Fuji 16-55 mm f2.8 vs 35mm f1.4 and 16mm f2.8 and 10-24 mm f4

I can certainly see your reasoning here, however, personally I would want a lens wider than 16mm for landscapes and Astro - not all landscapes of course but when you need wider it is definitely nice to have.

The 16-55 is definitely a superb lens there's no doubting that. (I'm only spitballing here) but would a combination of the Viltrox 13mm f1.4 and XF 16-80 f4 cover most of your bases? The Viltrox is nice and wide, is a decent Astro lens and the 16-80 is an excellent landscape lens.

The only thing you are missing is a portrait lens to be fair - perhaps the cheaper 35mm f2? It is capable of excellent portraits and the difference between f1.4 and f2 isn't huge.

Again, I'm not saying these are better options for you, I'm merely offering an alternative strategy based on where my brain went.

Chanthawat said:

I am relatively new to the Fuji family and have picked my first camera gear as the x-t4 with the 50-140 f2.8 lens. With all the research I’ve done, I’ve come to a conclusion that the best landscape lens for me would be a 10-24. Which a used one would cost about 450$. My option for a cheap astro lens is the 16mm f2.8 which is around 250$. And the 35mm f1.4 for the portrait. Which they all together would round about 1150$. However, I have noticed that the 16-55 at a price of around 1000$ could do all of the above so I am contemplating between which pair or singular lens to get.

Click to expand...

I'll concentrate on your lens choice for astro, as your list seems fine for other uses. If what you're interested in is wide field astro (starscapes), then you'll find 16mm to likely be too long. You should probably be looking for something in the 12mm range (or even a bit wider) and with an f/2.8 aperture or faster. I used a Zeiss 12mm f/2.8 lens for years and it was an excellent choice for starscapes and also did a fine job on interiors (such as cathedrals). I've since replaced it with an 8-16 f/2.8, which I've found to be near perfect for astro and landscape work, and delivers excellent IQ across its FL range. I didn't see any guidance on your desired price ranges in your post, but this is not an inexpensive lens. So in spite of being nearly ideal for your usage, it can definitely be a "budget buster." Overall, the 16-55 you're considering is a superb lens for general purpose use (landscapes, interiors), but a bit long for starscapes IMHO. I've owned and used it for years and it spends plenty of time on my camera... but not for wide field astro.

Perhaps your desired price range might help narrow the list down a bit. Meanwhile, consider a fairly fast prime (at least f/2.8) in the 12mm or wider range if you can find one that's affordable.

Chanthawat said:

I am relatively new to the Fuji family and have picked my first camera gear as the x-t4 with the 50-140 f2.8 lens. With all the research I’ve done, I’ve come to a conclusion that the best landscape lens for me would be a 10-24. Which a used one would cost about 450$. My option for a cheap astro lens is the 16mm f2.8 which is around 250$. And the 35mm f1.4 for the portrait. Which they all together would round about 1150$. However, I have noticed that the 16-55 at a price of around 1000$ could do all of the above so I am contemplating between which pair or singular lens to get.

Click to expand...

Hi,

There's nothing wrong with any of them - all good glass for their respective uses.

The three zooms offer a great continuous 'spectrum' of FLs from 10-140mm. So they'd be very flexible. They do feature some overlap at the wide end (ie 10-24, 16-55 and 50-140) but the 16-55 can't go anywhere near as wide as the 10-24 - they are significantly different even if they overlap from 16-24mm).

The 16-55 overlaps the 16/2.8 and 35/1.4, though not in aperture. And it provides FL options you wouldn't get between 24-55 even if you bought the 10-24 too. I don't think it has the rendering of the 35/1.4 at 35mm/2.8. On the other hand, it offers 55/2.8 for portraits. It does all that but at some cost to weight - it's heavier than the 16/2.8 and 35/1.4 combined.

They would all work but lens choice is personal. Enjoy whatever you decide....

Hope that helps, Rod

GMacF said:

I can certainly see your reasoning here, however, personally I would want a lens wider than 16mm for landscapes and Astro - not all landscapes of course but when you need wider it is definitely nice to have.

The 16-55 is definitely a superb lens there's no doubting that. (I'm only spitballing here) but would a combination of the Viltrox 13mm f1.4 and XF 16-80 f4 cover most of your bases? The Viltrox is nice and wide, is a decent Astro lens and the 16-80 is an excellent landscape lens.

The only thing you are missing is a portrait lens to be fair - perhaps the cheaper 35mm f2? It is capable of excellent portraits and the difference between f1.4 and f2 isn't huge.

Again, I'm not saying these are better options for you, I'm merely offering an alternative strategy based on where my brain went.

Click to expand...

I agree with this reply.

The 16-55mm lens is a great lens for nearly all scenarios, but it doesn't excel at the genres you mentioned, unless the 16 is wide enough for you for landscapes.

The 16-55 is okay, but not great at astro. For that, look at the 12mm f2 Rokinon manual focus lens or 13mm f1.4 Viltrox autofocus lens. Both are in your price range and I'd think would be better for astro than the 16 f2.8. Both of these lenses would be fantastic for landscape photography as well.

The 10-24mm would be great for landscapes.

The 16-55mm certainly could be used for portraits, but it won't give you the same look as the 35mm f1.4.

I have all of the lenses mentioned above, so speaking from experience.

My recommendation would be to get the xf 35mm f1.4 and Viltrox 13mm f1.4. Both are spectacular lenses that fill your needs. Use those lenses first, and then figure out your use case. If you then think you need another lens, you could re-evaluate your needs.

Edited to add: I forgot to mention that I've heard of several people using the 50-140 for portraits and have had great results. If you want to save even more, just use that lens for portraits. (I don't own the 50-140, so can't speak from experience there.)

Tricky one, but 3 things I observe:

1. Perhaps you are less bothered about size and weight (you have the 50-140 after all!)
2. You have a broad range of interests (portraits/landscapes/astro), and this tends to drive conflicting design priorities (speed, size, weight) even at the same focal length.
3. All of the lenses you mention are good, they just have different design priorities. I've owned them all, but out of those you list, I only still have the 16-55 and 50-140...

Personally, I don't think you will ever go wrong with the 16-55 unless you crave those very compact primes that Fujifilm offers. And, even in those small primes, if you think of the 16-55 as an alternative to the 16/2.8, 35/1.4 and 50/2, it's basically the same weight as those three.

You mention 35/1.4 for portraits.... I'd argue you that already have an excellent and perhaps more suitable lens for this in the 50-140 (by virtue of the longer focal length). I am assuming here that you don't mean very low-light portraits ;-)

16/2.8 is a nice lens, but to me it's not really wide enough for landscape, even though it's actually a bit wider than 16mm. IMHO, while it's fine at typical landscape apertures, it's unexceptional at wider apertures, so a bit of a one-trick pony (it's trick being to be very compact and light).

The 10-24 has the width, but not the speed for astro. I would recommend the Viltrox 13/1.4 as an alternative that will do well for landscape and astro and is about the same size and weight as the zoom.

As I think has been mentioned, the 8-16 is fantastic (I've hired one), but cost, use of filters, size and weight might be issues.

So, for your interests, I would recommend getting the 16-55 and then adding in a wide, fast prime under that. Viltrox 13/1.4 as mentioned, or the budget option of Samyang 12/2 MF, if you're OK with manual focus only.

--
The camera is not your tool. The light is.
Tim
https://timtuckerphotography.com/blog
http://timtuckerphotography.com
https://www.instagram.com/timtuckerphotography/

But don't forget the OP has 50-140 already so I think he really needs is between 13 to 50 so I think he might add a 35 F1.4 and a 13 F1.4 Viltrox or a Viltrox 33 F1.4 instead of the aged Fuji 35 F1.4 so this pair is far cheaper than he is thinking to get.

The 10-24 is my favorite Fuji lens. It isn't overly big or heavy and it has great OIS. I use it in combination with the 55-200. This is my favorite landscape / holiday setup. It's also great for cityscapes, narrow streets and buildings. Next to these two I have a 56 as it's my favorite portrait lens. I never have the idea I need another lens.

Chanthawat said:

I am relatively new to the Fuji family and have picked my first camera gear as the x-t4 with the 50-140 f2.8 lens. With all the research I’ve done, I’ve come to a conclusion that the best landscape lens for me would be a 10-24. Which a used one would cost about 450$. My option for a cheap astro lens is the 16mm f2.8 which is around 250$. And the 35mm f1.4 for the portrait. Which they all together would round about 1150$. However, I have noticed that the 16-55 at a price of around 1000$ could do all of the above so I am contemplating between which pair or singular lens to get.

Click to expand...

I have used all these lenses. The 35 f/1.4 is a very nice lens, it's two stops faster than the 16-55 and has a nicer rendering for portraits, but don't actually use mine a lot - I don't like 35mm on its own all that much (a find it a bit tight for a compact walkabout option, so the trusty X100V usually gets the nod for that).

The 16mm f/2.8 is small, light and decent, but is optically inferior to the 16-55 at 16mm in every way.

The 10-24 can be a nice lens if you manage to find a good one, but the 16-55 is still better (and faster) over their shared focal range. I like to use my 16-55 with the Viltrox 13mm f/1.4 when I want a wider option (though 16mm is usually just wide enough). You can always stitch a few shots together if you need to go super wide, 16-55 images stitch easily.

All these lenses are good and can deliver excellent results, but If you want a single lens that always delivers great results in any situation without the swapping out lenses all the time, the super versatile 16-55 f/2.8 is a great choice, IMO. I have a bunch of nice primes but, honestly, the 16-55 sees way more use than most of them. And, of course, the 16-55 pairs perfectly with the 50-140 which you already have (and which is very capable in the portrait department).

+ 1 on the 8-16 if budget allows. It’s a very fine lens.

Chanthawat said:

I am relatively new to the Fuji family and have picked my first camera gear as the x-t4 with the 50-140 f2.8 lens. With all the research I’ve done, I’ve come to a conclusion that the best landscape lens for me would be a 10-24. Which a used one would cost about 450$. My option for a cheap astro lens is the 16mm f2.8 which is around 250$. And the 35mm f1.4 for the portrait. Which they all together would round about 1150$. However, I have noticed that the 16-55 at a price of around 1000$ could do all of the above so I am contemplating between which pair or singular lens to get.

Click to expand...

You already received a lot of valuable information.

From my point of view:

No, the 16-55 f/2.8 cannot do all of the above. Don´t misunderstand me, it´s a great lens which I also owe and dearly love. But it is neither fast enough for astro or portrait, as the more specialized lenses are, nor is wide enough as a specialized UWA lens is. Nevertheless it could can a lot of these topics, but without the extremes, providing a great IQ, all that in just one lens.

The 50-140 f/2.8 is a great lens, also for portraits, as long as you can handle the sometimes not so pleasant rendering of the out-of-focus areas.

My Fuji lens set, paired with an X-T3: Samyang 12mm f/2, Fuji 35mm f/1.4 (1st gen), 16-55mm f/2.8, 50-140mm f/2.8. The only thing I do not have, as it is not my shooting style, is an UWA, as for example the 10-24mm. Mosst use sees definitely the 16-55 f/2.8, then comes the 50-140 f/2.8 and finally the 35mm f/1.4.

Herbert

crowley213 said:

Chanthawat said:

I am relatively new to the Fuji family and have picked my first camera gear as the x-t4 with the 50-140 f2.8 lens. With all the research I’ve done, I’ve come to a conclusion that the best landscape lens for me would be a 10-24. Which a used one would cost about 450$. My option for a cheap astro lens is the 16mm f2.8 which is around 250$. And the 35mm f1.4 for the portrait. Which they all together would round about 1150$. However, I have noticed that the 16-55 at a price of around 1000$ could do all of the above so I am contemplating between which pair or singular lens to get.

Click to expand...

You already received a lot of valuable information.

From my point of view:

No, the 16-55 f/2.8 cannot do all of the above. Don´t misunderstand me, it´s a great lens which I also owe and dearly love. But it is neither fast enough for astro or portrait, as the more specialized lenses are, nor is wide enough as a specialized UWA lens is. Nevertheless it could can a lot of these topics, but without the extremes, providing a great IQ, all that in just one lens.

Click to expand...

I don't completely agree with that.

While it isn't optimal for astro, it is absolutely usable...


180 degrees from the bright galactic center, but arguably more challenging

I'm not sure why people think you must have razor thin DOF for a decent portrait. You do not...


Howdy

Need to go ultra-wide? Stitch. This is likely wider than you'd get with the 8mm prime, and with way more resolution and less obvious distortion...

View attachment c09f23d7d8d94a4888e72182f30610b5.jpg
A bunch of stitched overlapping handheld shots, no problem (Lightroom).

crowley213 said:

The 50-140 f/2.8 is a great lens, also for portraits, as long as you can handle the sometimes not so pleasant rendering of the out-of-focus areas.

My Fuji lens set, paired with an X-T3: Samyang 12mm f/2, Fuji 35mm f/1.4 (1st gen), 16-55mm f/2.8, 50-140mm f/2.8. The only thing I do not have, as it is not my shooting style, is an UWA, as for example the 10-24mm. Mosst use sees definitely the 16-55 f/2.8, then comes the 50-140 f/2.8 and finally the 35mm f/1.4.

Herbert

Click to expand...

--
Going forward, you can find me as ErikWithaK over at the new DPRevived, DPRFORUM, and FUIX forums, but DPRevived seems to be the place to be.

No need to completely agree, we all have our different point of views.

Yes, you can stitch, but not every shooting opportunity will allow it, make it possible.

Yes, you can also use the 16-55 for Astro, but doing so for example in highly light polluted areas may make it even more difficult to get the desired results.

No, no need for shallow depth of field in every portrait, but sometimes it’s just what somebody wants to make the image work in his perception.

Finally, I didn’t dismiss the lens in general, I just stated that it cannot do all (!) what specialized lenses can do.

Herbert

What a great discussion!

I have the 16 1.4, 50-140 and 33 1.4. Oh and 35f2.

I think putting a prime like the 33 or 35 on the camera for whatever purpose is fun in terms of learning the focal length. Sometimes though i wonder if i shouldn't have just gone 16-55 and skipped the primes. 1.4 doesn't give you magic powers in dim lighting over 2.8. The 50-140 is by far my favorite lens and if the 16-55 is similarly good i'm sure i'd love the results. Astro with the 16 1.4 is fun but for me not a frequent thing.

At some point i may trade/sell the 16 and 35 at which point the question will be do i use that money towards the 16-55 or a UW of some sort. Don't see enough 'wow' with the 10-24 photos posted around the net and feel like i'm probably not skilled enough to make frequent good use of the 8-16.

The 16-55mm is a truly superb lens and I sold my 16mm to put towards it. I kept the 35mm F1.4 as it was the first FujiFilm lens I bought, along with an X-T1, and I cannot bear to part with it.

But before I bought my 8-16mm I did want to have a go at Astro and on the strength of Erik's posts, bought a Viltrox 13mm. It is superb and is well up to OEM standard from a construction and optical quality perspective. You cannot go wrong with one.

But, as you have the 40-150mm I would, were I starting out again, invest in a 16-55mm to retain that seamless and high quality range of focal lengths from 16-150mm and consider the 10-24mm for a later purchase. I have the early Mk1 version and it is an excellent copy but the red badge zooms have a particular appeal for me and the IQ of both lenses suit me perfectly.

All the lenses you have identified are superb, its the choice that is difficult!

Erik Baumgartner said:

The 16mm f/2.8 is small, light and decent, but is optically inferior to the 16-55 at 16mm in every way.

Click to expand...

This might be true of your particular versions - as you've frequently indicated, but the tests don't agree with that assessment. The testing indicates that the prime is sharper in the center, but weaker on the edges (most likely due to the great extent of barrel correction). At times it might be better not to correct the barrel in raw processing - at which point you see very good sharpness due to lack of stretching on the 16/2.8.

The Fujicrons beyond 16 - 23, 35 and 50 - are very sharp, especially the 50. Of course, it becomes a matter of preference. Some folks really want to travel light and have the ability to pull in a bit more light or narrow the DoF.

Chanthawat said:

I am relatively new to the Fuji family and have picked my first camera gear as the x-t4 with the 50-140 f2.8 lens. With all the research I’ve done, I’ve come to a conclusion that the best landscape lens for me would be a 10-24. Which a used one would cost about 450$. My option for a cheap astro lens is the 16mm f2.8 which is around 250$. And the 35mm f1.4 for the portrait. Which they all together would round about 1150$. However, I have noticed that the 16-55 at a price of around 1000$ could do all of the above so I am contemplating between which pair or singular lens to get.

Click to expand...

I think the older version 10-24 is a great deal used - and the cost clearly went down when the Tamron 11-20 hit the market. However, the 10-24 isn't a good choice for astro work - even f/2.8 is limiting and f/4 is out of the question for serious wide astro.

It isn't perfect, but consider the Rokinon 12 f/2.0. Another really good value and the coma is excellent (the main consideration for astro... any good raw converter can deal with relatively minor CA and PF fringing issues).

See: https://www.lonelyspeck.com/rokinon-12mm-f2-0-ncs-cs-review/

JNR said:

Erik Baumgartner said:

The 16mm f/2.8 is small, light and decent, but is optically inferior to the 16-55 at 16mm in every way.

Click to expand...

This might be true of your particular versions - as you've frequently indicated, but the tests don't agree with that assessment. The testing indicates that the prime is sharper in the center, but weaker on the edges (most likely due to the great extent of barrel correction). At times it might be better not to correct the barrel in raw processing - at which point you see very good sharpness due to lack of stretching on the 16/2.8.

Click to expand...

I haven’t seen any testing that indicates this. Most testing for the 16-55 were done at 16MP and the 16 f/2.8 prime at 24/26MP which are not directly comparable. Any lenses tested with higher resolution sensors are going to have an advantage. As far as geometric correction goes, the 16-55 requires a fair bit of correction as well, yet has very good corner sharpness. While the prime’s corners might look better without correction, I’d much rather have sharp corners and low distortion. The prime is nowhere near as sharp wide open (which absolutely matters if you shoot in low light), and has significantly worse CA/fringing performance too - as I’m sure you know, there’s a lot more to image quality than just sharpness. Just considering IQ, if you’ve got a 16-55 on your camera, there is no reason whatsoever you would want to swap out the zoom for the 16 f/2.8 prime.

JNR said:

The Fujicrons beyond 16 - 23, 35 and 50 - are very sharp, especially the 50. Of course, it becomes a matter of preference. Some folks really want to travel light and have the ability to pull in a bit more light or narrow the DoF.

Click to expand...

Well sure, all these lenses can produce great results, as can the tiny 18 f/2 and 27 f/2.8, but the 16-55 can effectively replace all of them for most purposes. While it’s larger and heavier than any of these primes on their own, it’s certainly smaller and lighter than all of them.

If you want to travel super compact and light, the 16-55 might not be the best choice (I like the X100V for that), but if you want the simplest and most versatile single camera/single lens option - and one that still fits in the very compact and lightweight Peak Design 3L sling bag, the 16-55 f/2.8 makes a lot of sense.

Erik

Erik Baumgartner said:

JNR said:

Erik Baumgartner said:

The 16mm f/2.8 is small, light and decent, but is optically inferior to the 16-55 at 16mm in every way.

Click to expand...

This might be true of your particular versions - as you've frequently indicated, but the tests don't agree with that assessment. The testing indicates that the prime is sharper in the center, but weaker on the edges (most likely due to the great extent of barrel correction). At times it might be better not to correct the barrel in raw processing - at which point you see very good sharpness due to lack of stretching on the 16/2.8.

Click to expand...

I haven’t seen any testing that indicates this. Most testing for the 16-55 were done at 16MP and the 16 f/2.8 prime at 24/26MP which are not directly comparable. Any lenses tested with higher resolution sensors are going to have an advantage. As far as geometric correction goes, the 16-55 requires a fair bit of correction as well, yet has very good corner sharpness. While the prime’s corners might look better without correction, I’d much rather have sharp corners and low distortion. The prime is nowhere near as sharp wide open (which absolutely matters if you shoot in low light), and has significantly worse CA/fringing performance too - as I’m sure you know, there’s a lot more to image quality than just sharpness. Just considering IQ, if you’ve got a 16-55 on your camera, there is no reason whatsoever you would want to swap out the zoom for the 16 f/2.8 prime.

Click to expand...

The testing at Lenstip is pretty conclusive, and it is very apparent that the 16 f/2.8 has very little issues with CA or fringing - max of .05% (less than the 16-55 at 16 which had .09%, but both are good to very good). My 16/2.8 certainly does not have fringing issues. So, you got a bad copy, and you're positively certain that they are all bad.

Notice, I'm not referencing Opticallimits which most certainly got a bad copy of the 16-55, and stated that optical quality isn't significantly different from the 18-55. Fact is, you do tend to get more zooms that are bad copies because of the build complexities involved compared with primes. Still, the tests that come out below par should be discarded (unless many bad samples of a lens are apparent). You should take the same approach - and not generalize falsely about the 16 f/2.8 due to your bad luck.

Erik Baumgartner said:

Erik Baumgartner said:

The Fujicrons beyond 16 - 23, 35 and 50 - are very sharp, especially the 50. Of course, it becomes a matter of preference. Some folks really want to travel light and have the ability to pull in a bit more light or narrow the DoF.

Click to expand...

Well sure, all these lenses can produce great results, as can the tiny 18 f/2 and 27 f/2.8, but the 16-55 can effectively replace all of them for most purposes. While it’s larger and heavier than any of these primes on their own, it’s certainly smaller and lighter than all of them.

If you want to travel super compact and light, the 16-55 might not be the best choice (I like the X100V for that), but if you want the simplest and most versatile single camera/single lens option - and one that still fits in the very compact and lightweight Peak Design 3L sling bag, the 16-55 f/2.8 makes a lot of sense.

Click to expand...

Yep, folks who are OK with the weight despite no OIS are going to be fine with it. I would have stuck with full frame (not to mention MF film before that) if I was OK going with heavy equipment. I do think the big lens makes more sense now that Fuji has IBIS, and most of the bodies are heavier for proper weight balance. Just not my cup of tea.