Thank you!

It’s such a beast!!

So happy to hear!! It’s such an incredible lens!

Need to try that 75 1.2 out!

They’d compliment each other so well

I’m yet to try any of the native XF mount voigtlander lenses! I hope to give them a go at some point in the future

I actually hunted an 18-55 down recently, the OIS is also really cool, honestly unbelievable for a kit lens

How sharp is tamron compared to fuji18-55?

@@micharynkun3668 I sold my sigma 18 - 50 for the Tamron 17 - 70. The Fuji 18 - 55 that I tried before buying the Sigma & the Tamron was crisp but terrible & slow AF.

It’s a 39mm Explorer 1 214270 MKii :)

I respectfully disagree about the 16-80 f4… terrible bokeh rendering, and f/4 doesn’t cut it for a lot of uses, portraiture in all but studio lighting. Choose the 18-55 variable aperture instead, and it’s also lighter. To me, the 16-80 if the absolute worst value of all XF lenses (I don’t cover XC lenses, because those are just squeaky toys)

@@mortenthorpe I have the XC15-45 and it is a sharp lens although the zoom is quirky.

@@edc5338that literally says two things about your need for quality lenses - 1. You don’t need them, 2. You don’t know how to evaluate trash from quality- sharpness is a bare minimum for any modern lens - bokeh rendering and color reproduction (micro contrast also) are super important as well

It was very tough picking between the Zeiss and the 18 1.4 for the top spot!! They are both so damn good! The 90 is unreal, you’ll love it! I’d love to try the other two Zeiss lenses, I hear great things but I don’t really need an ultrawide or a macro atm

I recently picked up a near mint Nikon 55 2.8 and I can’t wait to try it out!!

If you don’t shoot video the Sigma 18-50 is a great option and it’s so lightweight!! Plus you get a constant 2.8 aperture and it resolves the XT5’s 40mpx perfectly. Just sucks it’s missing an aperture ring but it’s like 90% as good as the 16-55 image quality wise and so small!

Yeah....I never shoot video - purely stills work. I do like an aperture ring though and this new lens from Fuji...16-50 will be something I will be looking at when it is available

@@NJM1948 I don’t believe it’s going to be a constant 2.8 though right?

That is the downside - although it didn't bother me with the 18-55. I think the new lens will be F2.8 to F4.8 if the rumours are true

Viltrox really have proven that you can get some exceptional third party Fuji lenses!

Sigma far better quality photos than Viltrox PERIOD

I haven’t had a chance to test it out, but it never really interested me due to the size of it (basically as big as the 16-55) and also lacking an aperture ring. I also would rather 16mm on the wide end then 70mm on the Tele end too. The fact that it’s the same price as a used 16-55 too. The IS would be welcome though, and it’s the one thing I really wish the 16-55 had!

I have heard! I haven’t personally used it though so didn’t want to talk about it in the video, but I am looking forward to trying one out at some point in the future!

Woah, I’ve never heard of that Ibelux lens!! Looks crazy, I would love to try it out, what are your thoughts on it?

Nice, I’ve heard great things about the 100-400 too!

Yeah nice for landscape, birds and moon Photography@@rudermanphoto

​@@rdtstudiosdo you think 300mm is enough for most of that?

@@Tomcat-tomato It depends the reach you need,for me is enough and I If I need more reach I can always ad a tele converter or digital crop

I haven’t! I would love to though, they both look awesome, I just haven’t really needed an ultra wide or a macro lens for any of the work I do. But maybe in the future I’ll pick them up and complete the trio!

I haven’t had a chance to yet! I have heard amazing things and I’m looking forward to trying both that and the 27 f1.2 at some point! I didn’t want to add them into the video as I personally didn’t have any experience with them but yes I’ve heard they would be a great alternative to the 90 f2.

@@rudermanphoto Oh nice man with integrity. Love it, most people will just lie on KZfaq for views.

@@beewhy001 haha I can’t talk about how good a lens is and not show any example photos!! It’s alright, I’ll hopefully get them in to review at some stage in the future and then I can give an actual review on them :)

Love the detailed comment!! Thank you! I haven’t personally tried either the Sigma 56 or the 56 1.2 WR, I have heard good things about both but the sigma lacking an aperture ring just turns me off it, and as for the 56 1.2 WR, well I love the 1.0 for its uniqueness and I’m willing to make the compromise when using it as it’s just such a special lens in my eyes. I’ll probably end up trying it out at some point, and perhaps I just have a golden copy of the OG 56 1.2 but mine is just fantastic, sharp and characterful and such a joy to use, especially on older X bodies! As for the XC 35 f2, yes it is the same optics but once again no aperture ring = I’m not interested haha The added weather sealing and build quality improvement is worth the incremental price increase especially when buying used imo.

@@rudermanphoto I used to be an it has to have an aperture ring too, but after using the sigma, and realising it is not an issue after 15 seconds I was sold :)

@@9Mtikcus haha I really wanted to like the sigma 18-50 but that lack of an aperture ring killed me, no matter how decent the photos looked 🤷🏻‍♂️

So glad you love it! Yeah it’s AF is sadly its weakest point, but like you said if you have time to focus it’s totally fine - just not the best for super fast focusing situations haha

Really? The bokeh is so lovely on the 16-55 in my opinion - so smooth and not distracting. Never tried the Tamron but have heard good things, having VC would be great for video! The original 23 1.4 is a lens which I really wanted to love but sold it within two weeks of buying it because the autofocus was so terrible on my copy it probably hit focus 40% of the time, when it did it was great though and the manual focus clutch system is so great. The 50 f2 is a stellar lens too!

It feels excellent, the best zoom I’ve ever tried, as good as Canon’s 24-70 2.8. I haven’t noticed any zoom creep or anything with my copy either, nice and tight and smooth!

My 70-300 is as smooth as silk.

Did you ever end up replacing that stolen Touit? That’s devastating it was stolen!

16-55 2.8 + a 23 f2 would be a great two lens combo for a kit which can both do everything and have a smaller more compact option available!

I don’t quite get your question, do you mean why would I pick multiple primes over just one zoom lens in that aperture range? Primes in general are going to be a lot sharper and more compact then a zoom lens, as well as usually having a noticeably wider aperture too. The reason people call the 16-55 a “bag of primes” is because its sharpness and overall image quality is almost prime level, but subsequently you do have a lens which is like 3x the size of primes and with an aperture that still isn’t as wide as the primes would be.

Congratulations on your XT5 purchase. The good thing about getting a body above your skill level is you can grow into it. Until then you have the “A” on your settings. I like shooting aperture priority. I set the ISO to auto. I don’t mess with that. One thing less to think about. I set the shutter speed to 1/250 to freeze the subject. I control the f setting based upon the frequently changing light. @rudemanohoto outlined the advantages of a prime. Zooms are convenient. Lots of focal lengths. Generally at the cost of a slower shutter. Zooms have more glass elements so relatively at the cost of clarity. Zooms are a great place to start. Discovering your preferred focal length is important. Do you need a fast lens? Not all of us do. Watch KZfaq videos to learn about photography and your camera in particular. Your camera can do tricks. You need to learn what the tricks are and if you want to use them. Then learn how to access the camera setting. Take a basic photography class. The camera store may offer some. The continuing education at the local community college is also a good place to start. Go to the library. The books are free. Borrow some books. They also probably have genres books. Portraits, street, landscape, etc. Join the local camera club. There is a lot of knowledge available from the club members. Take your new camera for a walk. Take pictures. Lots of pictures. Henri Cartier-Bresson, a famous 20th century photographer said your 1st 10,000 images will be your worst. Try and fail. That is how we learn. Please fail during non critical times. Don’t learn how to do photography during your child’s birthday party. Try out features on your camera. See if you like them. The important thing is to fail. That is the easy part. Then learn what you did (the fault is always with the photographer. The camera is a computer attached to a lens. It doesn’t know what it is doing or what you want.). Have fun with your camera. You spent a couple of grand on your light capturing machine. Once you learn how to use your camera You’ll be happy you bought your camera. I do street photography. This is a great time of the year. There are parades, street markets &, state fairs. Take a lot of photos. Get a large memory card (your body has dual card slots. Get two large memory cards.) and take many photos. They are free. Play with shutter speed and aperture. Shoot portrait and landscape perspective. Do that by turning your camera. Just to confuse you, your camera does really good video. Play with that too. If you like video you will have to purchase a microphone. The mic plug in is 3.5mm. I don’t know about the XT5. Many Fuji bodies have a 2.5mm jac. Curse you Fuji. Why do you do that? The camera store can tell you. If the 5 has the dreaded 2.5mm jac the 2.5->3.5 adapter is ~$10 so don’t worry. You purchased a wonderful camera. Now go out and play with your new toy. Mask On Nurse Marty (Ret)

The 16-55 is awesome, and comparable to many full frame zooms I’ve tried - can’t speak for the other Fuji zooms though as I haven’t used them.

I have used that lens before but personally didn’t vibe all that much with it - the AF on mine didn’t feel all that accurate and it costs almost as much as a 18 1.4 if you buy it used which sorta defeats the purpose of “cheaper alternative” Also, 24mm ff eqv is just a bit too wide for me to use for everything like 28mm or 35mm. The super close focus ability and manual clutch override is sick though!

@@rudermanphoto Thanks for the reply! Love your vids. I see the 16s for $400 used though. The 18mm is around $700. Do you think it's $300 worth more?

They zoom clockwise, like Canon’s lenses do.

I think that you can change the direction of zoom ring and focus ring as well in the settings.

It’s actually Kaweco Summer Purple, although not long after this I switched to Syo-Ro so there is a bit of that in my little journal, didn’t expect to see this comment here though haha

@@rudermanphoto Looks like our interests overlap :D

35mm! The 35mm f2 from Fuji would be a great option if you want a cheap 50mm lens, the XC version is dirt cheap but the build quality is pretty poor, I would personally get the XF version if you can swing the extra $100 or so that it costs.

The Contax G lens? Or is there another 90 2.8 sonnar?

@@rudermanphoto Yes, the contax g1/2 have a 90mm from zeiss in their line up. You need a adapter to be able to engage in manual focusing tho since they are auto focus only

@@Keckegenkai oh wow, what adapter would you recommend?

@@rudermanphoto Honestly I dont have any point of reference since im still using the one I first bought and it serves me well up to this point. No clue if others are better. Its the one from 'Urth'. Payed 90€ for the lens and 90€ for the adapter so all in all 180€(without shipping). No clue if thats worth to you for a manual lense. What I really like about the adapter is that unlike other adapters that inevitably make the lens longer in size sitz nearly flush on the Fuji

Are you talking about the new WR one? I haven’t personally tried it, but compared to the OG 56 1.2 I prefer the look of the 50 1.0.

If you assume price used or bought smart and not paying full retail you can easily find all 5 of these for a hair over 5k aud. 50 1.0: I paid $1500 90 f2: I paid $800 16-55: I paid $1000 32 1.8: I paid $800 18 1.4: I paid $1100 The 50 1.0 is definitely the most expensive option on the list and if it’s too expensive you can always get the 56 1.2 for much less money. The aperture ring on the 18 1.4 is a legitimate non issue, I have no problems with it and I don’t really see how that would stop you from considering it given how incredible the optical quality of it is, at least it has a aperture ring unlike any Sigma lenses lol

I don’t use UV filters on my lenses - I used to but honestly I don’t feel the need to use them anymore - Hoya is a good brand and it’s what I used back in the day though if you want a recommendation

If you are referring to the new version of the 23 1.4, it should have fairly similar performance to the 33, so it’s up to you to decide what focal length you prefer, if you are referring to the old 23 1.4 the 33 1.4 will be a much better lens with noticeably better AF.

Sorry for your loss!

Perception does mean a lot. Too bad that people with no photography knowledge have to dictate what you use based on a brand name. Reminds me of motorcycling. Ask 9 out of ten people what the best motorcycle is, you get Harley Davidson. The more interesting statistic is that 9 people out of 10 people also know nothing about motorcycles. Same with photo gear.

You’re the first person to notice what that movie poster is in the entire time of me posting videos! One of my absolute favourite films, it’s such a masterpiece! That’s actually the original theatrical release poster, was so hard tracking one down but I absolutely love it

@@rudermanphoto it's honestly the first thing I noticed and I only just came across your account today. Keep it up man ❤️