Fujifilm 16mm F2.8 vs 16-50 F3.5-5.6 II

Started 6 months ago | Discussions
pepo930 New Member • Posts: 7
Fujifilm 16mm F2.8 vs 16-50 F3.5-5.6 II

Is it worth getting the Fuji 16mm f/2.8 if I already cover 16mm at f/3.5 using my 16-50 Kit Lens? The prime isn't even f/2.0 and the f/1.4 one is too expensive.

I want to shoot wide fashion portraits and street.

Dutch Newchurch
Dutch Newchurch Senior Member • Posts: 5,716
Re: Fujifilm 16mm F2.8 vs 16-50 F3.5-5.6 II
1

Probably not (if you are having to ask).

Have you identified any real limitation on the performance envelope of the zoom that would be solved by the prime?  If not, you've probably answered your own question.

(I had a similar situation myself where I had a prime that offered no real advantage over using a zoom at the same focal length.  I rarely used the prime and ended up selling it.  I don't miss it.)

-- hide signature --

Dutch
forestmoonstudio.co.uk
My DP Review gallery
Photography is about light, not light-proof boxes.

OP pepo930 New Member • Posts: 7
Re: Fujifilm 16mm F2.8 vs 16-50 F3.5-5.6 II

Dutch Newchurch wrote:

Have you identified any real limitation on the performance envelope of the zoom that would be solved by the prime? If not, you've probably answered your own question.

The limitation is that all the photos from the zoom lens look ok but not great. They have less sharpness, contrast and depth of field compared to the 35mm and 50mm primes that I have used. Those primes make everything "pop" even at more closed apertures.

However I haven't tested the 16mm f2.8 and I don't know if it'll be the same case.

Dutch Newchurch
Dutch Newchurch Senior Member • Posts: 5,716
Re: Fujifilm 16mm F2.8 vs 16-50 F3.5-5.6 II

pepo930 wrote:

Dutch Newchurch wrote:

Have you identified any real limitation on the performance envelope of the zoom that would be solved by the prime? If not, you've probably answered your own question.

The limitation is that all the photos from the zoom lens look ok but not great. They have less sharpness, contrast and depth of field compared to the 35mm and 50mm primes that I have used. Those primes make everything "pop" even at more closed apertures.

However I haven't tested the 16mm f2.8 and I don't know if it'll be the same case.

As you already have primes for those other focal lengths, and see that advantage, I'd say you may as well take the plunge.  Effectively you're keeping the zoom only as a wide-angle lens, so why not replace it with a wide angle prime.

(I prefer using primes anyway.  I use zooms only when I know I will need to change FL faster than I can by swapping lenses.)

-- hide signature --

Dutch
forestmoonstudio.co.uk
My DP Review gallery
Photography is about light, not light-proof boxes.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads