Lens choice dilemma: 14 + 23 or 16??

[luigipasto]

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

[lleo]

Hello.

I'd go for the 14. The 16 is too close to 23 and it's a lens that when you use it, you often realize you need a wider fov.

Edited August 19, 2018 by lleo

[Nero]

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.

[Therapeuo63]

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.

[luigipasto]

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....

[Phil]

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 September 3, 2018 by Phil