Daily Archives: April 10, 2018

3 months, 1 week ago 11
Posted in: Uncategorized

 

O.K. make believe time!  I just got a gfit of a world tour and I know I can’t take everything I own photographically, just can’t manage it all!  So if I was limited to just 5 lenses, the smallest and most capable I own, which ones would it be?

 

First, which body?  This may seem crazy,  because I don’t even own one, but, it would be the newest Fujifilm X-H1. Why?  Since I’ve not even shot it much?  Only one of my lenses of choice has OIS, so the body would make them all much more hand holdable.

 

So here was my criteria.  I wanted at least one ultrawide lens (21mm), one moderate wide angle (35mm the king of all around lenses), one normal (approx. 50mm equivilent), a fast, but portable, portrait lens (75mm to 85mm), Something that adds a range of longer focal lengths (75-300 equiv.)!

 

The 14mm f 2.8 XF is a fast incredibly sharp 21mm equivilent rectilinear wide angle lens, it’s compact and a fast f 2.8.  It’s also my night photography go to lens!  it is remarkably free of distortion too!!

 

The 23mm f 2 XF is a super sharp, compact 35mm equivalent with f 2 speed and did I mention it’s tack sharp!!!!  The 35mm lens is the choice of most shooters if they had only one lens!

 

The 35mm f 2 XF is a incredibly sharp 50mm equiv. it is a great all rounder!  Just like the 35mm this is a focal elngth that is perfect for so many shots!

 

The 50mm f 2 XF  is among the very sharpest lenses made by Fujifilm. Not only is it very compact but just super, super sharp!  This lens is so sharp, you try to find situtions to use it, it is wonderfully sharp! All of the “Fujicrons”,  our pet name for the f 2 lenses after the Leitz Sumicrons, are of the same legendary quality.

 

Finally, one zoom, the 55-200 f 4.5-5.6 XF  is very compact to be a (75-300 equivilent)!  Why not the 50-140 f 2.8 XF?  Too large, plenty sharp, but doesn’t fit the profile!  Would love for it to be the 100-400 but that would be way to big!!!

 

So, these small lenses and one only slighty large, Would give very complete coverage (21mm to 300mm).

 

So, why not all zooms?  They would be more convienent, but much slower, and the f 2 and f 2.8 lenses will work in lower light!

 

Now, I just need to win that worldwide tour!!

 

Blessings,

 

the pilgrim