Reading mode: Light Dark

Who has both of 12mm Samyang and Fuji xf 16mm ?

Go to last post
M

Mamegomaday

New member
Messages
3
Reaction score
1
Currently, I have Samyang 12mm F2 and XF 35mm F2.
I am considering to buy a lens for filling between 12 and 35mm focal length.

I mostly use 12mm for landscape, architecture, and interior. I feel that 12mm is too wide and it stretches the foreground (which sometimes I don't want too much foreground for street photography). It also makes the background object very small.

I am aiming to buy XF16mm due to many reviews it as a versatile lens that is good for street and environmental portrait.

The aperture seems to be an advantage of 16mm over the other lenses that I have. But I don't actually interested about it too much.

The one thing that I worry about purchasing is that "Is the 16mm's field of view really different from the Samyang 12mm?"

I don't want to get two lenses which have a very similar function.

I have tried XF 18mm F2 from my friend, and I really like it. But I feel it is not a sharp lens (for me).

I want to hear opinions from people who own both 12mm(or 14mm) and 16mm, especially for the field of view issue. and other function that 16mm does better than 12mm. Is it really good for street and environmental portrait? If you have other option, please let me know.
Thank you in advance.
 
Mamegomaday said:
Currently, I have Samyang 12mm F2 and XF 35mm F2.
I am considering to buy a lens for filling between 12 and 35mm focal length.

I mostly use 12mm for landscape, architecture, and interior. I feel that 12mm is too wide and it stretches the foreground (which sometimes I don't want too much foreground for street photography). It also makes the background object very small.

I am aiming to buy XF16mm due to many reviews it as a versatile lens that is good for street and environmental portrait.

The aperture seems to be an advantage of 16mm over the other lenses that I have. But I don't actually interested about it too much.

The one thing that I worry about purchasing is that "Is the 16mm's field of view really different from the Samyang 12mm?"

I don't want to get two lenses which have a very similar function.

I have tried XF 18mm F2 from my friend, and I really like it. But I feel it is not a sharp lens (for me).

I want to hear opinions from people who own both 12mm(or 14mm) and 16mm, especially for the field of view issue. and other function that 16mm does better than 12mm. Is it really good for street and environmental portrait? If you have other option, please let me know.
Thank you in advance.
Click to expand...
BTW - don't discount the 12mm Zeiss Touit or the 14mm Fuji - either of which would be a better choice than the Samyang. The Zeiss can often be found at reasonable used prices.
 
Between 12 and 16 mm may be "only" 4mm, but the difference in FOV is very significant at this end of the scale.

I have the Voigtlander 15mm and the Samyang 12mm. I also often find the 12mm too wide for general shooting, but the 15 is much easier to frame a nice shot. My challenge with the 12 is often leaving unwanted elements out of the frame :-)
 
stevo23 said:
BTW - don't discount the 12mm Zeiss Touit or the 14mm Fuji - either of which would be a better choice than the Samyang. The Zeiss can often be found at reasonable used prices.
Click to expand...
The Zeiss and Fuji are reportedly excellent. But the Samyang is brighter, smaller, lighter, and much less expensive. In my use, it has five disadvantages, listed in order of importance *for me*
  1. blobby rendering of extreme highlight (like the sun) when shooting toward bright sources with them in the frame.
  2. related, not as resistant to flare as my Fuji primes
  3. visible barrel distortion (easily corrected when bothersome;the 14is fully corrected, the Zeiss 12 is not)
  4. no EXIF recording of aperture, and focal length must be specified by me in menus
  5. no autofocus (not so critical for me because of depth of field for such a wide lens)
So, for me, and maybe others, the 12/2 could be a better choice. I don’t agree with a blanket recommendation against the 12/2.

Compared to 16 mm, the 12mm field of view is much wider ... about 100 degrees for the 12 versus 84 for the 16 (both angles along the diagonal). You will definitely see a huge difference and need to compose differently for the two lenses.

Editted to add: rather than the excellent 16,you could consider the diminutive and underrated 18/2 or either 23, which would of course give you larger contrasts in angle of view. Of course.

--
Chris
Selected photos at https://500px.com/ceedave
A couple of Fuji cameras and assorted X-mount and adapted primes
 
Last edited:
CeeDave said:
stevo23 said:
BTW - don't discount the 12mm Zeiss Touit or the 14mm Fuji - either of which would be a better choice than the Samyang. The Zeiss can often be found at reasonable used prices.
Click to expand...
The Zeiss and Fuji are reportedly excellent. But the Samyang is brighter, smaller, lighter, and much less expensive. In my use, it has five disadvantages, listed in order of importance *for me*
  1. blobby rendering of extreme highlight (like the sun) when shooting toward bright sources with them in the frame.
  2. related, not as resistant to flare as my Fuji primes
  3. visible barrel distortion (easily corrected when bothersome;the 14is fully corrected, the Zeiss 12 is not)
  4. no EXIF recording of aperture, and focal length must be specified by me in menus
  5. no autofocus (not so critical for me because of depth of field for such a wide lens)
So, for me, and maybe others, the 12/2 could be a better choice. I don’t agree with a blanket recommendation against the 12/2.
Click to expand...
Except that he already has it and is considering something less wide. That's the part I was not syncing for me...
CeeDave said:
Compared to 16 mm, the 12mm field of view is much wider ... about 100 degrees for the 12 versus 84 for the 16 (both angles along the diagonal). You will definitely see a huge difference and need to compose differently for the two lenses.
Click to expand...
I think I completely misread his intentions - he's looking for something between 12mm and 35mm. With that in mind, 16mm is my recommendation, especially because it offers that wide aperture as a bonus.

But if he's thinking of something to kind of replace the 12mm Samyang, 14mm would be my recommendation with multiple thumbs up. If he feels that 12mm is too wide, 14mm might feel just right.
 
Sjak said:
Between 12 and 16 mm may be "only" 4mm, but the difference in FOV is very significant at this end of the scale.

I have the Voigtlander 15mm and the Samyang 12mm. I also often find the 12mm too wide for general shooting, but the 15 is much easier to frame a nice shot. My challenge with the 12 is often leaving unwanted elements out of the frame :-)
Click to expand...
Thank you :) You have the same challenge as mine. You reminded me that I have to crop out unwanted elements many times when I shoot with 12mm.
 
CeeDave said:
stevo23 said:
BTW - don't discount the 12mm Zeiss Touit or the 14mm Fuji - either of which would be a better choice than the Samyang. The Zeiss can often be found at reasonable used prices.
Click to expand...
The Zeiss and Fuji are reportedly excellent. But the Samyang is brighter, smaller, lighter, and much less expensive. In my use, it has five disadvantages, listed in order of importance *for me*
  1. blobby rendering of extreme highlight (like the sun) when shooting toward bright sources with them in the frame.
  2. related, not as resistant to flare as my Fuji primes
  3. visible barrel distortion (easily corrected when bothersome;the 14is fully corrected, the Zeiss 12 is not)
  4. no EXIF recording of aperture, and focal length must be specified by me in menus
  5. no autofocus (not so critical for me because of depth of field for such a wide lens)
So, for me, and maybe others, the 12/2 could be a better choice. I don’t agree with a blanket recommendation against the 12/2.

Compared to 16 mm, the 12mm field of view is much wider ... about 100 degrees for the 12 versus 84 for the 16 (both angles along the diagonal). You will definitely see a huge difference and need to compose differently for the two lenses.

Editted to add: rather than the excellent 16,you could consider the diminutive and underrated 18/2 or either 23, which would of course give you larger contrasts in angle of view. Of course.
Click to expand...
 
When I go out to photograph unless there is a particular reason, I carry two lenses, the 14 and the 35. I never feel under gunned. The 14 would replace the 12 and negate the need for the 16, and you would be carrying one less lens !!
 
Mamegomaday said:
Sjak said:
Between 12 and 16 mm may be "only" 4mm, but the difference in FOV is very significant at this end of the scale.

I have the Voigtlander 15mm and the Samyang 12mm. I also often find the 12mm too wide for general shooting, but the 15 is much easier to frame a nice shot. My challenge with the 12 is often leaving unwanted elements out of the frame :-)
Click to expand...
Thank you :) You have the same challenge as mine. You reminded me that I have to crop out unwanted elements many times when I shoot with 12mm.
Click to expand...
And due to some elements being so small, I do not notice them in the VF, but back home on the PC, I see that I still messed up the framing :-D 15 to 18mm is much much easier in this respect. Also the perspective distortion is much less obvious.

The Fuji 18mm has also been mentioned here, it is a sweet allround lens, and nowadays you can buy a new one for around 300 euro.
 
Mamegomaday said:
Currently, I have Samyang 12mm F2 and XF 35mm F2.
I am considering to buy a lens for filling between 12 and 35mm focal length.

I mostly use 12mm for landscape, architecture, and interior. I feel that 12mm is too wide and it stretches the foreground (which sometimes I don't want too much foreground for street photography). It also makes the background object very small.

I am aiming to buy XF16mm due to many reviews it as a versatile lens that is good for street and environmental portrait.

The aperture seems to be an advantage of 16mm over the other lenses that I have. But I don't actually interested about it too much.

The one thing that I worry about purchasing is that "Is the 16mm's field of view really different from the Samyang 12mm?"

I don't want to get two lenses which have a very similar function.

I have tried XF 18mm F2 from my friend, and I really like it. But I feel it is not a sharp lens (for me).

I want to hear opinions from people who own both 12mm(or 14mm) and 16mm, especially for the field of view issue. and other function that 16mm does better than 12mm. Is it really good for street and environmental portrait? If you have other option, please let me know.
Thank you in advance.
Click to expand...
I have both 12 and 16. I rarely use the 12mm. The 16 is amazing. For me both are too wide for portraiture. I picked up the 12 for trying Astro. Great for that job.

For lansdscape IMO the 10-24 is better than both the 12 and 16.
 
i replaced the xc14mm with the 12mm samyang and like it much...

at the 14mm the aparture ring was so slubby

the 12mm with punchy settings (+color+shadow +sharp) astia, chrome or velvia with the vignettes makes me always smile, but im not a critical photographer, i do this just for fun

i have the 35mm to and:

18-55mm, but think its not an option for you (you look at primes?) you can buy some and look wich wide you prefer☺️
 
I have both. I only use the 12mm for interiors with no people. In other contexts it's just too wide for me and photographs either look unnatural or I end up cropping them.

If I'm shooting interiors, the difference in FOV is significant, partly because I can't always stand back. Small changes in focal length really have a big effect when it comes to wide angle lenses. In my kit I go from 24mm equivalent to 35mm to 85mm. The gap between 24 and 35 seems almost as big as the gap from 35 to 85.
 
12mm is a very special focal length requiring very careful compositions, as well as heavy perspective corrections in some cases. I had the Zeiss but sold it because it takes me too much effort for getting everything right for my travel shots. Maybe I am to lazy but if you walkaround with a friend or your wife, you may not have the time to compose the right foreground :)

The 16 is much easier but still a UWA. IMO, it is still too wide for environmental portraits. A 23 is the typical lens for this, or the 18 if you want to get a wider look with more foreground emphasis .

Deciding between the two you mentioned, I'd go for the 16. It is very different.
 
Sjak said:
And due to some elements being so small, I do not notice them in the VF, but back home on the PC, I see that I still messed up the framing :-D 15 to 18mm is much much easier in this respect. Also the perspective distortion is much less obvious.

The Fuji 18mm has also been mentioned here, it is a sweet allround lens, and nowadays you can buy a new one for around 300 euro.
Click to expand...
Please pardon this bit of semantics, but...

To my understanding angle of view does not affect perspective, and therefore does not cause “perspective distortion” (and I’m not sure what is meant by that term). Perspective is *only* the spatial relation among the camera and subjects, and does not vary with focal length.

On the other hand, being close to objects that occupy a large portion of the frame —most commonly done with wide angle lenses — does heighten contrasts in sizes of elements and make the vanishing points more pronounced. In my opinion, there is no such thing as perspective distortion, just near and far perspectives, with the 3D to 2D effects (so called distortions) being most pronounced near, regardless of focal length and separately from any geometric distortions some wide (esp fisheye) lenses render..

Compression is also misunderstood; a suitably framed and cropped portion of a wide angle shot has exactly the same “compression” and perspective “distortion” that a suitably framed uncropped telephoto shot of the same subject from the same distance and angle would have. Exactly.

Wide shots make perspective more obvious by providing more context and a broader angle for the effects of vanishing points to be viewed. But the vanishing points don’t change with focal length! If they don’t change, there is no distortion.

Nonrectilinear or geometric distortion is something else entirely.
 
CeeDave said:
Please pardon this bit of semantics, but...
Click to expand...
No problem :-) what I actually meant is the perspective on the resulting picture (from a non-fisheye very wide lens) seems exaggerated/emphasized, e.g when compared to a pic taken with a medium focal length, or with my own perception of the scenery. A long focal length has the opposite effect.

I do not see this as a good or bad quality of a lens, just part of the creative tools a lens can offer. With the 12mm, I find it often difficult to use to my advantage (user issue, not a fault of the lens ;-) )
 
I have always taken it as distortion/compression for a given resolution (that of the sensor on the camera body used) . About half the reason for owning different focal lengths goes away if the photographer is always willing to throw away detail and light collected by the lens through heavy cropping of images from shorter lenses to give the same framing of a longer one. That generally seems something people are forced to do, not plan to. With that, I find these factors to be very real, because you cannot achieve the same framing at the same resolution on the same body with different focal lengths with no alteration to the camera/subject/ background relationships.
 
Last edited:
Sjak said:
CeeDave said:
Please pardon this bit of semantics, but...
Click to expand...
No problem :-) what I actually meant is the perspective on the resulting picture (from a non-fisheye very wide lens) seems exaggerated/emphasized, e.g when compared to a pic taken with a medium focal length, or with my own perception of the scenery. A long focal length has the opposite effect.

I do not see this as a good or bad quality of a lens, just part of the creative tools a lens can offer. With the 12mm, I find it often difficult to use to my advantage (user issue, not a fault of the lens ;-) )
Click to expand...
I reckon we agree, then.
 
confused circle said:
I have always taken it as distortion/compression for a given resolution (that of the sensor on the camera body used) . About half the reason for owning different focal lengths goes away if the photographer is always willing to throw away detail and light collected by the lens through heavy cropping of images from shorter lenses to give the same framing of a longer one. That generally seems something people are forced to do, not plan to. With that, I find these factors to be very real, because you cannot achieve the same framing at the same resolution on the same body with different focal lengths with no alteration to the camera/subject/ background relationships.
Click to expand...
My last reply hijacking this thread, I promise (I did come in on topic, at least...)
  • In my view, “compression” is a shorthand for saying “greater distance from nearest (main) subject implies lesser ratios of distance between farthest and nearest subjects”, and thus less dimunition or vanishing for the far subjects and thus more “compression”. That is, compression arises solely from perspective — the spatial relations among camera and subjects. A longer focal length may cause me to choose a greater distance from the camera to the nearest subject. But this is caused by where I’m standing, not the lens, because a crop of a wider lens would give the same compression. *To me*, it seems wrong to attribute the compression to the lens rather than the perspective. It is a question of what is causing the compression, and it is not the lens. And yes, I have several lenses, and try to limit cropping, and choose based on the perspective I want ... but I don’t believe that the rays converge differently when I change lenses. Again, in my opinion, the concept of greater compression is confused and confusing: it’s all about perspective.
  • That which is commonly called “perspective distortion” is really just “close perspective”. If one doesn’t like images with close perspective, fine. But it’s not distorted. The vanishing points are just more prominent.
I will desist now, if others choose to use words differently that is of course their choice.
 
I have them both but see them as quite different lenses.

I predominately use the Samyang for my astrophotography and the 16mm for my general daytime photography. The field of view is noticeably different and of course having auto focus over manual and also how the camera can apply automatic correction with the Fuji lens.

Two quite different lenses really.
 
As most people have said the dif. between the two focal lengths is significant.

I had a couple of Samyang 12s [Sony and Fuji] and while I found that focal length could be fun I found it a struggle to use continuously.....so rather, a specialist lens for a particular situation.

16mm [on my 16-50mm] on the other hand, I find, is a sweet WA length where I'm not cropping constantly to remove, say, unwanted foreground.

Another 16mm option is the Samyang/Rokinon/Bower 16mm f/2.

Most reviews regard it as an excellent lens with good corner to corner sharpness from wide open and with a useful minimum focus distance of 20cm.

Downside is that it is MF [but no big deal at the length] and size.....similar in weight and size to the 16-55mm!!!

The big plus however is the price.....with B&H selling the Bower version for $229 USD....less that 25% of the price of the Fuji 16mm


500px

500px.com 500px.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
16mm prime choices for x-mount
2
Replies
24
Views
4K
Ironfilm
I
M
What would be your wishlist to Fujifilm today?
6 7 8
Replies
149
Views
30K
bowportes
B
ProfHankD
  • Question Question
New FF fisheyes better than 16mm Rokkor-X?
Replies
18
Views
8K
ProfHankD
ProfHankD
matttelz
Samyang/Rokinon 35mm F1.4 P Lens
2
Replies
25
Views
16K
Dsnoir
Dsnoir
T
Verona, Florence, Lucca, Monterosso al Mare >> what lenses
Replies
16
Views
922
thunder storm
T

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top