Fuji 16mm F/1.4 - Can I get some user feedback?

[TopDownDriver]

Looking for real user's of this lens feedback.

 

What do you like, what don't you like?

How is the image quality?

What would you have used instead?

 

Anything you'd like to share.  There is very little out there about this lens and it looks like it should be an excellent piece!

 

Thanks

[Tom H.]

Love it, use it mostly for environmental portraits. I like the ability to blow out the background with a wide angle. Build quality is superb, even better than my 50-140. Nice snap back focus ring. I wish it came with a metal lens hood, the plastic one feels cheap and I wish that Fuji would finally, finally give us a proper lens cap. The old design barely stays on and I currently have to replace all the original ones with cheap eBay ones that have proper springs in them.

 

I feel it does render a bit more "digital", if I can describe it that way. My 56 APD renders soft, like old film lenses. The 50-140 is clinical, very neutral and seems a bit colder. The 16mm feels "digital", can't point my finger on it why I feel that way.

 

This is part of my basic kit, being 16mm, X100T and 56 1.2 APD. The 50-140 barely gets any use. As far as wide angles go, it's great.

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!

[Marc G.]

I sold mine after using it for a couple of months. But the reasons are highly subjective.

 

a) the focal length didnt suit me

the bokeh at medium distances (1-5m) is nervous/ugly and only good in the close focusing range

c) I'll rather use the lighter 14 2.8 for UWA and the 23 1.4 for documentary stuff

[Dis]

I wish it came with a metal lens hood, the plastic one feels cheap.

Fuji has announced metal square hood for 16mm. Don't know when it will be available.

[Jonesy]

Brilliant

Fast, sharp, great close focus ability, easy manual focus, a special lens.

Jonesy

[Tom H.]

Fuji has announced metal square hood for 16mm. Don't know when it will be available.

For an extra hefty price tag... Just like the hood for the X100T... Let's say I'm not a fan of that policy.

[Marc G.]

For an extra hefty price tag... Just like the hood for the X100T... Let's say I'm not a fan of that policy.

Oh come on. They give you a lens hood for free (look at the policy of Olympus, Canon and Nikon there?!) and you still cry because you don't get the small badge metal one for free, too? Seriously?!!?!?

[Sator-Photography]

Not an owner, so I can't share experience. However, I have this on my to-buy-next list, and I've been doing a fair bit of research about it. The reason I am interested is to do environmental portraiture type of work. I have come to really love the 24mm and 28mm FF equivalent field of view for this purpose after spending time studying the work of William Klein and Jeanloup Sieff. 

 

I shoot multiple systems including a Sony a7 systems and Canon FF. So I sat down and looked at all of the options for the 24mm and 28mm focal lengths. In particular what caught my attention was the recently released Zeiss Otus 28mm f/1.4. I could justify saving up to get the Otus, but to be honest, I am more interested in the Fuji 16mm f/1.4 (24mm FF equivalent focal length). Let me explain.

 

I think that at short focal lengths, APS-C systems have a strong advantage over FF and medium format. You see this when you look at the amount of vignetting you get on the Fuji 16mm vs the Otus 28mm. 

 

This source has the amount of vignetting in the corners of the Fuji 16mm at a maximum of -0.5 EV at f/1.4:

 

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=1790

 

That is NOTHING for a lens of such a short focal length. However, other sources say other things, but they are still all encouraging. For example this source measures the falloff at f/1.4 at -1 EV:

 

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/reviews/lenses/fujifilm-xf-16mm-f-1-4-r-wr-review/4

 

Another source allows you to visualise the vignetting without measuring it:

 

http://www.fujivsfuji.com/wide-angle-primes-14mm-f2pt8-vs-16mm-f1pt4-vs-18mm-f2/

 

This source does the same thing (don't go all hysterical about the source, it's just another data point at the end of the day):

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/fuji/x-mount-lenses/16mm-f14.htm

 

It is hard not to conclude that the amount of vignetting on the 16mm f/1.4 is extremely modest for a lens with such a short focal length. Now, let's compare that with the Zeiss Otus:

 

http://diglloyd.com/prem/s/ZF/publish/28Otus-vignetting.html

 

It reaches to over -2 EV at f/1.4! And the Fuji has a shorter FF equivalent focal length than the Otus...but rather than having more vignetting than the Otus, it has less! Much less.

 

Next, if you compare the MTF plots published by Fuji and Zeiss, while the way the data is presented makes direct comparison problematic, it strongly suggests that their acutance is comparable. However, where the Fuji really falls down compared to the Zeiss is in astigmatism (there is a lot of divergence between the sagittal and tangential plots on the Fuji). The end result of this is the harsh bokeh from the Fuji that has been remarked about by some reviewers:

 

https://fstoppers.com/originals/fujifilm-xf-16mm-f14-r-wr-review-76661

 

The MTF plots confirm that this observation has a quantifiable basis in the optical performance of the lens. The Zeiss Otus does much better in this regard, having much less astigmatism. That said, the inclusion of aspherical elements on the both the Otus and the Fuji XF 16mm does also contribute to strongly drawn and harsh lines on BOTH some of the Otus lenses as well as the Fuji 16mm. The Zeiss Milvus lenses have fewer aspherical elements and have smoother bokeh as a result. The harsh bokeh on the Otus 85mm is related to the deployment of multiple aspherical elements in the Otus, a fact that  is rarely discussed, especially as watery eyed reviewers take one look at the price of the Otus, and assume that it is such as paragon of perfection that it exists on a plane beyond all possibility of criticism. That, however, is simply an impossibility. All lenses have their strengths and weakness irrespective of price. 

 

All of this is truly well and good, but I am comparing a $4500 USD Zeiss lens to a $1000 USD Fuji lens. The fact that the Fuji can actually keep up with the Otus, and in some ways greatly surpass it, is a testament to the extraordinary excellence of Fuji lenses. 

 

At the end of the day, MTF plots and the like are artificial measurements strictly speaking only applicable to the laboratory conditions in which measurements are taken (the scientific methodological term for this problem is called "extrinsic validity"). From a more practical perspective, unlike the Otus, the Fuji has autofocus, and a perfect MTF plot means nothing if shots are out of focus. More important is whether the overall "drawing" of the Fuji 16mm has a global aesthetic appeal that is greater than the sum of its optical parts. I have looked at a lot of sample images, and time and time again, I am impressed by the Fuji 16mm f/1.4, and the visual "pop" that it manages to achieve. The biggest weakness is certainly the busy and somewhat harsh bokeh, but then again creamy bokeh is not something you commonly strive for a lot at this focal length. Certainly, it means that busy backgrounds (eg branches) need to be avoided, but all lenses have their strengths and weaknesses. More importantly, an APS-C lens gives us more depth of field, thus allowing the environment of a portrait to be better in focus, even at wider apertures. As for the "too digital" criticism, I am most puzzled and would like to learn more about what this means...perhaps it means it is just too ridiculously clean and sharp, which could well be true. In balance, I've concluded after a lot of thought that the Fuji 16mm lens is a must have for me, and next payday I am going to put in my order. While I have no problems with saving up for the Otus 28mm to be released next year, I suspect that even if I did buy it, I might well get more practical use out of the Fuji 16mm, which in some ways performs better at f/1.4 than the Otus. I suspect that if Fuji charged $4500 for the XF 16mm f/1.4 you'd get more watery eyed reviewers proclaiming it as the supreme paragon of uncriticizable perfection, but unfortunately we are just so spoilt by Fuji that we feel much more free to complain.

[Tom H.]

Oh come on. They give you a lens hood for free (look at the policy of Olympus, Canon and Nikon there?!) and you still cry because you don't get the small badge metal one for free, too? Seriously?!!?!?

Lens hoods cost near nothing in production cost, even the metal ones. So yes, for a 1000 bucks lens, I expect a decent hood in the box. And "other brands do this too" is never an excuse. Fuji should be above that.

[Marc G.]

Lens hoods cost near nothing in production cost, even the metal ones. So yes, for a 1000 bucks lens, I expect a decent hood in the box. And "other brands do this too" is never an excuse. Fuji should be above that.

It's not even industry standard to include any lens hood. And every manufacturer charges quite a bit for those plastic ones. That's the standard procedure with lens hoods. Besides, the plastic ones offer superior protection, compared to metal ones and, apparently, I think that the plastic one offers superior flare reduction, too. So what you want is a hipster lens hood while Fuji provides a more than decent one in the box.

 

I call that ungrateful.

[Tom H.]

It's not even industry standard to include any lens hood. And every manufacturer charges quite a bit for those plastic ones. That's the standard procedure with lens hoods. Besides, the plastic ones offer superior protection, compared to metal ones and, apparently, I think that the plastic one offers superior flare reduction, too. So what you want is a hipster lens hood while Fuji provides a more than decent one in the box.

 

I call that ungrateful.

 

Call it what you will, I think a 1000€ lens that is built like a tank, should come with a proper lens hood and lens cap that fit that same build quality. It's something most customers will appreciate. I still bought it, but that doesn't mean I can't comment on what can improve. And the plastic one is not that great actually, it doesn't fit snugly so it comes off quickly, or it shifts so next shot you take you'll have the petal sticking into your frame...If I can buy a 3€ lens cap that is better quality in any generic store, Fuji should be able to do better, and same goes for the hood.

[val]

The 16mm is wonderfully sharp and a pleasure to use, but the bokeh can be quite defined. Lights usually appear as solid balls. The further your subject, the busier the bokeh becomes. I quite like it but for $1250 AUD, it's a bit hard to swallow when the Sigma 24mm F1.4 ART can be bought for around $900 AUD.

 

[Dis]

The further your subject, the busier the bokeh becomes.

This is valid for all lenses).

I quite like it but for $1250 AUD, it's a bit hard to swallow when the Sigma 24mm F1.4 ART can be bought for around $900 AUD.

So? Adapting sigma to fuji via speedbooster will be more expensive and looses AF, digital corrections, automatic aperture, EXIF etc. it's also ~1kg beast! Using with DSLR still looses digital corrections. And native DSLR lenses are much more expensive.

[val]

This is valid for all lenses).

So? Adapting sigma to fuji via speedbooster will be more expensive and looses AF, digital corrections, automatic aperture, EXIF etc. it's also ~1kg beast! Using with DSLR still looses digital corrections. And native DSLR lenses are much more expensive.

More than I'd like. I am nitpicking though.

So? I'm not talking about adapting, I'm talking about coming from a FF system and having a more affordable 24mm F1.4 than a 24mm F1.4 equivalent on APS-C.

[Dis]

So? I'm not talking about adapting, I'm talking about coming from a FF system and having a more affordable 24mm F1.4 than a 24mm F1.4 equivalent on APS-C.

$1550 for canon and $2200 for nikon is not more affordable than $1000 for Fuji. Sigma is not native lens so it's unfair to compare with it. The fair question is why no third party manufacturer produces X-mount 16/1.4 lens. If the sigma 16/1.4 existed it should be cheaper than 24/1.4 FF lens.

[Marc G.]

Why should it be unfair? The Sigma is arguably the best of the 24 1.4 bunch. So why not compare the Fujinon to the best, rather than some overpriced lenses that don't deliver the best quality?

[Dis]

Why should it be unfair? The Sigma is arguably the best of the 24 1.4 bunch. So why not compare the Fujinon to the best, rather than some overpriced lenses that don't deliver the best quality?

As I've said Sigma is not a native lens. It looses digital corrections. You can't be sure if it will work with next generation cameras. When you buy a native lens you pay the price of current and future compatibility. With professional lenses you also pay for durability. Sigma has had problems with this one but the new Art series seems to be OK. 

Talking about IQ it's fair but hard to do. Comparing on native sensor FF lens will have better resolution due to the sensor size. At APS-C DSLR it will have an advantage at the sides and corners as these are not really the corners of the lens. At mirrorless APS-C it will probably loose due to the fact the sensor was designed for the other working distance.

To me the most meaningful comparison is the usability. The problem is it's really a matter of taste. I shoot nothing with single 24/1.4 lens and I don't want to carry 1kg lens with anything else. I would really prefer the new Nikon 24/1.8 if I was shooting Nikon. It's also cheaper than the Sigma. And XF 16/1.4 is perfect for me with Fuji. I would not buy Sigma X-mount version even if it existed. For example for astrophotography Sigma 24/1.4 + Nikon D810(a)/Canon 5DS® could probably be the optimal bundle.

[CRAusmus]

The original poster is asking about Real World Experience with the 16 ƒ1.4 for the X Series.  Not about how it compares to Sigma's offering for full frame bodies.  Somehow somewhere this discussion went down a completely different track.

 

I only got to play with the 16 for a brief time, but I absolutely loved it, and have not heard of anyone who owns it that doesn't love it.  If the 24 is a length you love, you most definitely love the 16.  I've heard many that owned the 14 and didn't feel they needed the 16, but once they tried it out, they quickly forgot the 14 altogether.  It's zippy, and sharp as hell, and the low light performance is quite amazing.  I fell in love with it in the brief time I had with it and wish I could afford it.  All that being said, I don't need it to be that fast and I can afford the 14 much sooner, so I've opted to try and grab the 14...That however is just my needs...As I said, if you love the 24 Focal and can afford the 16, then you will not be disappointed in my opinion.

[jlmphotos]

OMG I love my 16 1.4!!!  In 10 days of stock shooting that lens was my most-used just behind my 18-55.  It's T.A.C.K. sharp from 1.4 to where i took it at F11!  Absolutely zero complaints.  I feel it balances very well on the X-T1.  Personally I love the size and the feel of the lens and the bokeh, when used up close, is delicious!

 

Man it's tack. tack. tack. sharp and it focuses OH SO CLOSE!

[jlmphotos]

And for all you guys arguing about a lens hood.  Who gives a flying sh*t?    On eBay you can get a lens hood of any style for under $8.00 US Dollars but the petal hood provided works just fine as well.

[jkundi]

I recently shot a event where I was close to my subjects who were groups of 4/5 people. I had it at 1.4 and 2.0 most of the evening and nearly every picture was tack sharp, the bokeh wasn't as pleasant as my 23mm 1.4. 

[Tom H.]

And for all you guys arguing about a lens hood. Who gives a flying sh*t? On eBay you can get a lens hood of any style for under $8.00 US Dollars but the petal hood provided works just fine as well.

That's the whole point. If you can buy one for 8 bucks, that means production cost is likely less than 3 bucks, so why not put both in the box to begin with? It's just silly not to include them...

[CRAusmus]

I think his point is that it's silly to bitch about an 8 dollar lens hood when you just dropped a grand on a lens.

 

Now back to the topic....

[val]

I recently shot a event where I was close to my subjects who were groups of 4/5 people. I had it at 1.4 and 2.0 most of the evening and nearly every picture was tack sharp, the bokeh wasn't as pleasant as my 23mm 1.4. 

 

That's the trade off.

 

I prefer the 24mm FOV but the bokeh from the 23mm F1.4. Ahh well

[Marc G.]

I recently shot a event where I was close to my subjects who were groups of 4/5 people. I had it at 1.4 and 2.0 most of the evening and nearly every picture was tack sharp, the bokeh wasn't as pleasant as my 23mm 1.4. 

Thats the exact reason I sold the 16. Bokeh at medium distances. It can be as sharp as it can but if the pictures of a wedding look shitty because of busy bokeh, it's not for me. Sadly. I loved it for several reasons.