Difficult to compose with XF 14mm f2.8?

[petergabriel]

I have read numerous reviews of the Fujinon XF f2.8 and they all state that it is a stunning lens, so I have considered adding it to my arsenal which now consists of an XF 23mm f1.4, XF 35mm f1.4 and XF 18-55 f2.8-4.

 

However, one thing I have noticed is how many used Fujinon 14mm f2.8 lenses are sold in my little country, Denmark, compared to Fujinons other focal lengths, and this makes me wonder whether a 14mm lens has to steep a learning curve compositional wise, as so many people seem to give up on the otherwise excellent lens - most common reason people give for selling the lens is lack of use - so I don't think it nescessarely comes to people replacing it with the 16mm f.14.

 

So, what are your opinion on the matter. Is a 14mm so much more difficult to master compared to e.g. the 35mm f1.4 with its tight crop?

 

I like the ability that a 14mm gives me to "see more" while being close to a subject, but I don't expect to use it that much for its often lauded landscape and architectural skills. I want to use it for street and peoples shots (not portrait!).

 

And before you recommend the 16mm f1.4 instead, I have already owned that lens and found it nice, but to big and to expensive, so I returned it.

I would rather buy a used 14mm cheap, as I believe it will not be my most used lens, but a nice to have lens.

[milandro]

there is nothing intrinsically more difficult about the 14mm, perhaps many realize that they can buy a 12 mm for a lot less and that they don’t need the autofocus after all.

[Alan Sircom]

there is nothing intrinsically more difficult about the 14mm, perhaps many realize that they can buy a 12 mm for a lot less and that they don’t need the autofocus after all.

 

 

I disagree. A superwide lens like the 14mm does take some getting used to from a compositional sense. It's not as daunting as some claim, but it is both daunting and perceived as daunting by people starting out. The old school method of learning to compose one focal length at a time wasn't a bad one because you usually started with the standard lens, then went moderately wide, then either even wider, or a moderate tele depending on your tastes. This gave you the compositional skills to best use the more extreme focal lengths. Without that, a supersede is hard to handle.

 

It's not that hard to learn once you set to it, but you need to learn to use it.

[milandro]

Everything needs learning, cameras don’t take pictures on their own, especially professional cameras don’t! Maybe I don’t find this difficult because I’ve been doing this for 35 years. On a 35mm I used routinely a 15mm so a 14m (or the 10-24 I’ve used and the 12 mm that I do use now) doesn’t make me think it is any difficult to use.

 

This is a 10mm

 

[Alan Sircom]

Everything needs learning, cameras don’t take pictures on their own, especially professional cameras don’t! Maybe I don’t find this difficult because I’ve been doing this for 35 years. On a 35mm I used routinely a 15mm so a 14m (or the 10-24 I’ve used and the 12 mm that I do use now) doesn’t make me think it is any difficult to use.

 

This is a 10mm

 

 

 

Great image.

 

But yes, 'part' of the reason why you don't find using a 14mm that difficult to use is those years of familiarity working with super wides. And this image is a perfect example as it exhibits all of that familiarity in action. 

 

If you are used to working with a lens like the 14mm, you will know almost instinctually to get very close to that front sun-lounger, you will know the depth of field required, the importance of those vanishing points and the horizontal, and the placement of the horizon. Someone who hasn't got that depth of experience working with super wides will miss one or more of these compositional elements until they start to nail using the lens. Most commonly, they will remain a step or two too far away from the subject. They might not be thinking of images in terms of vanishing points (especially twin vanishing points as you have done here) and may be so surprised by the perspective from a super wide, they make the rookie error of not getting the horizon perfectly level or place it badly.  

 

All of these points can and do fall into place with understanding how to use a super wide, but if the photographer's widest lens to date is the 18-55 fuji zoom (or equivalent), their composition will at first be informed by that experience.

[frod]

I think a lot of people think landscape = wide and end up disappointed by the results. I remember doing this myself with a Sigma zoom in my Nikon days.

 

Wide lenses emphasise the foreground and send the middle distance even further away and vanish the far distance into almost nothing. Not to mention the distortion is incredibly unflattering for people not in the centre of the frame. They are not really everyday lenses unless you make that your style, and the Fuji options are quite expensive for what could end up being sparingly used lenses.

[johant]

I took my Samyang 12mm with me today, as a challenge. Since I usually have the Fujinon 18mm or 35mm lenses on my camera, the 12mm is something completely different. It's fun for now and then, but I would not want to use such a wide angle as my primary lens.

[Sator-Photography]

I wouldn't really call the 14mm f/2.8 an ultra wide angle lens. It is the full frame equivalent of a 21mm lens. That's moderately wide angle, but hardly ultra wide. It shouldn't be too hard to compose your subject well at this focal length. 

Edited August 6, 2016 by Sator-Photography

[frod]

14mm is ultra wide on aps-c.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_wide_angle_lens

[Sator-Photography]

That Wiki article states:

 

An ultra wide-angle lens is a lens whose focal length is shorter than the short side of film or sensor.

 

To which someone has rightly appended the term: [citation needed]. There is no optical reason to define ultra wide angled lenses on this basis. It is clearly an arbitrary convention that someone has made up.

 

For example, the Leica S system has a 45 x 30mm sensor. So by this definition anything <45mm is an ultra wide. Yet Leica call their 45mm lens a "standard wide angle lens":

 

https://au.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-S/Leica-S-Lenses/Elmarit-S-45mm-f-2.8-ASPH.-CS

 

They call the 35mm lens for this format a "universal wide angle lens":

 

https://au.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-S/Leica-S-Lenses/Summarit-S-35MM-f-2.5-CS

 

And they call a 30mm lens a "super wide angle":

 

https://au.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-S/Leica-S-Lenses/Elmarit-S-30mm-f-2.8-ASPH.-CS

 

They only call their 24mm lens an "ultra wide angle":

 

https://au.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-S/Leica-S-Lenses/Super-Elmar-S-24mm-f-3.5-ASPH

[milandro]

Of course it is and ultra-wideangle, unless you consider a 18mm a standard lens .

 

Which might probably be the attitude among certain people, like those who bought and use the X-70.

 

One’s person daily bread and butter might be someone else’s festive meal. I can walk about all day with a 12mm and never feel the urge to shoot with anything else and someone else one can find it a special lens for special moments.

 

This is more my attitude with the 8mm fish-eye. But I’ve seen people making a frequent and good use of that lens.

 

http://www.fuji-x-forum.com/topic/696-fuji-fisheye/?hl=samyang

 

Isn’t it all in the game that we call “ style”?

 

Each lens we use gives one, quite literally, a different perspective, and that is as true of geometric things as it is of the way we express our feelings through images.

 

But OP, as so often happens, asked not what we like, but if the 14mm was sold so often because composing an image with it would be inherently difficult.

 

I don’t think it is.

 

But yes, what I like might not be what someone else’s likes (or is capable to manage) and maybe many 14mm buyers don’t like it.

 

There are few absolutes in photography.

[frod]

That Wiki article states:

 

 

An ultra wide-angle lens is a lens whose focal length is shorter than the short side of film or sensor.

 

To which someone has rightly appended the term: [citation needed]. There is no optical reason to define ultra wide angled lenses on this basis. It is clearly an arbitrary convention that someone has made up.

 

For example, the Leica S system has a 45 x 30mm sensor. So by this definition anything <45mm is an ultra wide. Yet Leica call their 45mm lens a "standard wide angle lens":

 

https://au.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-S/Leica-S-Lenses/Elmarit-S-45mm-f-2.8-ASPH.-CS

 

They call the 35mm lens for this format a "universal wide angle lens":

 

https://au.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-S/Leica-S-Lenses/Summarit-S-35MM-f-2.5-CS

 

And they call a 30mm lens a "super wide angle":

 

https://au.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-S/Leica-S-Lenses/Elmarit-S-30mm-f-2.8-ASPH.-CS

 

They only call their 24mm lens an "ultra wide angle":

 

https://au.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-S/Leica-S-Lenses/Super-Elmar-S-24mm-f-3.5-ASPH

And Fuji call the 14mm ultra-wide angle.

 

http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujinon_lens_xf14mmf28_r/

 

"Designed to capture images rich in perspective, this ultra wide-angle lens with its extreme angle of view is the ideal choice"

 

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

[milandro]

all interesting but does it make any difference to OP’s question whether it is a wide-angle or an ultra-wide-angle?

 

Anyway, I don’t find it particularly challenging to compose whether 10-12-14mm. 

 

Just “ sui generis” (his own and particular kind) and as such, to each his own.

[jlmphotos]

I own the Zeiss 12/2.8 AND the Amazing Fuji 16 1.4.  I will say the Fuji 161.4 is freakin'tastic lens!!!  What I love most, besides the sharpness and clarity of it --- even wide open --- is that it can double down as a makeshift Macro lens with it's extreme close-focus capabilities.  How close you ask?  I have to remove the lens hood close...  That's close.

 

I don't find it to be difficult to use at all, but again I don't force the scene to fit into the lens.  It has to be something that comes naturally I think.  Those are my two cents.

 

Here is a link to FIVE images that I've used the 16mm F1.4 to make.  I apologize I've yet to figure out how to post them on here.  The two tropical ones are stock images (click on them in Flickr to enlarge) , the other three are of my new grandchild.  Let  us know if this helps make up your mind...

Best

Edited August 6, 2016 by jlmphotos

[Sator-Photography]

My point is simply that however you define what "ultra wide" vs "super wide" etc etc is, 14mm APS-C format doesn't feel so terribly "ultra" wide that it starts to make composition unusually difficult. That would be the last reason to avoid this focal length. Nor even 12mm—I too love my 12mm Touit and could happily shoot with that lens all day. It's only when it gets to around 8-10mm that you have to be much more careful with composition, and things start to feel ultra wide. I really look forward to Fuji releasing a 8mm prime or the rumoured 8-16mm f/2.8 zoom lens. 

 

I must give that a go using the 16mm f/1.4 as a macro. That should be fun. 

Edited August 6, 2016 by Sator-Photography

[petergabriel]

I own the Zeiss 12/2.8 AND the Amazing Fuji 16 1.4.  I will say the Fuji 161.4 is freakin'tastic lens!!!  What I love most, besides the sharpness and clarity of it --- even wide open --- is that it can double down as a makeshift Macro lens with it's extreme close-focus capabilities.  How close you ask?  I have to remove the lens hood close...  That's close.

 

I don't find it to be difficult to use at all, but again I don't force the scene to fit into the lens.  It has to be something that comes naturally I think.  Those are my two cents.

 

Here is a link to FIVE images that I've used the 16mm F1.4 to make.  I apologize I've yet to figure out how to post them on here.  The two tropical ones are stock images (click on them in Flickr to enlarge) , the other three are of my new grandchild.  Let  us know if this helps make up your mind...

Best

 

Great shots, Jorge. The Dry tortuga looks fantastic. However I still find the bokeh of the 16mm a bit to busy. Besides that, the 16mm sure is a nice lens, which I have already owned. Found it to big. That's why I'm looking into the 14mm which is often very cheap used where I live. Like half price from new in mint condition. And I don't need its pseudo macro capabilities :-)

 

I just came home from vactioning in Skopelos, Greece where I used the 18mm end of the XF 18-55 f2.8-4 a lot and often found I needed it to be a little wider, so maybe the 14mm is to wide and the 16mm just perfect. Perhaps if Fujifilm made a smaller 16mm f2 I would be happy. Can't decide :-(

 

Is the 16mm better for peoples shots than the 14mm, given a lot of you say that people look funny if to close to the edge of the frame on the 14mm? Does the 16mm "distort" the same way?

Edited August 7, 2016 by petergabriel

[Sluw]

I don't think it's more difficult, but it's definitely different. After shooting wideangle for a while you'll get used to it and "see" te different opportunities.

 

[Perplexed]

I like to walk about with just a single prime lens on my camera so that I can explore possibilities with just a single focal length.  As already pointed out, wide/ultra-wide lenses emphasize what is in the foreground, so make sure that there is something close to you that is of interest.

[Perplexed]

Some folks who are new to shooting wide-angle lenses, or who may have been unhappy with their wide-angle shots, may find this helpful.

https://www.digitalphotomentor.com/5-mistakes-beginners-make-using-a-wide-angle-lens-and-how-to-avoid-them/

[petergabriel]

Is the 16mm better for shots with people in them, compared to the 14mm, or do they both "distort" faces if to close to the edges?

Edited August 17, 2016 by petergabriel

[mdm]

Is the 16mm better for shots with people in them, compared to the 14mm, or do they both "distort" faces if to close to the edges?

http://stepheneastwood.com/tutorials/lensdistortion/index.htm

[milandro]

interesting but that doesn’t illustrate what Peter Gabriel is talking about.

 

In fact I believe that he’s asked that question already before and he got a number of answers that he confuses “ distortion” with " volume deformation”.

 

http://www.fuji-x-forum.com/topic/3306-14mm-f28-zero-distortion/

[mdm]

interesting but that doesn’t illustrate what Peter Gabriel is talking about.

 

Yes, you're right, I just couldn't understand Peter's intention to shoot people with wide-angles.

Edited August 17, 2016 by mdm

[Vidalgo]

Simplest reason - grab them all !

[petergabriel]

I did mean volume deformation, hence distortion in "" :-) What I mean by peoples shots with 14 or 16 mm is, if there are people in a shot, will the 16mm volume deform the same way as some of you warn about when people are to close to the edge on the 14mm?