The 16mm f1.4: can it possibly be worth it?

Thanks fracer – those are nice shots!

The lens arrived today, and it's a really nice weight and size on the X-T2. I just shot out of the window to see how it is, so I haven't edited these.

The first thing I'll say is that there really is not much difference at all between 16 and 18mm – the 14 would indeed be a better complement to the 18-55 for shooting landscapes alone:

16mm f5.2

18-55 f5.2 at 18mm

In the centre they really look identical, however when looking towards the edges I will say that the 16mm is significantly sharper. I was and still am perfectly happy with the 18-55, but at 100% this does show the difference a prime makes:

16mm 100% corner

18-55 at 18mm 100% corner

Strangely, the 18-55mm doesn't look so bad in the left corners as the right corners – I guess they all vary? But, comparing either of them to what I was using until 2 weeks ago is almost embarrassing:

Canon S120 at 16mm 100% corner

When viewing the photos normally though like the first two images, I'd still say the 18-55mm and 16mm images are pretty hard to tell between.

Of course, the 16mm can also go up close! That will be lovely when the cherry blossoms arrive, but for now we just move one metre to the exciting destination of the table next to the window:

16mm f1.4 – that's some sharp dust.

Basically, I'll see. I'll take it around Tokyo and decide whether I may ultimately be better off with a 14mm for landscapes plus the 80mm macro for closeups when it eventually comes. If it weren't for the added ability to take shots at close range though, the 14 would probably make a bit more sense, than the 16 as has been pointed out. Shame the promotion doesn't apply to that lens!