Lens choice

[Kev Andy]

Hi All I am new to the X system have a xt2  with 18 to 55.

I do a lot of land /seascapes trying to decide between a 16 mm prime or the 10 to 24 any thoughts out there

Cheers Kev

[woodlander]

It is a tough choice. I recently had to make the same decision and I went with the 10-24, which is a very nice lens. I don't know if that helps, but the 10-24 is very sharp and easy to work with. The 16mm is quite a bit faster, if that makes a difference. They are both fairly heavy, so that isn't very different.

 

The ability to adjust the focal length was a key feature for me.

 

Good luck on your decision. I think either will be a good serviceable lens.

[Tikcus]

I'd recommend using the Fuji X comparison tool to compare FOV

 

http://fujifilmxmount.com/comparison/en/test-our-lenses/

 

If it is for landscapes, and I expect you'll be shooting at F/8 or higher, the F/1.4 of the XF16 wont make a difference, just a case of is the extra 2mm on the wide end worth it considering you already have the excellent 18-55.

the 10-24 gives you much more width.

You may want to consider the Samyang 12mm F/2, although i've not used it, I've heard nothing but good things about it

Edited April 25, 2017 by Tikcus

[loffebro]

I tend to use to 10-24 more often for landscape/seascape due to the additional width. The F/4 with the OIS makes it possible to use it hand held until the second sunset. 16 mm isn't really that wide, but the F/1.4 makes it better for general photography especially in dark situations or for bokeh. It's good for close ups as well. Non of them would be a bad choice.

 

At least this is my experience from using these two lenses so far.

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/leifbr/

[jlmphotos]

I believe the 16 1.4 gives way more options, before being smaller and lighter than the 10-24 F4.  Also, keep in mind the 10-24 F4 is not water resistant; where the 16 1.4 is.  

I have found the 16 to be extremely versatile - from near macro capability, to amazing wide-angle.  I've used it for wider portraits as well.

 

I looked at the 16 1.4 vs the 10-24 and I opted for the somewhat lighter, and I believe sharper 16, though the 10-24 sure provides a lot more options and versatility.

[BillTaber]

Reviewers have suggested that if you would shoot at f4 that the 10-24 is as good as the 16mm at f4.

I chose the 10-24 for the wider capability and OIS even though not getting WR which the 16mm has.

[Maksim]

I have both 16mm and 10-24mm. Both lenses are sharp and optically excellent.

 

I use 16mm in tough lighting conditions because of its bright aperture. I have used it to photograph the night sky and stars.

 

With that being said, 10-24mm is my first choice for landscapes, travel and everything else. 10mm view of this lens turns even boring pictures into something special. 16mm can't do that...

 

I am in love with ultra-wides and even got a fisheye, which is the ultimate fun lens.

[Maksim]

I am sorry - the web site was slow and the same message got posted twice. Please ignore this.

Edited May 7, 2017 by Maksim