16-55/2.8 or 16/1.4?

Started 6 days ago | Discussions thread
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Flat view
quintana Regular Member • Posts: 170
16-55/2.8 or 16/1.4?

I'm new to Fuji and I already own the 27/2.8 and 60/2.4 and now I'm thinking if I should get the 16/1.4 or 16-55/2.8 as an additional lens to cover the wide angle (or in the case of the 16-55/2.8 also use it as a single walkaround lens).

Before I switched to Fuji I had a Nikon D500 with the 16-80/2.8-4 standard zoom. I found that very convenient, especially when I was travelling, because often enough you don't have the room or time to find the best perspective and then the zoom is really useful.

But from what I've seen in reviews and sample pictures the 16-55/2.8 can't match the Nikon 16-80/2.8-4, especially when it comes to corner sharpness, which is quite important to me because I mostly shoot landscapes where I want everything sharp and in focus.

Then again I often see that the 16-55/2.8 is praised in forums (statements like "the lens is a bag of primes") so I wonder if there is a big sample variation?

Can anybody who is happy with the performance of his 16-55/2.8 show full resolution samples for apertures f/4 through f/11? I don't really care much for f/2.8.

If I can't find convincing sample pictures I will probably go with the 16/1.4 which looks like a really fine lens but I will most possibly miss the flexibility when I'm on vacation.

Nikon D500
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Flat view
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow