Reading mode: Light Dark

Fuji 16/2.8 vs Sony 24/1.4 for landscapes

Go to last post
D

deednets

Forum Pro
Messages
15,736
Solutions
1
Reaction score
13,592
Location
NZ
Since I have both the A7III and the X-T3 and also both lenses I thought I would run a little test on these.

Note: when I decided to compare those shots, I couldn't remember the exact framing so the shots aren't the same.

I still think that there is some merit in the comparison as the software used was the same and the subject is the same. I am aware that some viewers will think the comparison is pointless, but thought I would share the images anyway.

Here is my reasoning why I think a comparison might still be interesting for some people:
  • The price-point. The 24/1.4 is US$ 900,00 more than the 16/2.8. 2 stops difference for 900.00.
  • The 24/1.4 was the lens of the year 2018 by dpreview and the Fuji is El Cheapo by comparison. Unfair maybe but some people like and use maybe both?
  • Dynamic range. The A7III has excellent DR, possibly more than the T3.
  • And not to be forgotten: full frame vs APS-C.
I took a series of around 10 images with both cameras and took the best one for this comparison. The Fuji was set to F2.8 and the SONY to F5.6. The SONY possibly closer to the sweet spot here, but in real life I would question if anybody would consider the F-stop over the application.

Also the SONY pic was taken from a tripod and the Fuji was taken hand-held.



Fuji X-T3
Fuji X-T3



SONY A7III
SONY A7III



FUJI X-T3 100% crop
FUJI X-T3 100% crop



SONY A7III 100% crop
SONY A7III 100% crop

Since my comparison was about detail, I set the WB on both manually using the wall of the house with the green roof next to the street.

2 aspects to consider here:

The SONY lens is an F1.4 lens, so no comparison here, it will always be more versatile regarding low light scenarios. 2 stops difference is a big deal!

When you hike up a hill or mountain, the difference in size is also a big deal and you might not find that F1.4 is an essential need up there.

Here is the camerasize.com size difference:



ea96cce0ad6c43b38be7dfec01817e93.jpg

Fuji+16/2.8=694gr

Sony+24/1.4=1.094gr

Thanks

Deed

P.S.: Why always the same/similar shot? I live around that mole-hill ;-)
 
You should have used the same f stop and shutter speed for a fair comparison.
 
The Sony appears to give more details to the water, and to have captured a little more light.

That said, handheld Vs tripod is not a very fair comparison.

Both are very good, but for landscapes, I would choose the Fuji for the price and weight combination.
 
jonikon said:
You should have used the same f stop and shutter speed for a fair comparison.
Click to expand...
A pointless comparison! ;-)

I didn't originally intend to compare these but if you like, the SONY being shot at F5.6 and the Fuji at F2.8 (F4.2FF equivalent) should mean that the advantage lies with the Sony.

So fairness wasn't my point as such but what I did actually shoot which I thought looked similar - only with 2 different systems.
 
SpeedyNeo said:
The Sony appears to give more details to the water, and to have captured a little more light.

That said, handheld Vs tripod is not a very fair comparison.

Both are very good, but for landscapes, I would choose the Fuji for the price and weight combination.
Click to expand...
Both are roughly the same resolution, the tighter crop on the Fuji results from the higher pixel count, but not by much.

Price/weight clearly on the Fuji side where you could of course also opt for the X-T30??
 
Why not shoot a brick wall at noon with an iPhone and compare it with the 56 f/1.2 @ f/8 while you're at it?

Don't be disingenuous, there's a reason why the Sony set-up costs more, and we all know the use case where it shines. What you've done here is captured a use case that both set-ups can handle just fine. It doesn't say anything to be honest.
 
akin_t said:
Why not shoot a brick wall at noon with an iPhone and compare it with the 56 f/1.2 @ f/8 while you're at it?

Don't be disingenuous, there's a reason why the Sony set-up costs more, and we all know the use case where it shines. What you've done here is captured a use case that both set-ups can handle just fine. It doesn't say anything to be honest.
Click to expand...
Any comments finishing with "to be honest" are typically loaded.

And so is yours.

What you might want to take away from this is that somebody who uses BOTH systems and walks up a hill and takes some shots and then shares this comes to the conclusion that the results for a particular application are pretty close.

Also "anything" is possibly a few miles off the mark as some people here now and again ogle the grass on the other side of the divide. You are not one of them, fair enough, but please shed some light on what you mean by : "we all know where it (the SONY??) shines" ... eye autofocus was my reason to get the A7III but that hardly plays a role on a hill.

The shot used here actually has a lot of challenges: greenery, lots of details in both sharp outlined elements (the houses) and soft textured ones (the green stuff, the sky and the water) The contrast is also strong as it was a sunny day in both cases where parts of the image is set in the shadows and other parts are in broad sunlight.

Not sure what you personally would add, but happy to look at an example you could provide?

The wall at noon has little to offer by comparison (check out a wall next time you see one!) as this sample was about a 3-D landscape and not so much a 2-D brick wall.

To be honest, I had expected more from the SONY.

Deed
 
deednets said:
akin_t said:
Why not shoot a brick wall at noon with an iPhone and compare it with the 56 f/1.2 @ f/8 while you're at it?

Don't be disingenuous, there's a reason why the Sony set-up costs more, and we all know the use case where it shines. What you've done here is captured a use case that both set-ups can handle just fine. It doesn't say anything to be honest.
Click to expand...
Any comments finishing with "to be honest" are typically loaded.

And so is yours.

What you might want to take away from this is that somebody who uses BOTH systems and walks up a hill and takes some shots and then shares this comes to the conclusion that the results for a particular application are pretty close.

Also "anything" is possibly a few miles off the mark as some people here now and again ogle the grass on the other side of the divide. You are not one of them, fair enough, but please shed some light on what you mean by : "we all know where it (the SONY??) shines" ... eye autofocus was my reason to get the A7III but that hardly plays a role on a hill.

The shot used here actually has a lot of challenges: greenery, lots of details in both sharp outlined elements (the houses) and soft textured ones (the green stuff, the sky and the water) The contrast is also strong as it was a sunny day in both cases where parts of the image is set in the shadows and other parts are in broad sunlight.

Not sure what you personally would add, but happy to look at an example you could provide?

The wall at noon has little to offer by comparison (check out a wall next time you see one!) as this sample was about a 3-D landscape and not so much a 2-D brick wall.

To be honest, I had expected more from the SONY.

Deed
Click to expand...
No need to get defensive; you may not like my choice of verbiage but my point has been made nonetheless.

You might have expected more from the Sony, but the use cases where a full frame system shines over smaller formats is not the scene you captured, take that as you will.
 
deednets said:
  • The price-point. The 24/1.4 is US$ 900,00 more than the 16/2.8. 2 stops difference for 900.00.
Click to expand...
...and for image quality, size and weight.

Honestly you should be comparing Fuji's 16/1.4 with the Sony instead, it feels like a better comparison.

Don't get me wrong, the 16/2.8 seems like a great lens for the size and money, but the 16/1.4 is more at the Sony's level.
 
Last edited:
JayPhizzt said:
JayPhizzt said:
  • The price-point. The 24/1.4 is US$ 900,00 more than the 16/2.8. 2 stops difference for 900.00.
Click to expand...
...and for image quality, size and weight.

Honestly you should be comparing Fuji's 16/1.4 with the Sony instead, it feels like a better comparison.

Don't get me wrong, the 16/2.8 seems like a great lens for the size and money, but the 16/1.4 is more at the Sony's level.
Click to expand...
Because the 16 1.4 would smoke the Sony, and can't be showing that! :D
 
The only thing in common these lenses have is FOV in their respective sensor sizes. Personally, if I were using the Sony FE system, I would not lug around the 24 GM for landscapes, I would rather take the Batis 25 f2.
 
The 16 f2.8 is known to be a bit soft at f2.8, you should try again at f5.6

Also If one day you want to get rid of your sony, get the 16 f1.4 aka the Mighty 16 which is sharp from f1.4 and gives delicious bokeh
 
jonikon said:
You should have used the same f stop and shutter speed for a fair comparison.
Click to expand...
Yeah I didn’t get this... one lens stopped down 4 stops on a tripod vs another wide open hand held? Not really a good test, actually kind of terrible test setup. The Sony is probably better anyhow but not a good test for the Fuji.
 
Last edited:
chopsteeks said:
why even compare if the testing methodology was not consistent?
Click to expand...
Because I didn't intend this to be a comparison originally. I only thought about comparing shots afterwards

I found that criticism on these fora often outweighs any attempt to share any findings. I will remain the only person who finds the 16/2.8 on a crop sensor remarkably close to the Überflieger Sony full frame combo.

I have been on dpreview since 2002 and must have read the line: not scientific enough, hundreds of times. dpreview has this comparison tool. Trouble is that they use Adobe.

And not the same lenses.

Trust me, here on dp nothing is scientific enough. Ever.

What my post was about was like you go for a UK holiday and take your D850. Then next year an LX100. Not scientific at all, no methodology whatsoever.

But you might still compare. You personally would never do this, but I did.
 
vegetaleb said:
The 16 f2.8 is known to be a bit soft at f2.8, you should try again at f5.6

Also If one day you want to get rid of your sony, get the 16 f1.4 aka the Mighty 16 which is sharp from f1.4 and gives delicious bokeh
Click to expand...
 
You forgot to add the weight of the tripod for the a7iii to your comparison
 
deednets said:
chopsteeks said:
why even compare if the testing methodology was not consistent?
Click to expand...
Because I didn't intend this to be a comparison originally. I only thought about comparing shots afterwards

I found that criticism on these fora often outweighs any attempt to share any findings. I will remain the only person who finds the 16/2.8 on a crop sensor remarkably close to the Überflieger Sony full frame combo.

I have been on dpreview since 2002 and must have read the line: not scientific enough, hundreds of times. dpreview has this comparison tool. Trouble is that they use Adobe.

And not the same lenses.

Trust me, here on dp nothing is scientific enough. Ever.

What my post was about was like you go for a UK holiday and take your D850. Then next year an LX100. Not scientific at all, no methodology whatsoever.

But you might still compare. You personally would never do this, but I did.
Click to expand...
Ah, I get it, the non-comparing comparison! We should all have known it wasn't a comparison when you used the word "vs" in your subject line, because that's what people say when they're not comparing two things to one another!

I will soon be posting my "Ford Mustang vs Stihl Weed Whacker" Non-Comparing Comparison. Note that the Ford Mustang weighs a whole lot more than the Stihl Weed Whacker. Note that the Ford Mustang does not whack weeds. Note that the relative humidity was 45% when the weed whacker was tested, and that the elevation was 2100' when the Ford Mustang was tested. Note that the person testing the weed whacker was wearing a red shirt. There it is! What do you think? Ford Mustang or Stihl Weed Whacker? Who beats?

--
Jonathan
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jtr27/
 
Last edited:
I won’t comment on the subject matter here since I have near zero experience with Sony gear (and no plans whatsoever to change that). However, I will give you the daily “Mod’s Award” for having the nerve to post it (not the word I would have chosen, but forum rules wouldn’t allow it and I can’t very well ban myself) and kudos to the forum members, so far, for keeping things fairly civil.

Hopefully that trend will continue and perhaps one or two members out there with similar experience might also share their thoughts. Might be helpful for those considering both brands.
 
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