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

[bernie.fjx]

I think the 16 is dramatically better between f1.4 and f.5. I can't seem to get anything useful out of the 10-24 in this range...

 

Seriously, the f1.4 and f4 are "miles apart". Each has a certain use and as my old photography teacher was saying: why bother paying for an f1.4 lens if you are only ever going to use it at f8 to shoot your boring wheat fields and beaches?

 

 

Personally, I am also undecided here. I have some use for the f1.4, but 16 is a little too wide for my taste. I'd very much prefer having an 18/1.4. On the other hand, I have some use for 10-24, but f4 downwards rather than f1.4. I guess: the 10-24 is a lens on my shopping list, while the 16/f1.4 is having a hard time against the 18/f2.

[Nero]

For me, the max aperture is just one of several reasons that I own both of these lenses, and overall it's not the most important thing that separates them. There are times when I shoot the 16mm at f/8-f/11 all day because it is optically corrected and sharper edge to edge compared to the 10-24mm. I love the zoom because I can shoot it at f/8, low-ISO with the stabilization to bail me out on the slow shutter speed. However, in many cases I'm going to get softer corners because even though it's superb quality for a zoom, the 16mm is optically in another tier.

 

The 18mm has some great characteristics in size, price, and the fact some of the areas where it supposedly "falls short" can actually give it some extra character for street photos, but once again the 16mm is optically in another league if you're thinking about shooting landscapes. There have been a number of cases where I will go out "scouting" some landscapes with the 10-24mm and will get some great, print quality images, but I'll take a second loop through with the 16mm to recapture the best of those compositions to put them over the top. 

[blessingx]

For whatever it's worth the Angry Photographer put both in his top four Fuji lenses. I know plenty to argue with with that list (and his comments on the 56 and 90), but having both on his list shows some view each as essential. I had the 16mm for a bit, got rid of, then fell in love with wide shooting (not my natural pull) with the 10-24. So now regretting not having the 16. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M61AvVIRB9o

[dneu]

I had the 16mm lens and loved it, but since I normally shoot landscape and architecture with my wide-angle lens, I sold it and bought a 10-24mm. Now I'm even happier, because I really appreciate the possibility to get as wide as 15mm (FF-equivalent) and I normally use apertures between 5.6 and 11 with that kind of lens.

Edited April 6, 2016 by dneu

[darknj]

For whatever it's worth the Angry Photographer put both in his top four Fuji lenses. I know plenty to argue with with that list [...]

 

What I don't like about that review, is he didn't took the shot he is holding in his hands  when he reviewed the 16mm lens. He seems to be basing all of his review on that picture alone and is not showing us anything that he did with the lens to further argument his points.

 

Agreeing or disagreeing with his list is a whole different debate but while his opinion does have some value, I also take what he says with a lot of salt/pepper and a dollop of extra sauce on the side.

 

He knows his subject but does not show us anything that proves he actually gained that knowledge with on-field experience. I very frequently disagree with Tony Northrup about his view on photography but at least he puts pictures behind his words, Fro-knows is in the same basket. 

But Angry Photographer, almost never show us anything, or at least I still need to find a video where he does that.

[elmacus]

All reviewer usually have link to random photosites where you can buy Stuff. So nothing they say can be trusted, if its bad review, noone buys anything. So it is in his best interest to recommend whatever junk.

Just my opinion, not universal true.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 mobile

[darknj]

All reviewer usually have link to random photosites where you can buy Stuff. So nothing they say can be trusted, if its bad review, noone buys anything. So it is in his best interest to recommend whatever junk.

Just my opinion, not universal true.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 mobile

 

It is not just the link to random photosites that bothers, but a lot of the protogs I follow around on Youtube review a product and present shots they have taken with the gear, when you have been following them for a bit, you start to know their style and framework, that gives you a baseline, for that reviewer, of how good/bad/meh that gear is.

 

As for the Angry Photographer, I have yet to find a single shot he took while testing any gear or even referencing to. At least for the year or so I have followed him, I have never seen any of his work and that's really the parts that troubles me.

[enthawizeguy]

trying to decide between these 2 is killing me. 

[mdm]

trying to decide between these 2 is killing me. 

 

Then take 12mm OR 14mm for wide-goodlight AND 16mm for lowlight. 12mm is quite inexpensive.

[CplGumby]

So what did you end up buying?

In my Nikon world I had the wide zoom 16-35 and I always shot wide, hardly ever used the 35 part of the lens. So naturally the 10-24 would be the best fit for my Fuji, right? Well not so fast. I rented both the 10-24 and the 16mm and although I love the wide angle of the 10-24, shooting the 16mm was just plain fun! Probably the most fun I've had with a lens! Not sure if it was the clutch assembly or what but I've got an order in for that lens. 

Ideally, I'd like a 10mm prime with WR but that's not on the road map.

[jlmphotos]

I have looked at the 10-24 and I love the "wideness" of it, but I am in LOVE with my 16 1.4,  It's sharp, clean, and I can use it as a mini-macro lens.  It's my second "don't leave home without it" right behind my 18-55 lens.

 

Even though the 10-24 is fabulous, I don't want to carry the bulk or the weight;  this is the reason I've also decided to stick with the 55-200 vs the 50-140 2.8

[mynameismo]

Hello,

 

I only own the 10-24, but 80% of my shots are either at 14 or in the 18-24 range with that lens. I only shot few pictures at 10, when it's worth.

I've been trying to stay at 16 to see what I could get the past few days.

 

I always felt that 16 is either too wide or not wide enough, for travel photography or documentary context shots. Maybe it's because I can't really blur out the background at f4, but personally I think it's harder to compose at 16 than 14 or 18, in crowded / small places.

 

Plus, the f 1.4 isn't useful outside in daylight. (Unless you use an ND8 or ND16)

 

Regards,

[scorpionz]

If you need the low-light and almost-macro-like capabilities, then get the 16, or else the 10-24 will be a more versatile option.

 

I couldn't get both because $$$, and I wanted a lens which could be used for street, landscape as well well as astrophotography. I ended up getting the 16. I almost exclusively use it at 1.4 or 2.0 and couldn't be happier with the results.

 

Both are phenomenal lenses and you can't go wrong with either.

[deva]

would never sell either

[deepsun]

I have the 16mm and it's probably my favorite lens out of the four primes I own. Excellent image quality and absolutely perfect for low-light situations where you want to tell the story and maintain a lot of context, namely at wedding receptions or high-energy events. 

 

But, I would love to have the 10-24mm because I love shooting landscapes, get paid to shoot quite a bit of interior, architectural stuff and HATE having to change lenses when I'm either out in a windy, dusty environment or on the clock and feeling the pressure. The limitations of the 10-24mm that occur to me are 1) it being f/4, giving it a disadvantage for handheld low-light work 2) no weather sealing, keeping me on my toes if I'm out shooting landscapes in if-y weather.

 

But when considering how I intend to use it, I can imagine it being very useful. I shoot interior/architectural work on a tripod no matter what lens I'm using. I don't like using lights for interiors because my clients hire me for the natural look of my work, and no matter the lens, I'll shoot f/5.6-11 to keep things in focus. So the f/4 aperture isn't really an issue for either shooting situation. The lack of weather sealing wouldn't be a huge deal either. If the weather is inclement enough to potentially brick my non-weather sealed equipment, then I'm not going to enjoy being out there either, so things go back in the waterproof bag and I jet. 

 

I'm planning to buy the 10-24mm, as well as keep the 16mm. They both do different things really well.

 

TL;DR Consider the type of shooting you do and if the benefits outweigh the cost. 

[ullmandds]

this was with my 14.

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!

[ullmandds]

these the 16.

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!

[ullmandds]

more 16.

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!

[ullmandds]

10-24 at 10

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!

[ullmandds]

10-24 at 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!

[ullmandds]

I like them all!!!!!

[oliaha]

I have the 16m and altough it is an excellent lense, super sharp and amazing colours, I kinda regret I didnt get the 10-24. For me the lense would be a better fit for street- and travelphotography. You should look at your photos and decide what suits you better.

[Adam Woodhouse]

I use my 10-24 for street/landscape/casual work all the time.  I like the extra wide feature for when it is needed, and I like that at the full zoom, it is a 35mm full frame equivalent which is commonly used for casual/street work.  The I.S. in the lens is great for those low shutter speed hand held shots.

 

I use the 16/1.4 when I'm doing my regular wedding work when indoors and in low light ... so I use it at F1.4 almost all the time when indoors ... that and the 35/1.4 are great for that.

 

10-24/4 and 16/1.4 are two different lenses for two different purposes (at least for me).

Edited November 25, 2016 by Adam Woodhouse

[starwatcher]

I have both but find myself using the 10-24 most of the time.  More convenient, IQ is just as good, and there's something about 10mm that you'll never get with a 16mm.    Attached are 2 photos taken around GasTown, Vancouver Canada. 10-24mm on my X-T10.

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 November 29, 2016 by starwatcher

[Carlos C]

I was in the same fence considering also a 14 f2.8 but decided on 16 f1.4 and maybe later I'll add the cheap but great samyang 12 f2.