Reading mode: Light Dark

14, 16, or 18

Go to last post
C

Chriz2469

Well-known member
Messages
195
Reaction score
159
I know this is probably a common struggle and I also know most of the difference between the lenses, but maybe someone can help me figure out which lens I should get to be my wide lens in a 2 lens system.

I recently got the x-e3 and 35 1.4 and it is awesome. This is my fun camera so I figure that the 35 will be fine for portraits so I don't think I need any longer lenses. If I changed my mind though I would probably go for the 50/2 for size.

But my dilemma is which wide lens to get. From my understanding the 16 has the best image quality, fastest, most versatile but its also large and expensive. I understand the 18 is good, but optically not as great as the 14 or 16, but much cheaper and much smaller. I understand the 14 is kind of in the middle in all regards, its smaller than the 16 but larger than the 18, priced in the middle, but a lot of people compare the IQ between the 14 and 16. Obviously the 14 is also slower.

If I get the 18, I won't get the 27 because it could almost act as a pancake lens. If I get the 14 or 16 I would likely get the 27 so that I could have a slim setup when necessary.

I am really leaning towards the 14 because it has good IQ while being smaller and cheaper than the 16. It is also a bit wider.

I realize that deciding what focal length I want should be a big factor here, but this camera is my for fun camera and I am not concerned about a specific focal length. I just know that for some things the 35 is too narrow.

The 18/35 would be great size wise for my x-e3, but the 14/27/35 would give me more options. 16/27/35 and I could have likely the best image quality available at wide and normal focal lengths with a small lens to make up for the size of the other two.

Any thoughts?
 
What do you want to do with the WA lens?

Street? The 18 is great since it is small and not too wide.

Landscape? The 14 or 16 get the nod there, with a slightly bigger nod to the 14, at least from me.

Super low-light? Or awesome, close-up macro-ish shots with blurred backgrounds? Get the 16 for sure.

Don't worry about the IQ difference between the 14 & 16. There's not that much too it.

--
http://georgehudetzphotography.smugmug.com/
My Flikr stream: http://flic.kr/ps/Ay8ka
 
Last edited:
Chriz2469 said:
I am not concerned about a specific focal length. I just know that for some things the 35 is too narrow.
Click to expand...
Your thinking seems a bit vague here. All three of these lenses are quite different in focal length, and will make your subject look different accordingly.

In your shoes I would go for the 18mm, or even the 18-55mm zoom. Maybe start with the most 'normal' option and explore focal lengths until you get a better grasp on what you want to use an ultra-wide angle lens for.
 
georgehudetz said:
What do you want to do with the WA lens?

Street? The 18 is great since it is small and not too wide.

Landscape? The 14 or 16 get the nod there, with a slightly bigger nod to the 14, at least from me.

Super low-light? Or awesome, close-up macro-ish shots with blurred backgrounds? Get the 16 for sure.

Don't worry about the IQ difference between the 14 & 16. There's not that much too it.
Click to expand...
 
Hi,

Here I compared the 14, 16 and 10-24:

http://www.littlebigtravelingcamera.com/?p=9070

but if your main focus is on landscape I would recommend the 10-24 for its flexibility. If you want a small lens to compliment your set: 14/2.8.
 
Sorry, but this really isn't something somebody else can answer for you. For me, anything with a narrower field of view than the 16mm isn't wide enough to be interesting. For other, anything wider than 18 may feel like an invitation to distortion or too wide to easily get a main point of interest.

Although the 16 is my favorite lens right now, I'm not sure I would recommend it to someone who doesn't know if it's the right focal length for them. It's a wonderful lens but it's big, heavy, and expensive. The 14 was my favorite before that - I bought it long before the 16 was available. The only way I was able to give up the 14 was by getting a 12mm Zeiss for the times when I need to go ultra wide.

You may want to think about whether you are looking for just enough wideness to for situations where you don't have enough working room to use your 35 or whether you intend to seek out wider points of view to inspire creativity. Put another way... Are you interested in taking the best advantage of your comfort zone or in expanding it?
 
Chriz2469 said:
My primary thought is landscape but obviously also other scenarios where 35 is too long.
Click to expand...
If landscapes then get the 14mm

I do

It's a dandy of a lens

The 16 is OK too albeit a tad large and expensive

For landscapes you may not need the extra stops
 
When I was making decisions what wide angle lens to buy, I was thinking this way: which perspective distortion is the most pleasing to my eye?

Then I visited flickr and filtered images for different focal lenghts (12/14/16 mm). After seeing many thousands of pictures, it was clear what lens I wanted. And that xf14 is suitable for both astro (low coma) and IR (no hotspot) is a bonus for me.
 
Last edited:
Congrats on your new X-E3. Mine should arrive today.

I entered Fuji world in May with the X-T20 and am loving it.

For the T20 I got the 16/1.4 , the 23/1.4, and the 35/2 along with the 18-55 and the 55-200. I also plan on getting the 10-24mm next. I picked up a used 23/2 that will be semipermanently attached to the X-E3. Since I have a grip on the T20 I use it for the larger lenses. I will use mostly the F2 primes on the X-E3.

I may get the 18/2 at some point but I have heard there might be an updated version coming out so I may wait for that.

--
Dave
 
Last edited:
This is an easy answer. If you had the choice between good, very good and great, which would you pick?
 
I just bought a mint boxed 18mm f/2 off eBay for £226.00.

That is much less than 50% of the retail price.

It is just like new, the lens hood and cap were still in the sealed wrappings.

I have had it on my X-E3 and taken some test shots in the garden and the kitchen and I think that it is a super little lens.

I would recommend it. If you buy second hand and find that you do not have much use for it then you can sell it and only take a tiny financial loss.

I have got the 16mm and the 10-24mm but I love the small size of the 18mm f/2. It looks so good on the X-E3 too... and the lens hood just adds to the classy appearence.
 
Chriz2469 said:
I know this is probably a common struggle and I also know most of the difference between the lenses, but maybe someone can help me figure out which lens I should get to be my wide lens in a 2 lens system.

I recently got the x-e3 and 35 1.4 and it is awesome. This is my fun camera so I figure that the 35 will be fine for portraits so I don't think I need any longer lenses. If I changed my mind though I would probably go for the 50/2 for size.

But my dilemma is which wide lens to get. From my understanding the 16 has the best image quality, fastest, most versatile but its also large and expensive. I understand the 18 is good, but optically not as great as the 14 or 16, but much cheaper and much smaller. I understand the 14 is kind of in the middle in all regards, its smaller than the 16 but larger than the 18, priced in the middle, but a lot of people compare the IQ between the 14 and 16. Obviously the 14 is also slower.
Click to expand...
Traditionally in a 35 mm format 24 mm is the break for ultra wide angle vs. wide angle. So I would classify the 16 and 14 as ultra wide angle lenses and the 18 a classic wide angle. What difference does it make? Perspective distortion. The perspective distortion in a 14 or 16 is going to be fairly significant compared to the 18.

My advice is to rent or borrow the three and see which you prefer. Personally I don't like the perspective of UWA lenses. Some people do - it is a preference. Find you preference and then the choice of lenses will decide itself.

If it were me, I would go with the 35 f1.4 - for its speed and quality and it is actually a small lens. Then I would go with the 18 mm simply to give a alternative view of the world. If you decided you need something longer - the 50 f2 is a fine lens. Interesting enough this is a classic combination of focal lengths (28, 50 and 75) for the old Leica M3 and M4.
Chriz2469 said:
If I get the 18, I won't get the 27 because it could almost act as a pancake lens. If I get the 14 or 16 I would likely get the 27 so that I could have a slim setup when necessary.

I am really leaning towards the 14 because it has good IQ while being smaller and cheaper than the 16. It is also a bit wider.

I realize that deciding what focal length I want should be a big factor here, but this camera is my for fun camera and I am not concerned about a specific focal length. I just know that for some things the 35 is too narrow.

The 18/35 would be great size wise for my x-e3, but the 14/27/35 would give me more options. 16/27/35 and I could have likely the best image quality available at wide and normal focal lengths with a small lens to make up for the size of the other two.

Any thoughts?
Click to expand...
 
They are all great lenses, and you’re obviously aware of the trade-offs. I’ll toss out a couple things, including comments on earlier posts on this thread...
  1. Properly corrected wide lenses do not distort perspective. They properly render perspective, but because they are often used with near perspectives and have wide angles of view perspective is more pronounced —not distorted. A crop of a wide lens and full frame of a tele shot from the same position show identical perspective. As they must; light rays go in straight lines (except in lenses or over large distances in which the refractive index of the transmitting medium [usually air] varies).
  2. I would say the 14 is too slow for astro. If that were a priority, the Samyang-Rokinon-Bower 12/2 would be a better choice.
  3. The short minimum focus distance of the 16, and its large aperture, gives you compositional and creative opportunities that you can’t get with the 14 or 18.
I have the 16 and 18, and the Samyang 12/2. I thought about selling the 18 when I got the 16, but it’s a lovely little lens and I can’t let go of it. The 12 has a very challenging wide view, and is manual focus, but that’s not a big problem at short focal lengths. The 12 is not as well corrected as the Fuji lens (but it is moderate, easily corrected barrel distortion), and not quite as sharp. And manual, and no EXIF. But very good, fast, small, and inexpensive.

In your shoes, I’d get the 16, or both the 14 and 18, for similar prices.

If you get the 16, I recommend the add-on (overpriced, yup) rectangular hood. The 18 comes with a nicely shaped but slightly non robust rectangular hood (similar to the 35/1.4’s), and the Samyang has a reasonable sized plastic petal hood. The filter threads on the 12 and 16 are the same (67), as are the 18 and 35/1.4 (52).

--
Chris
Selected photos at https://500px.com/ceedave
A couple of Fuji cameras and assorted X-mount and adapted primes
 
Last edited:
CeeDave said:
They are all great lenses, and you’re obviously aware of the trade-offs. I’ll toss out a couple things, including comments on earlier posts on this thread...
  1. Properly corrected wide lenses do not distort perspective. They properly render perspective, but because they are often used with near perspectives and have wide angles of view perspective is more pronounced —not distorted. A crop of a wide lens and full frame of a tele shot from the same position show identical perspective. As they must; light rays go in straight lines (except in lenses or over large distances in which the refractive index of the transmitting medium [usually air] varies).
  2. I would say the 14 is too slow for astro. If that were a priority, the Samyang-Rokinon-Bower 12/2 would be a better choice.
  3. The short minimum focus distance of the 16, and its large aperture, gives you compositional and creative opportunities that you can’t get with the 14 or 18.
I have the 16 and 18, and the Samyang 12/2. I thought about selling the 18 when I got the 16, but it’s a lovely little lens and I can’t let go of it. The 12 has a very challenging wide view, and is manual focus, but that’s not a big problem at short focal lengths. The 12 is not as well corrected as the Fuji lens (but it is moderate, easily corrected barrel distortion), and not quite as sharp. And manual, and no EXIF. But very good, fast, small, and inexpensive.

In your shoes, I’d get the 16, or both the 14 and 18, for similar prices.

If you get the 16, I recommend the add-on (overpriced, yup) rectangular hood. The 18 comes with a nicely shaped but slightly non robust rectangular hood (similar to the 35/1.4’s), and the Samyang has a reasonable sized plastic petal hood. The filter threads on the 12 and 16 are the same (67), as are the 18 and 35/1.4 (52).
Click to expand...
 
I own the 14 which is a spectacular lens, I am selling it only because I am getting rid, hopefully, of all of my Fuji gear and if I can't menage to sell the camera the combo will be the X-Pro1 along with the 35/1.4 but, back to your question, the 18 has never been an option because for almost the same price you can get the 18-55 which is way more versatile and optically better so I'd restrict the options to either the 14 or the 16 even tho they are two very different focal lengths, if you are not into astrophotography I'd say no need of f1.4 and would save a bunch of money by getting the 14.
 
I had the 16 f1.4 for about a year. It is a fantastic lens. That being said, I hardly took it with me because of the size. I sold it earlier this year and just recently replaced it with what is Fuji's supposed "worst" lens the 18 f2. I paid $400 for a pretty much brand new copy which I just used for 10 days in Paris and Amsterdam. I'm not sure how this lens got the bad reputation it has because it is truly an excellent lens. It's not a silent speed demon for AF like the 23 f2 but it is an excellent, compact lens. I have no problem with it at all and am loving the results I'm getting. Here's an image using it and the X-E2. SOOC .jpeg that was only adjusted to straighten the horizon line.



a7d0c8f4724c4603bbbe1add81963818.jpg

Scott

--
"Keep Calm and .JPEG On"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

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