Jump to content

Lens: XF14mm or XF16mm or XF16-55... hard question...

Wabisabiphotography

By Wabisabiphotography
in Fuji X Lenses

 Share

Recommended Posts

Wabisabiphotography Apprentice

Wabisabiphotography

Posted
Posted

Hello! I'm the happy owner of an X-T1 and XF14mm and I was thinking to buy the XF35mm 1.4 for street photography. 

I use the XF14mm for architecture and landscape photography, but sometimes I use it for street photography but it's to wide...

Maybe XF16mm can be the solution? or is too close for city landscape? 

And what about XF16-55? Is it sharp as the other 2 lens? Can be a good instead of 2 lens?

Thanks fro your opinion! :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
hrk Explorer

hrk

Posted
Posted

Hi, 

The first lens I got for fuji was the 35. My plan was to sell it when the 16-55 came out. After using it for a while there is no way I would part with it.

The 16-55 is incredibly sharp, but it just doesnt seem to have the "magic" of my old canon 24-70 lens, and also feels a bit slow now that I am used to 1.4 and also the 56 1.2.

 

I still always have it with me, but will only use it when I need to quickly change distances, otherwise its 35 of 56 all the way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
citral Community Regular

citral

Posted
Posted

Hello! I'm the happy owner of an X-T1 and XF14mm and I was thinking to buy the XF35mm 1.4 for street photography.

I use the XF14mm for architecture and landscape photography, but sometimes I use it for street photography but it's to wide...

Maybe XF16mm can be the solution? or is too close for city landscape?

And what about XF16-55? Is it sharp as the other 2 lens? Can be a good instead of 2 lens?

Thanks fro your opinion! :rolleyes:

Why not the 18? It's small, cheap, unobtrusive, quite fast it's perfect for street imo

Link to post
Share on other sites
citral Community Regular

citral

Posted
Posted

Ok let's put it in another way : you already have a 14mm. 16mm would not be _that_ different to really justify both.

 

On the other hand, 14mm and 18mm are different enough to justify it. One is ultra-wide, the other one only wide, kind of usual wide. Wide enough to zone-focus very easily, not too extremely wide that you must be 30cm off the face of a stranger to shoot it.

 

Now normally I'd say don't bother with the 18 and get the 18-55mm instead, the difference between f/2 and f/2.8 is really not that big when you add OIS to the equation BUT for street photography, if we mean the same thing, that is among other things shooting people fast because you see an interresting pattern / composition / light / behaviour / face / whatever without looking like a voyeur, the form factor of the 18mm helps a lot, plus you can hide your cam in a normal pocket to remain very discrete and just take it out and shoot quick when needed.

 

If by "street photography" you mean something else like shooting, duh, random people randomly walking in random streets without a real reason and converting to B&W to look like it's "street photography" then whatever.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • BobJ
      X-T5 Cleaning Mistake

      By BobJ · Posted

      Because the sensor assembly is moved electrmagnetically. When there is no power it is essentially free moving.
    • jerryy
      Astro-photography (open thread)

      By jerryy · Posted

      Ahoy ye hearties! Hoist ye yon Jolly Roger and Cascade away. NGC 1502 The Jolly Roger Cluster:

      Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

      Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

      This is the equivalent of 43 minutes, 40 seconds of exposure. NGC 1502 is a neat little cluster located in the Camelopardalis Constellation. This region of space was thought to be fairly empty by early astronomers, but as you can see, there is a lot there. Kemble's Cascade (a.k.a. Kemble 1) is named for Father Lucian Kemble, a Canadian Franciscan friar who wrote about it to Walter Scott Houston, an author for the Sky And Telescope magazine. Houston named the asterism for Fr. Kemble and the name "stuck". NGC 1501 is the Oyster Nebula. A longer focal length telescope is needed to bring this one into good viewing range, but it is well worth the effort. NGC 1502: https://skyandtelescope.org/online-gallery/ngc-1502/ Camelopardalis Constellation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camelopardalis Kemble's Cascade (and NGC 1501: The Oyster Nebula): https://www.constellation-guide.com/kembles-cascade/ Arrrrrr Matey.
    • Greybeard
      Only comments are baited ads

      By Greybeard · Posted

    • BIGOAK
      55 or 80?

      By BIGOAK · Posted

      Looking for input; there are some decent deals and might want to take advantage to expand my lenses for my 100s already own: 110/2 32-64 35-70 100-200 + TC   Shooting mostly family shots, bringing my kit to capture family outings indoors and out. Tracking the 63/43 effective FLs on the two, but has anybody used both? Would the 55 (covered by two zooms right now) be redundant? Would the 80 be too similar in character to my 110 for portraiture?
    • Fotomatt
      Only comments are baited ads

      By Fotomatt · Posted

      See what I mean? Two instantaneous ads. Worthless.   
×
×
  • Create New...