14mm f2.8 close focusing any good?

[petergabriel]

So, I have found a used 14mm f2.8 and can't decide whether to buy it or pay more for the 16mm f1.4. Resolution wise the 14mm  should be quite a bit better than the 16mm, but the f1.4 and close focusing abilities of the 16mm appeals to me.

 

One of the positives that is most often mentioned about the 16mm is its close focusing ability at 15cm, which if you subtract the length of the lens amounts to like 6cm's from the front element. Quite impressive.

 

BUT, the 14mm is supposedly able to close focus at 18cm's, which if you subtract the length of the lens amounts to approx. 12 cm's from the front element. Plus the fact that the lens has a wider view. That is not so bad, right?

 

What are your thoughts on this and would you mind showing some samples of the close focusing abilities of the 14mm? Preferably with people in them.

 

Thanks.

 

Tests:

http://www.lenstip.com/387.4-Lens_review-Fujifilm_Fujinon_XF_14_mm_f_2.8_R_Image_resolution.html

 

http://www.lenstip.com/449.4-Lens_review-Fujifilm_Fujinon_XF_16_mm_f_1.4_R_WR_Image_resolution.html

[Aswald]

I've pondered on the two for sometime.

 

Here's my personal summary.

 

For photographers veering more towards landscape, 14mm should be better.

 

For photographers interested in wide angle "macro", the 16mm is better. However, for that kind of photography, there's also the Venus Optics LAOWA 15mm F4 Macro. The 16mm is also better for the some wide angle portrait.

 

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/venus-laowa-15mm-f4-wide-angle-macro-impressions-and-samples

 

At this point, I'm inclined to go 14mm and the 15mm Laowa combi.

Edited June 27, 2016 by Aswald

[deva]

If you are shooting people, then the 16 is excellent. 24 (35 equivalent) is one of my favorite focal lengths. Not only can the 16 focus close, it is also a reasonably forgiving focal length. Wider than that and the distortion becomes more of a problem (only my opinion of course as it is all subjective). I love super wide angle, but for people, unless I need it for tight spaces, 16 is great.

 

Shooting people with the 14 also works well... you just have to keep them more in the center. The 16 has a bit more compositional freedom. Again this is all my subjective preference.

 

I also like the 1.4 of the 16 because you can get some nice out of focus effect when shooting close up. 

[jlmphotos]

I don't know why you would think the 14 has better resolution than the 16.  But, I do know, as I own the 16 that it focus's so darn close I have to remove the lens hood so it doesn't interfere with the subject.  

There.  Take that!

 

LOL

J

[petergabriel]

I don't know why you would think the 14 has better resolution than the 16. But, I do know, as I own the 16 that it focus's so darn close I have to remove the lens hood so it doesn't interfere with the subject.

There. Take that!

 

LOL

J

I know nothing, but tests (e.g. the two links in op) state that the 16mm's sharpeness is very good, but the 14mm apparently blows it away.

 

The 16mm's close focusing abilities sound awesome though.

 

Anyone up for some samples of your best work with either lens. Preferably with people in them.

Edited June 27, 2016 by petergabriel

[deva]

I know nothing, but tests (e.g. the two links in op) state that the 16mm's sharpeness is very good, but the 14mm apparently blows it away.

 

 

 

 

My guess is that is comparing the 16 at 1.4... the 16 at 2.8 vs the 14 at 2.8... I doubt there is very much difference at all. The 16 is a sharp lens

Edited June 28, 2016 by deva

[petergabriel]

So, I went with the 16mm f1.4 as it is rather cheap at amazon.co.uk at the moment. Even without cashback it is cheaper than what I could have gotten it for in Denmark, with double cashback. Crazy!