Jump to content

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


Patrick FR

Recommended Posts

If OP can afford keeping the 18mm and 14mm lenses, he might decide to buy the 10-24mm and then see if he will ever need to keep the duplicate focals contained in the focal range of the zoom.

 

I doubt that that would make any sense to keep all three but it will be a matter of a couple of months to reveal whether you are using them or not.

 

Many of us have a tendency to hoarding and problems in separating ourselves from things that we “ have” but simply don’t use.

 

I am about to have to move and I will have to move again after one year. So I am facing two ordeals. I have had to look long and hard about many things that I have kept with out using them for years.

 

In fact my entering the Fuji X system was caused by the fact that I finally sold all sorts of analog photographic equipment which I had kept for years and years mostly without using any of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the feedback. Lot's of things to consider and also alternative ideas. All my considerations have start from one thing: sometimes I feel I need a wider view than 14mm. Hence the decisions to search the market for a good wider option.

 

Maybe I should really try the Samyang 12mm first. I has an interesting price of €300 and it sound like a terrific value for the money.

 

So the masterplan just changed (again ;) ): sell the 18 and get the 12 Samyang. And if I still miss it wider, then the 10-24 will be on my radar again in a few weeks/months.

Link to post
Share on other sites

first shot from my 10-24 @ 10mm.  This "tragically comic distortion" is going to be fun. 

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, I don't want to spoil your fun and sound like a snob but: an ultra-wide is good/useful when : you want a "memory" of something huge (Niagara, cathedrals...) and have no space to move further away. It's good for abstract architecture shots. Wide is good for emphasing the vastness of a place, ultra-wide questionable. What ultra-wide is definitely not good for, is for making ordinary things look extraordinary (no amount of special effects will do anyway). If that's what you're after, I strongly suggest you to study the work of William Eggleston, or how to use beautiful light and colours to make something beautiful out of the banal. Cheers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, I don't want to spoil your fun and sound like a snob but: an ultra-wide is good/useful when : you want a "memory" of something huge (Niagara, cathedrals...) and have no space to move further away. It's good for abstract architecture shots. Wide is good for emphasing the vastness of a place, ultra-wide questionable. What ultra-wide is definitely not good for, is for making ordinary things look extraordinary (no amount of special effects will do anyway). If that's what you're after, I strongly suggest you to study the work of William Eggleston, or how to use beautiful light and colours to make something beautiful out of the banal. Cheers.

I don't think you are a snob. You are free to repeat yourself as much as you like on this forum.  However, as I already said, rest assured we got your point of view the first time.  You did a good job of making your opinion clear.

 

I'll let you know if you ever cross the line and become personally offensive in nature. So far, you have not; although I don't really understand the need to keep repeating yourself and what it will take to satisfy you.  So everything is fine; just a bit odd. Cheers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 It is considered to be poor form to use a lot of proverbs in a conversation but there is an undeniable attraction to use them because, trite though they are, they contain, if not the “ "truth “, at the very least some nice and witty observation in a concentrated form, so at this point I can’t help thinking at: " there are many ways to skin a cat and , the proof of the pudding is in the eating"

 

There are no fixed formulas. If there were, lenses would come with a warning label. Don’t use this in any way that isn’t the one for which it was meant to be used or otherwise terrible things will happen ! 

 

Photography, more so than many other things in life, has always shown to have found its vocabulary and syntax in its limitations. If, by any twist of fate, a lens would do something out of the “ desirable” range of things, we call it a special effect and use it for something that, maybe, wasn’t meant to be used for.

 

There is no universal truth in photography and there are many ways to do the same things, “ laws” are there to be broken , the root of the adjective “ normal” is in the noun “ norm”. Do everything by the norms and you get normal pictures.

 

That doesn’t mean to say that if you don’t stick to the norm you will necessarily get extraordinary pictures.

 

Do everything  by using that pinch of salt we all know about!

 

Be well and enjoy, none of this is serious, have fun!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the way you think Milandro, and yes you are right x-tc I sound like a broken record.

 

That is the flickr effect I think, being still terrible at photography but studying as much as I can the masters and putting a lot of effort into it, I'm really annoyed when I see so many people cheering each other for pictures of terribly boring subjects, compositions, light you name it but have a special effect "twist" to them like HDR or ultra-wide.

 

Same as it would be fool to advise an aspiring guitarist to learn how to use the wha pedal or distortion before he even knows the scales and chords, I try to invite people to be cautious with specialty lenses before they get a solid base, but I should probably let it go, after all it's none of my businesses and if they are having fun nobody's being hurt in the process (except for my eyes that are sometimes bleeding heh)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever since I have started following scoop.it I have discovered the world of fuji bloggers. Many of these digital photography evangelists are little more than amateurs with a camera and computer, yet they have some truth which needs spreading.

 

In the beginning I used to be annoyed, now, frankly speaking, as soon as I realize that their message in uninteresting I simply leave (not even bothering to leave a comment).

 

So I guess it is LEAVE ;)  and let live for me :), which I suppose is the best way to deal with anything that we don’t agree with but which is still in the realm of things that is not forbidden by law.

 

Remember, the words of wisdom were “ Let it be!”.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had 10-24mm for 6 months, but rarely used it wider than 14mm. Finally sold 18-55mm &10-24mm.

For my needs, 16, 23, 27, 56mm are the must. The 16mm is really wide enough for me.

The 27mm is actually the most easiest one for daily use.

For zooms, I can borrow the XC zooms (mkII) from my wife when I need :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly, I often find a great deal of talent from some people who are technically amateurs. For example, I think Jordan Steele, who is an engineer by trade, shows a lot of talent and taste in his photos that he includes in his camera reviews.

http://admiringlight.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/devils_bathtub.jpg

 

Likewise, I often find well known professionals who's photos are simply just not for me or look quite ordinary. They shall remain nameless

I guess sometimes the difference between pro and ameteur comes down to what they choose or are able to do for a living that gives them the most money in return. Just because you love something and are good at it doesn't mean its the best opportunity for a career. Wouldn't it be a great if our society as a whole valued and paid for photos in the same way as they value and pay for other highly skills professions? If they did, I think there would be a lot more people quitting their real jobs, like Jordon for example, and putting on the pro hat.

Often times it has more to do with being different and keeping and open mind than just repeating what has been done before to get recognized and rake in the cash. . You got guys like Peter Hurley who were not photographers in profession. He was an athlete, then turned model, then actor, and final came onto the photography scene when his real jobs were not going anywhere anymore. He hadn't even picked up a camera prior. Not having any formally training in photography, he then proceeded to question conventional head shots and broke all the rules. Going landscape orientation for head shots. Continuos lighting systems. Cutting off the tops of people's heads intentionally, etc etc. Now there are so many people trying to copy his style. He has now moved onto unconventional poses and head positions. Designing unconventional photo equipment. Laughing all the way to the bank. Quite entertaining to see.  ...but I have really digressed. wow. 

https://peterhurley.com/photography/wonder-boys

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many years ago I went to see a major exhibition of Nan Goldin's work.

 

I went into the museum as a person and came out, after the experience, as another person altogether.

 

As a photographer I had been an assistant for many a year, was educated at the IED of Milan with a diploma in advertising photography, had my own studio for years and had been a teacher too.

 

So I wasn’t exactly a greenhorn.

 

Yet, I found that even a person with limited amounts of technique could produce a flow of emotions and produce great images despite her evident lack of formal training.

 

Many have the feeling that art is a display of skills, but that is really more the ancient definition of a trade than it is the modern one of art. All forms of modern arts have shown that the artist is not do much the person who possesses a skill but rather someone whom, through the application of a technique, can touch the hearts of the people who partake the experience.

 

This happens in many different and often unpredictable ways.

 

Of course one may disagree and find that a good picture has to be well composed, focussed, exposed, processed ( either chemically or digitally) but it is evident that even things that are none of this can do what they really have to and touch our souls.

 

There are many different ways to skin many different cats. 

 

No one way is better than any other and the only thing that each an everyone can do is to find a form which has honesty and integrity and use it.

 

Pixel peeping has nothing to do with this and I have yet to come across a pixel peeping ( Tom, Dick or Harry) who can impress me as much as Nan Goldin did.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking about the 10-24, but for me, like the 50-140 2.8 it's just to large and heavy.  I decided to keep my Zeiss Touit 12mm 2.8.  Every now and then, due to the width of the Zeiss with the lens hood on I wish I had bought the 14mm Fuji instead --- but then I shoot with the Zeiss, and quickly quell those feelings as it's oh so darn crisp, sharp and clear.  I have no experience with the 18mm but I understand from various posts here and elsewhere it is not that sharp (?)  I use the 18-55 on a regular basis and I can certainly vouch for it.  It's amazing!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think you should try the 16 1.4. It opens up a whole new world of wide angle photography with the close focusing limit of 15 cm (the lens hood often comes in contact with the actual subject...).

 

I had the 10-24, sold it. Wasn't 100% happy with optical performance and especially with the stabilizer. If you have to have the 10mm focal length it might be worth it for you. I wasn't nearly as happy with it, as I am with the primes and the 2.8 zooms.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the 10-24... It is on my list of "never will I sell this lens"

 

I do a lot of photography on the street in crowds and the flexibility of the zoom range along with the OIS make it especially useful... and of course sometimes one just wants to get as wide a view in a cramped space as possible. One can always crop it in later, but one cannot add.

 

I'm going to my local shop to get the new 16 1.4 sometime this week. I would likely end up getting it anyway, but the close focusing sold me. Even though I have the 23 and will soon have the 16, no way I would want to give up the 10-24

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are so many ways to respond to this question but I will keep my opinion short.  I have both the 10-24 and the 14 and they are both amazing lenses.  While I mostly use the 10-24, the faster F2.8 on the 14 is needed for shooting the night sky (milky way).

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are so many ways to respond to this question but I will keep my opinion short.  I have both the 10-24 and the 14 and they are both amazing lenses.  While I mostly use the 10-24, the faster F2.8 on the 14 is needed for shooting the night sky (milky way).

 

Imagine the 16/1.4 that's two stops faster than the 14mm, or four times the light ! :D 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The new Baby Arrived: 12mm Samyang!

XF 18mm sold

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...