Vento

Anyone have 16 1.4 night shots? It's really hard for me to find some of these. And would be great to see 10-24 shots too, made by users of this forum.  Thank you.

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!

I would suggest, next time that you have a chance, to try and seriously consider them, in particular the Samyang production.
 
I now own the 8mm fish eye and the 12mm and I think they are excellent lenses. 

the 10mm samyang ( or any other brandname it is sold under) is huge it has a much worse performance ( results at edges are very poor) than the 12mm.

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.

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.

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.

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.