Jump to content

Going to Europe - 14/2.8 vs 10-24/4?


Palomid

Recommended Posts

Sorry but I had to start moderating in this thread.

 

Two things:

 

1. Do not insult other members and try to talk in a civilized manner.

2. If you are insulted please do not fire back but report the post (link below every post)

 

Bonus track:

If you quote another post, please try to shorten it to the part you want to answer.

Full quotes is a pain in the a... to read for other members.

 

Andreas

Link to post
Share on other sites

i simply do not like the size of that lens

Maurice,

glad we are aligned about IQ of the 10-24 vs the primes and usability in low light for the intended purpose.  

 

When you mean size above, do are you talking about both weight and length? or just one of those. I think we have already covered weight difference.  So maybe you are talking about length now. 

 

  I personally don't find either of them to be a problem. Maybe its all relative to what you are used to.  To me, I am used to a FF setup and to carry around equiv. setup  on my Nikon over vacation was a pain. Literally, not just figuratively.  I told myself, never again. Thus I bought an XF system for travel and here I am on this forum.   Its a fraction of the weight compared to what I am used to and I don't find the 10-24 to be all that much bigger and heavier than the 18-55 kit zoom.  So perhaps, its just expectations and relative comparisons.  

 

Would it be fair to say someone does not like the size of the XF23 or XF35 because they are both much bigger and heavier than the XF27 or an X100?  I guess you could.   Does it really matter? I guess it depends who you ask and their intended purpose.  Would you take an X100 or an XF23 and body on vacation based on size and weight?   The difference here in weight and length with XF23 on X body vs X100 is more than the difference between XF14 and XF10-24 btw.  Just trying to show relatives here to contrast. Would you take just the X100 for vacation or would you take something a bit larger and heavier for the sake of versatility?  I hope you can see where I am going with this.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a personal preference. It's not all black and white logic, just a preference. But if you must know, for a wide-angle i find anything bigger than the 14mm questionable, it just doesn't feel right. The 16/1.4 might be an exception, but of course it's F1.4. But beyond that, it also makes a big difference on the street in appearance. Believe me just the shape of the lens alone like the 10-24mm has is enough that people will perceive you differently, and i don't like to look like the pro photographer, but try and blend in comfortably with the people. Saves a lot of comments like 'am i going in the newspapers?', and just makes everybody feel more at ease and myself as well which is something that can make a difference in images, with less runaways or shocked faces. ^_^

 

Maybe it's also about proportion to the camera. With the X100, or the 27mm, the size is more about fitting it into your bag (or jacket pocket) no matter how little room you have left. But for appearance it doesn't really matter to be THAT small. But when you compare the 35/1.4 with the 56/1.2 for example, the 35mm is a perfect fit, while the 56mm again is a much more serious look. But it's also the application. The 90mm for example, huge chunk of glass, but it's what i personally expect of a 135mm equivalent and even if it could be more compact, it doesn't really match the medium long tele focal length. And as for the look, the things i would shoot with it are mostly far away, and certainly wouldn't put it into peoples faces on the street (without asking). But that's all just my own logic, and i'm the one who has to feel at ease with what i'm doing, so to each their own of course. :P

 

To get back to the original 'issue' i brought up earlier about focal length not being a practical necessity, but a creative choice.
This article here on Japancamerahunter explains it nicely: http://www.japancamerahunter.com/2014/11/storytellers-kit-daniel-schaefer/

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I live in Germany I can say that the 10-24 would be the better choice. You have a more versatile focal range and the awesome OIS. That and the high ISO capability of the X-T1 and you are set.

 

Where exactly are you going to be heading? You can PM me if you wish. Maybe we can meet up if you are in my area.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Were I going on a trip with only 2 lenses... it might well be the 10-24 and the 56

 

Regarding the 14 vs the 10-24... You get wider with the 10-24. I love it at 10, even if I later crop it to closer to 12 or 14. In faster moving situations, sometimes there is not enough time to move and compose, especially in tight places and in crowds. You can always crop a little, but you cannot add. 

 

also the 10-24 can get sharp results in lower light due to the OIS. The 14 is only 1 stop faster in aperture but the OIS will still give 2-3 stops better handheld performance. I've tried longer exposures handheld with the 10-24 and never expected them to come out and was surprised at the results. Under the right conditions, the OIS works wonders. 

 

Without the OIS, I'd rather have the new 16 than the 14... because of the 2 stops faster speed. (Haven't actually tried the 16 yet). I'd also prefer the 16 over the 14 because of the weather sealing and though the 14 does good for close focusing, the 16 is even better. 

 

I don't find the size weight differences significant compared to other considerations. Particularly taking only 2 lenses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No one has questioned the IQ of the zooms against the primes for that task. Anyone?? anyone? raise your hand.

 

Hi, sorry to bother you it's me, botherman.

 

Could you please provide us with a sample of the 10-24@F/4 vs a prime in that range you own, both at F/4?

 

Because here is a quick test with the 18-55 vs 35mm both at F/4, on a tripod, ois off, full manual, ooc jpegs :

 

35mm

 

822614DSCF5554.jpg

 

 

18-55mm

 

273794DSCF5556.jpg

 

Now I'm really no pixel peeper that doesn't interrest me one bit, but one has to be fair, the foliage in the background doesn't resolve nearly approximately as good on the zoom. It's not close to be "almost on par".

 

If you want, say, highly detailed scenes of buildings, or chunks of a town from far away I believe it matters, especially if light doesn't allow you to stop down to F/8 where it evens out. For landscapes it even matters more because foliage is something difficult to resolve.

 

Is it globally close ? Yes. Can it be "good enough" for one ? Certainly, I'm one of those. I don't do big prints yet anyway.

 

Would it be "not good enough" for some ? I'm convinced it can be. It depends what you do with it. The nervous bokeh of the zoom vs the creamy one of the prime especially is a big tradeoff for some situations and often annoys me because it's distracting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I recently swithered over this question for ages too as I'm about to go on holiday soon and bought an XE2 with the 18-55 for travel. I was all set to go for the 14mm until I realised that, with the cash back offer that was on at the time, the price was almost the same, so I got the 10-24mm. Yes, it's a little bigger but I'm used to a full frame Nikon so it still feels smaller and lighter to me. 

Also take a look at the Zack Arias guide to Fuji lenses: http://dedpxl.com/fuji-x-buyers-guide-part-2-lenses/

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I live in Germany I can say that the 10-24 would be the better choice. You have a more versatile focal range and the awesome OIS. That and the high ISO capability of the X-T1 and you are set.

 

Where exactly are you going to be heading? You can PM me if you wish. Maybe we can meet up if you are in my area.

You sound like a very nice person. That was a very kind thing to offer. I know whenever I meet up with my friends in far away and unfamiliar places they always take me to unique places which have resulted in great photos. The locals always seem to know best.

 

I was in Germany for 4 months on assignment. So many wonderful places and photos. I miss it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks x-tc. I try to do my best.  :)

Same with me. It is always great to go on photo shootings with the locals. As you say, they know the best places.

 

By the way, that goes for anybody coming to visit Germany. Well especially somewhere around Stuttgart. Drop a PM and I´ll see what I can do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd recommend the 10-24 as well. You already have someone who lives in Germany suggest that lens. I was able to travel to Italy, Greece and Turkey last year and found the 10-24 to be very useful. That and the 16-55 were the lenses I went out with every day. I did take the 55-200 on the trip but brought it out only when I thought it might come in handy. Checking my EXIF data I seem to have used the 10-24 from about 15mm-24mm most of the time. You have all these other people debating the use of primes vs zooms so I don't have to burden you with my interpretation. I was recently able to find a new 18-135 for a, for that lens, reasonable price. If I were to travel to Europe now I would take the 10-24 and the 18-135 plus the 27mm prime. I'm not suggesting that you consider the 18-135 nor am I asking anyone to debate the pluses or minuses of this lens, I'm just adding what I would do today. If you feel comfortable with flash I recommend that you take a small one for fill in backlit situations. Regardless, you will be fine no matter what you take but most of all have a great trip!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think many lenses have been discussed in this topic already. But the real question is: What do you intend to visit? Europe is a whole continent, and there are a lot of different things to see. Planning for a city holiday is very different than planning for a adventure trip. Even cities vary very much in different European countries, not to mention the OP's interests within those cities. So without knowing what kind of holiday the OP plans for, it's difficult to really suggest anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been reading many articles and blog entries about travelling and what lenses to take.  I'll be going to Spain in september and I'll have to make a choose among my lenses as to what to take.

I'm leaning towards taking the primes to cover what the 18-55 would cover (18mm, 35mm or 27mm, 60mm maybe) and then take the samyang 12mm and the 55-230 if I have to reach far away, something like that.

But, my question at the moment is related to how practical it would be taking only primes instead of the zoom.  You can argue that the zoom quality is not as good, but, for those who have traveled with a few prime lenses, how does that go?  Do you change between lenses all the time?  Do you choose one lens for the day, leave the rest at the hotel?  Use one outdoors (like the 23 or 35) and a wider one indoors (14mm or 12mm).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have traditionally avoided zooms because they are too heavy and the quality is relatively poor compared to primes with my FF gear. Neither of which apply to my fuji gear and why I added Fuji lens and cameras to my equipment list. Enjoy Spain. I'll be there and Portugal soon as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been reading many articles and blog entries about travelling and what lenses to take. I'll be going to Spain in september and I'll have to make a choose among my lenses as to what to take.

I'm leaning towards taking the primes to cover what the 18-55 would cover (18mm, 35mm or 27mm, 60mm maybe) and then take the samyang 12mm and the 55-230 if I have to reach far away, something like that.

But, my question at the moment is related to how practical it would be taking only primes instead of the zoom. You can argue that the zoom quality is not as good, but, for those who have traveled with a few prime lenses, how does that go? Do you change between lenses all the time? Do you choose one lens for the day, leave the rest at the hotel? Use one outdoors (like the 23 or 35) and a wider one indoors (14mm or 12mm).

It really depends what kind of shots you are after IMHO. If it's memories of places you visited, a zoom is perfect. If you're after more artsy/memorable pics, usually it's not by taking a picture of the whole Eiffel tower that you achieve that. There are thousands around, this is not to say it's not enjoyable to make it nor to look at it and think "I did it!".

 

It's not a critic at all.

 

Imo again, if you want to make more memorable shots, it can be good to work with a 23 or 35 the whole day, and only reach for the 18 or 60 when you really need that angle or it emphasis the subject.

 

Can also be achieved with a zoom, but it's always very tempting to zoom in/out instead of moving and that doesn't yield better pictures usually. YMMV, but I'd take a 18 and 35 anytime over the zoom to get "at work" (I like it on hard mode and think I progress that way, found the 18-55 made me quickly lazy).

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thanks Citral. I guess I've done enough traveling in "easy mode". This time I might try going "hard mode".  Not ready for God mode yet (one lens only :-) )

I guess I'll take the samyang 12mm, the 18mm, the 35mm and then the XC 55-230mm zoom.  I'd like to take the 60mm which I think renders incredible images, but, it might start to be a lot of lenses. The 27mm would be a good idea because of the size, but, I don't think it could replace the 35mm.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't do that either, the 35 is an incredible lens, not as discrete as the 27mm but so good you can't really swap. OTOH a 40mm equivalent is a bit more versatile than 53 so... I'd say take either both, or the 35 only, but not the 27 only.

 

I have thought about it again, and would maybe take the 35 and 18-55 tho instead of 35 + 18. There are times a 23mm is great to have (I sometimes find myself cornered in narrow streets with the 35), and it's better than the 18 on the wide end, so why not. But that's because I have the 35. If I only could take one, that would be it and not the 18-55.

 

For you that would begin to get quite heavy tho with all the other lenses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't do that either, the 35 is an incredible lens, not as discrete as the 27mm but so good you can't really swap. OTOH a 40mm equivalent is a bit more versatile than 53 so... I'd say take either both, or the 35 only, but not the 27 only.

 

I have thought about it again, and would maybe take the 35 and 18-55 tho instead of 35 + 18. There are times a 23mm is great to have (I sometimes find myself cornered in narrow streets with the 35), and it's better than the 18 on the wide end, so why not. But that's because I have the 35. If I only could take one, that would be it and not the 18-55.

 

For you that would begin to get quite heavy tho with all the other lenses.

 

I would not take the 27mm over the 35mm that's for sure, even with the small size.  I really like the 27, but the 35 is amazing.  So, maybe I'd take the 18-55, 50-230, the 35mm and the Samyang 12mm (which I still need to buy).  And I may need another camera bag beacause my Lowepro Event Messenger 100 does not fit all this nicely.  I'm thinking of getting the 150 which I think may fit all of it and I really like the bag.

 

I was thinking of taking the 18 over the 18-55 because of the size.  I'll be picking it up tonight and begin testing it out.  Let's see how it holds up against the 18mm end of the zoom.  I've read that the 18 has poorer IQ than the 18mm end of the zoom lens, but, let me be the judge of that.  Every one has different quality standards.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh certainly, there can be some aspects of the prime you like more in the final images, I always forget to put here and there a "for me" and sound like I have been enlightened with absolute truth, sorry.

 

No worries.  Well...I was reading the other thread about the image quality of the primes vs zooms here at the forum...so...that's why I added the comment there, hehe.  Heated discussion about this over there.

 

But I still would like to understand from someone with experience, the dynamics of changing between primes in a trip.  Does lens changing happen a lot, sometimes, once a day, indoors and outdoors, and so on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For me it mostly depends if I'm with gf/friends or alone.

 

If I have people with me I use mostly the zoom because I don't want to bother them waiting for the right people entering my frame, taking time for composition etc. That is very annoying for people not into photography so I just take "snapshots". I will then switch for a fast prime if we enter a building.

 

If I'm alone a prime is mounted as I take a hell lot of time and want to make the best shots I can and spend literally hours. The zoom is there if I ever need a focale I don't have, but almost never gets mounted as I prefer to move with my feet and am OK with "letting go" a great deal of pictures I don't really feel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I went Switzerland in November and the 10-24 rarely came off my X-T1. The wide end at 10mm was a very welcome thing to have for incredible mountain landscapes. For street and architecture, 10mm was generally too wide, but my favorite prime is the 23mm, so I had that focal length covered if I didn't want to change lenses. The stabilization is very helpful if you plan to take indoor architecture photos of historic places, such as cathedrals. Maybe that's not in your plans, but I found myself doing a number of low light f/8 to f/10 shots in large indoor spaces and OIS really bailed me out and allowed for good depth of field without cranking the ISO too high. Didn't feel like I had to leave any shots behind even if some weren't perfect in the end, but if I were trying to take those shots with the prime I'd either be sacrificing the DOF which really makes an architecture shot in a space like that or I'd have been carrying a tripod, which takes the weight argument out of the picture.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would go for the 10-24. I travelled with this lens and there were many times when I was very glad I had that 24mm long end. Also, there was a couple of times, when 14mm just wouldn't be wide enough.

Another thing is OIS can be useful sometimes. When I travelled to Rome with my Nikon I was very very glad I had OIS, because I found myself shooting a lot handheld at night or in dark places (dungeons, churches, etc)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just came back from traveling to London and France. I brought 3 lenses with me. The 10-24mm, 18-55mm and the 23mm. I used the two zoom lenses the most and hardy used the 23mm except when it was really dark or for evening shooting when there was less light. The 10-24mm was very useful inside museums and cathedrals. I'm not sure the 14mm would have been wide enough for some of the places we visited. The 18-55mm will probably be used most of the time. I didn't find the 10-24 lens to be too big when traveling and the weight just needs a bit of getting used. I'm sure by the 3rd or 4th day of your trip you will be used to the weight of the lens.

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...