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...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • Giampaolo Masserano
      Looking for Full Frame lenses to adapt to GFX

      By Giampaolo Masserano · Posted

      I use a TECHART ring to mount Canon EF lenses on the GFX 50S-II and 100S-II, maintaining image stabilization and autofocus. The only limitation are lenses with a small rear element diameter that make it impossible to cover medium format. Fast lenses like the EF 85/1.2L or the 100-400L, however, work great.
    • thelostkiwi
      Looking for Full Frame lenses to adapt to GFX

      By thelostkiwi · Posted

      I also use a Nikon to GFX Fringer and it works very well.  24mm f/1.8 vignettes so best used on 35mm mode.  50mm f/1.8 covers the entire frame very well with no issues and is a superb little lens. 105mm Sigma vignettes slightly but is perfectly usable. 300 f/4 likewise the 105.  I have a 70-200 f/20+.8 incoming to test so will report back but I'm expecting a little vignetting.  Even in 35mm mode the image is still 60MP and if you're prepared to manually crop and correct you can get 80-90 MP images.  I also have a C/Y to GFX adapter.  The 24mm Sigma Superwide vignettes strongly. Ditto 28-80 Zeiss Sonnar. 80-200 f/4 Sonnar is perfectly usable. All work fine as 35mm mode lenses.  I also have an M42 adapter which I tried with the Carl Zeiss Jena 135mm f/3.5 with good results. 
    • Trevor R
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By Trevor R · Posted

      Thank you. I will research it.
    • jerryy
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By jerryy · Posted

      Ahh, the infamous brick wall photos… 😀 According to internet lore, if the dng converter does not properly apply the corrections, you can have it apply custom profiles that should work for you. How to do that is waaaaaay outside of this comment’s scope, but there are plenty of sites listed in the search engines that step you through the processes. Best wishes.
    • Trevor R
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By Trevor R · Posted

      Jerry Thank you very much. That is extremely helpful. It seems that the camera and the lens have the latest firmware update, so it appears that the corrections should be applied automatically. The lens arrived this afternoon and I took some quick test shots, in which the correct lens information appeared in the EXIF files, so that sounds good. I used Adobe DNG converter to convert the Raw (RAF) files, and then opened the DNG files and saved them in PSD format. However, with a beautiful, clear, cloudless blue sky, there were no lines near the edges to check if distortion had been corrected. Another day I plan to photograph a brick wall. Thank you for your help.
×
×
  • Create New...