so I was thinking about my lens kit for an upcoming trip to the PNW next month and I'm totally torn. I've narrowed it down to the XF 8-16mm f/2.8 or the 10-24mm f/4 R WR. My logic was that the 8-16 is the red badge so it has to be the sharpest but the lack of filter threads is making me second guess it for coastal shots.
the 10-24 is much lighter but I'm worried it wont hold up for those super fine details. I have about 1500 to spend and I just want the crispest image quality possible on the X-H2S. is the 8-16 really that much better or is there a prime I should look at?
Honestly, if you want the absolute highest resolving power for that sensor, the Fujifilm XF 8-16mm f/2.8 R LM WR is technically the king of the zooms. I have been very happy with the edge-to-edge performance on mine. It uses four aspherical and six ED elements to basically eliminate lateral chromatic aberration, which is huge for those PNW forest scenes where you have high contrast branches against gray skies. It is definitely sharper than the 10-24 at the wider end. But the filter situation is a real pain for coastal work unless you want to lug around a massive 150mm adapter setup. If you are okay with a prime, I am extremely satisfied with the Fujifilm XF 18mm f/1.4 R LM WR. It is part of the new generation of optics designed for high-resolution sensors and it is noticeably sharper than either zoom you mentioned. It handles 40 line pairs per mm with ease and that f/1.4 aperture is great for blue hour. The Fujifilm XF 10-24mm f/4 R OIS WR works well enough for general use, but it does show some softness in the corners at 10mm compared to the red badge glass. Since you have 1500 to spend, you could actually grab the 18mm prime and still have money left for a high-end filter system like the NiSi V7 100mm Filter Holder Kit. I have had no complaints with that combo for serious landscapes. The 18mm is just a beast for fine details and wont let you down...
