I look at it like this - (same with all the f2s and 1.4s) - for 95% of the time you'll get the same images, but with the 1.4s 5% of the time you'll get something magical.
Well-done comparison video! You’re a pleasure to listen to and I love your family documentary photos. I also love that the 1.4 stayed on the left and 2.8 stayed on the right the whole time 😁
After watching slot of comparisons between these lenses I must say that you did a fantastic job in your video! Thank you very much for all the information!
After looking at reviews of both of these lenses, including yours, I went with the 2.8. Got a great deal on a little used mint conditioned 16mm 2.8. Size, weight and price made it a no-brainer to go along with my XT3. thanks for your honest reviews.
Enjoyed this video as well. Just found your channel. I also realize this was done three years ago. The combination I would recommend for you is the 16 mm F2 .8 and the new 18 mm F1.4, which gets you a slightly wider angle, super, super sharp and super fast focusing. Enjoyed also hearing how you do your interior photography. I also use the 10-24 but I do a three shot bracket going two stops in each direction and then combine them in Lightroom and this way I actually get detail outside through the window, as well as getting a perfectly exposed interior. New subscriber.
The colour rendition and the micro contrast on my 16mm f1.4 is amazing. The resolving power is so great I can crop without loss of detail. In terms of resolution and colour rendition, the way this lens renders images supercedes my Leica 28mm f2.8 lens. I picked up the 16mm f2.8, and was not happy with the noise, colour rendition and resolution compared to it's big brother.
Great comparison review! I like the way you factor in practical use as well as image quality. It’s nice to have a great set of lenses for when you need maximum IQ (for work). For me that’s the 16-55 and 50-140 2.8’s. But for just kicking around with the family or a walk I go for the “Fujicrons” every time!
I have gone to a photo store and compared the two lenses several times, and every time I come back confused. I love the f1.4 for the image quality, but the f2.8 for its versatile design. There's something very inspiring about the f1.4 that is making me stay away from the f2.8. Dang it… in the end I haven't been able to decide on a lens.
Perhaps not coincidentally, pretty much everything you said about these two lenses could also be applied to the two 23mm lenses. I have both, and if I had to give one up I’d have a hard time picking one. The f2 is so much smaller and lighter and more pleasant to carry around, and weather sealed, but the f1.4 lens is just so much better optically.
I have both lenses and use the f/2.8 lens about 80% of the time simply based on the size and weight. It is perfect on my X-E3 teamed with a 35mm f/2 for a nice minimalist kit. The f/1.4 is indeed a better optic, but like your review points out, the size will let you know its there. It is much better on my larger bodies. Additionally, I changed out the hood with the fuji square hood and it reduces the overall size a bit making it more unobtrusive. Nice review. I had no idea of the difference in actual field of view between the lenses. Some say it is the same with the 23mm f/1.4 and f/2, so it might be hard to reduce the size while maintaining the true focal length.
Would be interesting to see how the f1.4 performs for AF acquisition set to f2 or 2.8. From watching other videos on Fuji lenses/systems, the f2 or 2.8 lenses always do better than the f1/1.4 glass, however stopping those faster glass down starts to even the results out a bit. Thank you for the comparison, exactly what I was looking for.
That zoom-in to the tree in the corner, the detail and colour loss by the 2.8 (or should I say retention by the 1.4) was really surprising! And the portrait of your wife, there is no comparison with the aesthetics of the 1.4. This is the first review where I have realized the difference is this stark, so thank you! Hugging my 1.4 extra tight today
The camera is really stretching the corners to correct for barrel distortion. Uncorrected it almost approaches fish eye territory. That’s why the corners are so bad.
Thanks so much! I have the same use cases you do: Mostly just documenting my kids and I like architecture and 'day in the life' stuff. I totally agree with you that the 1.4 provides better quality, but really, you stop noticing that stuff when you have a cute kid in front of you, haha!
On it's own, I would have never thought a thing about it. It's only when you compare it side by side to the 1.4 do you start to see the differences. I shot with the 2.8 nearly every day while on vacation and always came away loving the images.
I think I would love the 16mm F1.4. I have the 10-24 which is great but I think I'd take better photos with the former. Time to sell the 10-24? I'd like both but can't really justify the spend. Decision time!
I've hired the 1.4 and on an XT1 its a bit of a beast. my fav lens is the tiny 50 f2, shame then that the lovely 16 2.8 isn't quite there. Great review - thanks for posting.
Thanks for the video! Pretty much sums up why I sold the 1.4 over the 2.8. Despite the 1.4 being better optically, it just didn’t get well with the X-pro bodies. It’s too heavy so I ended up not taking it with me most of the time. For the way I shoot at this focal length, the 2.8 is more than sufficient. It also forces me to be more creative with my composition given its limitation on subject separation. Cheers!
There's so much more to a lens than just achieving the best technical image quality possible! For me at least, this is a good example of that and precisely why the 2.8 exists. Different people have different preferences and needs.
awesome video. quite helpful. just kidding, I am still confused and will probably buy the f/1.4 as well... love the f/2.8 though ;) thanks for the video
It just hit me: perhaps the difference in angle of view is due to the 2.8 being physically (rather than optically) shorter than the 1.4. Focal length is the distance from the optical center of the lens to the imaging plane. Camera locked on the tripod only ensures that the subject to imaging plane distance is constant: the longer, f1.4 lens is closer to the subject. What the precise focal length of each lens is, only Fujifilm or someone with proper test equipment can tell. I spent about a year with a 24mm f2.8 Nikkor as the only lens for my Nikon F100. I picked that lens because I wanted to learn to work the shorter focal length. I really came to enjoy it. The first photo I licensed came out of that combo, shot on Kodak Tri-X 400 pushed to ISO 1200. On a recent trip to South Lake Tahoe, I kept seeing compositions I thought would be perfect at 16mm but I only had the 18-55 zoom. So I've been planning to buy one of these lenses. I've noticed the 2.8's washed out colors and contrast in other reviews, but you're the only one I've seen mention it. Because I did learn to appreciate the 24mm field of view so much, the better IQ, closer focusing distance, and extra two stops tilt the balance in favor of the 1.4 for me.
Always love your reviews because they're so practical and honest, and really give you a real-life review of these lenses. Do you think you'd buy/keep the 16mm/2.8 since you already have the 10-24mm? I already had the 16mm and just acquired the 10-24mm so this is the debate I'm having with myself right now lol. On the one hand, I've taken so many of my favorite shots with the 16mm... on the other hand, I probably wouldn't bring both the 10-24 and the 16 on a trip...
Thank you! Oh yeah! I only use the 10-24 on real estate shoots. I MUCH prefer using my 16mm when shooting other stuff (like my trip to the beach earlier this summer). I don't even take the 10-24 when traveling.
In post, try lowering the exposure a hair of the 2.8 lens. I had the exact same response between two lenses and the histogram of the cheaper lens showed more light and washed out the colours compared to the expensive lens. It was easy to fix.
Hi, the hazyness from the 2.8 version around the windows in your realestate example is quite bad. I would be interested to know how the 16mm 1.4 version compares to the 10-24mm in this regard. Does it have the same hazyness problem ?
In the five minute mark, when comparing the contrast retention, I can’t help but notice the comparison photo for the f/1.4 is at 1/1600 vs. the f/2.8 is at 1/1700. Does that play into some of the differences you’re seeing? In fact, I noticed that your comparisons are almost always different exposures. The interior shot is 5 second vs 10 seconds.
Although the exposure times were different, the EV was the same. The histograms of both were nearly perfectly identical even though there was a one stop difference in exposure time. Same camera, same metering and everything. Not sure if that means a difference in T-stops or what. Bottom line, given the same EV between the two lenses, I consistently had the same results (I did other tests that weren't shown as examples in the video and came away with the same findings. Didn't feel like showing parts of my messy house. Haha. The examples I showed illustrated those findings though).
i have 16mm.f1.4 from the very begining it's and older lens than 2.8 the auto focus maybe not as snappy as the 2.8 but its bigger glass so that is why they have good color render that what i feel for just a travel photograper
If I needed it for work, I'd get the 1.4 and deal with the weight and cost. If I needed it for fun and travel, 2.8 all the way. thanks for the insight!
Since a T2 body arrived last week, while my back is toast, I'm indoor testing the only lens I have, the 16-50 3.5 kit. And I'm testing it mostly around a 17mm setting, with highlights and shadows and sharpening at zero. O want to see how the sensor perks up with subjects in closeup in some shards of sunlight and with the flash, all at 200 iso and around 5.6 or f8. Fieat of all, I can get to around 3 inches in front of the lens, but pull back to get some lond of depth of field, perhaps 5/8ths of an inch. Well, this lens is incredibly sharp. I am not interested in bokah, more in detail and composition. The sad part is, I have an older Imac loaded with great apps, and can't use the raw conversion software from Adobe or other vendors. I'll live, I can periodically upload to Google Drive to a friend's lab the few raw's a really want prints from. But this little lens needs it's moment in the sun. And on a T2 body, it's super fast to auto focus.
The f2 is great for people wide open, but I got really frustrated with it for landscape work. Contrast and fringing are not good when shouting mountain scenes.
Does the loss of contrast or color have anything to do with the size of the respective lens hoods? It looks like the difference between using or not using a lens hood. It could be the f2.8 lens hood is not adequate, especially since the f2.8 FOV or actual focal length is different than what the hood is built for. I'd try some of these again but also using your hand to also blockout some stray light as well. Could just be bro science on my part.
I consider the 2.8 your everyday general shooter and the 1.4 the one you reach for when it counts. In the APS-C world the XF16mm f/1.4 is the cream of the crop when it comes to IQ
Out of the cameras I have, the X-T1 is my favorite! If you watch my dedicated 16mm 2.8 review I posted about a week ago, nearly every photo was taken with the X-T1. I absolutely love using it. So, if the budget only allows for an X-T1, you have the perfect budget in my opinion. Haha. If you want, you can check out a gallery of my favorite X-T1 images on my website: www.kentuckyman30.com/x-t1
@@KentuckyMan30 beautiful photos in your gallery, if I may ask what did you shoot before the XT1, I own a 70D Canon. How is the sharpness and can I use it for weddings.
Thanks! I shot a 5D II for several years and a Nikon D750 for a short time before switching to Fujifilm about 4 or 5 years ago. The sensor in the X-T2 is killer as far as the detail and sharpness you can get when paired with a decent lens! I used it to shoot multiple weddings before I got the X-T2. Worked just great!
it would be interesting if moving the camera and tripod slightly so that the front of the lens are in exactly the same position and not that camera would make much of a difference in field of view.
It's my first as well! I absolutely love it (especially for under $100). I have 7 inch wrists, but I find that I like smaller watches (by today's standards) 36-38mm. I particularly love field watches and have my eye on a Hamilton Khaki Field of some sort.
Perfect timing for me too. I'm about to buy the 2.8 brand new, but I'm just a little unsure... Like the fact that the 2.8 is a 15mm... Like a wider lens...
What if it's the 1.4 that's actually a 17mm? 😎 The focal length is just a measurement of how far the lens has to be to focus the image at infinity. We can approximate the angle of view, buts that just a separate measurement. It's like f-stop - it's just the size of the entrance pupil and doesn't tell us exactly how much light is hitting the sensor (that's t-stop). At least that's how I understand it.
@@shifteleven Sure, but there are other bloggers that have the same impression, try to Google and you'd easy find that the 16 f2, 8 is considered more a 14/15 than a 16 in terms of field of view. For me I've had recently a walimex 12 f2, a really not bad lens, but I've just sold it to save and head for the 16 f2, 8. That 's my budget pal, cannot spend more. Here in Italy 345e on Amzn brand new official warranty. Got the xt1 and love little lenses also, the f2, 8 seems a good match
Thank you for these very detailed comparisons. Do you think the 2.8 is good enough for landscape ? The old but very good 14mm is not weather sealed, and the 16mm 1.4 is really heavier than I would want to cary on the mountain trails !
@@BenjaminLeeds I got a second hand 14mm, very happy with the quality, but I don't use it so much. I prefer travelling light and make often do with the 23mm f/2 which is enough for my needs
One would still think that as both lenses are meant to be 16mm, they would be engineered to reflect that in reality. However, I'm not a lens designer, so I honestly haven't a clue about the nuances of all that. Regardless, it's a poignant bit of information when comparing the two.
@@KentuckyMan30 I agree it should be noted that the 16mm f2.8 is wider. But it's important to note what the measurement is - it's how far the lens has to be from the sensor to focus at infinity. I think deriving angle of view from that is an approximation to the best of my knowledge. I sort of think about the difference in f-stop (the measurement of the entrance pupil) vs t-stop (how much light is transmitted through the lens). You can have the same f-stop, but the light going through isn't the same. But maybe there are other things at play - maybe some internal cropping or something. An area for me to improve upon what I already think I know. Cheers man.
So I did do some more checking - it is possible that the difference is because of rounding the number to the nearest `mm`. So maybe the f2.8 is like a 15.5mm, and it got rounded up to 16mm. Lens distortion (and the correction) are other factors for why a lens may have a different angle of view. Where my claim probably has the biggest effect is with wide angle lens with tons of distortion - fisheye vs rectilinear lenses. So yeah, it's fun to go back and keep reading and learn :)
The 1.4 is just a little smaller/lighter than the 56mm and I don't think the 56 is too big or heavy to carry around for street photography at all. Fore me there is no comparison, the 1.4 is reputed to be Fuji's very best lens and it'll be the one I pick up. BTW get the vertical grip for the XT1, it makes it much better balanced with those slightly larger Fuji lenses.
no doubt the 1.4 is superior but size and weight does matter i have both and im always hate carrying the 1.4 all day but the results are the way better with the 1.4.
I had both and compared them with some actual measurements. The 2.8 is actually a true 15mm and the 1.4 is more a 17mm, as far as field of view is concerned. Checked with a 14mm and a 18-55 and I can confirm that; having those as well did put me in quite a dilemma. Wonderful lenses each one in its own way, but it's a real pity this "lying" about the focal length, not something I was expecting from Fuji.
Same size AF square for both lenses. For the X-T2 I tested both lenses with the smallest size square 11:04-12:01. Then I tested both lenses on the X-T1 with the smallest size square (which is a bit bigger than the X-T2). 12:02-12:57
Traditionally, I've really loved the X100 series (23mm) for fun, traveling and what not. Recently though, the 16mm with the X-T1 has been a perfect focal length for that stuff! I hardly touched my X100T while on vacation recently. I was using the 16mm and X-T1 most of the time!
Fuji should really remake the f/1.4 versions. They're old and dated, and definitely not great especially with newer models moving towards a hybrid camera direction.
I had both. Never was sure to do with either. 24mm is a hard focal length to know what to do with. 28mm I can’t figure at all. I got rid of the 1.4. What does anyone need dropoff at this focal length? It’s big and heavy. I like to have a wide with me and the 1.4 was not going to be it given the amount of situations I’d actually need it for. Best bet and no one talks about is the 14mm. Carry a 23mm and the 14mm. This 16mm talk is a waist of time.
I never really shot at this focal length either as I generally preferred to shoot something wider or more narrow (like the Rokinon 12mm and Fuji 23mm), but I recently started really enjoying this focal length more than I ever have. I took the 16mm 2.8 on vacation earlier this summer and had a blast using it.
I look at it like this - (same with all the f2s and 1.4s) - for 95% of the time you'll get the same images, but with the 1.4s 5% of the time you'll get something magical.
0:43 “sluggish and hunty” sounds like me looking in the fridge at 10pm
These comparison videos are great! It is so helpful seeing both lenses together. So much easier to be able to tell the differences.
Well-done comparison video! You’re a pleasure to listen to and I love your family documentary photos.
I also love that the 1.4 stayed on the left and 2.8 stayed on the right the whole time 😁
Thank you! Glad you enjoyed it! I made a very conscious effort to keep the lenses on the same side the whole time. Haha.
Impeccable timing! Was just researching these two lenses when this video posted! Very helpful.
Ha! Nice!
Excellent review and more useful that any other review I have seen on RUclips of these lenses. Well done!
Wow, thanks!
After watching slot of comparisons between these lenses I must say that you did a fantastic job in your video! Thank you very much for all the information!
Glad you liked it!
Thanks. Very helpful. Have the 2.8 and love shooting with it. Always wondered about the 1.4 though.
After looking at reviews of both of these lenses, including yours, I went with the 2.8. Got a great deal on a little used mint conditioned 16mm 2.8. Size, weight and price made it a no-brainer to go along with my XT3. thanks for your honest reviews.
Can't wait to pick myself up a copy!
Thank you for the review 🙏 I just bought this 16mm 2.8 at my local store here in Bahrain. It's my first prime lens.
Good information to know more and more from my fujinon 16mm/1.4. Great comparison, Thanks 👌🏻
Enjoyed this video as well. Just found your channel. I also realize this was done three years ago. The combination I would recommend for you is the 16 mm F2 .8 and the new 18 mm F1.4, which gets you a slightly wider angle, super, super sharp and super fast focusing. Enjoyed also hearing how you do your interior photography. I also use the 10-24 but I do a three shot bracket going two stops in each direction and then combine them in Lightroom and this way I actually get detail outside through the window, as well as getting a perfectly exposed interior. New subscriber.
The colour rendition and the micro contrast on my 16mm f1.4 is amazing. The resolving power is so great I can crop without loss of detail. In terms of resolution and colour rendition, the way this lens renders images supercedes my Leica 28mm f2.8 lens. I picked up the 16mm f2.8, and was not happy with the noise, colour rendition and resolution compared to it's big brother.
This is probably the best comparison I've seen. Thanks!
Very informative video, thanks for posting.
Thanks for the video. It is a tough choice to make between this 2!
Thanks so much for the Video. Maybe i take a Look to the 2,8. for my old t1. Have a nice Time an Stay save.
The quasi-macro + surroundings, along w the IQ, DoF, and characteristic look of the 1.4, is what does it for me; it’s a special lens.
Helpful review! Thanks!
16 mil 1.4 is awesome lens no doubt about it. Everything to die for, but I prefer 10 to 24 because it is much much more flexible
great review, thanks!
Great comparison review! I like the way you factor in practical use as well as image quality. It’s nice to have a great set of lenses for when you need maximum IQ (for work). For me that’s the 16-55 and 50-140 2.8’s. But for just kicking around with the family or a walk I go for the “Fujicrons” every time!
Love the Fujicrons!
Thank you, I bought 16F1.4 because of this review.
Thank you for the highlight it makes easy for us average users to chose
Great comparison. Thanks
Very useful comparison review.
Fantastic, fantastic comparison. Thank you!
Thank you!
I have gone to a photo store and compared the two lenses several times, and every time I come back confused. I love the f1.4 for the image quality, but the f2.8 for its versatile design. There's something very inspiring about the f1.4 that is making me stay away from the f2.8. Dang it… in the end I haven't been able to decide on a lens.
i have both - the 1.4 is in a different class
Cuckoo! Hope all is well, OP-1 master. :)
Perhaps not coincidentally, pretty much everything you said about these two lenses could also be applied to the two 23mm lenses. I have both, and if I had to give one up I’d have a hard time picking one. The f2 is so much smaller and lighter and more pleasant to carry around, and weather sealed, but the f1.4 lens is just so much better optically.
I tend to agree. But the f/1.4 has so much fringing. Yes it can be removed in post, but...
I have both lenses and use the f/2.8 lens about 80% of the time simply based on the size and weight. It is perfect on my X-E3 teamed with a 35mm f/2 for a nice minimalist kit.
The f/1.4 is indeed a better optic, but like your review points out, the size will let you know its there. It is much better on my larger bodies. Additionally, I changed out the hood with the fuji square hood and it reduces the overall size a bit making it more unobtrusive.
Nice review. I had no idea of the difference in actual field of view between the lenses. Some say it is the same with the 23mm f/1.4 and f/2, so it might be hard to reduce the size while maintaining the true focal length.
I love my 2.8, great lens. Plus, Seiko 5 watches are superb lol. Loving the vids, keep up the great work, thanks.
Would be interesting to see how the f1.4 performs for AF acquisition set to f2 or 2.8. From watching other videos on Fuji lenses/systems, the f2 or 2.8 lenses always do better than the f1/1.4 glass, however stopping those faster glass down starts to even the results out a bit.
Thank you for the comparison, exactly what I was looking for.
Great Job, thanks man
Nice work here.
I was wondering if a haze or UV filter would help the 2.8 in backlit situations?
Great review
Can the lower contrast and saturation of the 2.8 be recovered in post processing
What do you use for your real estate the 16 1.4 or 10-24? Maybe you can do a video about it
That zoom-in to the tree in the corner, the detail and colour loss by the 2.8 (or should I say retention by the 1.4) was really surprising! And the portrait of your wife, there is no comparison with the aesthetics of the 1.4. This is the first review where I have realized the difference is this stark, so thank you! Hugging my 1.4 extra tight today
Haha! Good conformation bias for the 1.4 owners out there. Happy to be of assistance. :)
Great comparison
The camera is really stretching the corners to correct for barrel distortion. Uncorrected it almost approaches fish eye territory. That’s why the corners are so bad.
Thank you
Love your videos! Curious as to which film simulation you typically use?
Thanks! I usually start with adding either Classic Chrome or Classic Neg. in Lightroom, then edit from there.
Thanks so much! I have the same use cases you do: Mostly just documenting my kids and I like architecture and 'day in the life' stuff. I totally agree with you that the 1.4 provides better quality, but really, you stop noticing that stuff when you have a cute kid in front of you, haha!
great video! I own the 16 2.8 but I didn't think it was so inferior in terms of image quality compared to the 1.4
On it's own, I would have never thought a thing about it. It's only when you compare it side by side to the 1.4 do you start to see the differences. I shot with the 2.8 nearly every day while on vacation and always came away loving the images.
Perhaps the best 16vs16 video.
Thank you! Glad you liked it!
I always shoot street and I'm very happy with my 1.4 one ^^
I think I would love the 16mm F1.4. I have the 10-24 which is great but I think I'd take better photos with the former. Time to sell the 10-24? I'd like both but can't really justify the spend. Decision time!
I've hired the 1.4 and on an XT1 its a bit of a beast. my fav lens is the tiny 50 f2, shame then that the lovely 16 2.8 isn't quite there. Great review - thanks for posting.
I'll be buying the 16mm 2.8 to pair with my X-T1 this week. Haha.
Im planning for 16mm f1.4 and 50mm f2, by the way how is your 50mm doing? Do you really missed the extra stop 56mm f1.2 can provide??
@@wongpantai9710 Hey! I put up my review of the 50mm a couple days ago!
If I add a 30 dollar macro tube, cant i take the close focus advantage away from the 1.4?
Thanks for the video! Pretty much sums up why I sold the 1.4 over the 2.8. Despite the 1.4 being better optically, it just didn’t get well with the X-pro bodies. It’s too heavy so I ended up not taking it with me most of the time. For the way I shoot at this focal length, the 2.8 is more than sufficient. It also forces me to be more creative with my composition given its limitation on subject separation. Cheers!
There's so much more to a lens than just achieving the best technical image quality possible! For me at least, this is a good example of that and precisely why the 2.8 exists. Different people have different preferences and needs.
awesome video.
quite helpful. just kidding, I am still confused and will probably buy the f/1.4 as well... love the f/2.8 though ;)
thanks for the video
Good review this.
It just hit me: perhaps the difference in angle of view is due to the 2.8 being physically (rather than optically) shorter than the 1.4. Focal length is the distance from the optical center of the lens to the imaging plane. Camera locked on the tripod only ensures that the subject to imaging plane distance is constant: the longer, f1.4 lens is closer to the subject. What the precise focal length of each lens is, only Fujifilm or someone with proper test equipment can tell.
I spent about a year with a 24mm f2.8 Nikkor as the only lens for my Nikon F100. I picked that lens because I wanted to learn to work the shorter focal length. I really came to enjoy it. The first photo I licensed came out of that combo, shot on Kodak Tri-X 400 pushed to ISO 1200. On a recent trip to South Lake Tahoe, I kept seeing compositions I thought would be perfect at 16mm but I only had the 18-55 zoom. So I've been planning to buy one of these lenses.
I've noticed the 2.8's washed out colors and contrast in other reviews, but you're the only one I've seen mention it. Because I did learn to appreciate the 24mm field of view so much, the better IQ, closer focusing distance, and extra two stops tilt the balance in favor of the 1.4 for me.
3:23 - best part. 1.4 is sharper and has more contrast. 2.8 has a film-like look. for movie i would take the 2.8.
Always love your reviews because they're so practical and honest, and really give you a real-life review of these lenses. Do you think you'd buy/keep the 16mm/2.8 since you already have the 10-24mm? I already had the 16mm and just acquired the 10-24mm so this is the debate I'm having with myself right now lol. On the one hand, I've taken so many of my favorite shots with the 16mm... on the other hand, I probably wouldn't bring both the 10-24 and the 16 on a trip...
Thank you! Oh yeah! I only use the 10-24 on real estate shoots. I MUCH prefer using my 16mm when shooting other stuff (like my trip to the beach earlier this summer). I don't even take the 10-24 when traveling.
@@KentuckyMan30 That's a great point, the 16mm is definitely very fun to shoot with, and makes for such a nice small camera+lens combo!
In post, try lowering the exposure a hair of the 2.8 lens. I had the exact same response between two lenses and the histogram of the cheaper lens showed more light and washed out the colours compared to the expensive lens. It was easy to fix.
I tried that, but the "haze" and general lack of contrast was still there in every scenario. Even applying dehaze didn't solve it.
the focal length of both are the same, if you want the same focal length, match the position of the edge of the lense, not where the tripod is
Hi, the hazyness from the 2.8 version around the windows in your realestate example is quite bad. I would be interested to know how the 16mm 1.4 version compares to the 10-24mm in this regard. Does it have the same hazyness problem ?
From using the 10-24mm so much, I can say I've never experienced this issue with it. I'd say the 16mm 1.4 and 10-24 are very similar in that regard.
I wonder how the focus is on a modern Fuji camera?
In the five minute mark, when comparing the contrast retention, I can’t help but notice the comparison photo for the f/1.4 is at 1/1600 vs. the f/2.8 is at 1/1700. Does that play into some of the differences you’re seeing? In fact, I noticed that your comparisons are almost always different exposures. The interior shot is 5 second vs 10 seconds.
Although the exposure times were different, the EV was the same. The histograms of both were nearly perfectly identical even though there was a one stop difference in exposure time. Same camera, same metering and everything. Not sure if that means a difference in T-stops or what. Bottom line, given the same EV between the two lenses, I consistently had the same results (I did other tests that weren't shown as examples in the video and came away with the same findings. Didn't feel like showing parts of my messy house. Haha. The examples I showed illustrated those findings though).
Hmmmm...T stops...
Can u do 1 for 16f2.8 vs 18f2?
i have 16mm.f1.4 from the very begining it's and older lens than 2.8 the auto focus maybe not as snappy as the 2.8 but its bigger glass so that is why they have good color render that what i feel for just a travel photograper
If I needed it for work, I'd get the 1.4 and deal with the weight and cost. If I needed it for fun and travel, 2.8 all the way. thanks for the insight!
Since a T2 body arrived last week, while my back is toast, I'm indoor testing the only lens I have, the 16-50 3.5 kit. And I'm testing it mostly around a 17mm setting, with highlights and shadows and sharpening at zero. O want to see how the sensor perks up with subjects in closeup in some shards of sunlight and with the flash, all at 200 iso and around 5.6 or f8. Fieat of all, I can get to around 3 inches in front of the lens, but pull back to get some lond of depth of field, perhaps 5/8ths of an inch. Well, this lens is incredibly sharp. I am not interested in bokah, more in detail and composition. The sad part is, I have an older Imac loaded with great apps, and can't use the raw conversion software from Adobe or other vendors. I'll live, I can periodically upload to Google Drive to a friend's lab the few raw's a really want prints from. But this little lens needs it's moment in the sun. And on a T2 body, it's super fast to auto focus.
great video
The 16-55 f/2.8 is wider than the 16 f/1.4 at 16mm, too.
The f2 is great for people wide open, but I got really frustrated with it for landscape work. Contrast and fringing are not good when shouting mountain scenes.
Does the loss of contrast or color have anything to do with the size of the respective lens hoods? It looks like the difference between using or not using a lens hood. It could be the f2.8 lens hood is not adequate, especially since the f2.8 FOV or actual focal length is different than what the hood is built for. I'd try some of these again but also using your hand to also blockout some stray light as well. Could just be bro science on my part.
Could be. I'll be buying one soon, so I'll conduct some more tests.
6:04 ... The exposure settings for the bedroom photos are different
The lighting outside changed between shots, so the shutter speed had to change between the two shots to keep the exposure the same.
I consider the 2.8 your everyday general shooter and the 1.4 the one you reach for when it counts.
In the APS-C world the XF16mm f/1.4 is the cream of the crop when it comes to IQ
It's top notch, no doubt! Fuji make incredible lenses all around.
What do you think of the XT1 in 2020 I don't have a big budget for a XT2 or Xt3
Out of the cameras I have, the X-T1 is my favorite! If you watch my dedicated 16mm 2.8 review I posted about a week ago, nearly every photo was taken with the X-T1. I absolutely love using it. So, if the budget only allows for an X-T1, you have the perfect budget in my opinion. Haha. If you want, you can check out a gallery of my favorite X-T1 images on my website: www.kentuckyman30.com/x-t1
@@KentuckyMan30 beautiful photos in your gallery, if I may ask what did you shoot before the XT1, I own a 70D Canon. How is the sharpness and can I use it for weddings.
Thanks! I shot a 5D II for several years and a Nikon D750 for a short time before switching to Fujifilm about 4 or 5 years ago. The sensor in the X-T2 is killer as far as the detail and sharpness you can get when paired with a decent lens! I used it to shoot multiple weddings before I got the X-T2. Worked just great!
@@KentuckyMan30 Thanks I think I made up my mine for a XT1
excelente thanks
it would be interesting if moving the camera and tripod slightly so that the front of the lens are in exactly the same position and not that camera would make much of a difference in field of view.
That’s a great watch! Was my first automatic watch
It's my first as well! I absolutely love it (especially for under $100). I have 7 inch wrists, but I find that I like smaller watches (by today's standards) 36-38mm. I particularly love field watches and have my eye on a Hamilton Khaki Field of some sort.
I have the khaki one, just swap the strap with leather or nylon stripe and it will looks stunning
Perfect timing for me too. I'm about to buy the 2.8 brand new, but I'm just a little unsure... Like the fact that the 2.8 is a 15mm... Like a wider lens...
What if it's the 1.4 that's actually a 17mm? 😎
The focal length is just a measurement of how far the lens has to be to focus the image at infinity. We can approximate the angle of view, buts that just a separate measurement. It's like f-stop - it's just the size of the entrance pupil and doesn't tell us exactly how much light is hitting the sensor (that's t-stop). At least that's how I understand it.
@@shifteleven Sure, but there are other bloggers that have the same impression, try to Google and you'd easy find that the 16 f2, 8 is considered more a 14/15 than a 16 in terms of field of view. For me I've had recently a walimex 12 f2, a really not bad lens, but I've just sold it to save and head for the 16 f2, 8. That 's my budget pal, cannot spend more. Here in Italy 345e on Amzn brand new official warranty. Got the xt1 and love little lenses also, the f2, 8 seems a good match
@@serpicoflower cool. Interesting to see it's wider than other 16mms. Cheers
Thank you for these very detailed comparisons. Do you think the 2.8 is good enough for landscape ? The old but very good 14mm is not weather sealed, and the 16mm 1.4 is really heavier than I would want to cary on the mountain trails !
I’m going through this now. What did you end up with and are you happy with your choice?
@@BenjaminLeeds I got a second hand 14mm, very happy with the quality, but I don't use it so much. I prefer travelling light and make often do with the 23mm f/2 which is enough for my needs
@@cstbb568 Thanks for the insight. Did you decide against the 16/2.8 because of the optical quality?
@@BenjaminLeeds I favoured the 14mm because I got a really good price on it which made it a no brainer really
? The distance of the rearmost element from the sensor is one of the factors determining field view so the 1.4 being a longer lens physically
One would still think that as both lenses are meant to be 16mm, they would be engineered to reflect that in reality. However, I'm not a lens designer, so I honestly haven't a clue about the nuances of all that. Regardless, it's a poignant bit of information when comparing the two.
@@KentuckyMan30 I agree it should be noted that the 16mm f2.8 is wider. But it's important to note what the measurement is - it's how far the lens has to be from the sensor to focus at infinity. I think deriving angle of view from that is an approximation to the best of my knowledge.
I sort of think about the difference in f-stop (the measurement of the entrance pupil) vs t-stop (how much light is transmitted through the lens). You can have the same f-stop, but the light going through isn't the same.
But maybe there are other things at play - maybe some internal cropping or something. An area for me to improve upon what I already think I know.
Cheers man.
So I did do some more checking - it is possible that the difference is because of rounding the number to the nearest `mm`. So maybe the f2.8 is like a 15.5mm, and it got rounded up to 16mm. Lens distortion (and the correction) are other factors for why a lens may have a different angle of view.
Where my claim probably has the biggest effect is with wide angle lens with tons of distortion - fisheye vs rectilinear lenses. So yeah, it's fun to go back and keep reading and learn :)
The 1.4 is just a little smaller/lighter than the 56mm and I don't think the 56 is too big or heavy to carry around for street photography at all. Fore me there is no comparison, the 1.4 is reputed to be Fuji's very best lens and it'll be the one I pick up. BTW get the vertical grip for the XT1, it makes it much better balanced with those slightly larger Fuji lenses.
Did your lens is clearly well? Its like the 2.8 lens is dirty and ghosting or something
It was clean!
no doubt the 1.4 is superior but size and weight does matter i have both and im always hate carrying the 1.4 all day but the results are the way better with the 1.4.
16mm F1.4 FOV is close to 18mm (Btw: For video work : f2.8 is slightly better )
I had both and compared them with some actual measurements. The 2.8 is actually a true 15mm and the 1.4 is more a 17mm, as far as field of view is concerned. Checked with a 14mm and a 18-55 and I can confirm that; having those as well did put me in quite a dilemma. Wonderful lenses each one in its own way, but it's a real pity this "lying" about the focal length, not something I was expecting from Fuji.
Yeah, it's probably not something I would have noticed unless doing direct comparisons. It IS odd though.
Super ce test. Je possède déjà le 2,8 et malgré le fait que le contraste est vraiment excellent sur le 1,4 je ne regrette pas mon choix.
16mm 1.4 hands down.
I'm only half way in to the video right now but it's sounding like you might have changed your mind about taking the 2.8 over the 1.4. Haha.
A bit of inferior image quality wouldn't deter me! Haha.
I know which one I want and I know the one I need. too bad they're different.
Smaller AF box make always fuji lenses work harder for AF seems u had bigger AF box for 2.8.
Same size AF square for both lenses. For the X-T2 I tested both lenses with the smallest size square 11:04-12:01. Then I tested both lenses on the X-T1 with the smallest size square (which is a bit bigger than the X-T2). 12:02-12:57
Size DOES matter, and sometimes smaller is better...
For traveling, fun and family shots do you prefer the 16m 2.8 or the 23mm f2?
Traditionally, I've really loved the X100 series (23mm) for fun, traveling and what not. Recently though, the 16mm with the X-T1 has been a perfect focal length for that stuff! I hardly touched my X100T while on vacation recently. I was using the 16mm and X-T1 most of the time!
Fuji should really remake the f/1.4 versions. They're old and dated, and definitely not great especially with newer models moving towards a hybrid camera direction.
I own 16 1.4 and I think you get what you pay for.
I had both. Never was sure to do with either. 24mm is a hard focal length to know what to do with. 28mm I can’t figure at all. I got rid of the 1.4. What does anyone need dropoff at this focal length? It’s big and heavy. I like to have a wide with me and the 1.4 was not going to be it given the amount of situations I’d actually need it for. Best bet and no one talks about is the 14mm. Carry a 23mm and the 14mm. This 16mm talk is a waist of time.
I never really shot at this focal length either as I generally preferred to shoot something wider or more narrow (like the Rokinon 12mm and Fuji 23mm), but I recently started really enjoying this focal length more than I ever have. I took the 16mm 2.8 on vacation earlier this summer and had a blast using it.