X-T1 and 14mm f2.8 for hiking

The X-T1 and 14mm f/2.8 make a great and light combo for hiking.

It's very light and easy to carry, and the 14mm quality is impressive.

Some of the last hike in Lac Bleu, Evolene, Switzerland.

Pictures processed in LR.6.6 with Pro Neg. profiles

And one with the 18-55, which is also an impressive lens!

C&C welcomed

Very nicely done.  I hiked in the Engadine  region 10 years ago, and it was stunning.

Very lovely, looks like a fun hike.!

Just what I needed
I'm going to buy that 14mm for the same purpose and these images look very good. 
My only wide angle is 18mm (on 18-55) which is not as sharp as I would like.

Great pictures!  I especially like #3.

I couldn't agree more, the 14mm is a fantastic lens, I'm so glad I picked one up a couple years back.

JimMoyer wrote:

Very nicely done. I hiked in the Engadine region 10 years ago, and it was stunning.

Thank you Jim.

Great, Engadine is a very nice place. You should come to Valais one day, landscapes are stunning too

Could anyone that has both comment on the usefulness of having both the 14 and 16? I have and like the 16, but sometimes a bit wider and smaller would be nice. Is there enough difference to make it worth owning both? I've considered the Samyang and Zeiss 12s, but each of those has issues that have kept me from making the purchase.

Thanks.

CeeDave wrote:

Could anyone that has both comment on the usefulness of having both the 14 and 16? I have and like the 16, but sometimes a bit wider and smaller would be nice. Is there enough difference to make it worth owning both? I've considered the Samyang and Zeiss 12s, but each of those has issues that have kept me from making the purchase.

Thanks.

Honestly I went with the 10-24 instead of the 14.

I realize the 14 is tiny and very sharp, but it's very close to 16mm (which I already own) so I figured going really wide was the answer

If I'm willing to carry the 16mm on a hike, I'm certainly willing to carry the 10-24 (they're actually very similar).

CeeDave wrote:

Could anyone that has both comment on the usefulness of having both the 14 and 16? I have and like the 16, but sometimes a bit wider and smaller would be nice. Is there enough difference to make it worth owning both? I've considered the Samyang and Zeiss 12s, but each of those has issues that have kept me from making the purchase.

Thanks.

I don't have the 16mm but frequently use a 24mm on FF.

The 14mm is an odd FL, and not an easy one to use. Sometimes I wish it were a bit wider, sometimes a bit narrower. If you are used to the 16mm (24mm eq), 14mm could be a bit too close to your taste.

For me, the 14mm has a steep learning curve. I'm not yet really easy with it. But I like challenges and learning. And optically, it's mindblowing.

If I had the 16mm, I would perhaps consider the much more versatile 10-24 or a 12mm.

Hello Frederic and others,

Well, I committed to buy...

With the Fuji 16/1.4 and an Samyang et al. 8/2.8 MF fisheye in hand, I've been comparing

• Samyang et al. 10/2.8 -- 86 by 77 mm, 580 g, ~$US 450
• Samyang et al. 12/2 -- 59 by 72.5 mm, 245 g, ~$US 320
• Zeiss 12/2.8 -- 68 by 88 mm, 260 g, ~$US 700 (with sale disc of $300)
• Fuji 14/2.8 -- 58.4 by 65 mm, 235 g, ~$US600, (with sale disc of $300)
• Fuji 10-24/4 -- 87 by 78 mm, 410 g, ~$US800 (with sale disc of $200)

All prices are new, checked at two US web sites.

All of these have their pluses and minuses regarding size, distortion, sharpness, vignetting, and cost.

The Samyang 10 is large and new, with very few reviews that I could find; the Fuji zoom is quite large (and expensive). The others are comparable in size, with the Zeiss being a bit bigger, partly due to its characteristic flared shape and the way the objective and filter threads are built. The 12 and 14 are very similar in size.

The Samyang 12 is the fastest, but that's not my main concern at this FL. For similar reasons, I'm not swayed by availability of OIS in the 10-24. And MF is easy to get right with the DoF at these FLs.

Unsurprisingly, the MF Samyangs are way cheaper than all the others --- like half as much!

After reading all the relevant reviews I could find, and looking at sample images and my own photo library, I have decided on the Samyang 12, because

• Good FL -- separated from 16mm, but not as hard to use as 10mm
• Sharp center, but may need to stop down to f/5.6 for good edges
• Acceptable distortion; about as good as all alternatives but the 14, but I will have to correct in PP as needed (and not automated)
• Fairly compact -- only the Fuji 14 is (slightly) smaller
• Lateral chromatic abberation is a bit much, but I can correct it when it's critical -- again, manually, since the lens has no electrical connection to the camera
• Same for vignetting, but that's an issue for all of these lenses (but not auto for the Samyangs); not as big of a problem if already stopping down for edge sharpness
• Fast f/2 -- not critical for me at this FL, and may often stop down for sharpness and to suppress vignetting, but having speed available is never a bad thing
• Good reputation as a night sky lens, which I might enjoy trying...
• Inexpensive
• Already have this filter size (for the 16)

Found one used at a good price, so I ordered it.

Pixnat2 wrote:

CeeDave wrote:

Could anyone that has both comment on the usefulness of having both the 14 and 16? I have and like the 16, but sometimes a bit wider and smaller would be nice. Is there enough difference to make it worth owning both? I've considered the Samyang and Zeiss 12s, but each of those has issues that have kept me from making the purchase.

Thanks.

I don't have the 16mm but frequently use a 24mm on FF.

The 14mm is an odd FL, and not an easy one to use. Sometimes I wish it were a bit wider, sometimes a bit narrower. If you are used to the 16mm (24mm eq), 14mm could be a bit too close to your taste.

For me, the 14mm has a steep learning curve. I'm not yet really easy with it. But I like challenges and learning. And optically, it's mindblowing.

If I had the 16mm, I would perhaps consider the much more versatile 10-24 or a 12mm.