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

    • 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...