Jump to content

Lens choice dilemma: 14 + 23 or 16??

luigipasto

By luigipasto
in Fuji X Lenses

 Share

Recommended Posts

luigipasto Newbie

luigipasto

Posted
Posted

Hi, in the last 5-6 years why work has been primarily social documentary. I bought the X Pro-2 about a year and a half ago for it's portability, lens availability / quality, high ISO performance, and overall build quality. Overall, I'm happy with my decision. Much of my work is shot in low light in the evening hours, so a large max aperture is important. The 23mm f/1.4 has been my main lens, I rarely take it off the camera. However, I sometimes find is too long (as for interiors) and sometimes a little too short (as for portraits). To solve these issues I bought the 14mm which I use primarily for people pictures inside buildings, and the 50mm f/2 for portraits. Both these lenses are great, and have served me very well. The problem is that my street kit is now quite cumbersome. It doesn't fit in my Ona Bowrey, and switching among three lenses is really not ideal.

Finally, the question. I have not tried the 16mm 1.4, but have read stellar stuff about it. While wide, it's less wide that the 14mm and it's close focus distance makes it good for close up of details (hands, feet, face) which I do often. I'd like to hear from those who use the 16mm for reportage/documentary photography especially. The 1.4 is essential for my work, and I'm wondering if the 16mm could replace both the 14 and the 23. I  know there is the 18mm f/2, but I have ready too many negative reviews about its performance and build quality. There are the zooms of course, but I'm reluctant to go this route both for the quality and the max aperture.

Any insights from those who've had a similar dilemma would be very much appreciated.

Luigi

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nero Rising Star

Nero

Posted
Posted

The image quality of the 16mm is incredible, but I would encourage you to borrow or rent one for a few days. I found it to be sharp to an extent that wasn't always welcome depending on the subject I was shooting. Nothing that couldn't be fixed with slight tweaks in RAW, but it is almost too sharp in some cases, especially if you stop down the aperture a bit. I found that it was a very nice complementary lens to go with my 23mm f/1.4, which is my workhorse. I'd be hesitant to switch from a 14mm + 23mm combination to the 16mm though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Therapeuo63 Enthusiast

Therapeuo63

Posted
Posted

I think the 14 f2.8 is one of Fuji's most underrated lenses,  I can't imagine parting with it.  I'm using the 14, 23f1..4, 35f2, 56 prime line up and it's just a killer combo.  That said I'm not sure there is a better wide angle lens capable of bokeh like the 16 in any APS-C system.

Link to post
Share on other sites
luigipasto Newbie

luigipasto

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Thanks for the comments. I think I'll keep the 14mm. So far I've used it for interior shots, with and without flash, and the f/2.8 has not been a major consideration. It is very sharp and the focal length is really great in the right situations. I still use the 23 f/1.4 most of the time, and the 50mm f/2 for close in portraits. I owned the 56mm and acknowledge it's a great performer, but I'm finding the 50mm a very versatile and fine performer in its own right. Maybe somewhere down the line I'll have a chance to try out the 16mm....

Link to post
Share on other sites
Phil Community Regular

Phil

Posted
Posted (edited)
22 hours ago, luigipasto said:

Thanks for the comments. I think I'll keep the 14mm. So far I've used it for interior shots, with and without flash, and the f/2.8 has not been a major consideration. It is very sharp and the focal length is really great in the right situations. I still use the 23 f/1.4 most of the time, and the 50mm f/2 for close in portraits. I owned the 56mm and acknowledge it's a great performer, but I'm finding the 50mm a very versatile and fine performer in its own right. Maybe somewhere down the line I'll have a chance to try out the 16mm....

I have the 16 and 23 and love them both, but 16 on its own can be a bit wide for reportage stuff IMHO. The look isn't all that different from the 23, but you have to get quite a bit closer to your subject to get dynamic photos, and it doesn't look as natural (it has more of that obvious wide angle look). 

I mainly use it for situations where the 23mm isn't wide enough (wedding dance floor photos, wide venue shots, getting ready photos in tight spaces, etc). Like I said, it's great, but if I had to choose between that and the 23mm, I'd take the 23 no question.

Edited by Phil
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...