Jump to content

10-24 or 16mm f/1.4


Vento

Recommended Posts

Greetings! I'm new here so sorry if it's wrong place for my question. It's tough choice for me, so some help would be really great. I need lens for shooting architecture and some landscapes. Most of time I'm making shots without tripod and at evening/night time. Which of these two(10-24 or 16mm) would be better? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

the 10-24 is certainly better for architectural purposes that the 16 which principal quality, being very light efficient at f 1.4. is completely useless for architectural purposes.

 

Do consider the Samyang 12mm f2, I did have  the 10-24 but I used it mostly at 10-12mm. So I sold it and bought the 12mm great lens, paid €369.

 

The 12mm Samyang has a performance at least as good as the 12mm Zeiss minus the autofocus ( totally useless for architecture!).

 

Another thing, most people are hung up shooting at full opening, unless you are an addict ( or adept  ;) ) of the bokeh persuasion, you can do this at f4 just cranck up the sensitivity, one of the most important characteristics of the Fuji system is how well it performs at higher ISO values.

Link to post
Share on other sites

16mm has an advantage over 10-24 in low light because OIS can't offer three stop advantage at such wide range. At least for every single shot. I usually take about ten shots to make one sharp photo at 1/2. Unfortunately 16 at f/1.4 has worse IQ than 10-24 at f/4 and 16mm.

Rokinon/samyang 12/2 is OK but you loose AF (if you need it), EXIF (if you need it) and aperture jumper (until you always shoot wide open). It's also the most compact and lightweight solution.

For architecture shooting sometimes it's important to be as wide as you can. Thus 10-24 wins here. You also sometimes need zoom versatility for architecture which is also an advantage of 10-24.

In the end: Choose 16 if you shoot low light really often. Choose 12/2 for price, size and weight. Choose 10-24 for best performance. My personal pick is 10-24.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree, the 12mm has almost indistinguishable image quality compared to the 10-24 at the same or wider setting and a lot more than what this lens has to give at 24mm.

 

I don’t exactly understand what the advantage is (other than the bokeh or selective focussing ) in shooting at 4 or 1.2. Unless we are shooting in absolute dark conditions ( where, I agree, noise will appear earlier on the f4 than on the 1.2, and past some point of darkness you won’t see anything anyway), the image which you look at is an amplified picture in the EVF which will look exactly the same ( because the EVF makes the compensation) in both cases.

 

This is not what you have with a camera with a mirror where the image in the viewfinder will look as bright as the lens at maximum aperture allow it to be therefore there would be a difference between a f4 lens and a f 1.2 , but on mirrorless cameras that’s what you have. A electronically compensated image in the EVF.

 

They appear, unless observed in VERY subdued light, exactly the same at f 4 and at 1.2 ( in terms of brightness).

 

 

 

The majority of owners all agree they use it 90% at its widest only and those 2 mm are easy to compensate by moving your buttocks, in perspective terms I would like to see anyone telling then the pictures apart.

 

Since I’ve sold the lens to a friend of mine one of these days I might shoot the same picture with both lenses to compare.

Link to post
Share on other sites

10-24 for best performance? I strongly disagree. It's a good zoom but I find the 14 2.8 and 16 1.4 to offer superior IQ (and the 16-55 in the 16-24 range).

 

given the choice I would probably pick the 16 and save for either the 12 or 10mm (there's a walimex 10mm, too). I had the 10-24 twice and the OIS disappointed me twice, although the second copy was optically much better than the first one. Now I'm happy with the 14 and 16-55.

 

I'd still recommend you the 16 1.4 the most. Besides the FOV and aperture, it also offers a big creative potential with the ridiculously low near focusing limit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

milandro

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear enough. I haven't said 10-24 has superior image quality. I've meant that statistically images will be better, because when you need longer focal length, you can zoom rather than crop. You have to have smth longer in addition to 12mm like 18/2 or 23/1.4 to keep the IQ as high as possible.

 

The majority of owners all agree they use it 90% at its widest only and those 2 mm are easy to compensate by moving your buttocks, in perspective terms I would like to see anyone telling then the pictures apart.

In perspective terms these 2mm which is 17% do matter when you really need to be as wide as possible. You can compensate it if you can go back little bit and adding digital perspective correction. But firstly, IQ degrades at the sides where it's already moderate. Secondly when shooting interiors you are usually already standing next to the wall and these 2mm can make real difference.

Thus IMO 10-24 wins in interiors thanks to the wide angle. And it wins for exteriors thanks to zoom versatility. Although tilt-shift lens would be much more useful here than any of the listed lenses.

 

I don’t exactly understand what the advantage is (other than the bokeh or selective focussing ) in shooting at 4 or 1.2. Unless we are shooting in absolute dark conditions ( where, I agree, noise will appear earlier on the f4 than on the 1.2, and past some point of darkness you won’t see anything anyway), the image which you look at is an amplified picture in the EVF which will look exactly the same ( because the EVF makes the compensation) in both cases.

You don't need complete darkness to have problems with the lack of aperture jumper. For example I shoot a lot with off-camera speedlights at f/8. Taking into account X-Mount cameras sync speed and speedlights power, the constant lighting is usually quite moderate. In this light camera has no problems with focusing wide open and EVF refresh rates are high. But as soon as I half press the shutter and aperture closes things get way worse. Noise, low refresh rates etc. With manual aperture lens noise also make it hard to focus. Thus I don't like adapted or third party lenses.

Getting back to the subject I see almost no reason to shoot tightly closed aperture here. Thus it might not be a problem in this particular situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we obviously disagree and have different experiences. I can only say that I have had both lenses and in my experience, I did the right thing by selling the 10-24 and buying the 12mm.

 

I’ve never considered the 16mm for me to buy.

I've never used adapted or third party wide angle lenses so my experience with tele lenses can be really different.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see, we are fortunate enough in the NL to have many shops at a relatively short distance from anyone and from each other and often they have numerous branches all over the country so if a product is not in one branch you can ask them to have it sent from another to the one more convenient to you.

 

Besides we are a small country almost surrounded by Germany and connected to Belgium ( even France is not really too far) so one could, at least in theory, go to all these places.

 

I suppose this is not the picture in many other countries. However these days there are many shops which would send you the lenses and offer a trial for a few days no questions asked money back, if you don’t like it.

 

I don’t do this ( but my neighbor she gets deliveries of all sorts of items almost daily) but many try it, if they don’t like it send things back. This might apply also to expensive items since I see Items advertised by a shop which sells this way, which are a little cheaper because they were rejects from people who tried them and didn’t like them ( but there was nothing wrong).

 

Testing and bringing back your item is important.

 

When I bought the 10-24mm I bought it on a Saturday in Amsterdam. The shop was busy and parking is expensive so I took the lens and went away.

 

When I got in the calm of my place at home I was testing the lens and by examining the lens I saw that inside there was a black spec of something.

 

The Monday I was back with the lens at the shop ( we have a mandatory one week return guarantee in the Netherlands ) and got another (nicer) sales person and a new lens ( they had 3).

 

Good luck!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

There are so many more options with the 10-24 over the 16 (although the 16 is a fantastic lens). I'm just not a prime guy...

 

I recently took a trip to Boston and Maine. It was my first outing with the 10-24. I also took the 27 and the 18-135. Prior to the trip I was expecting that I would be using the 18-135 for 80% of my shots because of it's large zoom range (and good image quality). Boy was I wrong! I took over 75% of the shots with the 10-24. I only used the 18-135 for longer reach. The shot stats showed that the larger percentage of my shots were in the 14-24 range (21-35 equivalent), but oddly enough, the single most focal length used at 10 (15 equivalent). I had lots at the 24 (35 equivalent) length, but that's understandable because I simply chose to use the lens that was on the camera (10-24) at it's longest length instead of swapping out to the 18-135 for maybe only a little more reach.

 

The 10-24 is a truly outstanding lens, and so is the 18-135. One thing that seems to hold true regardless. Pick a lens, stick with it, and learn to "see the world" through the eyes of that lens. You'll worry less about "which lens do I need for this shot" and enjoy your trip more.  If I was taking a trip today and could take only one lens, it would be the 18-135 simply because it has more range than the 10-24. However, when I take both lenses, the 10-24 is the one on the camera when I start out, and then I only switch to the 18-135 when I need the extra reach.

 

Here's a link to my flickr album of the shots: https://www.flickr.c...157658417469231

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm lucky enough to own all three lenses in question. For night photography, my pick is the Samyang 12 f/2, followed very closely by the 16mm 1.4. Long way after that would be the 10-24 due to its lesser light gathering ability. Only reason 16mm is in 2nd position and not leading the pack is because of its very poor coma performance. If you don't mind cropping the edges to about a 18mm equivalent, then the 16mm is stunning!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the 10-24 lacking in the corners and edges. The 14mm that I have is a much, much better performer here. Because of this I would not recommend the 10-24, especially not for architecture where you not only need to have a sharp image in the center.

 

I don’t have the 16mm but I have the 16-55 f/2.8. This is a stellar performer overall. Since 16Mpix is not that much therse days I need to crop as much as possible in-camera and for this I choose the 16-55 zoom over the 16mm.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the 14mm has also a serious drop of performance in the corners, the only positive thing is that past  f11 the overall performance of the lens drops so much ( to unacceptable levels really) that center and edges are almost coinciding.

 

14 mm ( courtesy lenstip)

 

3948_roz.jpg

 

10-24 center and edge ( courtesy lens tip), you can see how f11 is the best compromise between center, edges and different focal lengths. At that aperture the resolution charts between 14  and 10-24 are very similar indeed.

 

 

center

4144_roz_centr.jpg

 

edge

4145_roz_brzeg.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

the 14mm has also a serious drop of performance in the corners, the only positive thing is that past  f11 the overall performance of the lens drops so much ( to unacceptable levels really) that center and edges are almost coinciding.

 

Do you know how to read (and compare) those charts? And you are aware of the problems, most of those tests have?

 

As one who owned both: the 10-24 is an outstanding lens. But it's also not really small. The 14mm is small and sharp (no matter what the testchart says) and the microcontrast is great. In terms of sharpness I'd put it even infront of the 16mm 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, thank you, I do know how to read charts and I too did own the 10-24 for more than one year.

 

My findings are consistent with what the 10-24 charts show.

 

Now I own the 12mm and I have no regrets . Its performance, as shown in the charts is not far off the 14 or the 10-24mm . 

 

Samyang 12mm

 

4081_roz.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you know how to read (and compare) those charts? And you are aware of the problems, most of those tests have?

 

As one who owned both: the 10-24 is an outstanding lens. But it's also not really small. The 14mm is small and sharp (no matter what the testchart says) and the microcontrast is great. In terms of sharpness I'd put it even infront of the 16mm 

Those were exactly my findings.

I had 2 examples of the 10-24. The first one was mediocre, at best. Barely usable at 24mm and good at 10-18mm. The second one was much better. When the OIS enraged me once again, I sold the better copy and got the 14mm. The sharpness is much more uniform. There's no smearing in the corners and the overall image I get is just brilliant, even at f/2.8. Since I sold the 10-24, I hardly looked back. I have no complaints about the 14mm, other than I wish I tried it earlier.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

×
×
  • Create New...