-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
One of the most versatile Fuji lenses!
- Thread starter Joachim Gerstl
- Start date
tonybelding
Senior Member
I just got one of these, and the image quality is very impressive! It's a super lens.
My gripes are. . . It could have been smaller and lighter and less costly if it had been F2, or maybe even F2.8, and it still would have been plenty fast enough for my purposes. Also, the aperture ring on mine turns too easily and gets bumped from A to F16 without me noticing. That's kind of shabby on a lens at this price point.
My gripes are. . . It could have been smaller and lighter and less costly if it had been F2, or maybe even F2.8, and it still would have been plenty fast enough for my purposes. Also, the aperture ring on mine turns too easily and gets bumped from A to F16 without me noticing. That's kind of shabby on a lens at this price point.
igelfeld
Senior Member
Very interesting! Thank you, Joachim, or should I say Danke schön
?I'd be really curious to see photos of people with XF-16, especially at high ISOs. I am personally disappointed with how it renders skin tones, my other lenses don't do that but perhaps I am doing something wrong. Another thing is that, to my eye, at least, 10-24 can easily compete with 16 at 16 mm, and I find its rendering more pleasing to my eye. And IS could be your friend in photos like these, with no people in them, making it again competitive with extra 3 stop advantage of 16. But people in low light situation like churches is a different story like you said, and that's why I got 16 but then I got disappointed with how it renders people. Aargh
!On another note, did you have a chance to compare 16 performance on older Fuji cameras vs x-pro 2? I might be seeing things but it seems that it performs better on older bodies.
Greg7579
Forum Pro
Igelfeld, I can't see the original link because my work server blocked it, so I don't know what lens Joachim is talking about. You, however, are speaking of the 16, and I do not agree with your comments. The 16 kills the 10-24 at 16 in many significant ways, but I have and love both lenses, and carry them both everywhere on travel. Your comments about the rendering of the 16 ... well, if that's what you have experienced, then OK for you. That has not been my experience at all and I have shot thousands of images with the 16, which is Fuji's bet Lens. No ... I mean it is the best mirrorless system lens on the surface of the Earth.Very interesting! Thank you, Joachim, or should I say Danke schön
I'd be really curious to see photos of people with XF-16, especially at high ISOs. I am personally disappointed with how it renders skin tones, my other lenses don't do that but perhaps I am doing something wrong. Another thing is that, to my eye, at least, 10-24 can easily compete with 16 at 16 mm, and I find its rendering more pleasing to my eye. And IS could be your friend in photos like these, with no people in them, making it again competitive with extra 3 stop advantage of 16. But people in low light situation like churches is a different story like you said, and that's why I got 16 but then I got disappointed with how it renders people. Aargh
On another note, did you have a chance to compare 16 performance on older Fuji cameras vs x-pro 2? I might be seeing things but it seems that it performs better on older bodies.
--
Cheers,
Igelfeld
Thanks, Greg J
Sal Baker
Forum Pro
I'm glad you mentioned "one of." 
The other one for me (even more so), is the 23mm f/1.4. The 16mm might be Fuji's most versatile 16mm lens, but it fails badly when shooting reasonably close portraits. The 23mm can work closer to people and still allow one to step back for a wide feel.
Also, since selling my Canon gear, I find that the phrase "quick big and heavy" and mirrorless don't go together well for my needs.
I agree that a smaller f/2 16mm would be a killer lens.
Sal
The other one for me (even more so), is the 23mm f/1.4. The 16mm might be Fuji's most versatile 16mm lens, but it fails badly when shooting reasonably close portraits. The 23mm can work closer to people and still allow one to step back for a wide feel.
Also, since selling my Canon gear, I find that the phrase "quick big and heavy" and mirrorless don't go together well for my needs.
I agree that a smaller f/2 16mm would be a killer lens.
Sal
OnCam
Forum Enthusiast
Nice one man, your blog is one of my regular visits. :-D
Great shots with a great FL!
But I don't know that I'd call it one of Fuji's most versatile lenses. After all, it's hard to shoot with it at any other focal length. Certainly, the 16-55 zoom is more versatile than the 16mm prime even though the zoom can't go to F1.4 (with the various advantages that offers), nor focus as closely, nor achieve the 16mm's level of sharpness from edge to edge.
I love the 24mm FOV (35mm equiv), but once I purchased the incredibly versatile 16-55, I had little interest in the 16mm prime. (Had I not owned the 23mm and 14mm, I might have been more interested.)
Thanks for sharing your shots and blog.
Joachim Gerstl
Veteran Member
Very interesting! Thank you, Joachim, or should I say Danke schön
I'd be really curious to see photos of people with XF-16, especially at high ISOs. I am personally disappointed with how it renders skin tones, my other lenses don't do that but perhaps I am doing something wrong. Another thing is that, to my eye, at least, 10-24 can easily compete with 16 at 16 mm, and I find its rendering more pleasing to my eye. And IS could be your friend in photos like these, with no people in them, making it again competitive with extra 3 stop advantage of 16. But people in low light situation like churches is a different story like you said, and that's why I got 16 but then I got disappointed with how it renders people. Aargh
On another note, did you have a chance to compare 16 performance on older Fuji cameras vs x-pro 2? I might be seeing things but it seems that it performs better on older bodies.
debo
Senior Member
Nice pictures as always!
I bought the 14mm (selling my Zeiss 12) due to the lack of distortion (and am happy with the output). Is the 16mm optically corrected or is it like the 35/2? I see that the 23 has very little distortion and that along with the f/1.4 are the key reasons why I would ever buy the 23 (have a X100 and RX1).
Hence I am curious how it compares with the 14mm in terms of distortion
thx
I bought the 14mm (selling my Zeiss 12) due to the lack of distortion (and am happy with the output). Is the 16mm optically corrected or is it like the 35/2? I see that the 23 has very little distortion and that along with the f/1.4 are the key reasons why I would ever buy the 23 (have a X100 and RX1).
Hence I am curious how it compares with the 14mm in terms of distortion
thx
slimandy
Forum Pro
Sounds like you should have got the 14mm (as I did).
Joachim Gerstl
Veteran Member
Joachim Gerstl
Veteran Member
Hi,I'm glad you mentioned "one of."
The other one for me (even more so), is the 23mm f/1.4. The 16mm might be Fuji's most versatile 16mm lens, but it fails badly when shooting reasonably close portraits. The 23mm can work closer to people and still allow one to step back for a wide feel.
Also, since selling my Canon gear, I find that the phrase "quick big and heavy" and mirrorless don't go together well for my needs.
I agree that a smaller f/2 16mm would be a killer lens.
Sal
The 23mm is of course a great lens too and better suited to portraits but the 16mm can take great portraits too. You just need to be careful to avoid monster arms. Regarding f2: I thought so too but use the 16mm at f1.4 a lot. It is sharp wide open and to separate subject from the background you need f1.4 at this focal length. A 23/2 wold be a different story.
Joachim Gerstl
Veteran Member
Joachim Gerstl
Veteran Member
Hi,
Honestly I can't say since LR automatically corrects it. The only thing I can say is that the lines seems to be straight in the EVF not like on the 10-24 very you clearly can see the distortion.
Joachim Gerstl
Veteran Member
Exactly. Because it can shoot at f1.4 which allows to trow the background out of focus (just a little but of course). And because to focuses really close which is great for food shots for example.
slimandy
Forum Pro
Joachim Gerstl
Veteran Member
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum