16mm or 23mm for indoor, your opinion?

[hetrag]

Ok, so first off, my knowledge about photography is still pretty limited..

 

however some time ago I bought a X-E1 and the 35mm lens, mainly to be able to take pictures of my family indoor without a flash.

 

it works fairly well, (actually I love the camera ) but often I find the lens to be to long. so I wanted a shorter one. but I am torn between the 16mm and 23mm.

 

now.. I know that you cant tell me what i will prefer, but since I dont have any real preferences, i would like to hear your own opinions.

 

I am thinking that the 16mm would be well suited, but then I suddenly read about distortions, and peoples noses getting to big.... and all of the sudden I am confused again

 

so.. I am hoping someone have the time to help a fairly new x shooter

 

 

 

 

[Warwick]

If I could have only one lens it would be the 23mm. You can use it for pretty much everything, indoors and out. But if I had just the 35mm and I were given the choice of adding either the 23mm or the 16mm to my collection, I'd choose the 16mm. Together with the 35mm, those two lenses give you a huge amount of scope and variety, whereas the 35 and the 23 have a bigger area of overlap. Outdoors, head-and-shoulders portraits etc - that's your 35. Indoors, tight spaces, close-up action, fast-moving pets, landscapes - that's your 16.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[milandro]

I am not so sure what the term “ indoor” would mean in terms of using a lens rather than the other since Indoor covers some pretty wide range of situation and you could actually use both lenses in order to achieve different results.

 

If you want to use a lens simply to get more people on the frame within a normal room of an average house you could get a super wideangle such as the 16 to do the job but that would hardly be kind to the people on the pictures in all sorts of situations but it does matter if we are talking of a family of 5 or a group of 30.

 

On the other hand you may want to place people in a context and then the 16 would definitely help you better.

 

I would say that you really both and that, unless you NEED the ultra light efficient performance of the 23 or the 16, you need a 10-24mm ( which is the lens that I use) to cover all of those bases and more ( next to be way quicker than switching between the two 16 and 23 while “ on the job” ).

[hetrag]

Indoor means 1-8 people, and fairly tight spaces however I would say that the goal would be to place them in a context. And I want a 1.4 aperture lens, because I am taking pictures of children indoor, and I want to disturb them as little as possible.

 

 

Right now, I am reading that the 16mm makes sense since it complements the 35mm more. however, there could be problem with distortion.

 

With a 16mm are there any guidelines as to how far you would have to be from the subject, until the distortion becomes negligible?

 

And thank you both

[milandro]

there are many preferences  which are personal but I find that, in practice, for X photographers, the max aperture makes very little sense ( in terms of ease to follow your subject or focussing) unless you need to use the lens at that aperture to achieve shallow depth of field ( which is unlikely to be a requirement shooting groups of people including children moving about in a room).

 

The thing is that mirrorless are very different from reflex cameras in this respect.

 

The image that you see in the EVF is an electronically created and enhanced one so it doesn’t matter ( within certain limits) whether the max aperture is very high or not.

 

In a reflex camera you are focussing ( or the camera is  ) the picture that you observe at the max aperture through the lens. So it matters if the lens is more or less light efficient because the picture will be darker or lighter depending on the max aperture.

 

That is not what happens with an EVF. 

 

The EVF shows you a picture created electronically ( light amplified or reduced if needed) looking like it would be shot at the aperture and shutter sped that you select.

 

It is not the physical image of the light going through the lens and reflected by a mirror.

 

In other words the image on the EVF observed with a f1.4 lens and one with a f 4  will appear to be on the EVF pretty much the same! ( in light energy terms) under most normal light circumstances.

 

What you might call “ distortion” ( we might disagree on that term but this is not the object of my comment now) is, in this case, a function of the distance where you are shooting.

 

At such a close quarters and in most situations “ indoors” you will  see “ distortion ” with a16mm

 

As for understanding wide angle photography I suppose you could be reading this article which another member Marcelo_Valente recommended a couple of days ago.

 

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

[Warwick]

These were all taken with the 16.

Judge for yourself whether distortion is a problem.

As for the max aperture, from my point of view it really helps when it comes to freezing action and hand-held photography in low-light situations - you get faster shutter-speeds.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[KwyjiboVanDeKamp]

I would grab the 16mm! I (just) own the 12mm Walimex Pro and since I have it I do like (ultra) wide-angle shots more than ever. You get so much into the frame although you're being fairly close to the subject. It's amazing!!! And yes, if you are really (really) close to the subject it offers distortion. But I think (without being an expert) that's cause of the physics of an (ultra) wide-angle lens. Here you can see some sample shots of the 12mm http://www.fuji-x-forum.com/topic/169-samyang-12mm-f20-ncs-cs-x-mount/. Mine are not corrected in perspective or so. I just did some colour edits. I think the 16mm will even do a better job (cause of being a Fuji ) but without being that wide (like the 12mm). If I have enough money I will purchase the 16mm too. The 10-24mm might be a good choice too but cause of lower speed not the best for indoor shots of moving subjects.

And here's another point for the 16mm: If you're willing to update your X-E1 to a X-T1 you'll still have a WR lens.

Hope I could help.

 

Have a nice day.

[Warwick]

Yes - I forgot to mention the water-resistance. The two dog photos above - one was taken with the camera held just above a stream, with the dog charging at me. The other was taken on a rainy day.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[milandro]

the good thing about water resistance is that it is resisting dust too. I am not into the kind of photography which might require water resistance but having a “ sealed” lens has ots perks.

[andrewlee]

Another option worth considering is the 18mm f2. I had the exact same problem. Had the 35mm and needed wider for indoor. For me, indoor meant inside restaurants. Office. House. Bars. Etc. The 18 is more than wide enough and you don't get much distortion at all. Unless you try to do head and shoulder style portraits of 1 person. But that's just silly.

 

Lighter. Smaller. Cheaper. Awesome lens hood.

 

Slower. Fairly boring wide (not good for landscapes). Softer corners than 18-55 if you pixel peep.

[andrewlee]

18mm. At the office.

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!

[lysander]

I see no mention of the fantastic XF F/2.8 16-55mm. 

 

Just picked up a copy and find it a most useful general purpose zoom. It covers your entire range with one piece of glass.

 

I have the 23mm, which I love, but for convenience, as will be needed when shooting your family, the 16-55 is an excellent choice.

[aceflibble]

23mm is a nice all-rounder with an emphasis on a full scene (as opposed to something like the 35mm which is a nice all-rounder with an emphasis on an individual subject), but if it's the only lens you ever use indoors, in my experience there will be the occasional time when it's not wide enough. The 14mm does of course distort subjects quite a lot, so until now the 18mm (or 18-55 - it's actually sharper at 18mm than the prime) was the best compromise. Now, if you have the money, the 16mm is the best option. It's easy to take a wider shot and crop in, you can't take a narrow shot and magically fill the rest of the scene in later. If the price difference doesn't bother you, the 16mm is the no-brainer. A 'kit' of 16mm, 35mm and 56mm can do absolutely anything.

[kevin181]

I agree with andrewlee. I want the 16, but I've got the 14, 18, 23, and 35. The 18 is a really usable focal length. Low distortion, fast, balances great on X-E bodies (23 is a little heavy). There's more overlap between 18 and 23 than 23 and 35 IMO, and the 18 allows you to get wider and crop if necessary, without distortion worries. I think the 24mm focal length would be better if you need greater depth of field in low light wide open, or for landscapes.

 

Honestly on your X-E I think the 18 is the way to go, especially for the money.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[NorAndFey]

What defines indoor photography? 

 

For social photography indoors, typically at a party or hangin out with friends at a bar og restaurant, I like 23mm. It's wide enough, but still narrow enough. A good compromise. You can get a bit of the scene, and still be able to be a bit close and do some portaits. 

 

16mm is a focal length that for me is not wide enough. It's great to have on a zoom, but when I wanna go wide, I really like something av bit wider. But if you need a really fast wide angle, it's so far the only option for Fuji. (If Samyang 12mm f/2 not can do it for you in either or some way).

[Warwick]

To add to my recommendation about getting the 16mm next if you already have the 35mm. After that, my next purchase would be an X100 of some kind. Which is essentially a 23mm F2 with a high-quality, pocketable camera attached, for the price of the 23mm lens. It will complement your existing camera and lenses. You can slip it into a bag and forget about it. Turn it on to silent and take pictures in places where you wouldn't normally think about doing it, and where you want to be inconspicuous.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Antony]

I'm a wedding photographer and one of the requirements is table photos during the reception. I find the 23mm to be too narrow for this work, and expect to pick up the 16mm in due course. I've got the 18-55mm but prefer using primes for the extra light (often very dark environments).

 

As a new user I would get the 18-55mm - great price, and at 18mm it's the same speed as the heavier (and much more expensive 16-55mm f/2.8

[andrewlee]

My second recommendation would be the Samyang 12mm. Sometimes spaces are just too crammed and 16 might not be enough.

There will be distortion though so you'll have to be careful. Its also manual focus.. If you can live with that.

Indoor samples

 

[deva]

I have had the 23 for a while, and just purchased the 16 yesterday and already used it at 2 events... If I had the 35, I'd more likely pick the 16. The 16 focuses so close which I will use a lot. It is also WR. You can also take a step back and crop if needed. It is versatile. 

 

That said, the 23 is such a beautiful lens. If I could only have a single lens (prime) it would be the 23. I'm glad I don't have to choose!

[ThorstenMUC]

Great discussion - since I'm currently struggling with the same decision...

 

Have the 35mm, just bought the 12mm Samyang for UWW, but I'm still missing somethin in between for indoor/low light group-shots (where the 35mm already is too long) and also as walkaround lens for street.

 

The 23 almost is too close to the 35mm - the 16mm adds WR, but may almost be a little bit wide? A better 18mm would be ideal ;-)

[Bluemanta]

I've bought an X-T1 + a 23mm as a first unique lens. I'm still waiting my parcel so my testimony is worth nothing but I'm quite sure that it'll be more versatile than one single 35mm. I have an EF 50mm 1.4 on my FF Canon 6D and I mainly use it for portraiture, or night photography. Most of the time, I feel it to be too much narrow and not confortable specifically for indoor shootings.

 

As I was looking for a light kit and a 2nd body, my objective is to have only 2 primes lens on the X-System : 23mm 1.4R and 56mm 1.2R.

Of course, I still need to make savings for the 56 1.2, so I'll do my first steps only with the 23mm and it could be a good thing. Indeed, I'll be focused on framing and not switching from a lens to another as I tend to do with my 6D and the 17-40 f4, 24-105 f4, 50 f1.4, 135 f2 in the bag.

[jeromekwok]

16mm can take selfie without using a selfie stick, if this matters to you.

[milandro]

essential for the modern photographer! 

[ThorstenMUC]

16mm can take selfie without using a selfie stick, if this matters to you.

 

No selfies here... I only try to take beautiful pictures ;-)

[Malsam]

great to discover this thread, I was also trying to decide on the 23 vs 16. My main concern is the AF behind. I've own the 23 before, doesn't really feel fast enough in high performance mode using a X-T1. I'm taking environmental portraits of kids and events which means fast AF and large aperture means a lot to me. I also have the 16-55, another great zoom, but too bulky and aperture not large enough for some of the scenes I'm in. Its definitely a great lens for people who can take its weight and the AF is faster than the 23. I didn't compare to the 16mm since I don't own 2 at the same time.

 

Thanks for the discussion!