XF 14mm 2.8 - why not?

[Kentishrev]

I’m a recent convert to the XPro2, and enjoying life with the 35/2.  Looking around for something wider, I can get a good deal on a used 14/2.8.

So far as width and aperture are concerned, this is fine for me.  However, before I take the plunge, what do users find frustrating about the lens?

many thanks

[mdotson90]

If you can get a good deal and the focal length and aperture work for you, why not? The image quality is great as with virtually all of Fuji's lenses, and it's very well corrected (has little distortion for such a wide lens). A great and unique focal length for environmental portraits. It's one of the older ones so while I wouldn't call it "slow", it isn't as blazing fast to focus as others. That, plus the fact that it has no weather sealing and it's a little slow in f-stop for a wide prime of that size. It's essentially the same size as some of the primes that are two stops faster. For me personally, there are just more attractive options for wide angle X mount lenses. 

But as I said, if the focal length and f-stop and price work for you, you'll find very few reasons to be upset with this lens.

[Minimax]

Have it - love it! It is an absolute underrated Gem in my book. 21 mm in 35mm format is about the best wide angle focal length to have a ballance between ultra wide and „just too wide“ for me. Has always been, even back in film days.

focus speed is more than adequate, absolutely nothing to complain.

IQ is one of the best, only matched or surpassed by the 90mm (comparing within the lenses I own only)

f2.8 is a no brainer - this is an ultra wide angle, who needs a faster f on an ultra wide angle....

[pluton]

As the others have said, if the field of view works for you, there is no better lens for Fuji at this focal length. IMO, the 14/2.8 is one of the great optical designs of the last 20 years or so.  The absence of distortion is amazing.  The sharpness is pretty evenly distributed across the frame, and unlike zooms, it's small and lightweight.

It's a strong wide angle, but not what anyone today would call "super wide" .  This, and the lack of distortion, means that carefully composed shots can be made to look quite normal, without the typical super wide-lens artifacts of blurriness and pronounced volume anamorphosis at the sides of the frame.

[Franky2step]

I own the 14mm f2.8, bought used for a ridiculously low price. Absolutely love the 14mm for the sharpness and low distortion. Recently I picked up a used 16mm f2.8 for CDN$300 and LOVE IT. Super sharp, very fast focusing, weather sealed, and small. I won't sell my 14mm but if you can find the 16mm f2.8 used for less, I'd grab it. If you are sticking to buying new I'd still go for the 16mm f2.8 because it is $500 more for the 14mm. YMMV

[mcall]

It is one of the sharpness Fujifilm lenses I've owned, yet I rarely find myself using it due to the focal length. I still can't quite bring myself to sell it. 

So, there's no question of quality as far as I'm concerned. It's more about practicality. 

[Herco]

I have both the 14/2.8 and the 16/1.4. The 14 is almost as good as the famous 16/1.4 provided you stop it down to F4 (which is quite often already the case for DOF and exposure). It's just a little slower and noisier to focus. And of course slower aperture. That's it. It too has that great manual focus with the clutch. Don't worry about it not being WR. Usually most people take good care of their lenses and don't need it anyway.

I've had the 16/2.8 as well, but I sold it. Just like the 23/2 it is nice and sharp in the center, but gets really soft towards the corners and edges. For architecture and landscape it is not what was acceptable to me. Your mileage may vary. It also suffers a bit from longitudinal chromatic aberration which is harder to correct in post. It's nice, compact and not expensive though.