Jump to content

Do I need the 10-24mm or will my 16mm be enough

Randy Pollock

By Randy Pollock
in Fuji X Lenses

 Share

Recommended Posts

Randy Pollock Apprentice

Randy Pollock

Posted
Posted

Just throwing this out here for suggestions or insights. I use a X-T2 and currently have a 16mm (as well as other lenses)...I am starting to hike and shoot landscapes mostly of meadows, waterfalls, and occasionally the Smoky mountains.

 

I am a hobbyist who makes enough from photography jobs to pay for my gear and right now I am trying to decide between the new 80mm for macro shots or get the 10-24mm.

 

My question is since I have the 16mm is that enough for landscape (for longer shots I also have the 55-200) or do I need to also get the 10-24mm? I will be shooting more landscapes than macro but if the 16mm will perform what I plan to shoot then I would rather spend my money on the 80mm for taking macro shots on my hiking trips.

Link to post
Share on other sites
BobJ Community Regular

BobJ

Posted
Posted

Well the 10-24 is a lot more useful than a 16 for the obvious reason that it covers more focal lengths! Only you will know whether your personal style will benefit but I find that a lot of my work makes use of around 20 to 24mm and the longer focal lengths of the 55-200 with occasional use of wider down to 10. I believe that the 10-24 is considerably larger and heavier than the 16 though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
mdotson90 Apprentice

mdotson90

Posted
Posted

If you're worried about not having anything wide enough, and your budget is a factor, why not try the Samyang/Rokinon 12mm f2? It's a permanent part of my travel kit and I think the IQ is great, comparable to Fuji glass. If you can deal with no autofocus, I think it'll serve you well, especially for the price of $250, it's less than 1/3 the cost of the XF 10-24mm. Protip: Set to infinity, and everything beyond 3 feet is in focus, so if landscapes are your thing, you probably won't have to adjust focus much anyway.

 

Also, it's 2 stops faster. The only negatives I can think of with this lens is noticable light falloff on the edges, especially wide open (depending on your style, this may or may not be negative) and lack of communication with the camera, so no autofocus/EXIF data. Other than that, it's small, light, cheap, fast, and the IQ is good. It's a really good landscape photographer's tool.

 

Flickr has lots of shots taken with it. Check it out.

https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=rokinon%2012mm

and

https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=samyang%2012mm

Link to post
Share on other sites
Randy Pollock Apprentice

Randy Pollock

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I reviewed the len from some youtubersand reviewed what everyone said here as well... I ordered the 10-24mm and will shelf the 80mm until maybe next Fall.

 

I did here that with my 16mm I can get as close as 6 inches which isn't macro but would allow me to get some nice woodland floor shots.

 

Thanks everyone for your help.

Link to post
Share on other sites
insert_name_here Newbie

insert_name_here

Posted
Posted

If you're worried about not having anything wide enough, and your budget is a factor, why not try the Samyang/Rokinon 12mm f2? It's a permanent part of my travel kit and I think the IQ is great, comparable to Fuji glass. If you can deal with no autofocus, I think it'll serve you well, especially for the price of $250, it's less than 1/3 the cost of the XF 10-24mm. Protip: Set to infinity, and everything beyond 3 feet is in focus, so if landscapes are your thing, you probably won't have to adjust focus much anyway.

 

Hi, sorry for hijacking OP's post. I'm also checking out both the fuji 10-24mm and the Samyang 12mm. Both are great, but I don't have the budget to buy both as of now. I like the 12mm since it's faster and lighter, however, my eyes really suck at focusing. I wear eyeglasses, and even with the diopter set, I can't see clearly through the viewfinder. I rely on fast AF to get a shot. I'm just a hobbyist who enjoy taking street photos. Since getting the 23mm f2, it never left my camera. I also like shooting at night with a tripod, sometimes handheld. I know no amount of holding my breath would get me a steady shot with the f4. I also know that if there is a candid scene I would like to take with the f2, I wouldn't be able to do it with the manual focus. With these in mind, which lens would you recommend? I don't know if I can set and forget focus with the Samyang. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • thelostkiwi
      Looking for Full Frame lenses to adapt to GFX

      By thelostkiwi · Posted

      I also use a Nikon to GFX Fringer and it works very well.  24mm f/1.8 vignettes so best used on 35mm mode.  50mm f/1.8 covers the entire frame very well with no issues and is a superb little lens. 105mm Sigma vignettes slightly but is perfectly usable. 300 f/4 likewise the 105.  I have a 70-200 f/20+.8 incoming to test so will report back but I'm expecting a little vignetting.  Even in 35mm mode the image is still 60MP and if you're prepared to manually crop and correct you can get 80-90 MP images.  I also have a C/Y to GFX adapter.  The 24mm Sigma Superwide vignettes strongly. Ditto 28-80 Zeiss Sonnar. 80-200 f/4 Sonnar is perfectly usable. All work fine as 35mm mode lenses.  I also have an M42 adapter which I tried with the Carl Zeiss Jena 135mm f/3.5 with good results. 
    • Trevor R
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By Trevor R · Posted

      Thank you. I will research it.
    • jerryy
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By jerryy · Posted

      Ahh, the infamous brick wall photos… 😀 According to internet lore, if the dng converter does not properly apply the corrections, you can have it apply custom profiles that should work for you. How to do that is waaaaaay outside of this comment’s scope, but there are plenty of sites listed in the search engines that step you through the processes. Best wishes.
    • Trevor R
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By Trevor R · Posted

      Jerry Thank you very much. That is extremely helpful. It seems that the camera and the lens have the latest firmware update, so it appears that the corrections should be applied automatically. The lens arrived this afternoon and I took some quick test shots, in which the correct lens information appeared in the EXIF files, so that sounds good. I used Adobe DNG converter to convert the Raw (RAF) files, and then opened the DNG files and saved them in PSD format. However, with a beautiful, clear, cloudless blue sky, there were no lines near the edges to check if distortion had been corrected. Another day I plan to photograph a brick wall. Thank you for your help.
    • jerryy
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By jerryy · Posted

      Typically you need to make sure the lens is compatible with the camera, i.e. check the lens compatibility charts for your camera, then make sure the respective firmwares are updated so older issues are resolved. After that, each lens has a manufacturer’s profile which will be embedded into the raw file meta data for the images captured using that lens. From there, it is up to the raw conversion software to apply the lens correction to the image. Different converters do that differently, some automatically, some only if a setting is turned on. For in-camera jpegs, the on-board converter does the corrections automatically, assuming the camera recognizes the lens, it applies a generic profile otherwise. I do not know if that can be turned off or not.
×
×
  • Create New...