Jump to content

16mm 2.8 vs 23mm 2.0

tiggyboo

By tiggyboo
in Fuji X Lenses

 Share

Recommended Posts

tiggyboo Explorer

tiggyboo

Posted
Posted

I was recently shipped a 16mm 2.8 lens mistakenly - I'd actually ordered the 23mm 2.0.   I'm the proud owner of a new XT-30.  For the moment, I have both lenses in hand.  I have 30 days to send one of the lenses back.  I confirmed what I saw in many reviews that the 23mm is soft when wide open at 2.0.  That does not seem to be the case with the 16mm  at it's maximum aperature (then again, it can't get that wide.)  I also noticed that the f-stop clicks were much more distinct on the 16mm than they were on the 23mm, although I doubt I would have noticed it had I not compared them side by side.  I will say the 23mm feels a little better balanced in my hands with the XT-30 than does the 16mm.

Now I'm struggling over which to return.  I think the 23mm is a better fit as a 'standard lens' - at least the way I shoot.  On the other hand, the other stuff I mentioned above sort of sticks in my craw.

Any opinions along these lines are appreciated.   Thanks in advance!

Al

Link to post
Share on other sites
MonGoose Contributor

MonGoose

Posted
Posted

I confirmed what I saw in many reviews that the 23mm is soft when wide open at 2.0. 

 

Nonsense. Mine is tack sharp. You must be using it wrong.

 

There s a big difference between 16 and 23. Sharpness is not the proper reason to choose between one or the other.

Link to post
Share on other sites
MonGoose Contributor

MonGoose

Posted
Posted (edited)
20 hours ago, tiggyboo said:

And all the other reviewers must be using it wrong as well.  But you make a good point about sharpness - I agree that's just one of many criteria.  I'm thinking I'll keep the 23mm.

Of course they use it wrong. They zoom in to 400%, post crappy images and call themselves 'experts'. Most have no credibility and are just repeating what every other noob is preaching.

 

You trust amateurs with less skill than yourself? I don't trust reviewers with crappy portfolios. I trust my own eyes and I'm telling you my lens is sharp.

 

If it's not sharp, you're either using it wide open at close range or are focusing on a tiny detail, which is wrong because it's not a macro lens, or are shooting landscaps at f2 and complaning not everything is sharp (it shoudln't be at f2!), or are pixel peeping which is also nonsensical, or have extreme expectations...


It's right in line with the other f2 lenses (35 and 50) :

mtf.png

mtf.png

mtf.png

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by MonGoose
Link to post
Share on other sites
tiggyboo Explorer

tiggyboo

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I'll grant you my own 'testing' was anything but scientific.  It basically consisted of taking a picture of a textured brick wall about 3-4 feet away, outdoors in the sun.  I took several shots at 2.0 and several more at 4.0.  Shutter speed was obviously not a factor.  The 2.0 shots were consistently softer than 4.0 (which were very sharp.)  The dropoff is more than I would have anticipated (enlarging the image was not required to see the difference,) but then again, I've never conducted a test like this.  I was only motivated to try it given all the stuff I've read online.  Maybe I should try it again with another lens and see if the same thing happens.  At any rate, I'm satisfied it's not really going to amount to much if any of an issue with the type of shooting I do - and for what it's worth, that seems to be the prevailing attitude even among those that felt the lens was soft wide open.

Link to post
Share on other sites
MonGoose Contributor

MonGoose

Posted
Posted (edited)

Every lens will be sharper stopped down but saying it's not sharp at f2, is doing the lens injustice.

I cannot say my 23 is visibly softer than the 35 f2 and 50 f2. It's sharp enough. If you want even sharper, set it to f4-5.6.

Edited by MonGoose
Link to post
Share on other sites
tiggyboo Explorer

tiggyboo

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Hey I didn't even notice those cool graphics you included in a previous message since I was reading on my phone for that.  Thanks for going to all that trouble - it makes me feel even better about holding on to the 23mm!

Thanks again,

Al

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

    • Greybeard
      Strange artifacts on XT-3 raw files.

      By Greybeard · Posted

      Maybe try taking a photo at something like f/16 of a plain white wall and see if you get the problem. if so then follow Jerry’s advice.
    • jerryy
      Strange artifacts on XT-3 raw files.

      By jerryy · Posted

      Have you tried using the sensor swab (and liquid) approach? The in-camera sensor cleaning is limited in what it can accomplish. There is no way for the dust it knocks off of the sensor to leave the body, so that dust will swoosh around inside the body and as soon as the camera is moved, some dust lands back on the sensor. Those dust blower bulbs can remove some dust as long as the compartment is sealed so that dust leaves and does not just move to other areas in the camera. These though,  will not remove very much dust that has strong electrostatic charges almost seeming to glue the dust to the sensor. Try the swab approach as well as cleaning the lens’ rear glass and see if that helps. p.s. Welcome to the forum.
    • Astigmatism
      Introduce Yourself

      By Astigmatism · Posted

      Wow, I never did get to try that! Though, I spent summer '79 exposing and developing astronomical glass plate negatives.
    • rlginer
      Strange artifacts on XT-3 raw files.

      By rlginer · Posted

      Hi, yesterday I noticed some strange square shaped artifacts as well as a nasty grain in my raw files. It's only seen when enlarging to a great degree but there are things there that shouldn't be. It very strange as they appear in most images but not others. The ugly grain affect gets substantially worse if I attempt to sharpen. Noise reduction improves the grain but doesn't do much for the square or sometimes L-shaped artifacts. I always have sensor cleaning on, so I don't think it's a dirty sensor. Any help would be appreciated. https://www.amazon.es/photos/share/66NfvMAkAMbMrquYnxUcwtqnaHc7qwmeDp2DI3UKAvu https://www.amazon.es/photos/share/IKFlNU5RELyYEntW5Gtg96SwIMoiHI9nmQF7ByXUrFg  
    • AlexSokoloff
      OVF magnification

      By AlexSokoloff · Posted

      Forgive me if this is a dumb question but I've had a hard time finding an answer. Is the OVF on the XPro series one magnification only, with the frame lines changing for different lenses? I had an XPro1 with the 27mm pancake and the frame lines were a lot smaller than the field of view - quite different from my old Hexar. I found it quite distracting and eventually sold the camera and bought an XT1. I don't really like EVFs though. I've checked the OVF on an XPro2 with a 23mm lens and that was more or less what I want, but my primary lens is the 35mm 1.4 (which I love). I was just wondering if the magnification changes once you mount a substantially longer lens. It's a long shot but....
×
×
  • Create New...