16/2.8 and 16/1.4 - Comparison image pair - Thoughts?

Started 4 months ago | Discussions
Rod McD Veteran Member • Posts: 7,297
16/2.8 and 16/1.4 - Comparison image pair - Thoughts?
2

Hi,

I've owned a 16/1.4 for a few years and like it, but for the fact that carrying the 16/1.4, 23/1.4, 35/1.4, a longer lens and a tripod as a landscape kit starts to become heavy for hiking when you're also carrying a tent, sleeping bag, stove, clothes, food and water and all that stuff as well...... So, last major Fuji sale (before the pandemic) I bought a 16/2.8 (and found a used 23/2 too) to compare them. I haven't got to use it much since :-(.

Here's a detailed image from each of the 16mm lenses.  From the local botanic park.  Sorry it was midwinter - the pond is a sea of waterlily flowers in summer.  Both shot at f8 (as befits a landscape image with deep DOF). 16mpx, ISO200, SOOC from my XT1, solid tripod, no filter. How do you think they compare. And why? And at what print size would you see the difference? (Ignore the fact that they confirm that the 16/2.8 has a slightly wider FOV.) I'll tell you my take on them in a reply post.

Cheers, Rod

16/2.8 @ f8 and ISO200. SOOC, tripod, no filter.

16/1.4 @ f8 and ISO200. SOOC, tripod, no filter.

 Rod McD's gear list:Rod McD's gear list
Canon PowerShot G1 X Olympus Tough TG-4 Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro +16 more
Fujifilm X-T1
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
Morris0
Morris0 Forum Pro • Posts: 18,128
Re: 16/2.8 and 16/1.4 - Comparison image pair - Thoughts?
2

The 2.8 seems to be a touch sharper and also have a bit more contrast Rod.  Both could be addressed in processing

Morris

 Morris0's gear list:Morris0's gear list
Fujifilm X-T3 Fujifilm XF 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 R LM OIS WR Fujifilm 50mm F2 R WR XF 90mm Sigma 150-600mm F5-6.3 | C +11 more
Foxjet Contributing Member • Posts: 891
Re: 16/2.8 and 16/1.4 - Comparison image pair - Thoughts?

Interesting and thought provoking comparison, besides the field of view difference you pointed out the main difference I see is the shadows are lighter with the f2 lens, maybe processing or could it be exposure or rendering? My take away is that if a person is not going to use the f1.4 in their work and landscapes are the object the f2 lens gives the same result.

 Foxjet's gear list:Foxjet's gear list
Fujifilm X100T Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm X-T3 +1 more
Erik Baumgartner Senior Member • Posts: 3,212
Re: 16/2.8 and 16/1.4 - Comparison image pair - Thoughts?

Well the 16 f/1.4 is definitely better, but not by a mile. You might see a more significant difference with a 24MP camera, but maybe not. Also, I imagine you could get significantly more fine detail out of either of these images with careful RAW processing (which also might also reveal a greater difference in image quality between them). That said, I think the f/2.8 lens put in a very good showing here and looks to be far better than the one I used briefly at a lens tryout event. The copy I tried had more CA issues than any other Fuji glass I've ever used and wasn't even in the same zip code as my 16-55 in overall image quality at 16mm, especially at f/2.8. Yours looks really good though, I'd be quite happy with it. How is it wide open indoors?

 Erik Baumgartner's gear list:Erik Baumgartner's gear list
Fujifilm X100V Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm X-T20 Fujifilm 16-55mm F2.8R LM WR Fujifilm XF 50-140mm F2.8 +2 more
OP Rod McD Veteran Member • Posts: 7,297
Re: 16/2.8 and 16/1.4 - Comparison image pair - Thoughts?

Hi Morris,

Agreed - the contrast certainly appears a little stronger.  Those shadows from the 2.8 are deeper..... As you say, something  for PP perhaps.

I'm less sure about the sharpness - I think they're pretty close here.  In some images I'll give an incremental edge to the 1.4 and others the 2.8.....

Pixel peeping at 100% on my laptop is equivalent to printing at about 600x900mm (2'x3').  Viewed at lower magnifications, I really don't perceive much difference  - the lenses are more alike than different at middle apertures.  I don't print many and these days rarely  print large - usually to no more than say 300x450 (12"x18").  I'd be happy to use the image from either lens for a print that size - I doubt anyone could tell which it came from.

Cheers, Rod

 Rod McD's gear list:Rod McD's gear list
Canon PowerShot G1 X Olympus Tough TG-4 Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro +16 more
boogisha
boogisha Senior Member • Posts: 2,148
Re: 16/2.8 and 16/1.4 - Comparison image pair - Sharpness
2

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

Well the 16 f/1.4 is definitely better, but not by a mile.

Hmm, care to elaborate what do you find "definitely better" here?

As I see it here, f/2.8 is sharper across the frame - except for the very bottom of the images, where it is clearly the opposite, so I even suspect focus point/distance was not the same, unfortunately.

 boogisha's gear list:boogisha's gear list
Canon ELPH 300 HS Canon PowerShot S120 Canon PowerShot G7 X Canon PowerShot A75 Canon EOS 5D Mark IV +12 more
boogisha
boogisha Senior Member • Posts: 2,148
Re: 16/2.8 and 16/1.4 - Comparison image pair - Shadows, contrast

Foxjet wrote:

... besides the field of view difference you pointed out the main difference I see is the shadows are lighter with the f2 lens, maybe processing or could it be exposure or rendering?

Hmm, interesting, I would say it`s the opposite, f/2.8 showing a bit more contrast - thus deeper, darker shadows (and I take it you mean f/2.8 lens, not f/2, as that`s neither).

 boogisha's gear list:boogisha's gear list
Canon ELPH 300 HS Canon PowerShot S120 Canon PowerShot G7 X Canon PowerShot A75 Canon EOS 5D Mark IV +12 more
OP Rod McD Veteran Member • Posts: 7,297
Re: 16/2.8 and 16/1.4 - Comparison image pair - Thoughts?
1

Hi Richard,

I rarely use the f1.4 setting on my 16/1.4, which makes it a bit redundant for me. The IQ of the f1.4 lens looks better stopped down a bit anyway, at least to my eyes.  And I'm not into the whole 'WA close-up with massive areas of blur' thing, so I don't feel that I'm missing opportunities when carrying the smaller lens.

Although I've shouldered the weight of an f1.4 kit for a few years in my hiking, I'm now 64 and am aiming to lighten the load.  After a few experiments with the 16/2.8 I feel reasonably comfortable about  taking it on multi-night hikes and that the IQ at middle apertures is up to some nice landscapes.  I'll keep both for the time being and probably take few more side-by-sides like these - always interesting.

Cheers, Rod

 Rod McD's gear list:Rod McD's gear list
Canon PowerShot G1 X Olympus Tough TG-4 Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro +16 more
The Fat Fish
The Fat Fish Senior Member • Posts: 1,260
Re: 16/2.8 and 16/1.4 - Comparison image pair - Thoughts?
2

I'd like to see these two images converted from RAW using Adobe's enhanced details. Even Fuji's excellent JPEG rendering struggles with X-Trans images with this much foliage.

-- hide signature --

If you're a fan of mediocre landscape photography, check out mine:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/alexwedlake/

 The Fat Fish's gear list:The Fat Fish's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM
a_c_skinner Forum Pro • Posts: 10,589
Re: 16/2.8 and 16/1.4 - Comparison image pair - Thoughts?

It won't alter the conclusion which is for me that there is no practical difference.  At a wider aperture it might be more interesting, though I suspect not.

-- hide signature --

Andrew Skinner

 a_c_skinner's gear list:a_c_skinner's gear list
Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm X-E3 Fujifilm 16-55mm F2.8R LM WR Fujifilm XF 80mm F2.8 Macro Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 +5 more
OP Rod McD Veteran Member • Posts: 7,297
Re: 16/2.8 and 16/1.4 - Comparison image pair - Thoughts?

Hi Eric.

Thanks.  I took them as  jpegs  and posted them SOOC to eliminate any manipulation by me.  And yes, a 24mpx camera might show up more differences, but I can't afford to upgrade to an XT4 right now - covid has thrown my work into uncertainty.  If only......

As I said in my response to Morris, I think these two lenses are more alike at middle apertures than different.  I'm happy with the sharpness and would print an image to moderate size happily from either.  I have taken a few other comparisons and find that sometimes one seems to have an edge and sometimes the other.

I was interested to read that you'd tried one and had disappointing outcomes.  I have found that both 16mm lenses can generate some PF and CAs in the wrong circumstances (eg in landscape applications - harsh backlight behind trees.)  On the plus side both are very resistant to flare.

I haven't tried using the 16/2.8 wide open for interiors.  I suspect the f1.4 model would be better if I needed f2.8, but that's speculation.   Lenses don't generally perform at their best wide open and the 16/1.4 is already two stops down at f2.8 so it should have an advantage at the same aperture.   If was deliberately setting out to shoot interiors I would take the faster lens.

Cheers, Rod

 Rod McD's gear list:Rod McD's gear list
Canon PowerShot G1 X Olympus Tough TG-4 Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro +16 more
OP Rod McD Veteran Member • Posts: 7,297
Re: 16/2.8 and 16/1.4 - Comparison image pair - Thoughts?
2

Hi Fat Fish and Andrew

Ok, next time I'm out with both, I'll take some raws and some at wider apertures.  Won't happen too soon - I'm flat out.  I'm not sure whether raw will actually distinguish between them any more than jpeg does - they'll possibly both benefit.  And my speculation is that the f1.4 model will be better at f2.8 than the f2.8 model is wide open.  Unfair advantage, but that's what you pay the extra for.....

Cheers, Rod

 Rod McD's gear list:Rod McD's gear list
Canon PowerShot G1 X Olympus Tough TG-4 Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro +16 more
DarnGoodPhotos Forum Pro • Posts: 10,591
Re: 16/2.8 and 16/1.4 - Comparison image pair - Thoughts?
1

I think the f1.4 has slightly lighter shadows; you can see it in the top of the green tree on the right side.

-- hide signature --

www.darngoodphotos.com

 DarnGoodPhotos's gear list:DarnGoodPhotos's gear list
Fujifilm X100V Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 35mm F2 R WR +2 more
a_c_skinner Forum Pro • Posts: 10,589
Re: 16/2.8 and 16/1.4 - Comparison image pair - Thoughts?

You won't show a worthwhile difference I suspect.

-- hide signature --

Andrew Skinner

 a_c_skinner's gear list:a_c_skinner's gear list
Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm X-E3 Fujifilm 16-55mm F2.8R LM WR Fujifilm XF 80mm F2.8 Macro Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 +5 more
tokyowalker Regular Member • Posts: 147
Re: 16/2.8 and 16/1.4 - Comparison image pair - Thoughts?

Thanks for the detailed comparison Rod. It’s very helpful for someone building their kit. I am just getting into the X system after selling a bunch of gear to “rationalize” my system. So actually I will get the 16-80 zoom as my 1st lens for upcoming travel.

Funny that the FOV varies - both are listed as 83.2°.

Stay safe and hang in there!

Erik Baumgartner Senior Member • Posts: 3,212
Re: 16/2.8 and 16/1.4 - Comparison image pair - Sharpness
2

boogisha wrote:

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

Well the 16 f/1.4 is definitely better, but not by a mile.

Hmm, care to elaborate what do you find "definitely better" here?

As I see it here, f/2.8 is sharper across the frame - except for the very bottom of the images, where it is clearly the opposite, so I even suspect focus point/distance was not the same, unfortunately.

... and the exposure isn't quite the same either.

That said, at my house I see a toss up in the center...

f/1.4 (L), f/2.8 (R)

...but around the periphery the f/1.4 shows a mostly small, but noticeable advantage...

f/1.4 (L), f/2.8 (R) lower edge

f/1.4 (L), f/2.8 (R) upper left

f/1.4 (L), f/2.8 (R) upper right

 Erik Baumgartner's gear list:Erik Baumgartner's gear list
Fujifilm X100V Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm X-T20 Fujifilm 16-55mm F2.8R LM WR Fujifilm XF 50-140mm F2.8 +2 more
Foxjet Contributing Member • Posts: 891
Re: 16/2.8 and 16/1.4 - Comparison image pair - Thoughts?
1

DarnGoodPhotos wrote:

I think the f1.4 has slightly lighter shadows; you can see it in the top of the green tree on the right side.

Agreed, in my original reply I mixed up the photos. I meant to say the shadows are lighter with the f1.4 lens.

 Foxjet's gear list:Foxjet's gear list
Fujifilm X100T Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm X-T3 +1 more
Foxjet Contributing Member • Posts: 891
Re: 16/2.8 and 16/1.4 - Comparison image pair - Sharpness

Eric, I agree with your conclusions. After seeing your side by side crops I think the differences are inconsequential though.

 Foxjet's gear list:Foxjet's gear list
Fujifilm X100T Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm X-T3 +1 more
tacogeoff
tacogeoff Regular Member • Posts: 224
Re: 16/2.8 and 16/1.4 - Comparison image pair - Sharpness
1

interesting comparison. not much of a difference at all unless your really zoom in and pixal peep. I would be easily content with picking the 16 2.8  for landscape based on the comparison. unless you do nightscapes then the 1.4 would really come in handy there.

 tacogeoff's gear list:tacogeoff's gear list
Fujifilm X-T20 Fujifilm 50-230mm II Fujifilm XF 56mm F1.2 R Fujifilm XF 23mm F2 R WR Samyang 12mm F2.0 NCS CS
(unknown member) New Member • Posts: 19
Re: 16/2.8 and 16/1.4 - Comparison image pair - Thoughts?
3

Both are great lens, any differences at any aperture are minimal at best. The primary reason for owning the 1.4 is you need 1.4. The 2.8 is great for its small size. I wouldn't worry about any differences as they are so small that nobody will be able to tell the difference. I own the 23,35,50 f2 and they are all great, sure there are faster primes out there but the trade of is size. I had 23 1.4/2 and opted for the f2 for its smaller size, no regrets.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads