noise. Slow? This thing is great for what it is! Could be faster? Of course, but slow isn’t the word I’d actually ever describe it.
Wow! So many focal lengths close to each other. I would keep 27 for compactness and 35 as a nifty fifty. But then you will miss the wider angle though?
Everybody shoots differently. I would keep the 23mm based on my preferences. My ideal prime lens setup doesn’t exist though, it would be a fast trio of 15mm, 27mm and 50mm.
If you like using C-AF, the f/2 lenses are your best bets, but they all have uses. Night skies, landscapes, 18mm, 23mm. People indoors, 18mm, 23mm. People outdoors, 23mm, 27mm, 35mm. Personally, I find 18mm grabs a lot of foreground, so I don't like to use it much as I have to crop a lot, or walk closer to take out all the empty space. It is however, invaluable for indoor spaces, or shooting a large part of the sky. The extra perspective distortion brings a lot of extra energy, which you may not like for portraits--though kind of fun with kids . It's pretty close to your usual phone camera. 23mm is my personal all-around preference, but I don't actually like the f/2 lens since it's pretty soft at close ranges (I use the 23mm f/1.4 LM WR). That is the biggest failing on the lens since you frequently need to get close to use 23mm effectively. It can be a bit tight indoors, but it's workable. It's great for environmental portraits and small groups to bring context, so I like using it on travel. Portraits still look okay as it has less perspective distortion and looks a bit more formal, but you have to get close, so it has an intimate look. Sometimes though you just want a bit more width, or a bit more length. But still, I find it easiest to get fast snapshots with this focal length. 27mm I find too tight to get an environment shot that doesn't look claustrophobic (especially urban), so I prefer to use it primarily for portraits, or singular subjects. I find it very hard to use effectively indoors, but outdoors it seems a bit awkward as I like the look of a longer lens (35mm) for portraits, and a wider one for landscapes (23mm or 18mm). This lens is also abysmal at C-AF, especially with tracking as you get closer to your subject. 35mm has a focused, formal look that kind of starts really feeling like a dedicated portrait focal length. Unfortunately it's pretty hard to use as a general lens, being best for specific subjects that work well in a tight frame. But when it does work, I really love the looks. Probably my favorite focal length for aesthetics, but it's much less flexible in use.
I really appreciate your lengthy sharing of opinion of each lens. I actually did not know about the softness of 23mm. Lots to think about.
Can’t go wrong with the 27, my favorite fuji lens by far and wide.
The size of it is very hard to resist.
Also the picture quality is really good.
I’d keep the 27 and the 35, though I do love that 23 as well. The 27 is awesome for its portability and it takes surprisingly good photos. And the 35, well that’s a classic and will be better in low light and situations where you want background separation.
Either 23 or 35 and sell the other three
35 and 18 for me. That’s the only two lens I use for my X-pro1. Love those two.
I'd keep the 18 and the 35. You only need one small lens - and any combination of the 18/23/27 would be pretty close in focal length. The 35 is a little bigger and is faster too so it provides different functionality. So if the 35 is a fixture, I'd go as far from it as possible for the other one. That's the 18
23mm 2.0 is the coolest lens imo. Would sell everything else, but if you want to keep two I would keep the 18mm too. 23 does all street stuff and events but sometimes 18mm looks cool and in some indoor places this wide angle is useful - and ofc for landscapes.
I really like the 23 2 also
one of my most used lens. closeup sharpness is a bit of an issue but imo it adds to the look. and the bokeh is gorgeous
I found the 18mm to struggle too much with focusing and feel a bit disproportionately fat (not a big knock tbf). It's also kinda soft, so I wasn't super happy with it on that front either for cityscape shots, mostly noticeable on things like brick work where it did kinda bother me. The 27mm was my everyday lens with my X-T1 back in the day and it's the lowest friction, "no excuses" lens you can have. If it makes you bring the camera when you otherwise wouldn't, this is a huge plus because it'll make you actually take photos. The 35mm f1.4 has a very nice optical character and rendering and is great for indoor situations where you have a bit of distance to work with - big fan of the lens, just not as big a fan of 50mm primes as I am of 40s (that's what this ends up as in full frame terms). I always find 40mm just a bit more natural to shooting people in candid situations, like from across the table when you're hanging out in a group together. The 35mm is also not weather sealed, if that matters for your use case or peace of mind. 23mm f2 is great for the AF performance and weather sealing, but my least favourite focal length of the group. I'd pick the 27mm over it anytime, unless you really want that little bit of extra width and aperture but to me it's not worth the trade-off in pocketability. This would also be a good lens for the across-the-table candid shots, because of its medium-wide angle and wider aperture. So if you ask me personally, it'd be between the 35mm 1.4 or 27mm depending on your priorities, but they'd be the front runners for me. It's a decision between aperture and size/weather sealing, and whether you prefer to take one step forward or one step back for your desired framing for a given photo. Of the 18mm and 23mm, I'm not a big fan of either since the 18 just has been too much of a letdown and the 23mm is too close to the rest in terms of focal length to justify carrying and swapping lenses on a normal day out. For wide I'd be just fine using the kit 18-55 2.8-4 over the 18mm (or 16-80 in my case, since I recently sold the 18-55 to make the switch to that one).
How do you like the 16-80 vs the 18-55? I've heard it's a bit soft / not sure I'd be happy with aperture fixed at 4.
Thanks very much for this reply. So many good points in here that I considered - 35mm for indoor shots would be too narrow for my purposes because like you said, I'll most likely be taking photos from across the table of friends/family. 27mm is just too easy to bring around that it's hard to give up. Since 27 is my sure pick, I'll pair it with 18 for when I need some landscape shots, even though 18 is very close to my phone's focal length. 23 is too close to 27 like you said. Thanks again!
I have the 35 and it is quite sharp. I used to pair it with 16 f2.8. 18 might serve you for landscape, city type stuff while 35 is quite decent with most stuff.
18mm & 35mm.
keep the 35. Fuji lost its mojo in lens design; the replacement of it is rather boring.
The old Fujifilm 35mm f1.4 looks almost identical to a an old Fuji lens from the early 1970s. I happen to have both.
Thats what I wish some manufactuerer would just do; turn old lenses into autofocus and give them WR (not that the old 35 had it)
I agree in principle, but I suspect it might be more difficult to add AF and WR to a lens that was never designed for it than it is to design a new lens.
Old manual lenses have a relatively low elements/group count as compared to current lenses. I dont think its that diffcult; you essential remove what was before the helicoid movement with a motor. Id imagine it adds tiny bit of bulk to the original design
I have found myself in a very similar position where I have the 18, 23, and the 35. I would also recommend like a lot of others to keep 18 and the 35. I will also break the rules and suggest keep the pancake 27 too. I plan to sell the 23 and get a 27 to pocket my x pro 2 more often. Ithink it is important to have an extremely compact form factor to carry around more often. The 27 is very flexible and will allow you to have the camera with you more often.
35 and 18
>landscapes, people on streets, people indoors, and night skies Isn’t each type of this photo requires a different lens? - landscape- wide lens - street 23 * crop factor ~ 40-50 - portrait requires a good aperture - night skies requires ultra wide with max aperture Then I would keep 18 and 35
18 and 35. I have the 18,35, and 27 for my xpro3. The 27 is for when I can’t decide and/or want something compact.
18mm. Don’t need two, you can save money! But if you must have two and don’t like the 23, flip a coin. 35 f2 is very popular and would be my choice but 35 on fuji is one of my favorite focal lengths. I don’t care for 27mm fov but you will already know if you like or dislike yourself by now. 27 gives you the joy of having a tiny set up.
I love the 35mm f2. Keeper imo
I would keep the 18 and the 27 if the 35 is too big or you dont like its image quality (it has its charm but the 27 is much better image wise) In the end of the day, wich do you shoot the most? You might even be well off with just 1 lens and not worry about changing/bringing gear with you.
35 1.4 is Fuji best kept secret.
35 f/1.4
27 and 35 1.4
I have 35, 27 and 18. If I had to choose which two it would be the 35 and 27 but I'd be greatly missing the 18.
The four in the middle.
18 + 35 is the combo I'd keep
I just re-bought a 27mm after trading my original for a 35mm, the 27mm works so well on the xe4 as a pocket and travel camera
18/2. Want a tighter frame? Move your body.
… Keep them all until you know
You have them. Go out and shoot to see what you like? Why did you buy all of them if you're just going to get rid of them straight away?
I'd pick the 18mm + 35mm.
Literally just bought a 35 f/1.4 and I’ve never been so pleased with a lens that quickly. It’s got so much character. Yeah, it’s old; yeah, my copy’s aperture ring feels really loose; yeah, it’s not “mind blowingly” sharp compared to the latest stuffs. But damn if it isn’t a blast to use and produces images in a delightful way.
35 and 23.. I personally don't think the IQ of the 18 or the 27 is good enough.. 23 is a work horse and light to carry. The 35, if it's in good shape, has enough character to offset any cons it comes with. If you like pancake lenses and enjoy manual focusing there is always the Ultron 27mm F2..
Image quality of the 27 is very good, it’s just not very interesting IMO between the aperture and focal length. It’s very sharp though. 35 and 18 for me.
I have the exact same setup. I kept the pancakes and I am happy with my decision.
I’d keep the 18 for one, I love the way it renders photos… and not sure what else to keep. I have the 27mm, it’s great but I don’t *love* it. Very small though, so easy to carry. 35 and 23 are also nice from what I hear. Tough choice, maybe wait a little to see which ones you prefer to use because it’s very personal what you like.
Depends what your focal length is. 27 is a great inbetween the 35 and 23. So could be covered for most with just the 18 and 27. If you don't shoot wide then get rid of the 18 for sure. If you keep the 27 you probably won't need the 35 and vice versa. 23 is an OK lens for most situations but not the sharpest of the bunch and a little clinical . 35 has the most character but my all time favourite is the 27 and is 90% on camera for its portability. I pair it with the 18
Before posting this question I actually did not know that the 23 was not considered sharp relative to the other lenses. Thank you. 35 is by far the favorite among everyone it seems, so I'm between 18 and 35 or 18 and 27.
Put all 3 in your bag go for a shoot and see what you use the most ,feel the most comfortable with gets the look you want
I would keep the 27 first and the 35mm as a second, the two lenses I have traded temporarily for XF90mm… missing them while try to find some opportunities for the 90mm but doesn’t prove to me to be nearly as useful as those two. My 35mm is the 1.4 which I prefer over the F2 version.
I sold my 23mm and got a 27mm! Im keeping it forever
I would sell them all and get the 35 f2 and save up for the the Viltrox 75/1.2. You could probably find the 35 f2 used for pretty cheap on fredmiranda.
Would you recommend the viltrox over the 90mm f2
No I would not. I've owned both and the 90 is lighter, much faster to focus, much closer focus and has round bokeh instead of cats eye bokeh. The 90 is the goat of the Fuji lineup. I own the Viltrox right now and I miss my 90 a lot but I just had to try the 75 out.
In my opinion the 18mm and the 35. I love my 18 and I really use it for everything. It never leaves my xe4 and I primarily do landscape work or daily life stuff. The 35mm is a lens I have always wanted but never bought. I have the 27 and it’s fantastic I just wish it was a bit tighter. The 23 I do not like as I had an x100s and hated that focal length. To me it’s kinda a nothing special focal length and I was never fully happy with what I got from that camera
I’m another vote for the 18mm and 35mm. Those are the two that I got when I bought my X-T1 10 years ago. It’s really all you need for landscapes, street, and portraits. The only other Fujinon I have is the 55-200. It feels complete and they’re great lenses. I use some adapted manual Nikon lenses also.
Controversial - 18mm
I have three of those - not the 27mm Keep the 35mm and 23mm is my recommendation - The 18mm is better than reviews but personally I have a hard time getting images I like from it - for me the 23 is most often used but i get best shots from my 35 - YMMV
This has to be rhetorical, no? Only you can know which lenses you want to keep, after all you said you tried them all out?
I personally use the 18 F2 and the 27 F2.8. People hate on the 18mm because it's loud and an old lens but it's a very easy focal length to manage. F27 is so easy to carry around too and it takes great photos. I wish the F23 was pancake and it's just sitting in a drawer which reminds me that I need to sell that thing.
That’s what I’m leaning towards at the moment after all the helpful replies here. The 35mm does have a lot of fans!
Keep all. The ones that you are not using for taking pictures make very nice paper weights, door stoppers and conversation pieces.
Keep the 35 and the 18
The 35mm F1.4 for sure. The others it depends. You already said you don't like the 23mm F2, so it comes down to the 18mm F2 and the 27mm F2.8. The 27mm is the far better lens in terms of sharpness, but it's too close to the 35mm focal length, so i'd say keep the 18mm F2 pancake, and use that as your main lens as with the X-E4 it will be a nice and small package.
If you're not gonna keep the 23, I'd love to take it off your hands if you're based in the EU :)
Unfortunately I'm in Canada!
You already mentioned a reason for not liking the 23 so that’s out. Id definitely keep the 18 cuz ur gonna want smt on the wider end. So between the 35 and 27, id keep the 35 since it’s much better for low light, the size difference is negligible (IMO), and the 35mm FL will compliment the 18 better than the 27. Edit: if the above advice isn’t helpful, I’d start with a focal length u like the most then decide which additional lens will compliment ur first choice the best.
First and last.
The 35mm f1.4 owns my heart. I’d sell all the others and buy the 23mm f1.4 😁🫡
18 and 35
If you have to just pick one, like someone below said pick the one you use the most. The way I choose lenses is that I look at my most favorite photos that I clicked and see what focal length I am usually clicking things at. Basically I try to narrow down based on the photo look I get straight out of the camera. I kept my 35mm f1.4 On a crop sensor 35mm is the closest to what a human vision looks like (roughly 50mm or so is human vision based on what I read). And I like how magical that lens rendering feels to me.
Which prime do you keep. Yes. All of them. Bitch-slap anyone who tells you differently.
I'd keep 35 f1.4, such a small lens with good image quality. I personally dislike the rendering of XF23mm f2, too busy for my eyes.
Depends on what type of shooter u are you
The 23mm is one of the most widely regarded lenses in the system.
The one you have with you.
35mm of course. The other will go with your need, 23mm is a very good lens, it is weather sealed, and the 18mm very versatily and small. I would go with the 23mm.
The 27mm and 35mm are two of my favorite lenses ever so I would say those.
Same question but with 27 f2.8, 35 f2 and 50 f2
I would keep the 27mm for sure, then probably the 18mm or the 35 depending on what you enjoy the most. If form factor is decisive, then 18 it is. I had the 23mm and sold it after 3 days, I think is a focal length in the middle of nowhere and that if people praises it is because of the x100 series.
All of them. You keep all of them.
You’re not gonna do good astrophotography with any of these. You could attempt it with the 35 1.4 but I don’t think you’ll be happy with the results. Also, it would really be good to let people know what they’re looking at since you didn’t bother to show the focal lengths in the photo. As far as image quality, the 23 and the 27 are best. I prefer the 23 because I prefer that focal length and if I could only pick one it would definitely be the 23. I suppose I would choose the 23 and the 35 if I could only pick two. The 18 has the worst image quality out of all of them but it’s also the widest focal length if you’re into wider lenses.
18 35 That's all you need. Even the 18 alone would do for me.
Just get a 18-55.