I want the XF 10-24... is it worth selling the 18mm and 14mm for it?

[Patrick FR]

Ok... I'm just about to take a decision. Since there are never good X-deals where I live (damn!), and I'm lusting after the 10-24 since it has been launched, I'm thinking to sell the 18mm and 14mm in order to get the XF 10-24, which is still expensive here (about €1000).

 

I'll make my decision very soon (early next week)

 

Do you think it makes sense to sell 2 primes (18 and 14) to get the 10-24? Or should I keep at least one between the 18 and 14? Which one? Sell them both?

 

Decisions.. decisions

[citral]

I'd say outside either use the 14 with the 18-55 (at 18 it's good, better than the 18mm prime and the 10-24 sucks at 23-24) or use the 14, 23 and 35. Or 18 and 27mm to be really light.

 

For interiors f/4 is not really good enough IMO so 14, 23, 35.

 

If you don't need it, bust just have gas why not rent the zoom for a bit ?

[x-tc]

this might help you:

 

http://www.fujivsfuji.com/10-24mm-f4-vs-primes/

[x-tc]

For interiors f/4 is not really good enough IMO so 14, 23, 35.

 

Why is that exactly?  Are you trying to capture something moving? 

[x-tc]

Ok... I'm just about to take a decision. Since there are never good X-deals where I live (damn!), and I'm lusting after the 10-24 since it has been launched, I'm thinking to sell the 18mm and 14mm in order to get the XF 10-24, which is still expensive here (about €1000).

 

I'll make my decision very soon (early next week)

 

Do you think it makes sense to sell 2 primes (18 and 14) to get the 10-24? Or should I keep at least one between the 18 and 14? Which one? Sell them both?

 

Decisions.. decisions

Patrick,

btw, I picked up the 10-24 last week from CameraLand per your tip. ;-) thanks for that. Saved another $50USD over MAP.  So I kind of owe you. 

[Trenton Talbot]

Do you think it makes sense to sell 2 primes (18 and 14) to get the 10-24? Or should I keep at least one between the 18 and 14? Which one? Sell them both?

 

I had 10-24, 14 and 18. Then I've analyzed how much I used each during last year and… sold 10-24 and 18.

Not suggesting anything, just a food for thought. 

[Sunglass]

Patrick, the merits of the 10-24 are evident. The cons: at f:4 the corners are noticeably soft. At 5.6 the problem is completely solved. Plus, it is big. However, I love it and have hardly taken out of my XT-1 since I bought it last February.

[citral]

Why is that exactly?  Are you trying to capture something moving? 

 

Yes but that's me, I like to include people in wide shots to give a perspective, sense of size and a touch of humour. If someone is into pure "architecture" shots without people the zoom might be a way to reduce the weight of the bag I suppose.

 

Not really my thing since I don't find personnally that ultra-wide shots of stuff without people make memorable pictures, rather the kind of "fun, amusing" ones but to each his own

 

Examples :

 

 

[Patrick FR]

Ok, thanks for the feedback and the links. here are my thoughts so far:

 

I'd need the 10-24 especially for shooting at the wider end. For the long end, I have 2 other lenses covering it (23, 18-55), So I don't care if the 10-24 is not a great performer at 24.

 

Between the 18mm and 14mm I'm tempted to keep the 18mm. It's optically not as good as the 10-24, but it's a compact lens (and faster). The 14mm is a great lens, and faster than the 10-24, but the 10-24 has OIS, so I often won't really miss the one stop advantage of the prime (I'll mainly use it for landscape).

 

So I basically decided to: 1) buy the 10-24 and 2) sell the 14mm

 

Now thinking to keep or sell the 18mm. Maybe I'll keep it, and set this rule: if I don't use it during the summer holidays, I'll sell it in September.

[citral]

Well to put it in another way, you are trading an extremely good wide angle prime, which weighs 235g and is 58mm long, for a good zoom that weighs 410g and is 87mm long for the benefit of having 10-16mm instead of just 14mm (since 18-55 are covered, you don't really need the 17-24 range of the 10-24).

 

You have to see if you can justify it but imo the distortion at 10mm is so tragically comic that the usuable range is more like 12-16mm. 12-16@F/4 vs 14mm@F/2.8 that's quite a lot of money for not much now, if you think about it that way

 

In any case if you plan to keep the 18-55 forever and use it as a walk around lens (like for your holidays) the 18mm is really questionable.

 

What I would personally do is sell the 18mm and keep the money for when the 35 F/2 comes out, and use 14, 18-55 and 23, that is an excellent combo. (Tho I prefer 35 than 23 for portrait but up to you)

 

Ah, decisions

[x-tc]

I have no idea why people are so focused on the 10-24 weight.  Lets keep it in perspective here, its only 5 grams more than the XF56 prime.

If you can carry around a XF56 on the front of your camera and not blink, surely you can carry something that is 5 grams more.  No?

[x-tc]

Well to put it in another way, you are trading an extremely good wide angle prime, which weighs 235g and is 58mm long, for a good zoom that weighs 410g and is 87mm long for the benefit of having 10-16mm instead of just 14mm (since 18-55 are covered, you don't really need the 17-24 range of the 10-24).

 

You have to see if you can justify it but imo the distortion at 10mm is so tragically comic that the usuable range is more like 12-16mm. 12-16@F/4 vs 14mm@F/2.8 that's quite a lot of money for not much now, if you think about it that way

According to most reviews the only Fuji prime lens which is significantly better than the XF10-24 zoom in its focal range is the 23.  The current market price of the 10-24 is the same as the 14.   

 

I think the fujivsfuji review does a good job at summarizing the pros for and con against other prime lens in the Fuji line up.

http://www.fujivsfuji.com/10-24mm-f4-vs-primes/

 

to quote:

 

"vs 23 prime:

23mmIf I was finding myself at 24mm more often than not, I would make a point of using the 23mm ƒ/1.4 more instead as this is probably the weakest portion of a zoom’s range. Then I’d probably end up shooting at ƒ/1.4 a lot more. The zoom is not an ideal option for a 35mm equivalent, but in a pinch, it works great and only pixel-peepers might be able to tell the difference.

 

vs 18 prime:

The 18mm ƒ/2 is optically inferior, but blissfully small and lightweight. Street and portrait shooters will want to opt for it, everyone else should stick with the zoom.

 

vs 14 prime:

I can’t even call this one. Size and weight might be the only deciding factor. The lenses are optically quite similar.

 

wider than 14:

Easy. Get the 10-24. It’s really not that much larger than the Zeiss (12mm prime), it’s sharper, has less distortion, and it’s wider. Plus it costs about the same. In my opinion, save for that 2-for-1 deal they had a little while ago, there is no reason to by the X-Mount Zeiss 12mm anymore.

The bottom line is no matter what focal length you’re looking to cover, you’re sure to be pleased with what this zoom can do."

 

Here is another one with pros and cons:

"http://admiringlight.com/blog/review-fujifilm-fujinon-xf-10-24mm-f4-r-ois/3/

 

"

Pros

• Well-built and solid lens with well damped zoom and focus rings
• Relatively light weight for its size
• Quite sharp, especially at the wide end of the zoom range, providing good resolution into the corners stopped down and excellent central sharpness at all apertures
• Excellent color and contrast throughout the zoom and aperture range
• Great control of chromatic aberrations for a wide-angle zoom
• High resistance to flare, especially at the wide end of the zoom range
• Good optical stabilizer allows for longer handholding
• Good control of distortion
• Quick and quiet autofocus
• Low vignetting

Cons

• Large for a mirrorless lens
• Aperture ring is unmarked and has no hard stops, despite being a constant aperture zoom
• Autofocus can sometimes fail to lock on in dim light
• Busy bokeh (when you can create some blur)
• Expensive

Fuji has created yet another very solid lens for the X-System.  The 10-24mm provides a very useful focal range, covering everything from the extremely wide 10mm to a much more moderate wide-angle view at the 24mm end.  Image quality is very high throughout, but especially at the wider end of the zoom, where the lens is simply outstanding.  While it’s not going to best the truly excellent Fuji 14mm in this range, it really doesn’t end up too far off of that lofty standard of performance.

Ultimately, this lens is about quality imaging and convenience.  Rather than carrying two or three lenses to cover the wide-angle range, one can simply grab this one lens and get excellent images over a wide range of focal lengths.  The image stabilizer and quick focus add even more of a reason to pick up this lens.  At $999, the lens isn’t cheap, though it’s not a particularly out of line price compared to the competition.  High quality ultra-wide f/4 zooms typically come in around the $700-850 mark, but few feature optical stabilization.  If you are in the market for a versatile, high quality lens with some extreme width, this is it."

 

Interesting the both reviews failed to mention anything about "tragically comic distortion" at the very wide end.  Do you have any reference that sides with your opinion?

[olli]

I'll second citral - why not rent the 10-24 for a week and see how it works out for you? Then you'll be in a better position to make a decision based on your own needs and experiences, rather than those of others.

 

I'm not sure where you are but there were definitely a few places that did rental around Munich when I lived there (happy days).

[citral]

Interesting the both reviews failed to mention anything about "tragically comic distortion" at the very wide end.  Do you have any reference that sides with your opinion?

 

I mean perspective distortion, not barrel distortion.

 

A picture being worth a thousand words :

 

 

Why not after all, if one is into this kind of things I'm not judging, just saying that it is more of a "niche" than something generally useful (again, in my book, to each his own) and I would have liked the shot done with a 14mm and "reasonable" perspective distortion probably a lot more than at 10mm.

[x-tc]

ah.. got it. I agree.  it is definitely a niche.  One of my primary reasons for buying the lens.   I love to get close and fill the corners at the wide end.  but you are right. Its not for everyone.

 

 I am going to ref to Ken Rockwell here below. ;-)  lol.   For as much noise as he generates, he does have some signal once in a while. He gets UltraWide.

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/how-to-use-ultra-wide-lenses.htm

 

"Ultrawide lenses are the most difficult lenses to use well. Ultrawides are not for "getting it all in." Ultrawides are for getting yourself, and therefore the viewer, right smack into the middle of something. Ultrawides are for putting next to the muzzle of Dirty Harry's revolver to put it in your face. If you can't or won't get close, leave the ultrawide at home. 

Ultrawides rub the viewer's nose in your subject. Properly used, ultrawides grab your viewer and yank him into the middle of your situation. "

[x-tc]

just today our fellow forum member "dv." posted some photos with their Samyang 12/2.   Lots of great examples of someone who knows how to use ultrawides for cool effects and not simply to "get it all in". I love what they did with the corners in many of the shots. Check out their thread. Very cool.  Talk about leading your audience through the scene.

http://www.fuji-x-forum.com/topic/169-samyang-12mm-f20-ncs-cs-x-mount/

[citral]

See this is interresting because the masters that are using wide to "get it all in" and get "really close and personal" like William Klein or Bruce Gilden use 28mm (so that's 18mm for us fujis)

 

How much closer do you want to be than Bruce Gilden? Lens in the nose and flash directly in the ear?

 

Using wider lenses can make sense for landscape (if you like distortion) or architecture (same thing) or absolutely want the picture and have no space to move, but I would object that it's really, really rare to be in such a situation where perspective distortion is better than getting only a part of it well framed.

 

I find it's either good if you like to "play, toy around" (not that there is anything wrong with that, I love it too) or don't embrass the idea that photography is never showing everything, and the best ones never do anyway (Parr would say photography is propaganda and I completely agree).

 

Maybe this is getting too philosophical and not enough gear-oriented tho, but imo it's worth thinking about the approach before buying anything photo related.

 

What for exactly? Does it fill a need, or a want? Will that make me a better photograph, or should I spend the money in books, gas, courses? Am I being bored and feel I need a new toy to feel creative again?

 

If that sounds kind of rude I'm sorry it's not meant to, just more food for thought and probably a more difficult decision in the end

[milandro]

the 10-24mm is one of the best lenses that I’ve ever used and the first one that I would grab in many occasions.

 

Granted I use it mostly on the widest of the setting but it is very good at 24 too. Here a shot with the lens at 24mm (f8 1/90)

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!

[milandro]

This is the same lens at 10mm (f8 1/125)

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!

[milandro]

as for using it creatively for its qualities as a wide-agle this is at approximately 18mm (f9 1/160)

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!

[citral]

Well for the 18 and 23 the 18-55 would have done at least as good if not better, and for the 10mm it's really a personal thing I guess, I don't see the point but I respect your choice/taste

[milandro]

I am not sure that the two primes would have done better and the only way to know would be shoot the same picture with the two lenses and then see the results. Lacking that type of comparison I can only tell that no one of the tre pics that I’ve published strikes me as qualitatively inferior to anything.

 

Using lenses in real life is not the same as testing them, most of use the the first rather than the latter.

[citral]

I was referring to the fact that patrick already owns the 18-55 so that would have covered your example shots at 18 and 23, I'm not saying the 10-24 is bad in any way, just that the 10-14 mm range is well, a personal taste one must really have otherwise it might not be the smartest choice out of the available lenses. Since there is no bad lens in the Fuji range there's no need to defend one or the other, if that works for you and your needs it's totally fine, I just like to invite people to define their needs precisely, that usually helps them to make a smart choice

[x-tc]

Please be assured. Your position is well understood. It's ok not to get or like certain kinds of photography. Trying to talk people out of a lens because of this is a fools errand. Let it go.

[milandro]

We all make or own informed or impulsive choices.

 

OP came with the specific question about buying the 10-24mm and selling his lenses. Obviously he thinks he needs a wider lens that he already has.

 

The 10-24 will give him all he has already and a lot more.

 

I just gave him, and anyone else, food for thought and 3 pictures of mine, a 10-24mm owner and user