Vic Chapman
Forum Pro
It isn't about 20mm it is close to 24mm. If you want around 20mm you need the 14mm f2.8 which is equivalent to 21mm. That is a big difference when you look at pictures taken with them.
Vic
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
10-24 mm f4 or 16 mm f 1.4?
- Thread starter Meetmer
- Start date
Vic
Too bad you made that mistake, you could have saved money. The 16mm is about 24mm equivalent. It is the 14mm you should have gotten if you wanted to match 20mm in full frame FOV.
WhateverNickname
Senior Member
I have no idea why it says 20 ... I thought I wrote 25 .... ops
WhateverNickname
Senior Member
No, my iPad changed 25 into 20 ... the 16 is something between 24 and 25. I like also 20 btw but not as much!
Vic Chapman
Forum Pro
Old Timer63
Veteran Member
I love my 14 (mainly use it on my IR converted camera) to be honest I have the 10-24 which will cover most of the wide shots but having some primes as well is the way to go IMHO. They all have their place for different shots and conditions etc and although some lenses don`t get a lot of use all the time along comes a day when you can`t put them down and are so glad you hung onto them.
Dave
Dave
Ha ha! I hate it when that happens! Yea, 24/25 is a very well liked FOV.
nikkor35f2
Leading Member
Meetmer
Senior Member
I don’t think that’s really a fair statement. If good technology is available we should not ignore it and say it’s not necessary. I am sure there were many great pictures taken over the decades, but better technology will allow for better picture taking. Much higher percentage of keepers. Much higher resolutions. Better low light performance of sensors. So many ways. To deny any of that is just living in the past.
Other areas : Airbags for example. Smart phones for example. Video chat for example. Drones for example. Self driving cars.
Other areas : Airbags for example. Smart phones for example. Video chat for example. Drones for example. Self driving cars.
Greg7579
Forum Pro
Bwaaaaahahahahahaha. The Brick has no OIS!
(That's an old inside joke for you old-timers that heard me rant about it 4 years ago when I hated the Brick because it had no OIS.)
Greg Johnson, San Antonio, Texas
Greg Johnson’s albums | Flickr
www.flickr.com
Meetmer
Senior Member
It’s pretty dumb that they would make a lens of that caliber and not make it OIS. The kit lens has OIS it’s also a lot lighter
for me it wins hands-down
for me it wins hands-down
Meetmer
Senior Member
That is true so true
Meetmer
Senior Member
Those shots are great and super sharp
nikkor35f2
Leading Member
i agree that technology cannot be ignored. but too reliance its no good either. in my country that is summer all year long at the equator, aircon has been the best invention and keep us cool during hot days. but the hot air emitted when running the aircon has made the outdoors even warmer and its a viscious cycle.
just like photoshop and raw files, correction is so easy now that many dont really bother about proper exposure(photo lumar being the ultimate do all editing), just kept asking for more dynamic range and postprocess later.
finding the balance is tough. and companies will always want you to believe that the technology is available and everyone is using it, without it you are just losing out. its a personal choice to bite or not.
Very useful for outdoor/nature “pseudo-macros,” for example, while hiking... especially when it might be dark and raining or snowing. Flowers, rocks, spiderwebs...
Also big scenes with close focus foregrounds.
I love the way it flares and handles backlighting.
Build is perfect. Focus is fast, quiet and accurate.
Earlier poster says to use this for environmental portraits, and I agree. Perspective distortion occurs at close focus range. Nostrils flare unappealingly.
I’ve loved a lot of lenses, but the 16 is a masterpiece of a lens in my opinion.
Also big scenes with close focus foregrounds.
I love the way it flares and handles backlighting.
Build is perfect. Focus is fast, quiet and accurate.
Earlier poster says to use this for environmental portraits, and I agree. Perspective distortion occurs at close focus range. Nostrils flare unappealingly.
I’ve loved a lot of lenses, but the 16 is a masterpiece of a lens in my opinion.
Greg7579
Forum Pro
Well, that is one way of looking at it. Another way is that the Brick is the best 24-70 FF equivalent F2.8 lens there is. It is superb.
Greg Johnson, San Antonio, Texas
Greg Johnson’s albums | Flickr
www.flickr.com
Old Timer63
Veteran Member
The thing that I noticed when I tried the 16-55 was (apart from the weight and price etc) how sharp it was at 16 wide open which was a bit against the grain for me because I have normally been used to wide lenses needing at least a couple of stops down to bring up the resolution.
see https://opticallimits.com/fuji_x/971-fuji1655f28
In the end I decided to stick with my 10-24 with ois and carry a prime to bridge the gap to my 55-200 if needed. I`m not saying the 10-24 beats the 16-55 in it`s focal range of course but it did seem to be a bit more consistent and I more or less knew what to expect whereas when testing the brick I didn`t always get what I would have expected. Of course not being a technophobe maybe the one I tested was slightly off.
Dave
see https://opticallimits.com/fuji_x/971-fuji1655f28
In the end I decided to stick with my 10-24 with ois and carry a prime to bridge the gap to my 55-200 if needed. I`m not saying the 10-24 beats the 16-55 in it`s focal range of course but it did seem to be a bit more consistent and I more or less knew what to expect whereas when testing the brick I didn`t always get what I would have expected. Of course not being a technophobe maybe the one I tested was slightly off.
Dave
Personal preference; Fuji 16mm f1,4 a very special lens and from my experience worth the investment. Not a big fan of zooms as they tend to be a compromise. Weight comparison may swing your final decision? 10mm seems almost like fish-eye?
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum