These are three very different lenses. I don't have the 18mm f/1.4 - still shooting with the original f/2 version - but I have the other two.
The 14mm is optically excellent, very well corrected, and sharp. I dislike the clutch style focusing ring, but that's minor. It's reasonably small and light.
The 16/2.8 is half the size, half the weight, and half the cost. It's fine optically, but I suspect a lot of the corrections are done in processing.
The 18/1.4 is new, and supposed to be optically amazing. It's the largest of the three, and the most expensive. If you need the f/1.4 aperture, it's the only choice here (though the 16/1.4 is excellent, which is why I am not buying the new 18.)
There is a surprising difference in field of view between the 14/16/18. 2mm makes a lot of difference at the wide end.
14mm 2.8 : Great lens. Keeps the lines straight, Great build. Only got rid of it due to I need a versatile lens when I shoot wide, so I went to the 10-24. 14mm 2.8 is a sharp lens, nice color rendering.
18mm 1.4. Probably the best Fuji Lens I have ever used. I like the 27mm view as it fits my shooting style, Rendering is the best I've seen. Its sharp corner to corner and focus is instant. Was not expecting it to be that much improved, I rented first as its not cheap. Bought it the next day. 33m 1.4 is pre ordered as its got the same internal build .....Gonna be a sad day selling the 35mm 1.4..its been in the bag for years,
I did shoot the 16mm 1.4 for a bit. Beautiful lens, but at 16mm, the 16mm on my 16-55 is just as good on my copy and the f stop diff did not matter to me.
Among the great majority of Fujifilm lenses, which are virtually all excellent, your best bet is generally to just pick the one that has the features that best fit your needs.
These are three relatively different lenses, so the key is deciding which feature set is best for you.
I suspect that the first question is which focal length meets your needs. No one can really answer that but you, typically based on prior experience with a range of focal lengths. Have you used something like a "kit zoom" on a Fujifilm or other camera? If so, what focal lengths did you use a lot and/or find indispensable?
The three lenses are different in other ways, too. The 14mm is one of Fujifilm's earlier primes for the x-trans system. It is a great lens in terms of optical performance and it is the widest of the bunch. It is in the middle of the pack as far as size goes.
The 16mm is the smallest of the group and (obviously) isn't quite as wide and also has the f/2.8 maximum aperture.
The 18mm f/1.4 is quite a different lens from the other two. It is rather large and it has a much larger maximum aperture. Unless there's somethings special for you about the f/1.4 aperture and/or that very specific focal length, it may be more lens than you need. (And if f/1.4 is critical to you... I'd ask why you aren't including the 16mm f/1.4 in the list, too.)
Good questions. Really the decision was gonna be 14mm f2.8 vs 16mm f2.8 when a friend out of state suggested the 18mm f1.4 saying it was one of the nicest lenses he had ever used. That was what put it in the equation for consideration. It is more than likely too large to be very useful for me and I already purchased the 35mm f1.4 for low light street photography.
Hello Lee. I have reviews of the XF 14mm f/2.8 and XF 18mm f/1.4 on my travel blog/review site and will drop a couple of links below. The XF 14mm f/2.8 is the one wide-angle I doubt I'll ever part with. Unfortunately, I have yet to try the XF 16mm f/2.8. The XF 18mm f/1.4 R LM WR is stellar for sure.
I have the 16 f/2.8 and love this lens. I did consider the 14 as it enjoys an excellent reputation. In the end I broke it down into the following use cases: 14 = landscape / architecture (i.e. nice places), 16 = travel (i.e. nice places but with people). It pairs well with a 35.
14 vs 16 is 21mm ff equivalent vs 24mm. Really a huge difference. I'd get the 14 even if it wasn't as good optically since I prefer 21 by a large margin.
The 14mm f2.8 is an excellent lens. It is extremely sharp all the way to the mid frame. Corners are very good even wide open and excellent by f4. There is zero distortion or correction for this lens and it is truly my go to for landscapes as I don't find the 16mm wide enough for most shots. I do have the 10-24mm but I find myself gravitating to the 14mm most instances. I find 14mm very appealing and wider offers too much perspective distortion for a lot of the work I do.
The 16mm f2.8 is nice and small and compact. It is nice for its weather resistance and overall package. I will use this lens when I need wide and it is raining otherwise it doesn't see much use. There is heavy in camera optical corrections that fix a extreme barrel distortion. Because of this wide open there is a lot of corner smearing and a lack of sharpness. Center to mid sharpness is very good however corner resolution never really seems to recover. Even at f8 I would only rate the corners to be acceptable. I honestly find myself using the 14mm and cropping photos more often than just using this lens. If you need wideish and frequently work in the rain it is a good option though. It is great for rainy day wide street photography because of its size.
The 18mm f1.4 is an amazing lens. I can't sing its praises enough to by honest. Biting sharpness wide open and very good even in the corners. I do not hesitate to shoot wide open for landscapes in low light and frequently don't even bring a tripod when I have it mounted. It is a great general purpose focal length and stays glued to my camera most of the time as I really enjoy 28 - 35mm focal lengths. It isn't as big as people complain about at least to me and feels very nice on my xt4. Distortion seems non existant and if I feel like I need a wider shot I have no hesitation to combine photos in post leaving me the opportunity to only take one lens with me and not feel burdened by it. I would highly recommend this lens and if you can get or have the 56mm f1.2 they pair very nicely together.
Have you taken into consideration which of those three focal lengths you like the best. While they are all close, they are still different. I had the 18mm 1.4 when it was released. But quickly found that despite it being amazing at all apertures. I was missing the extra two MMs of the 16mm.
All three of the lenses you listed are capable of great images. With the 18mm being the best all around. But as I mentioned, if it were me I would pick the 16mm as that focal length works the best for my shooting. In my case, I am moving back to the 16mm 1.4 from the 2.8 version. But I wouldn't hesitate to recommend the 2.8 version.
You could always pick up a used XF 10-24/4 zoom, shoot it for a year, then plot the focal lengths to see which focal lengths you use most. I get a ton of use out of my Zeiss 12/2.8 & XF 16/1.4, but I seldom carry them at the same time on the same outings...
zConcept wrote:
I do not hesitate to shoot wide open for landscapes in low light and frequently don't even bring a tripod when I have it mounted.
That decision seems exactly backwards, especially for landscape. If the other lenses are not as sharp, putting them on a tripod won't help. If they are not sharp enough for you and the 18mm is, taking it off the tripod for landscape photography can only degrade the potential sharpness of images produced with the lens.
I'm not disagreeing with what you say about it being a very sharp lens, but I am saying that there is no connection between its sharpness and a decision to not use a tripod!
If anything, having a sharper lens is a reason TO use the tripod...
gdanmitchell wrote:
That decision seems exactly backwards, especially for landscape. If the other lenses are not as sharp, putting them on a tripod won't help. If they are not sharp enough for you and the 18mm is, taking it off the tripod for landscape photography can only degrade the potential sharpness of images produced with the lens.
I'm not disagreeing with what you say about it being a very sharp lens, but I am saying that there is no connection between its sharpness and a decision to not use a tripod!
If anything, having a sharper lens is a reason TO use the tripod...
The OP obviously stating that the lens is sharp WIDE OPEN, allowing him to shoot WIDE OPEN in situations were a lesser lens lens would need to be STOPPED DOWN, therefore allowing him to achieve similar results while leaving the tripod at home.
snowblind-2 wrote:
The OP obviously stating that the lens is sharp WIDE OPEN, allowing him to shoot WIDE OPEN in situations were a lesser lens lens would need to be STOPPED DOWN, therefore allowing him to achieve similar results while leaving the tripod at home.
You might want to go back and read my post more carefully. My initial point wasn't for or against any specific lens — it was just pointing out that the needs met by that variety of lenses in that list are pretty broad. The OP wrote back and acknowledged my point.
Or, adopting your approach: You might want to go back and READ MY POST more carefully. My initial point wasn't FOR OR AGAINST any specific lens — it was just POINTING OUT that the needs met by that VARIETY OF LENSES in that list are pretty broad. The OP wrote back and ACKNOWLEDGED MY POINT.
gdanmitchell wrote:
You might want to go back and read my post more carefully. My initial point wasn't for or against any specific lens — it was just pointing out that the needs met by that variety of lenses in that list are pretty broad. The OP wrote back and acknowledged my point.
Or, adopting your approach: You might want to go back and READ MY POST more carefully. My initial point wasn't FOR OR AGAINST any specific lens — it was just POINTING OUT that the needs met by that VARIETY OF LENSES in that list are pretty broad. The OP wrote back and ACKNOWLEDGED MY POINT.
And yes Fujifilm corrects their lenses electronically. There is nothing wrong with that either, its an engineering decisions which might yield better total performance as the bottom line.
Except maybe adaptability to other systems, but thats already poor with the Fujifilm X system, thanks to APS-C and focus by wire.
And I find gdanmitchell's habit of dismissing the importance of lenses quite unnerving. Yes Fujifilm operates on an amazingly high level with optics. They have a better average than even Nikon F and Canon EF, only surpassed by Leica and medium or large format. Still all companies produce better and not as good lenses. And frankly I cant think of a situation in which somebody actually needs exactly one specific focal length. So why not prioritize the better lenses over the weaker ones.
gdanmitchell wrote:
You still seem to miss the point I was making about the claims about sharpness coupled with the description of being able to shoot off the tripod.
Go back again and read more carefully.
Yes, that poster included the words "wide open" in the original post, but that's irrelevant to what I wrote.
" :-) "
Dan
I never missed your point Dan. You just can't seem to grasp mine.
Go back and read more carefully and you might get it.
snowblind-2 wrote:
I never missed your point Dan. You just can't seem to grasp mine.
Go back and read more carefully and you might get it.
I'll try one more time. Apparently just asking you to go back and look won't do it, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and attempt a painstaking explanation...
I was responding to this point in that post about the sharpness of the lens for landscape photography: "... frequently don't even bring a tripod when I have it mounted."
My response was directed to the point that the sharpness of the lens would be related to a decision about whether to use it off the tripod for landscape photography or not. (E.g. — If sharpness is your issue, and you got a lens specifically because it is super-sharp, you will lose that benefit if you take it off the tripod regardless of whether it has a large maximum aperture or not. And the sharpness of a lens is unrelated to the decision about using it off the tripod or handheld.)
So, regarding the notion that there is a relationship between a lens being "bitting" sharp (at whatever aperture) and the ability to use it off tripod I wrote:
"I am saying that there is no connection between its sharpness and a decision to not use a tripod!
If anything, having a sharper lens is a reason TO use the tripod..."
I could also have pointed out just how unusual it is to shoot landscapes at f/1.4 — not unheard of, but extremely rare, for a variety of reasons.
I'm sure the 18mm lens is an excellent lens, based on everything I've read about it.
