Wide Angle Lens - opinions please

Hi all

Here's my dilemma:

I'm currently working on upping my photo game. I haven't long been in manual mode (few months after years of auto) so am still getting to grips and learning as I go.

I have a trip coming up and want to have a go at some night skies and think my current lens set up might not be the best.

Usually, I mostly take landscapes or photos of my family. I'm fairly happy with my 23mm or 18-55 kit lens. I would at some point like to add the 50mm to my kit but for now think I need a wide angle.

I can see the benefit of the 10-24 in the flexibility but the F4 seems not great? Also think I'd prefer the sharpness of a prime.

16mm 1.4 - I've read great things about this and think the wide 1.4 will be great for night skies, but is 16mm wide enough to get the best results?

14mm 2.8 - Is the extra width better to have and trade off the on the F1.4 from the 16mm..

I know there are samyang wide options but I don't want to add manual focus into the mix right now. While that's probably not a problem when shooting night sky I can't see me using it for anything else as I am still focusing on Fstops/iso/SS.. could do without another thing to think about lol

Anyone got any advice that would help me. Have researched the hell out of each lens but would really value some more practical advice.

thanks

I would still consider a manual lens. Remember, everything further away than a meter or so will be sharp, so focussing (manual or auto) doesn’t really come into it. I recently bought the Laowa 9mm 8f/2.8 and am very pleased with it. The real learning curve with this lens is deciding when it can be used to good effect and focussing at very short distances, say 15cm.

jpig wrote:

Emile15 wrote:

I would still consider a manual lens. Remember, everything further away than a meter or so will be sharp, so focussing (manual or auto) doesn’t really come into it. I recently bought the Laowa 9mm 8f/2.8 and am very pleased with it. The real learning curve with this lens is deciding when it can be used to good effect and focussing at very short distances, say 15cm.

Yeah, people keep saying that, but ultra wide angles lenses are for getting up close, and when you do that, depth of field becomes an issue, and you will need to focus. Now if you just want to point it at a distant scene and snap away, fine, set it to f/8, focus to somewhere near infinity, and forget it. But that's not how I use an ultra wide angle. I have the Rokinon 12mm, and I like it a lot, especially for the price, but in my usage, focusing is necessary.

These were shot with the Rokinon 12mm at f/8 or f/11 (can't remember which) and not even particularly up close, but you can see that not everything is in focus. In both cases focus was set on the purple flower (lupine) closest to the center.

I have (and very much like) the Rokinon 12/2, and I agree with you that “infinity (or whatever) and f/8 (or whatever) *is not good practice*. I always use the max magnified focus (usually without any peaking). Sometimes it is just a tiny nudge (there’s not a lot of focus throw), but it really does matter. This is of course even more important with longer manual focus lenses like the stellar Rokinon 135/2, but it still improves images even at 12 mm and f/8.

I focus on my main subject at f/2 in the magnified view, and then stop down to my target aperture and look around the scene — still in magnified view — to make sure I’ve got the components of the scene I want in acceptable focus. Then I pop back out of magnified view and finalize framing and exposure (using exposure compensation, usually with auto ISO).

If I don’t need the very wide view (and I haven’t shot astro much), then the 16/1.4 is sharper (especially at the edges), renders highlights and sun stars better, and is easier to use. The 16/1.4 is of course much bigger and more expensive (and significantly narrower in field of view).

The Rokinon 8/2.8, 12/2, and 135/2 are very good to excellent optically (in my opinion, the 135 is best, followed by the 8 and then the 12, but the 8 mm fisheye is not as useful as the 12 for me) — and they are *incredible* bargains.

Too bad Fujifilm don’t offer any primes that compete with these lenses.

I have (and very much like) the Rokinon 12/2, and I agree with you that “infinity (or whatever) and f/8 (or whatever) *is not good practice*. I always use the max magnified focus (usually without any peaking). Sometimes it is just a tiny nudge (there’s not a lot of focus throw), but it really does matter. This is of course even more important with longer manual focus lenses like the stellar Rokinon 135/2, but it still improves images even at 12 mm and f/8.

I focus on my main subject at f/2 in the magnified view, and then stop down to my target aperture and look around the scene — still in magnified view — to make sure I’ve got the components of the scene I want in acceptable focus. Then I pop back out of magnified view and finalize framing and exposure (using exposure compensation, usually with auto ISO).

If I don’t need the very wide view (and I haven’t shot astro much), then the 16/1.4 is sharper (especially at the edges), renders highlights and sun stars better, and is easier to use. The 16/1.4 is of course much bigger and more expensive (and significantly narrower in field of view).

The Rokinon 8/2.8, 12/2, and 135/2 are very good to excellent optically (in my opinion, the 135 is best, followed by the 8 and then the 12, but the 8 mm fisheye is not as useful as the 12 for me) — and they are *incredible* bargains.

Too bad Fujifilm don’t offer any primes that compete with these lenses.

I'll be honest the point you've made about the 16 is exactly my dilemma.. such a great lens. I have planned to spend that much (was going for the 16-55 but have changed my mind..).

I just wonder if I will get more use out of the 16 - I do a lot of close ups, and most of my kids shots are pretty close too so if that is wide enough for a good landscape and new-level astro then I might get a lot more use out of it vs the 12mm options.

But.. I don't know if it is wide enough?

Baring in mind I am still learning key for me is keeping things simple!

Quindere wrote:

Photearoa wrote:

Hi all

Here's my dilemma:

I'm currently working on upping my photo game. I haven't long been in manual mode (few months after years of auto) so am still getting to grips and learning as I go.

I have a trip coming up and want to have a go at some night skies and think my current lens set up might not be the best.

Usually, I mostly take landscapes or photos of my family. I'm fairly happy with my 23mm or 18-55 kit lens. I would at some point like to add the 50mm to my kit but for now think I need a wide angle.

I can see the benefit of the 10-24 in the flexibility but the F4 seems not great? Also think I'd prefer the sharpness of a prime.

The XF 10-24mm from 10mm up to 18mm is sharp enough, the difference between 16mm and 14mm, both at F4 is negligible if you see the image from a "comfortable" distance. Beyond 18mm the wide zoom sharpness falls down, comparable with the primes. The zoom issue for your needs is that F4 is not good enough to night sky or astrophotography.

16mm 1.4 - I've read great things about this and think the wide 1.4 will be great for night skies, but is 16mm wide enough to get the best results?

The XF 16mm at F1.4 has many CA, that you need to stop it down to at least F2 for night sky photos. The Astro Lens rate at F2=1.875 and at F2.8=956. For any other kind of photography this lens is all they say about it.

14mm 2.8 - Is the extra width better to have and trade off the on the F1.4 from the 16mm..

The XF 14mm F2.8 has an Astro Lens rate at F2.8=1.032 and has CA well controlled at F2.8

I know there are samyang wide options but I don't want to add manual focus into the mix right now. While that's probably not a problem when shooting night sky I can't see me using it for anything else as I am still focusing on Fstops/iso/SS.. could do without another thing to think about lol

The Samy/Roki 12mm F2 has the best Astro Lens rate at F2=2.176 and has CA well controlled at F2. At 12mm the manual focus is not really a great issue. 12mm F5.6 you get focus from 1,5m to infinity. For night sky you already have to focus to infinity anyway.

Anyone got any advice that would help me. Have researched the hell out of each lens but would really value some more practical advice.

thanks

IMHO. If your first need/desire is for night sky/astrophotography, the best option is Samy/Roki 12mm F2 (now on sale for US$ 260).

If your first need/desire is for arquitectural (read great monuments), interiors, landscapes and cityscapes you will be very well served with both XF 14mm F2.8 (lightweight for US$ 899,00 - not on sale now) and XF 10-24mm F4 OIS (most versatile now on sale for US$ 749,00).

If your first need/desire is low light situations and group portraits I'll bet in the XF 16mm F1.4 (now on sale for US$ 749,00).

But take in count that all three lenses can be useful enough for all kind of photos listed but with the drawbacks of each one. Only you can answer what is your first goal and make the right choice.

Hope could help you.

sorry for novice question but what's your CA abbreviation?

You have got me thinking now that I could spend the same amount and get a Samyang 12 for astro and the fuji 10-24 for everything else for the same price pretty much as the 16.. lol.

Photearoa wrote:

Hi all

Here's my dilemma:

I'm currently working on upping my photo game. I haven't long been in manual mode (few months after years of auto) so am still getting to grips and learning as I go.

I have a trip coming up and want to have a go at some night skies and think my current lens set up might not be the best.

Usually, I mostly take landscapes or photos of my family. I'm fairly happy with my 23mm or 18-55 kit lens. I would at some point like to add the 50mm to my kit but for now think I need a wide angle.

I can see the benefit of the 10-24 in the flexibility but the F4 seems not great? Also think I'd prefer the sharpness of a prime.

16mm 1.4 - I've read great things about this and think the wide 1.4 will be great for night skies, but is 16mm wide enough to get the best results?

I owned the 16 and found it too long in some shooting situations. I loved the lens but sold it and got the 12mm rokinon. The 12mm was an excellent focal length for me but I didn’t get along with the manual focus  and just sold it. It’s ironic because I own about 15 vintage lenses and love using them. But for wide angle, I found manual focusing fussy. Even when shooting distant scenes and landscapes, I did not find I could just set it infinity. I had to find the sweet spot, and focus peaking is harder to see with a wide lens. (My experience anyway). There’s just so much going on in the viewfinder, I couldn’t find focus well

14mm 2.8 - Is the extra width better to have and trade off the on the F1.4 from the 16mm..

i just traded my 12 for this lens. I’m not worried about the f stop. For my shooting needs with this lens, 2.8 is fine. I didn’t get it yet so can’t report on it but I’ve read positive things.

I know there are samyang wide options but I don't want to add manual focus into the mix right now. While that's probably not a problem when shooting night sky I can't see me using it for anything else as I am still focusing on Fstops/iso/SS.. could do without another thing to think about lol

Anyone got any advice that would help me. Have researched the hell out of each lens but would really value some more practical advice.

thanks

IMHO, if you are not realistically going to devote time into astro to learn via trial and error, go with the lens that will give you the most utility and flexibility.

I think it’s worth having both the 16 and 10-24, but if I had to choose just one, I would get the 16. It is really special and has the added bonus of having a very close focusing distance, so not only do you get a wider FL to play with (environmental portraits), the wide aperture (low light photos), but you get to play with really close focusing.

Quindere wrote:

16mm 1.4 - I've read great things about this and think the wide 1.4 will be great for night skies, but is 16mm wide enough to get the best results?

The XF 16mm at F1.4 has many CA, that you need to stop it down to at least F2 for night sky photos. The Astro Lens rate at F2=1.875 and at F2.8=956. For any other kind of photography this lens is all they say about it.

The XF 14mm F2.8 has an Astro Lens rate at F2.8=1.032 and has CA well controlled at F2.8

The Samy/Roki 12mm F2 has the best Astro Lens rate at F2=2.176 and has CA well controlled at F2. At 12mm the manual focus is not really a great issue. 12mm F5.6 you get focus from 1,5m to infinity. For night sky you already have to focus to infinity anyway.

It is not CA (chromatic aberration) that you are referring to. The XF 16mm has sagittal astigmatism at f/1.4 and still at f/2 which makes bright stars and human lights look like small segments of a circle. It also has some fringing (blue or red) around the brightest stars wide open.

The Samyang has different characteristics, but the stars tend to be radially stretched near the edges (looks more like coma) with color fringes on them and chromatic aberration. I actually like my XF 16mm F1.4, better star color and size (brightness) impression, only it is not as wide. My Samyang copy is a hell to focus, not flat field, I often have to choose between horizon sharp or stars.

It is not CA (chromatic aberration) that you are referring to. The XF 16mm has sagittal astigmatism at f/1.4 and still at f/2 which makes bright stars and human lights look like small segments of a circle. It also has some fringing (blue or red) around the brightest stars wide open.

The Samyang has different characteristics, but the stars tend to be radially stretched near the edges (looks more like coma) with color fringes on them and chromatic aberration. I actually like my XF 16mm F1.4, better star color and size (brightness) impression, only it is not as wide. My Samyang copy is a hell to focus, not flat field, I often have to choose between horizon sharp or stars.

So based on your own experience would you say the 16mm would be a good choice then? Enough for a beginner at Astro and good uses elsewhere.. even with the trade off on the width?

cilucia wrote:

IMHO, if you are not realistically going to devote time into astro to learn via trial and error, go with the lens that will give you the most utility and flexibility.

I think it’s worth having both the 16 and 10-24, but if I had to choose just one, I would get the 16. It is really special and has the added bonus of having a very close focusing distance, so not only do you get a wider FL to play with (environmental portraits), the wide aperture (low light photos), but you get to play with really close focusing.

Cool - I think this is good advice by the sounds of it. Would love to have more time to devote but with a 3 & 5 YO and a full time job I don’t always have the energy to stay up all night looking at the stars!

I can imagine the 16mm will be a really useful lens for me and if it’s good enough to dabble with some star shots, that’s what I need!

A lot of good advice given. So to add some confusion I would say that for your family photos a 56 1.2 would give you a distinct look unlike anything else. You can get those dreamy portraits which are unmistakeable.

Photearoa wrote:

Hi all

Here's my dilemma:

I'm currently working on upping my photo game. I haven't long been in manual mode (few months after years of auto) so am still getting to grips and learning as I go.

I have a trip coming up and want to have a go at some night skies and think my current lens set up might not be the best.

There is one true answer for that, but you won't like it: 12mm f2.

Usually, I mostly take landscapes or photos of my family. I'm fairly happy with my 23mm or 18-55 kit lens. I would at some point like to add the 50mm to my kit but for now think I need a wide angle.

I can see the benefit of the 10-24 in the flexibility but the F4 seems not great? Also think I'd prefer the sharpness of a prime.

16mm 1.4 - I've read great things about this and think the wide 1.4 will be great for night skies, but is 16mm wide enough to get the best results?

It's a great lens. Not that great for astrophotography though. Too tight. You want night skies on Fuji? I think the 14mm will get much better results. You could also consider the XF 16mm f2.8. Smaller, cheaper and lighter. Again though: for night skies, you'd rather go wider.

14mm 2.8 - Is the extra width better to have and trade off the on the F1.4 from the 16mm..

Amazing lens. Very underappreciated sadly. But that means you can get one used for very little money. I got mine for 380 and then sold it for 410. F2.8 really isn't slow.

I know there are samyang wide options but I don't want to add manual focus into the mix right now. While that's probably not a problem when shooting night sky I can't see me using it for anything else as I am still focusing on Fstops/iso/SS.. could do without another thing to think about lol

I understand that. I would, however, suggest you keep in mind that with lenses as wide as these, manual focus is not something that you really need to think about. With the Samyang 12mm f2, you can shoot at anything upwards of f4 and everything from around a metre to infinity will be in focus.

Also, when shooting the nighty sky, you need to use manual focus. There's also the 12mm Zeiss which also has autofocus.

Anyone got any advice that would help me. Have researched the hell out of each lens but would really value some more practical advice.

thanks

If you really want a Fujifilm autofocus lens, go for the 14mm. It's a great lens and can do some amazing street photography as well. However, do give the 12mm another thought.

Oh. And let's not forget about prices. In theory, you could get a new 12mm f2 + a mint 14mm f2.8 or a new 16mm f2.8 and spend less money than for a new 16mm f1.4.

I had the 16mm f1.4. I ended up selling it. Not because it is a bad lens. It'd be insanity to say it is. It's a great lens. But it really is a big one too. Compared to other Fujifilm primes, it's a behemoth. That f1.4 is great but in the end, for astrophotography you'd still want to go either wider or much more narrow.

The close focussing is mostly a gimmick. You'll be shooting these pseudo-macro shots in the beginning like crazy, being amazed by how close you can get with getting the background included. But in the end, these are most times not creative shots nor are the results so amazing. And, in the end, the 16mm f2.8 has similar close focussing capabilities too, only at a much smaller package and for much less money.

Absolutely.. that is on my wish list! Prioritising the wide angle as I have a trip coming up and really want to have a go at the remote New Zealand skies!