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

[Randy Pollock]

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.

[BobJ]

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.

[mdotson90]

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

[loffebro]

Most likely you will find the 10-24mm more useful for landscape, the wider angle makes the difference. It's a good lens for travel as well. I prefer the 16mm only when it gets real dark or the weather is bad. 

[Wraithwrider]

I have both the 16 and the 10-24. I like to shoot landscape and I use the 10-24. The 16 is a wonderful lens but I wouldn't find it fitting my needs in a walk in the hills here. Lake District UK.

[Randy Pollock]

Sounds like I need to investagate the 10-24 and shelf getting the 80mm...the plus side is I think right now the 10-24 is on sale at Adorama and B&H.

[claude]

You should get it I got one, and I have no regret. Great lens !

[Randy Pollock]

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.

[claude]

The 90 mm with extension tubes works great as a macro

[insert_name_here]

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.