Tronhard wrote in post #19329050
Tamron 18-300 Lens Test #2:
Curious to know what you think!
Every lens is a compromise of qualities and the important issue is to find a compromise of features, size, weight, cost and quality which suits you.
What we think may be interesting, but if the trade-offs of a given lens suit you, than you have made an excellent choice. And for the priorities you have listed, it sounds like you have something which works well for you.
Personally, I go in a really different direction with Fuji X lenses, but I also have very different priorities. For example, for the type of work I do, 56mm would be a pretty long lens, with the exception of tabletop or macro work.
I also place a high priority on handiness for a lens on the X system, so I especially like the 35/1.4 and 18/2 combination. They are tiny lenses which deliver very nice rendering and, if I choose or create good light, are more likely to deliver a more 3D look.
The 18 is a bit weaker optically among FUJI X lenses (which tend to be excellent, so it is weak only in comparison to a strong crowd). But it is still quite a nice and tiny lens.
Do I share this to change your mind or suggest you choose differently? Not at all. If you are happy with your lens, you are all set! Rather, I share it because you asked for feedback on your choice and because my feedback is that the quality of the lens choice is relative to the needs of the individual and that it is useful to see how those perspectives differ.
For me, the quality of the Fuji lenses is a big factor in my preferring the system. Not only are they excellent in the objective measures of lenses, but they are also very good at the subjective ways in which we can consider lenses. People talk about “rendering,” “bokeh,” how a lens “draws,” how it “renders color,” “micro-contrast,” etc, most of which are more about opinions than they are measurable.
There are very few “bad” lenses these days. Our technical capabilities have gotten very good. So it’s pretty hard to go “wrong” with a little research.
But the more subjective qualities are where there is still a lot of difference, maybe far more than in the past precisely because companies are pushing hard on the technical qualities to keep up with sensors.
For example, Zeiss used to do much better on subjective qualities but has made that less of a priority in favor of objective qualities. Yet Voigtlander (owned by Cosina), still has good subjective quality.
Fuji is quite exceptional in the modern world of lenses because they manage to consistently produce lenses which have the technical, objective qualities and well as consistently excellent performance in the subjective qualities.
Nikon, in contrast, has a broad range of options, some poor, some great, on both objective and subjective measures.
All of this merely reflects my personal opinion over the years of looking at lenses. You will find other points of view.
Which leads right back to my initial point: find the best lens for your priorities. And know that when you ask for other's opinions on lenses, what you will really get is their priorities .