10-24 mm f4 or 16 mm f 1.4?

I'm in the midst of making the very same decision.

I own the Samyang 12mm, which is a terrific little lens. I've compared images taken with it to images taken with the 10-24 of the same subject and there was little if any difference at f4.0. If I bought the 10-24, it wouldn't be because I'm disappointed in the 12.

If I bought the 16mm, then I'd have 12-16-18 (18-24-28 FF) on the wide side. If I bought the 10-24, then I'd have 10-18 (15-28 FF) with an overlap of coverage from 18-24 (28-35 FF)

For travel, I'd have three lenses to tote if I bought the 16, compared to just two if I bought the 10-24.

The zoom has 3 stops OIS and the 16mm is three stops faster. At first glance, it looks like a tie regarding shooting in low light, but let's think about it. Let's say we're in a situation where we'd have to shoot at 1/30 with the 16 wide open. we should be able to shoot the 10-24 at 1/4 and expect the same hand holding result. This would be OK for shots like cathedral interiors, but if you have a subject in the image, on shots where there's no subject blur at 1/30, you would probably get subject blur at 1/4.

I spent a week with the 16mm when I rented a Fuji kit to see if I liked them. I spent a fairly long time at Samys in Orange County taking test photos with the 10-24 and my X-E3. Both are great lenses and for travel, the 10-24 probably makes more sense. However, 16mm field of view (24mm) has been one of my favorites since I bought my 24mm Canon FD 47 years ago (I still use it on my X-E3). The Fuji 16mm made me decide to go with Fuji. It truly is a great lens.

I'll probably order the 16 today.

thank you that is helpful information. I need to look at the lens in person to see if the weight is something that would bother me, but then again the 10-24 is also a little on the heavy side too. I probably wouldn't be taking the lens on a plane with me unless i knew i was going to be photographing landscapes, but day trips in the car or local hikes - no problem. I mainly shoot people, namely my kids, so i love the 35 mm f2 and the 56 1.2.

Doug MacMillan said:

I'm in the midst of making the very same decision.

I own the Samyang 12mm, which is a terrific little lens. I've compared images taken with it to images taken with the 10-24 of the same subject and there was little if any difference at f4.0. If I bought the 10-24, it wouldn't be because I'm disappointed in the 12.

If I bought the 16mm, then I'd have 12-16-18 (18-24-28 FF) on the wide side. If I bought the 10-24, then I'd have 10-18 (15-28 FF) with an overlap of coverage from 18-24 (28-35 FF)

For travel, I'd have three lenses to tote if I bought the 16, compared to just two if I bought the 10-24.

The zoom has 3 stops OIS and the 16mm is three stops faster. At first glance, it looks like a tie regarding shooting in low light, but let's think about it. Let's say we're in a situation where we'd have to shoot at 1/30 with the 16 wide open. we should be able to shoot the 10-24 at 1/4 and expect the same hand holding result. This would be OK for shots like cathedral interiors, but if you have a subject in the image, on shots where there's no subject blur at 1/30, you would probably get subject blur at 1/4.

I spent a week with the 16mm when I rented a Fuji kit to see if I liked them. I spent a fairly long time at Samys in Orange County taking test photos with the 10-24 and my X-E3. Both are great lenses and for travel, the 10-24 probably makes more sense. However, 16mm field of view (24mm) has been one of my favorites since I bought my 24mm Canon FD 47 years ago (I still use it on my X-E3). The Fuji 16mm made me decide to go with Fuji. It truly is a great lens.

I'll probably order the 16 today.

Click to expand...

Great comparison points. Given how much you like the 16mm and how it helps you connect with your SLR past, I can understand why you'd buy the 16mm over the 10-24.

Buying the 16 does not make the 10-24's positives disappear. You are just deciding which order to buy these lenses.

Lastly, do buy that overpriced metal lens hood for the 16mm. It looks so nice!

Looks like vello makes a copy of the nice lens hood for much cheaper

Doug MacMillan said:

Having grown up in the FF film world, the difference is similar to the difference between a 24mm and a 28mm. To me that's a fairly significant difference.

Click to expand...

Actually, it is 25mm versus 28mm (crop 1,57X). Regardless, as I wrote - for hiking" - which I assume is sort of "on the go" shots, careful framing may not be the key factor.

Also in terms of size and weight, the difference is not that big, and actually the zoom may be more adequate.

Meetmer said:

Looks like vello makes a copy of the nice lens hood for much cheaper

Click to expand...

Cheaper 3rd party knock offs of these metal hoods??? I'm so glad Fujifilm has gotten popular enough to make these accessories viable!

A quick search on Amazon shows JJC makes a version for $36.

Marcos Villaroman said:

Meetmer said:

Looks like vello makes a copy of the nice lens hood for much cheaper

Click to expand...

Cheaper 3rd party knock offs of these metal hoods??? I'm so glad Fujifilm has gotten popular enough to make these accessories viable!

A quick search on Amazon shows JJC makes a version for $36.

Click to expand...

Yes, and the JJC version is well made.







--
After all is said and done and your photo is hanging on the wall, no one is going to know or care what camera, lens, or what post processing you used. All they care about is if the image moves them.

Please get the 10-24. You won't be sorry. PM me and I will spend some time explaining why. The other guys have heard me say it too many times. I think you need the 10-24, especially if you are hiking. Also consider the Rok 12, but that is a long explanation.

The Mighty 16 is on every Fuji-shooters wish list. It is one of the worlds great lenses. But the 10-24 does well at 16 and so much more. The Mighty 16 is more specialized and is very fast and close. It is Fuji's best prime, along with the 90.

Greg Johnson, San Antonio, Texas

If you don't shoot landscapes but consider to bring a 16mm additionally to your kit lens the answer is obvious. Replace the kit lens with the 16-55/2.8. Weight is the same but the comfort of having one lens that can handle all you need on a hike and is also very flexible for portraits are clear advantages.

no, the kit lens is stabilized and therefore useful for video but the 16-55 is not OIS

Meetmer said:

no, the kit lens is stabilized and therefore useful for video but the 16-55 is not OIS

Click to expand...

To paraphrase Pink Floyd from The Wall ........ We don't need no stabilisation!

Originally I used the lens on my XT2 - now it shares its time on the XH1 but it really doesn't need OIS/IBIS. It has the perfect heft to increase the steadiness of handholding.

Unless you need to shoot in very low light or need it for serious video you'd be fine. If it's video you want it for then ideally you would need the XH1.

Vic

--
The sky is full of holes that let the rain get in, the holes are very small - that's why the rain is thin.
Spike Milligan. Writer, comedian, poet, Goon. 1918 - 2002

Meetmer said:

i have the 18-55 kit lens, the 35 mm f2, 56 mm 1.2, and 55-200 zoom. I was almost sold on the 16 mm 1.4 but now I am wondering about that or the 10-24 f4 zoom. Any thoughts? Truth is , I don’t really do much landscape photography but we do like hiking so there are opportunities

Click to expand...

That's not an either or proposition if you ask me.

Landscape is hard to benefit from anything wider than 23mm unless you're doing a shot where a rough third of your shot is immersed in a closeup subject. And if you do that, you'll often want something wider than 16mm. So if you're thinking it's for landscape, the 10-24 is far more useful.

If you're thinking of what the 16mm can do for you - wide angle shots at f/1.4, etc. - the zoom can't touch it. That 16mm is a jewel for what it can do - which is untouched by the zoom or any other Fuji lens for that matter. It's my least favorite focal length as I'm always wanting something wider or narrower. So that's my perspective on it, others will probably say the 16mm is their favorite landscape lens.

nnowak said:

The 14mm f2.8 is far smaller and cheaper than the two lenses you are considering. It also takes the same hood and filters as your 18-55mm. While not as wide as the 10-24mm, I find the 14mm to be the perfect complement to the 18-55mm.

One other option you may want to consider is the Zeiss 12mm f2.8 lens.

In terms of image quality, you can't go wrong with any of these choices.

Click to expand...

Agreed. It's a great lens. I don't really have an affinity for 16mm as a wide angle. But 14mm is the exact field of view that I tend to find workable.

Meetmer said:

i have the 18-55 kit lens, the 35 mm f2, 56 mm 1.2, and 55-200 zoom. I was almost sold on the 16 mm 1.4 but now I am wondering about that or the 10-24 f4 zoom. Any thoughts? Truth is , I don’t really do much landscape photography but we do like hiking so there are opportunities

Click to expand...

I had the 10-24 lens and it is a really awesome walkabout/travel wide option. However, once I became accustomed to using XF primes I really began to have an appreciation for the marked aperture ring. I really like to bring the camera up to my eye already knowing my settings (using mostly an XT2) and only having to tweak the exposure or focus. So I reluctantly sold the 10-24, thought about it for a while and with the recent sale purchased the 16. Wow, what a fun lens to handle and shoot with. I've only had it for a week but I'm really liking it.

Both lenses have a lot to offer flexibility wise, just different:

-10-24 offers a really useful focal length range, IOS (I guess if you use it for video?), and IQ.

-The 16 offers a very useful fixed focal length, WR (not bringing that up for debate), close focusing, very wide aperture and a marked aperture ring.

In my case, going forward I think my XT2 bag will contain my 16/1.4, 23/2 and 50/2 for a three lens WR kit. The 18-55 will probably live on the XE3.

Vic Chapman said:

Meetmer said:

no, the kit lens is stabilized and therefore useful for video but the 16-55 is not OIS

Click to expand...

To paraphrase Pink Floyd from The Wall ........ We don't need no stabilisation!

Originally I used the lens on my XT2 - now it shares its time on the XH1 but it really doesn't need OIS/IBIS. It has the perfect heft to increase the steadiness of handholding.

Unless you need to shoot in very low light or need it for serious video you'd be fine. If it's video you want it for then ideally you would need the XH1.

Vic

Click to expand...

Vic, I disagree with your comments about the XH-1 and what it is needed for and your comments on IBIS.

Maybe I am even more in love with IBIS now after shooting Medium Format for a month.

IBIS is so important. It changes everything. It is 5 stops of greatness that aids the photographer in so many situations that you can't count them all.

I don't care about video. IBIS is now essential for all still shooters. All. Not some.

Greg Johnson, San Antonio, Texas

Greg7579 said:

Vic Chapman said:

Meetmer said:

no, the kit lens is stabilized and therefore useful for video but the 16-55 is not OIS

Click to expand...

To paraphrase Pink Floyd from The Wall ........ We don't need no stabilisation!

Originally I used the lens on my XT2 - now it shares its time on the XH1 but it really doesn't need OIS/IBIS. It has the perfect heft to increase the steadiness of handholding.

Unless you need to shoot in very low light or need it for serious video you'd be fine. If it's video you want it for then ideally you would need the XH1.

Vic

Click to expand...

Vic, I disagree with your comments about the XH-1 and what it is needed for and your comments on IBIS.

Maybe I am even more in love with IBIS now after shooting Medium Format for a month.

IBIS is so important. It changes everything. It is 5 stops of greatness that aids the photographer in so many situations that you can't count them all.

I don't care about video. IBIS is now essential for all still shooters. All. Not some.

Greg Johnson, San Antonio, Texas
https://www.flickr.com/photos/139148982@N02/albums

Click to expand...

Greg,

You make me smile again...!

Look, we all have our opinions, we may state them, explain them, defend them... all fine. But we also should not forget... it´s just our own opinion, other people may have other opinions, points of view, needs, preferences and what ever else.

Your statement that IBIS is now essential for all still shooters... as a still shooter I simply disagree. At least for me it is definitely not essential... if at all it is a nice to have feature, useful / helpful in some circumstances, no doubt about that... but that´s just it.

The reason your statement makes me smile... I still remember the times when you condemned the "brick" the same way you now argue for IBIS. And today? Change of mind...?! There is no absolute truth, neither in facts nor opinions... it´s all relative! ;-)

Herbert

crowley213 said:

Greg7579 said:

Vic Chapman said:

Meetmer said:

no, the kit lens is stabilized and therefore useful for video but the 16-55 is not OIS

Click to expand...

To paraphrase Pink Floyd from The Wall ........ We don't need no stabilisation!

Originally I used the lens on my XT2 - now it shares its time on the XH1 but it really doesn't need OIS/IBIS. It has the perfect heft to increase the steadiness of handholding.

Unless you need to shoot in very low light or need it for serious video you'd be fine. If it's video you want it for then ideally you would need the XH1.

Vic

Click to expand...

Vic, I disagree with your comments about the XH-1 and what it is needed for and your comments on IBIS.

Maybe I am even more in love with IBIS now after shooting Medium Format for a month.

IBIS is so important. It changes everything. It is 5 stops of greatness that aids the photographer in so many situations that you can't count them all.

I don't care about video. IBIS is now essential for all still shooters. All. Not some.

Greg Johnson, San Antonio, Texas
https://www.flickr.com/photos/139148982@N02/albums

Click to expand...

Greg,

You make me smile again...!

Look, we all have our opinions, we may state them, explain them, defend them... all fine. But we also should not forget... it´s just our own opinion, other people may have other opinions, points of view, needs, preferences and what ever else.

Your statement that IBIS is now essential for all still shooters... as a still shooter I simply disagree. At least for me it is definitely not essential... if at all it is a nice to have feature, useful / helpful in some circumstances, no doubt about that... but that´s just it.

The reason your statement makes me smile... I still remember the times when you condemned the "brick" the same way you now argue for IBIS. And today? Change of mind...?! There is no absolute truth, neither in facts nor opinions... it´s all relative! ;-)

Herbert

Click to expand...

Herbert, very true. I'm just sensitive to the subject because I want IBIS so badly on my MF rig. I want it sooooo much. I mis it sooooo much. I need it. I want it. I've got to have it.

Greg Johnson, San Antonio, Texas

The mighty 16 wins. Hands down. Don't forget the pseudo macro mode for all those beautiful flowers while hiking...

I haven't pulled the trigger yet. The CFO and I are in serious negotiations, but I'm expecting a positive outcome. Thoughts and prayers requested.

Meetmer said:

i have the 18-55 kit lens, the 35 mm f2, 56 mm 1.2, and 55-200 zoom. I was almost sold on the 16 mm 1.4 but now I am wondering about that or the 10-24 f4 zoom. Any thoughts? Truth is , I don’t really do much landscape photography but we do like hiking so there are opportunities

Click to expand...

I have the 10to24 but hardly use it. So I might have preferred the 16/1.4 now. But I also have the 16to55, that will make 16 a duplicate since 16/2.8 @1600 basically covers almost all aspects that i shoot. Getting a 16 will make it easily to bring out. But if u have 18to55 or 16to55. It is likely to get very little usage. I think.