XF 14mm vs XF 10-24 Infrared Samples

Hi All,

I have seen a lot of people asking about the hotspot of the 10-24, fortunately I have the 10-24 and had the 14mm but im definitely getting the 14mm again for my IR work. The hotspot of the 10-24 is very bad and un workable. Here they are. Hope this is of help to others out there.

XF 14mm

XF 10-24

Editing: Raw ACR- WB Correct and exposure / PS- Color Channel invert then saturated to about 50 to get the colors.

Best Regards,

Gid

Yikes.

That’s even worse than the 18-55mm.

Fuggedaboudit.

Thanks for sharing.

What filter did you use?

a picture is worth a thousand words. So these end any controversy including the reference to Tony Sweet who may have fixed results in post - which can be impossible to do if it occurs in the bad spot. I know, i tried to make the 18-55 work but not worth the effort.

Yet another reason for my to be happy with the Fuji 14mm!

Wow, I'd heard about it but this proves it. That's unusable.

Is this sort of thing endemic with zooms, or in other words are there zoom lenses without hotspots?

94 wrote:

Wow, I'd heard about it but this proves it. That's unusable.

Is this sort of thing endemic with zooms, or in other words are there zoom lenses without hotspots?

The fuji 55-200 is great, i personally tested it, as is the 16-50.

Using a smaller, much more affordable filter system like Hitech 67mm would be another one as would be size and robustness and manual handling.

Good to know. I am just sending my XE1 out for an infrared conversion. I have the 14mm and am leaning against buying the 10-24 anyway. I think I'll wait for the fast wide prime to add. 14mm is wide enough for me on the wide end.

Rich

gidferrer wrote:

Al Valentino wrote:

94 wrote:

Wow, I'd heard about it but this proves it. That's unusable.

Is this sort of thing endemic with zooms, or in other words are there zoom lenses without hotspots?

The fuji 55-200 is great, i personally tested it, as is the 16-50.

Im planning to get a lens for IR, so the 16-50 doesnt have any hotspot? Planning to buy the 14mm but if the 16-50 doesnt have any hotspot then i would consider it.

Member stillman3 purchased it to use for IR. It is just about the perfect for both the range, and OIS if you have to handhold with a filter, not a problem with a converted body.

16mm Is wide enough not to purchase the 14mm just for IR

Wow.  I had originally pre-ordered the 10-24, then Fuji had the great lens sale.  After reading more and more about how so many folks were thrilled with their 14, I canceled the order for the 10-24 and bought the 14 on sale.  Really glad I did!

afragisk wrote:

jrk wrote:

Wow. I had originally pre-ordered the 10-24, then Fuji had the great lens sale. After reading more and more about how so many folks were thrilled with their 14, I canceled the order for the 10-24 and bought the 14 on sale. Really glad I did!

I did and feel exactly the same thing. I had also cancelled the 56, or at least I thought I did but one day it arrived at my door and hasn't left my camera bag ever since - bit off topic, I know..

Great minds think alike!  I also ordered the 56 and have really been enjoying it.  It has opened up a new avenue for me, I hadn't been really into portraits, etc. but am really starting to get into it the more I learn.

Here is a sample of the 14mm. Captured with a Hoya 72R filter handheld at ISO 3200. This is lower manhattan, New York City's showing the World Trade Center complex with the new skyline.

First is Faux color IR from channel swapping plus some touch up... The second is a BW version of the first.

14mm Faux Color IR

14mm same as above but used Nik Silver Efex plugin for BW version

Sorry for upping old thread but why not create some layer mask to compensate for the hotspot?
One I attach is a bit draft and is from Lightroom.