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

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!

The Mighty 16 at f1.4 begs to be shot wide open. If you want to shoot environmental portraits and need some subject isolation then the 1.4 is your baby. It has decent bokeh when shot wide open, as in a shallow depth of field. So shotting at 1.4 will give you two stops more light over the 16mmf2.8 but at the expense of a fuzzy background (unless you want that).

But if you intend on shooting landscapes or street shots and want a big DoF then get the lighter, cheaper yet capable 16mmf2.8

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.

The 18-55 is a great lens. Professional landscape photographer Andy Mumford carries the 18-55 in his bag along with some primes and the 55-200.  The 16f2.8 + 18-55 would be a good combo for travel.

So I've tested the two lenses in a dim environment and I've found the 16 f/2.8 to be quite a bit slower to focus than the 16-55. Was it just a bad copy or is this a fact? I've checked out some of the testing sites and there was no mention of it being a slower to focus.

yayatosorus wrote:

So I've tested the two lenses in a dim environment and I've found the 16 f/2.8 to be quite a bit slower to focus than the 16-55. Was it just a bad copy or is this a fact? I've checked out some of the testing sites and there was no mention of it being a slower to focus.

That surprises me actually, as I've always found the 16mm f2.8 to focus very quickly, even on an X-T1!

Some shots with the 16-55 yesterday:

Bauline, Newfoundland

I think it was a tad bit slower than my 35/2. The 16-55 focused instantly, I was very impressed. The 16 2.8 always hesitated for half a second a then acquired focus. I guess the LM motors on the 16-55 really work wonders, and by no means did I want to say the 16 f/2.8 is slow, but next to the 16-55 it is slower, that or it was just a bad copy.

Hi,

It depends entirely on what sort of images you're interested in.  I shot these two test shots at f5.6 because the lab test site reports and many reviews indicate that both lenses are optimal at around f4-5.6.  I wanted to compare them at their optimum and at apertures I would actually use.  That's more important to me than f1.4, though it's nice to have it if needed.

I'm into landscape and nature mostly and architecture in my travels.  Neither are typically shot wide open, so I rarely shoot the 16/1.4 at f1.4.  I think it's just a whisker crisper than the 16/2.8 in these two images.   Have a careful look at 100% .  Eg check out the lattice work on the upper verandah of the rear building.  It may be that the focus was in a very slightly different place, so affecting the DOF, but I think in these two images, the 16/1.4 has a very slight edge.  I don't know how big you'd have to print to see it in a print.  It probably doesn't matter, but if you want the best from the format, and are prepared to be exacting to get it, it may be the better lens.  I need to get out with both and shoot some more side-by-sides to confirm.

Regards, Rod

Many thanks for taking the time to write this, these are some very valuable observations.