10-24mm F4 OR 16mm F1.4?

[Raysigarlaki]

Hi all, i need help. I want to cover my wide, and i'm torn between these 2 lenses (tough dec).

To be honest, i'm leaning towards 16mm, then i'll use my legs as my "zoom" what do you think? Which one should i get and why?

 

 

Thanks. 

[Larry Bolch]

10mm is enormously wide, with a field of view equal to a 15mm on a full frame. It allows the shooter to greatly emphasized perspective. I have a lens just slightly wider and results can be dramatic. At 24mm you are approaching the FOV of a "normal" lens—110° - 61.2°. The cost is an f/4.0 aperture. While the lens is extremely useful for architectural interiors, you will find that either flash, very high ISO settings or a tripod are required even with the excellence of its stabilization. Outdoors, hand-holding is no problem.

 

The 16mm has an 83.2° FOV, comparable to a traditional 24mm lens—substantially wide, thus a very popular focal length. At f/1.4 it is at home in low-light, allowing one to work at a party with reasonably high shutter speeds, getting in a good bit of environment as well as well as the subjects. Great for capturing the whole scene at wedding receptions as well as in church where flash may not be permitted. Nice for night-time street photography when including the environment is an important element. 

 

Two choices for wide or super-wide photography. I could well see both in a photographer's bag. Shoot with them in your imagination considering the great difference in aperture. If you will be mostly shooting from support where you can use relatively long shutter speeds, the 10-24mm certainly is the more versatile. If shooting hand-held, with a need for mobility and decisive moment fast reactions are key, then the 16mm will serve you very well. Same price for each, just match your choice to your needs.

[darknj]

I went for the 10-24 mostly because it complements my 18-135 very well.

 

If I take just those two lenses, I can get pretty much anything in the frame when there is enough light, or just go slower speed for static subjects.

 

That aside, I have to say the 16 is quite a great lens, I tried it for a bit and I did really enjoyed it. But for the size differences, I would prefer to have the zoom for more practical reasons.

[Nero]

In an ideal world, I would say both. The 16mm for image quality and the the 10-24mm for versatility/travel. Obviously, that's a substantial investment though, so ask yourself which is more important to you. I will say that although the 10-24 is top notch quality for a zoom, the 16mm take image quality to a whole new level once you've shot with both and can compare. After getting the 16mm, I've gone back to reshoot locations that I had previously done with the 10-24. I wouldn't just arbitrarily say "I always prefer image quality" and go with the 16mm. Really consider which is more important because you won't be disappointed with the quality on the 10-24, but the 16 is noticeably better.

[acrew09]

I was recently torn with this decision - wanting to get something wider than the 18mm on the kit lens. I was torn between the 14mm 2.8, 16mm 1.4, and the 10-24mm. I ended up going with the 16mm 1.4 and in my first weekend with it, I have to say the image quality is outstanding.

 

My decision boiled down to wanting 1) top image quality (all the reviews raved about the output) and 2) lower light capability (I look shooting in the early evening and indoors). I felt everyone seemed to like the 14mm for image quality, but felt that it was a little slow when light became scarce or inside. The 10-24 has great image quality, but not at the same level as the primes and I didn't want to be relying on OIS. The 16mm is a little heavy compared to some other primes, but still balances well on my X-E. I'm really excited to get to know the lens further.

[frod]

Third option: samyang 12mm

[deva]

I have both and would not part with either... if I had to choose, and had no other wide angle lenses, I would get the 10-24. I love the super wide angle and frequently shoot in the wide range of the 10-24.

 

It really depends on the person and the tasks at hand. I recently shot a benefit concert and the 16 was perfect. OIS does not help with the fast subject movement and f4 was pushing ISO too high. The 16 1.4 handled it great. 

 

Like I said, no way I want to part with either... they are both great lenses!

[Marc G.]

Very personal question. I'd always opt for the 16 1.4 over the zoom.

[ccoolliinn]

I read somewhere that the 10-24 at f4 with OIS was a match for hand holding compared with the 16mm at 1.4 but at these apertures the zoom had better IQ.

I use the 10-24 and my wife has the 16, they are both great lenses but very rarely use them wide open mainly using f8 to f11 for landscape work. If you want compact the 16mm is the one.

[Raysigarlaki]

Thanks for all the responses, really appreciate the efforts.

 

Well again, it's a tough decision to make, after reading all your valuable inputs, i'm still leaning towards 16mm, because, on top of all the wonderful qualities that you all have described it has, its also WR! 

I'm planning to use this lens whenever i go hunting for landscape photography, which sometimes is out of nowhere, and sometimes the weather can change quickly (at least, in where i live ) , so probably it makes more sense to get this over 10-24, sigh ... don't you wish Fuji would design a WR 10-24 as well? 

 

[Morgo]

I'm facing the same decision for a wide. I'm leaning towards the 10-24 though I'll likely end up with both at some point and possibly the 12 f2 from Samyang for astro

[Vidalgo]

don't you wish Fuji would design a WR 10-24 as well? 

Me not. That doesn't make a great sense but sure will add some significant cost.

10-24 has internal zooming and don't suck air with dust or raindrops, in contrast of a regular zoom design like 18-55.

To be precisely, the front element of this lense is moving while zooming, but only a very few mm, even hard to notice it.

I had an occasion to walk with 10-24 at a winter rainy day, 8-9 hours or so, attached to X-T1 and exposed to outer for whole of that time. No problems.

 

 

[bird]

Although I usually go with primes, I bought the 10-24 as my wide lens. It's an excellent lens, and as mentioned above, 10mm is w-i-d-e! Having said that though, I hardly ever use mine. It's not that big compared to a canon or nikon equivalent, but next to my 35/1.4 and 18/2 it's a heavy beast. It balances fine on the X-T1, but if you prefer light and compact the 10-24 might disappoint. Brilliant optics covering a good focal range doesn't help if the lens stays in the cabinet. I've considered selling it and getting a samyang 12. If the 16mm will work for you most of the time and size and weight matter I'd go with that. If size and weight don't make a difference to you, the 10-24 is a brilliant beast. 

 

(We are all lucky victims here to having too many excellent choices. Sometimes life is simpler when you just have to make do with what you've got.)

[milandro]

I have owned the 10-24 but at some point I decided to part with it and sold it to a friend who wanted to buy that lens. I’ve never used the 16 but I know that, although this lens is certainly a great lens, I wouldn’t use much this particular focal length.

 

The lightest and best performance for the price wideangle has to be the 12mm Samyang f2. The lens is hard to beat under all circumstances which won’t require you to change focal length or have autofocus.

The image quality of this lens is absolutely in the same ballpark as the 10-24.

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!

Edited February 20, 2016 by milandro

[Mevl]

I'm jumping ship from Nikon. I love my Tokina 12-24 but I think I'm getting 16mm 1.4 as a main travel lens. I love to get wide and close. 

second lens i'm not decided yet. 

[arock23]

In an ideal world, I would say both. The 16mm for image quality and the the 10-24mm for versatility/travel. Obviously, that's a substantial investment though, so ask yourself which is more important to you. I will say that although the 10-24 is top notch quality for a zoom, the 16mm take image quality to a whole new level once you've shot with both and can compare. After getting the 16mm, I've gone back to reshoot locations that I had previously done with the 10-24. I wouldn't just arbitrarily say "I always prefer image quality" and go with the 16mm. Really consider which is more important because you won't be disappointed with the quality on the 10-24, but the 16 is noticeably better.

Can you post some examples?

[Nero]

Can you post some examples?

 

Here are shots from summer with the 10-24mm:

 

http://orendarling.com/post/128955143305/turkey-run-state-park-indiana-september-2015

http://orendarling.com/post/130583770586/turkey-run-state-park-indiana-september-2015

 

Here are two shots from winter with the 16mm:

 

http://orendarling.com/post/138513629673/turkey-run-state-park-in-january-2016-oren

http://orendarling.com/post/137987889421/turkey-run-state-park-in-january-2016-oren

 

I realize that the shutter speeds are different on these shots, but keep in mind that the OIS was switched on for the 10-24mm (which the 16mm doesn't have), I have a pretty steady hand, and the image quality is better in the static objects in the scene for the 16mm.

[gordonrussell76]

I think this debate can be summed up as what do you want to shoot with it.

 

Single person/item with some environment in frame Portrait/low light concert work - get the 16mm 

 

Everything else - get the 10-24mm

 

For me it comes down to DOF, the reality is for landscape,architecture and group shots you are going to be at F4-8 to ensure that more of the frame is in focus at which point the faster aperture of the 16mm is redundant and you are better of with the flexibility of the zoom range and the benefits that OIS bring. With the release of the X-Pro 2 and coming X-T2 and the increased performance at high ISO's the 10-24mm becomes even less of a compromise when it comes to low light, stick it at F4 set your shutter speed to your intended subject movement and use ISO to compensate for missing light.

[Adam Woodhouse]

I own both.  Both focus well and are very sharp.

 

I shoot weddings and a bit of real estate (private and business properties).

 

I use the 10-24mm all the time because I like the extra wide angle for places where I simply cannot back up any further and going wider than 24mm (full frame) really helps.  The IS in this lens is very good as I shoot non-moving subjects at 1/8 second easily.  But being F4, lighting needs to be fair.  I really like that in one lens I can go ultra wide for when needed, but then zoom in to the 35mm full frame equivalent for a great, general use focal length.  Since the lens is only F4 and not weather sealed, it is pretty light.

 

I use the 16mm only at weddings when the lighting is poor and I want to keep the atmosphere.  So I usually shoot it at 1.4.  During those ceremony/reception times this lens is excellent to have in the bag.

 

Because I like to jump from ultra wide to 35mm (in full frame equivalent) regularly, I found this lens to be more versitile and more my go-to lens.  Where I have personally found the 16mm to be a specialty lens that I use less, but really glad to have it when I need it.

 

I got my 10-24mm off Kijiji for a great price.  They seem to be on their from time to time and you may find you can save a few hundred $ going that route for that lens.

Edited March 4, 2016 by Adam Woodhouse

[Alf]

Prime every time

[arock23]

zoom for flexibility

[arock23]

Here are shots from summer with the 10-24mm:

 

http://orendarling.com/post/128955143305/turkey-run-state-park-indiana-september-2015

http://orendarling.com/post/130583770586/turkey-run-state-park-indiana-september-2015

 

Here are two shots from winter with the 16mm:

 

http://orendarling.com/post/138513629673/turkey-run-state-park-in-january-2016-oren

http://orendarling.com/post/137987889421/turkey-run-state-park-in-january-2016-oren

 

I realize that the shutter speeds are different on these shots, but keep in mind that the OIS was switched on for the 10-24mm (which the 16mm doesn't have), I have a pretty steady hand, and the image quality is better in the static objects in the scene for the 16mm.

Thanks for posting this.  

Does anyone have a comparison with the same exposure.

[Tikcus]

arock23

 

http://fujifilmxmount.com/comparison/en

 

Fuji has a comparison

[Paul Greeves]

Hi,

 

I had this very same dilemma a month ago. I owned the Zeiss Touit prime lenses for landscape work but I was asked to do a few weddings and couldn't cope with continually changing lenses. So, I sold my 12mm and 32mm lenses and bought the Fuji 16-55mm. But I still wanted a super wide for landscapes. I thought about buying the 14mm or the 10-24mm. I was so used to using the Zeiss 12mm that I thought 14mm wouldn't be wide enough. After much thought and review reading, I bought a used 10-24mm in mint condition. My concern about switching from a prime to a zoom was put to rest once I started using the lens. It is a great lens. Distortion is very low and details are crystal clear. I had thought that 10mm was too extreme and I thought I would use mainly the 12-16mm focal lengths but most of the time it has been 10mm that gets used. My advise would be go for the zoom. Like me, once you have used the 10mm focal length, you will be so glad that you have that option on your camera. You just need to watch out for you feet appearing at the bottom of the frame!

 

Good luck with your decision.

 

Cheers

 

Paul

[starwatcher]

They are different lens, both good and useful, depending on what you're shooting. I have both, and I do not really prefer one over the other.

I think it's best to buy one, either one, and later if prices drop or if you can get a deal or a used one in good condition, then get the other.

Assuming of course, you shoot quite a lot of photos requiring wide angle lenses.  They both work good for landscape and street photography, but with a lightly different "feel" to the photos.