Is KentuckyMan right about the 16 2.8?

Started 1 month ago | Discussions thread
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Flat view
JoshuaRothman Regular Member • Posts: 137
Is KentuckyMan right about the 16 2.8?

I've owned the 16 1.4 for a long time, but have just acquired the 18 1.4. It's clear to me that I'm going to get a lot more use out of the new 18—I mainly take photos of people, and the 16 was just a little too wide to be an all-day-on-the-camera lens. I'm now mulling the fate of my Mighty 16.

One possibility is that I could sell it, and then use the proceeds to pick up the 16 2.8 and 50 2. This would make for a nice lightweight "trinity" with my 27 2.8, to use as an alternative to my trio of bigger, faster lenses—the new 18 1.4, 35 1.4, and 56 1.2. One reason I'm considering this plan is this video:

KentuckyMan and I have very similar use cases for our lenses. I don't do real estate photography like he does, but otherwise I take the same kinds of family photos and casual landscape shots. (I do sometimes use the 1.4 for the wide-angle-bokeh look, but I can achieve a version of that with the 18 1.4.) He loves the 16 2.8, and feels that the its slower speed is an acceptable trade-off given its small size and light weight. It also seems as though the 16 2.8 is slightly wider than the 16 1.4—which is appealing to me, given that I own an 18.

It's hard to judge images in a YouTube video. I'm curious: what do you all think? Has anyone here traded a 16 1.4 for a 16 2.8 and lived to tell the tale?

 JoshuaRothman's gear list:JoshuaRothman's gear list
Fujifilm X100V Fujifilm X-Pro3 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 56mm F1.2 R +4 more
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Flat view
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow