16-55 f/2.8 /16 2.8 I.Q test shots

So I'm currently faced with two rather good deals on the above mentioned lenses, and although I know there is some sample variation, with the 16-55 being a premium lens price wise (even used), I'd like to have some shots to (unscientifically) compare mine with, before I pull the plug on this one.

Also if anyone has some shots taken with the 16 f/2.8, I'd be also very grateful those shots were to get shared here.

Many many thanks to anyone who contributes. Cheers.

I just posted this in another thread. 16mm at f/8.

16-55 @ 16mm, f/8

yayatosorus wrote:

So I'm currently faced with two rather good deals on the above mentioned lenses, and although I know there is some sample variation, with the 16-55 being a premium lens price wise (even used), I'd like to have some shots to (unscientifically) compare mine with, before I pull the plug on this one.

Also if anyone has some shots taken with the 16 f/2.8, I'd be also very grateful those shots were to get shared here.

Many many thanks to anyone who contributes. Cheers.

Hi! Here I made a comparison of my 16/1.4 and 16-55/2.8 both at f/5.6. Hope it helps! 🙂

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63819441

@Erik Thanks a lot! @Mike Dík moc!

yayatosorus wrote:

So I'm currently faced with two rather good deals on the above mentioned lenses, and although I know there is some sample variation, with the 16-55 being a premium lens price wise (even used), I'd like to have some shots to (unscientifically) compare mine with, before I pull the plug on this one.

Also if anyone has some shots taken with the 16 f/2.8, I'd be also very grateful those shots were to get shared here.

Many many thanks to anyone who contributes. Cheers.

The entire Rome album on my website below was taken with the 16mm f2.8 (except one or two).

yayatosorus wrote:

@Erik Thanks a lot! @Mike Dík moc!

Rádo se stalo 😉

If I could afford it I would go with the Brick.

The 16-55 is sharp enough to produce moire effects when shooting a computer screen.

Computer screen, 16-55mm @ 16mm, f/2.8

I don't have a lot of shots at 16mm, but here's one.  If you look closely there are issues with the tree leaves, but I think that's motion blur due to the low shutter speed rather than an issue with the lens.

Bell Works (formerly Bell Labs) 16-55mm @ 16mm, f/2.8, cropped

Here a few @16mm:

Hi,

I don't have The Brick, but have the 16/1.4 and 16/2.8.  I bought the 16/1.4 when it was the only 16mm available, and the 16/2.8 last year and haven't used it enough.  These two are the only side-by-side comparative shots I've taken...... No PP,  SOOC from my XT1 (16mpx), no filters, on tripod, self timer release.  An obvious difference is that the 16/2.8 has a very slightly wider FOV.

Posted before, but if anyone wants to make comparative observations, I'm interested.  I haven't decided which to keep and the answer might just be both.

Cheers, Rod

16/2.8 @f5.6

16/1.4@f5.6

Hi, if you had the brick, would you rather keep the 2.8 as it is so light and slightly wider, or keep the 1.4, as it is brighter?

And thanks so far to all for your contributions!

They are both excellent lenses, so no chance of making a bad choice, so to speak. Do you need the convenience of a zoom, or not?

One thing I know from experience: I much prefer to carry the little 16 f2.8 while on the walking trails.

yayatosorus wrote:

Hi, if you had the brick, would you rather keep the 2.8 as it is so light and slightly wider, or keep the 1.4, as it is brighter?

And thanks so far to all for your contributions!

I never shoot the 16/1.4 at f1.4.  I bought it for the FL, not it's aperture, when it was the only 16mm available.  I'm into landscape, so I tend shoot at around f5.6.   I rather wish Fuji had offered one 16/2 in the first place.  Just as good but a bit smaller and lighter.

When I've thought about buying the Brick, it would be to replace all my primes, if it was optically up to it, not just the 16mm.  I'd then need just a macro - which the 16-55 isn't good at - and a tele.  So far, I haven't been convinced, so I'm still changing lenses.....

There are other aspects to shifting to the zoom that people tend to overlook.....  A Fuji with 16-55 is a substantially heavier and more front-weighted beast than the same camera with any of the small primes.  My lighter tripods probably wouldn't offer as much stability as they do to a camera with a 16/2.8 or any of the f2 lenses.  It would be fine on my heavier Gitzo, but not on my Slik 634 or Sirui. So the light end of my tripod collection might need revision.   And then there's filters.  For my interests, I'd need a clear, a CPL, a graduated ND, and two ND stoppers, all in 77mm - maybe five hundred dollars worth of good quality filters.  Not cheap.

Cheers, Rod

Thanks for your input, very helpful. To be honest I'm kinda torn, since what I really need is something at the wide end. I have the 35 f/2, which I adore and then a bunch of MF lenses that go all the way from 35 to 210mm.

What I would really like is to have the 16-50mm range covered with AF lenses. Now I have three options. One where I purchase a 16 f/2.8, and a 23 f/2 (I already have a MF 50 so that wouldn't be so bad) or a 16 f/2.8 and an 18-55 f/2.8-4, which really hasn't impressed me with it's I.Q, and I'm not super excited with the idea of trying to dig my way trough sample variation and last but not least there's the option of a 16-55 f/2.8.

Now I can get a 16-55 for the same price as the 16 and the 23 on the used market, with the possibility to test all lenses.

I have a month long overseas trip coming and I'd really like to try to minimize my kit to the bare minimum - So the primes suit this perfectly and I'd get the 16, 23, 35, 50, 135 focal lengths covered. One the other time there's a voice telling me that at this price the brick is great value.

yayatosorus wrote:

Thanks for your input, very helpful. To be honest I'm kinda torn, since what I really need is something at the wide end. I have the 35 f/2, which I adore and then a bunch of MF lenses that go all the way from 35 to 210mm.

What I would really like is to have the 16-50mm range covered with AF lenses. Now I have three options. One where I purchase a 16 f/2.8, and a 23 f/2 (I already have a MF 50 so that wouldn't be so bad) or a 16 f/2.8 and an 18-55 f/2.8-4, which really hasn't impressed me with it's I.Q, and I'm not super excited with the idea of trying to dig my way trough sample variation and last but not least there's the option of a 16-55 f/2.8.

Now I can get a 16-55 for the same price as the 16 and the 23 on the used market, with the possibility to test all lenses.

I have a month long overseas trip coming and I'd really like to try to minimize my kit to the bare minimum - So the primes suit this perfectly and I'd get the 16, 23, 35, 50, 135 focal lengths covered. One the other time there's a voice telling me that at this price the brick is great value.

16mm f2.8 is so small and optically good. I've always thought the brick looked good but in reality, If I was prepared to carry that around I'd still have my 5D...

Hi Biza,

Really like the second shot.  Where is that?

Thx, cheers, Rd

Thanks. That is in Portugal southwest coast of Alentejo province.

Hi Paul,

Thanks.  I couldn't recognize the spot, yet the coastal plants looked very similar to those we get along arid coasts in Southern Australia.

Cheers, Rod

MrSee wrote:

If I could afford it I would go with the Brick.

I have The Brick and it’s a great lens at 16mm wide open. But neither it nor the 16mmf2.8 will be bokeh beasts.  For that tou need the 16mmf1.4.  And then there’s the price difference, The Brick will be double the price of the 16mm but you are buying a bag of primes with this lens. At 16mm the prime may in fact be a little sharper wide open than the 16-55 but only if you’re a pixel peeper.

If you want a good, lightweight, wide angle lens for street shooting then the 16mm is the way to go. If you’re shooting a smaller camera like XE3 or XPro then get the 16mm. If you already have primes ar 23,35,50,56mm then get the 16mm.

Rod McD wrote:

Hi,

I don't have The Brick, but have the 16/1.4 and 16/2.8. I bought the 16/1.4 when it was the only 16mm available, and the 16/2.8 last year and haven't used it enough. These two are the only side-by-side comparative shots I've taken...... No PP, SOOC from my XT1 (16mpx), no filters, on tripod, self timer release. An obvious difference is that the 16/2.8 has a very slightly wider FOV.

Posted before, but if anyone wants to make comparative observations, I'm interested. I haven't decided which to keep and the answer might just be both.

Cheers, Rod

16/2.8 @f5.6

16/1.4@f5.6

The 16mmf1.4 begs to be shot wide open!!  So if you don’t plan on shootng below f2.8 then sell it.  I can’t see much difference between these lenses at f5.6.