Which low-light lens for travel?

Sal Baker · Dec 22, 2015

GPAtlanta said:
Sal Baker said:

GPAtlanta said:

m3rcury said:

Hey all. Bought the X T10 with the 18-55 kit lens a couple weeks ago. I'm loving it so far and I plan on using it for travel (I'll be going around Europe and Asia for a few months). I want to bring no more than two lenses. The kit lens seems perfect for daytime and is decent in low light when stuff isn't moving, but I would like something faster for after dark. I'll be going to places like Hong Kong, Saigon, etc., where there will be some nice opportunities for street night photography, plus couple of street festivals that happen in the evening.

I've never had a camera like this before (I'm coming from a point and shoot) so I don't know whether 35mm f2 is fast enough for what I need, or whether I should go for the 35mm f1.4. I've read reviews on both and it seems you can't really go wrong with either. Is the weather sealing worth it if my camera isn't weather sealed? Is the autofocus on the f1.4 good enough or am I better off with the f2?

I am also looking at the 23mm f1.4, but it is rather expensive and almost as big as the kit zoom (though I do prefer the FOV over the 35mm). There is a deal going on so it costs a little less, but I still don't know if I can swallow spending $800+ (CAD) on a lens...

There is also the 16mm f1.4 and 18mm f2, but I think those are a bit too wide for what I need.

Any advice? Which lens would you recommend?

Thanks all in advance.

Click to expand...

I find the 35mm to be too tight on crop sensors. The 23mm is a great focal length but the lens isn't no wear near the quality of the 16mm or the new 35mm f2. The 16mm is the bomb..

Click to expand...

How is the 23mm not near the quality? Can you please link to test results?

Salmm

Click to expand...

I'm not really a chart shooter but I agree with numerous others the 10-24 beats the 23mm and the 16mm destroys it.

That's far from an unbiased lens test, it's some random guy saying the 10-24 Fuji zoom is far better than the Fuji primes. He then says the Fuji 14mm is better than than the 10-24mm, then says the 23mm is sharper edge to edge than the 10-24 which is only sharp in the center. ????

Do you actually own and use the Fuji 14mm or the 23mm primes?

Sal

georgehudetz · Dec 22, 2015

Sal Baker said:
GPAtlanta said:

Sal Baker said:

GPAtlanta said:

m3rcury said:

Hey all. Bought the X T10 with the 18-55 kit lens a couple weeks ago. I'm loving it so far and I plan on using it for travel (I'll be going around Europe and Asia for a few months). I want to bring no more than two lenses. The kit lens seems perfect for daytime and is decent in low light when stuff isn't moving, but I would like something faster for after dark. I'll be going to places like Hong Kong, Saigon, etc., where there will be some nice opportunities for street night photography, plus couple of street festivals that happen in the evening.

I've never had a camera like this before (I'm coming from a point and shoot) so I don't know whether 35mm f2 is fast enough for what I need, or whether I should go for the 35mm f1.4. I've read reviews on both and it seems you can't really go wrong with either. Is the weather sealing worth it if my camera isn't weather sealed? Is the autofocus on the f1.4 good enough or am I better off with the f2?

I am also looking at the 23mm f1.4, but it is rather expensive and almost as big as the kit zoom (though I do prefer the FOV over the 35mm). There is a deal going on so it costs a little less, but I still don't know if I can swallow spending $800+ (CAD) on a lens...

There is also the 16mm f1.4 and 18mm f2, but I think those are a bit too wide for what I need.

Any advice? Which lens would you recommend?

Thanks all in advance.

Click to expand...

I find the 35mm to be too tight on crop sensors. The 23mm is a great focal length but the lens isn't no wear near the quality of the 16mm or the new 35mm f2. The 16mm is the bomb..

Click to expand...

How is the 23mm not near the quality? Can you please link to test results?

Salmm

Click to expand...

I'm not really a chart shooter but I agree with numerous others the 10-24 beats the 23mm and the 16mm destroys it.

Click to expand...

That's far from an unbiased lens test, it's some random guy saying the 10-24 Fuji zoom is far better than the Fuji primes. He then says the Fuji 14mm is better than than the 10-24mm, then says the 23mm is sharper edge to edge than the 10-24 which is only sharp in the center. ????

Do you actually own and use the Fuji 14mm or the 23mm primes?

Sal

I don't have to watch the video to know that, if the author is saying the 10-24 @ 23mm offers better IQ than the XF 23/1.4, that it is bunk. The 10-24 starts to soften up at 22, and distortion is an issue on the long end as well.

georgehudetz · Dec 22, 2015

Both Europe & Asia can be T-I-G-H-T. You really need a wide lens to capture the cities. I walked around one night in Shanghai with nothing but the 14 and was in heaven. The 23 is a great lens, but why not buy a lens with a focal length not covered by the 18-55? The 16 or 14 would be a great compliment to the 18-55 - even in daytime.

It really depends on what you fancy shooting. If you want to capture night city-scapes, where buildings & architecture take precedence over people, you need to the 14 or 16.

If you want to capture street scenes, where you mix people with street-level buildings, the 23 is perfect.

On the other hand, if you want to pick people out of a crowd, then think 56 or 90.

My advice: get the 14 or 10-24.

Good luck!

--
http://georgehudetzphotography.smugmug.com/
My Flikr stream: http://flic.kr/ps/Ay8ka

El Chubasco · Dec 22, 2015

Keep in mind what you already have. I also recommend the 14mm or the 16mm. With the zoom you have the 18-55mm focal lengths already covered. If you add a lens within that range you have an overlap and therefore, redundancy. If this is you first prime I would say get what you do not have. The 14mm is not precisely bright at f2.8, but is razor sharp, wide and uses the same hood as the 18-55mm. The 16mm is brighter at f1.4 but the focal length is close to the 18mm of your zoom. If low light is all you are concerned about, go for the 16mm, it gets excellent reviews.

PascallacsaP · Dec 23, 2015

nixda said:
Something that hasn't come out quite clearly yet is that the depth of field (DoF) will be quite different at different apertures. You may be able to gather more light at f/1.4, but will you be able to handle the shallow DoF?

Limited DOF is hardly a problem with a relatively small APS-C sensor and a moderate wide-angle lens. You may consider this as an advantage. I often aim at a shallow DOF with my 23mm, but this takes more effort (e.g., getting closer to the subject) than aiming at a maximum DOF.

m3rcury · Dec 23, 2015

Wow, thanks for all the advice! I agree that I do need to shoot more with the kit lens and get some more practice/get familiar with it.

Looking at old travel photos (taken with a Panasonic FZ35) it seems that I am prone to landscapes/city scenes, eg (28 mm equivalent):

I could have achieved something similar with the X T10 and the 18-55, though, albeit better quality. As an aside, I took so many photos of this bridge but was never happy with it. Maybe it's the angle or something, but it really lacks in detail and I couldn't capture how grand it felt in real life. I don't know what I would have done differently with the X T10 (and the option of all possible lenses!).

Here was inside a mine. It is entirely possible I will go somewhere just as dark again (caves?). It looked pretty neat in real life but the quality here is horrible, probably because of the smaller sensor/motion blur (28 mm equivalent):

Again though, the 18-55 would be fine for something static like this (???).

As for people on the streets, it is a little tricky because I had a superzoom. I ended up just zooming past the 50mm equivalent (often 100+) in the street whenever I saw someone/something interesting (this is a bad habit though!).

This is one of the few where I didn't zoom ridiculous amounts. I really like the look of it with the background (37mm equivalent):

Another example in the 40 mm equivalent... I think this would have been fun to do with a really big aperture and focused on the guy in the foreground:

The more I look at old photos, the more I lean towards the 23mm. Maybe I can find it in ebay (I looked at the one for 579USD - that is equivalent to 800CAD, which is the same as a new one in the Fuji rebate price!). There is also the 18/35. Or maybe I just stick with the kit zoom and just use high ISOs. The other ones (16 and 56) are too expensive, unfortunately.

Even if I don't bring another lens with me travelling though, I still would want to get a fast prime at some point. It seems like good fun and good for practicing composition. Plus it would be fun to play with all that shallow depth of field

.

Thanks again all... lots to think about!

Robert Garcia NYC · Dec 23, 2015

35/16 for me. Just buy a used 23 on Amazon for 600 no tax.

Greg7579 · Dec 23, 2015

For travel, i think the best lens combo is the 10-24 and 55-200. Your 18-55 fills the middle, but I don't carry mine. If you have room for a third lens, fill the middle with the 35 f/2. Funny that the best Fuji lens has not been mentioned. The fabulous 16!

Sal Baker · Dec 23, 2015

Greg7579 said:
For travel, i think the best lens combo is the 10-24 and 55-200. Your 18-55 fills the middle, but I don't carry mine. If you have room for a third lens, fill the middle with the 35 f/2. Funny that the best Fuji lens has not been mentioned. The fabulous 16!

The OP is looking for a fast low-light lens, I don't think f/3.5 and f/4 zooms fit the practcle definition, even with OIS.

The 16mm 1.4 would be a nice lens, but I can't see buying that as the only fast prime in the bag. I find even the 18mm just too wide to be practcle for varying shooting situations. You just can't get close enough to people for shallow DOF and without getting disturbing perspective distortion.

I have the choice of the Fuji 14mm, GR 18mm, and Fuji 23mm. They are all super sharp, but the 23mm is the only one that I would take solo on a trip.

Sal

AlbertTheLazy · Dec 23, 2015

m3rcury said:
I could have achieved something similar with the X T10 and the 18-55, though, albeit better quality. As an aside, I took so many photos of this bridge but was never happy with it. Maybe it's the angle or something, but it really lacks in detail and I couldn't capture how grand it felt in real life. I don't know what I would have done differently with the X T10 (and the option of all possible lenses!).

16mm lens and a rowing boat!

As I tell my trainees: get the camera in the right place and the rest just flows.
--
Albert
(The one in France)
Every photograph is an abstraction from reality.

Greg7579 · Dec 23, 2015

Sal, that is a good point. I forced myself to shoot only the 16 this past weekend in DC. I thus missed some shots and 1.4 is indeed hard to work with because of the tiny sliver of focus plane. 16 (24 equiv) is wide and you have to be careful with the perspective distortion when the sensor is not parallel with the main lines, like with all wides (like you said). It is a great lens though and it has some special quality to it that I read about and observed after first use this past couple of weeks.

He wants "fast" but the 10-24 with 3 or 4 stops of OIS is fine indoors at f/4.

I think for travel, the 10-24 and the 55-200 are a must. The 10-24 covers down on the 16 just fine in 90% of the cases. So I guess that fast and uber-sharp 16 prime is more of a specialty lens in that you have to know how to use that particular FOV and the sliver of 1.4 DOF / focus. But you know this ... when you need 1.4 you need 1.4, and the 16mm provides some fantastic framing opportunities with close up objects and wide backgrounds, or fabulous bokeh....

vajrasattva · Dec 23, 2015

I agree here. I travelled for a month with these two lenses in Spain. Europe is indeed tight in the old parts of town. I took dusk and night shoes with the zoom, just cranked up the iso and was happy enough with my images. Did I 'miss a shot? Yeah but I made a different one instead.

georgehudetz · Dec 23, 2015

Greg7579 said:
Sal, that is a good point. I forced myself to shoot only the 16 this past weekend in DC. I thus missed some shots and 1.4 is indeed hard to work with because of the tiny sliver of focus plane. 16 (24 equiv) is wide and you have to be careful with the perspective distortion when the sensor is not parallel with the main lines, like with all wides (like you said). It is a great lens though and it has some special quality to it that I read about and observed after first use this past couple of weeks.

He wants "fast" but the 10-24 with 3 or 4 stops of OIS is fine indoors at f/4.

That's only true if people are not moving.

Personally (declarations of "must have" lenses aside) I'd never travel without at least one fast prime, for night street shooting. Could be a 16, a 23, a 35, or even a 56. Or even the 18. But I'd want at least one along for the trip, if not two or three.

GPAtlanta · Dec 23, 2015

georgehudetz said:
Greg7579 said:

Sal, that is a good point. I forced myself to shoot only the 16 this past weekend in DC. I thus missed some shots and 1.4 is indeed hard to work with because of the tiny sliver of focus plane. 16 (24 equiv) is wide and you have to be careful with the perspective distortion when the sensor is not parallel with the main lines, like with all wides (like you said). It is a great lens though and it has some special quality to it that I read about and observed after first use this past couple of weeks.

He wants "fast" but the 10-24 with 3 or 4 stops of OIS is fine indoors at f/4.

Click to expand...

That's only true if people are not moving.

Personally (declarations of "must have" lenses aside) I'd never travel without at least one fast prime, for night street shooting. Could be a 16, a 23, a 35, or even a 56. Or even the 18. But I'd want at least one along for the trip, if not two or three.

StuartBell · Dec 23, 2015

georgehudetz said:
Both Europe & Asia can be T-I-G-H-T. You really need a wide lens to capture the cities. I walked around one night in Shanghai with nothing but the 14 and was in heaven. The 23 is a great lens, but why not buy a lens with a focal length not covered by the 18-55? The 16 or 14 would be a great compliment to the 18-55 - even in daytime.

I'd concur with that. Also, at the wide end the kit zoom is f/2.8, so one extra stop and a half with a 35/2 is not going to make a huge difference.

For older cities, you certainly need wide. I had day visits to both Rome and Athens last year with just the Rokinon 12/2 (manual focus). Did not regret it. Of course, I missed 'street portraits' but that's not one of my interests. As you have 18mm on the kit, I'd suggest some separation from that FL.

Stuart

Sal Baker · Dec 23, 2015

GPAtlanta said:
georgehudetz said:

Greg7579 said:

Sal, that is a good point. I forced myself to shoot only the 16 this past weekend in DC. I thus missed some shots and 1.4 is indeed hard to work with because of the tiny sliver of focus plane. 16 (24 equiv) is wide and you have to be careful with the perspective distortion when the sensor is not parallel with the main lines, like with all wides (like you said). It is a great lens though and it has some special quality to it that I read about and observed after first use this past couple of weeks.

He wants "fast" but the 10-24 with 3 or 4 stops of OIS is fine indoors at f/4.

Click to expand...

That's only true if people are not moving.

Personally (declarations of "must have" lenses aside) I'd never travel without at least one fast prime, for night street shooting. Could be a 16, a 23, a 35, or even a 56. Or even the 18. But I'd want at least one along for the trip, if not two or three.

Click to expand...

GPAtlanta · Dec 23, 2015

Sal Baker said:
GPAtlanta said:

georgehudetz said:

Greg7579 said:

Sal, that is a good point. I forced myself to shoot only the 16 this past weekend in DC. I thus missed some shots and 1.4 is indeed hard to work with because of the tiny sliver of focus plane. 16 (24 equiv) is wide and you have to be careful with the perspective distortion when the sensor is not parallel with the main lines, like with all wides (like you said). It is a great lens though and it has some special quality to it that I read about and observed after first use this past couple of weeks.

He wants "fast" but the 10-24 with 3 or 4 stops of OIS is fine indoors at f/4.

Click to expand...

That's only true if people are not moving.

Personally (declarations of "must have" lenses aside) I'd never travel without at least one fast prime, for night street shooting. Could be a 16, a 23, a 35, or even a 56. Or even the 18. But I'd want at least one along for the trip, if not two or three.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

JS Burnie · Dec 23, 2015

I don't own the 35mm f/2, yet, but I will bet the 56mm is equal or better at the same aperture. Here's a comparison based on Lenstip:

56mm f/1.2 left; 35mm f/2 right

--

Galleries by J. S. B.

www.pbase.com

Sal Baker · Dec 23, 2015

GPAtlanta said:
GPAtlanta said:

GPAtlanta said:

georgehudetz said:

Greg7579 said:

Sal, that is a good point. I forced myself to shoot only the 16 this past weekend in DC. I thus missed some shots and 1.4 is indeed hard to work with because of the tiny sliver of focus plane. 16 (24 equiv) is wide and you have to be careful with the perspective distortion when the sensor is not parallel with the main lines, like with all wides (like you said). It is a great lens though and it has some special quality to it that I read about and observed after first use this past couple of weeks.

He wants "fast" but the 10-24 with 3 or 4 stops of OIS is fine indoors at f/4.

Click to expand...

That's only true if people are not moving.

Personally (declarations of "must have" lenses aside) I'd never travel without at least one fast prime, for night street shooting. Could be a 16, a 23, a 35, or even a 56. Or even the 18. But I'd want at least one along for the trip, if not two or three.

--
http://georgehudetzphotography.smugmug.com/
My Flikr stream: http://flic.kr/ps/Ay8ka

Click to expand...

The two recent Fuji lenses the 16mm 1.4 and 35mm f2 are in a different league than the other offerings with the 56mm being almost as good.

Click to expand...

Yes, you keep posting that, but what is the different league? Sharpness? Bokeh? Micro contrast? vignetting? Corner sharpness? Photzone.de has given excellent test results for the other offerings, and stated that the 14mm 1.4 broke the record for sharpness among Fuji lenses.

Sal

Click to expand...

All the above.

Links please.

Sal

JamesF168 · Dec 23, 2015

keep the zoom get a tripod?

you can do nice landscape / cityscape

18-55 18-55

the 18-55 ~~will~~ does suck for portraits in low light.

wide angle lens don't make pleasing portraits either, imo. a good middle ground is the 35 1.4. for my needs I got the 35f2 because i have a small child and focus speed matters. plus it goes in my pocket on the xe2.

Which low-light lens for travel?

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

New member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Active member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts