10-24 + 35 or 16 + 35. Which combo?

[Hermelin]

Which combo would you go for if you could only have only only have 1 of these 2 combos and why?

[xherion]

I'll take 16 + 35, just because of the F1.4 on 16mm makes it a very versatile lens

[Nick05]

I almost bought the 16mm during the last sale, but resisted at the time. I have the 10-24mm and the 35mm. I think if I could only have one of the two combos, I'd go with the 16 and 35. I don't often want to go wider than the 16mm and from what I am seeing the IQ is better. I like the 10-24mm, but it is missing something for me.

[Piano]

I think what you use it for has some bearing on what you'll choose. I use 10-24 for landscape and street stuff. The 18-55 for general purpose and holidays and the 50-140 for bands and some landscape.

[JRphoto]

16 + 35.

[Styp]

It depends on your shooting style. I had a similar decision to make and opted for the 16.

Retrospectively, best decision ever - changed my shooting style! Love taking these people shots in an environemental context.

 

Fuji just gave me the inspiration to get rid of all the zooms . A stellar ultra wide zoom could change that in the future, but for now I am fine with the primes.

 

Imho, if you are more into landsacpe, architecture -> 10-24, if you are more into people in context, story telling, street -> 16

[Henry0125]

16 has the highest resolution in XF. It resolves more details if you zoom in to 100%+. And F/1.4 makes it such a wonderful lens for galaxy photography.

But if I had to choose, I'd still go for 10-24 and 35 combo.

There're 2 reasons that the advantage of 16 can't really attract me.

1. I don't take landscape for commercial purpose. The super high resolution isn't a MUST.

2. Of course I don't always take galaxy that often. 

And here is the reason why 10-24 can be the replacement.

1. Landscape seldom taken by big aperture, F/4 is huge enough, except galaxy.

2. 10-24 gives you much more than just 16.

----24: A 36mm in 135 is wonderful for street photography.

----18: A 28mm in 135 is another nice option for street photography and it's also suitable for landscape.

----16: A 24mm in 135 is just nice for usual landscape.

----10-14: Ultra wide angle provides a strong visual impact to your photo.

Ultra wide is not a MUST, but you'll falling love with it if you have one.

I do use 14 to take portraits. The perspective makes girls leg longer and thinner. And the visual impact with good background such as great architecture gives you a stately feeling.

3. Every time before travelling, I never think about which lens to bring. I just mount my 10-24 onto the camera, that's all I need. No matter street, cityscape or great landscape, the 10-24 can manage everything.

[Nero]

How many landscape and architecture shots you tend to take is the main question, but also how much you intend to travel. One of my favorite travel combinations is 10-24, 35 f/1.4, and 55-200, but I have also taken the 16, 23, 35 f/1.4 and the 55-200 while traveling too depending on the location. If my travel is oriented toward landscapes, then I lean toward the 16 when I'm packing. If I'm going to be in cities, then I take the 24. So even within landscape and architecture there are some considerations to be made. If I could only have one of them, it would probably be the 16mm because of the image quality edge, but if I only had the 10-24, I wouldn't necessarily be disappointed.

[Under Fire]

i prefer prime lens= 16 and 35 of course 

[Hermelin]

I think I'll go with the 16 f/1.4.

Ill just wait for next black Friday or something