Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Fuji Forum | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2019 · 16mm 2.8

  
 
M_Wales
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · 16mm 2.8


Anyone using this lens?

What are your thoughts?

TY



Aug 02, 2019 at 06:23 PM
Vertigo2020
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · 16mm 2.8


In a word...excellent.


Aug 02, 2019 at 08:36 PM
KennethN
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · 16mm 2.8


Using it, when 23mm is not wide enough. Happy until now. It is working like the F2 family. Compact, well build, Quick, with great results.


Aug 03, 2019 at 12:27 AM
pw-pix
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · 16mm 2.8


It's fine, it works adequately. It's just not exceptional like I hoped it would be.
It's disappointing that geometric distortion is present and corrected in software in a lens that's only f2.8.
I was hoping that the slower aperture would allow Fuji to make it exceptional optically, but this clearly didn't happen.



Aug 03, 2019 at 04:51 AM
gaopa
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · 16mm 2.8


Have you considered the Fuji 14/2.8? I have one and find it to be an excellent lens. I'm shooting it on an X-T2 and recommend it highly.


Aug 03, 2019 at 08:02 AM
thedwp
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · 16mm 2.8


I tried it for a few days but decided not to keep it.

It plays a roll in the newer/small lens lineup. Of course there’s no comparison to the 16/1.4 and it’s getting mixed opinions but it seems to be working well for some people. I probably would have kept it but I’m thinning the lens herd these days and it wasn’t a focal length that I’m in to at the moment.



Aug 03, 2019 at 11:04 AM
wsheldon
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · 16mm 2.8


gaopa wrote:
Have you considered the Fuji 14/2.8? I have one and find it to be an excellent lens. I'm shooting it on an X-T2 and recommend it highly.


I agree. I picked up a 14/2.8 on the most recent sale as an IR-compatible wide angle and I've been incredibly impressed. Small, well designed and fully optically corrected with great color and character. It's replacing my 10-24 for a lot of landscape and would be a great supplement to a 18-55/16-55 lens. Worth considering along with the 16/2.8.



Aug 04, 2019 at 12:00 PM
pressureworld
Offline

Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · 16mm 2.8


pw-pix wrote:
It's fine, it works adequately. It's just not exceptional like I hoped it would be.
It's disappointing that geometric distortion is present and corrected in software in a lens that's only f2.8.
I was hoping that the slower aperture would allow Fuji to make it exceptional optically, but this clearly didn't happen.


Can you please explain what you mean by "geometric distortion is present and corrected in software"
I generally shoot long exposures and I've been thinking about purchasing this lens. Are you talking about the distortion being corrected in software such as Lightroom?



Aug 13, 2019 at 07:17 AM
RaMoFe
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · 16mm 2.8


wsheldon wrote:
I agree. I picked up a 14/2.8 on the most recent sale as an IR-compatible wide angle and I've been incredibly impressed. Small, well designed and fully optically corrected with great color and character. It's replacing my 10-24 for a lot of landscape and would be a great supplement to a 18-55/16-55 lens. Worth considering along with the 16/2.8.


Is the Fuji 14/2.8 replacing the 10-24? I search a lens under 16-55/2.8 lens to X-T3? I thinking about the 10-24/4 or 14/2.8.
A Fuji 12/4 would be good to me.




Aug 13, 2019 at 08:47 AM
Vertigo2020
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · 16mm 2.8


pressureworld wrote:
Can you please explain what you mean by "geometric distortion is present and corrected in software"
I generally shoot long exposures and I've been thinking about purchasing this lens. Are you talking about the distortion being corrected in software such as Lightroom?


I realize you didn't ask me but I do have the lens and know a little that might add a bit of observation.

The barrel distortion is pretty substantial (-7.7%). Fuji bakes in correction in their jpgs but as of yet I don't see any RAW lens correction profiles in neither LR or Capture One. The profiles are likely coming but timeframe is an unknown. In the meantime, the built-in software correction in the jpg files seems to work well. If raw files out of this lens are important to you then manual corrections are the only option right now.



Aug 13, 2019 at 09:18 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · 16mm 2.8


wsheldon wrote:
I agree. I picked up a 14/2.8 on the most recent sale as an IR-compatible wide angle and I've been incredibly impressed. Small, well designed and fully optically corrected with great color and character. It's replacing my 10-24 for a lot of landscape and would be a great supplement to a 18-55/16-55 lens. Worth considering along with the 16/2.8.


I've had the 14mm f/2.8 since I got my first x-trans system about seven years ago. It is an excellent performer in every way. With that in my bag, I don't have any need for the 16mm f/2.8.

pressureworld wrote:
Can you please explain what you mean by "geometric distortion is present and corrected in software"
I generally shoot long exposures and I've been thinking about purchasing this lens. Are you talking about the distortion being corrected in software such as Lightroom?


Fujifilm applies lens optimization adjustments to the raw files with many of their lenses. In fact, in some cases you will read reviews that rave about their nearly complete lack of distortion... written by reviewers who fail to recognize that the lenses themselves do possess distortion, but that it doesn't appear in files because the in-camera optimization adjusts for it.

The question is whether this is a bad thing or a good thing. The answer is, I think, a bit complicated.

On one hand, a given Fujifilm (or other manufacturer — Fujifilm isn't the only one) lens may actually not perform as well as the test results on raw files would indicate. And, when comparing to similar lenses from other manufacturers you may be doing an "apples to oranges" comparison, where you are comparing uncorrected images from one manufacturer to corrected images from Fujifilm. (A fair test would compare the final, post-processed images from both, I suppose.)

On the other hand, if in-camera optimization produces a final file result that looks excellent and it allows smaller and/or less expensive lenses, perhaps it doesn't matter so much how we get to that good final result.

Dan



Aug 13, 2019 at 09:25 AM
pressureworld
Offline

Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · 16mm 2.8


Vertigo, Dan, Thank you both for your clear and concise explanations. I'm pretty excited about adding this lens to my kit.


Aug 13, 2019 at 10:26 AM
pw-pix
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · 16mm 2.8


pressureworld wrote:
Can you please explain what you mean by "geometric distortion is present and corrected in software"
<snip>
Are you talking about the distortion being corrected in software such as Lightroom?


Yes, exactly that, significant barrel distortion, and I believe vignetting too (not distortion, but another problem with light falloff at the corners).

There is correction data built in to the file (raw) and it is applied automatically by the raw processing software if compatible. Lightroom applies the correction data automatically. If the camera is outputting jpgs, the correction is applied in-camera.




Aug 13, 2019 at 08:03 PM
Vertigo2020
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · 16mm 2.8


pw-pix wrote:
Yes, exactly that, significant barrel distortion, and I believe vignetting too (not distortion, but another problem with light falloff at the corners).

There is correction data built in to the file (raw) and it is applied automatically by the raw processing software if compatible. Lightroom applies the correction data automatically. If the camera is outputting jpgs, the correction is applied in-camera.



I’m not seeing any RAW file corrections applied in Capture One. When I compare the RAW to the JPG the difference is significant. Even toggling the profile correction button to “built in” has no effect on the vignetting or distortion in my Capture One Express version. I do realize C1 has an issue with displaying rendered corrections to actual output but a recipe to see the final product is only available in the Pro version. Can you confirm the built in corrections are applied to the final output of the RAW file?



Aug 14, 2019 at 12:30 AM
pw-pix
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · 16mm 2.8


Vertigo2020 wrote:
I’m not seeing any RAW file corrections applied in Capture One. When I compare the RAW to the JPG the difference is significant. Even toggling the profile correction button to “built in” has no effect on the vignetting or distortion in my Capture One Express version. I do realize C1 has an issue with displaying rendered corrections to actual output but a recipe to see the final product is only available in the Pro version. Can you confirm the built in corrections are applied to the final output of the RAW file?


They definitely are in Lightroom Classic (subscription).
Toggling the "Enable Profile Corrections" tick box does nothing to the displayed image.
With Fuji raw files the corrections are in-built and Lightroom applies them with no opportunity to see the un-corrected version.

A sample raw conversion can be seen here. White balance and exposure adjustments only, resized to 2000px.
http://s1255.photobucket.com/user/pwbike/media/16-2.8-sample-lr-4069-w.jpg.html]



Aug 14, 2019 at 07:17 AM
wsheldon
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · 16mm 2.8


RaMoFe wrote:
Is the Fuji 14/2.8 replacing the 10-24? I search a lens under 16-55/2.8 lens to X-T3? I thinking about the 10-24/4 or 14/2.8.
A Fuji 12/4 would be good to me.


What I meant by "replacing the 10-24" was that I have the 10-24/4, but I find that the 14/2.8 is nicer to use with its smaller size, real aperture ring and focus clutch, and I also think it has a noticeable edge in image quality, distortion and color/contrast to my eye. So I prefer to use it for that focal length range over the 10-24. The 10-24 is very good, though, and I still enjoy using it for travel.

Also, the 10-24 is terrible for IR photography (terrible hot spot at any aperture), which is why I bought the 14/2.8 initially.



Aug 14, 2019 at 10:51 AM
RaMoFe
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · 16mm 2.8


wsheldon wrote:
What I meant by "replacing the 10-24" was that I have the 10-24/4, but I find that the 14/2.8 is nicer to use with its smaller size, real aperture ring and focus clutch, and I also think it has a noticeable edge in image quality, distortion and color/contrast to my eye. So I prefer to use it for that focal length range over the 10-24. The 10-24 is very good, though, and I still enjoy using it for travel.

Also, the 10-24 is terrible for IR photography (terrible hot spot at any aperture), which is why I bought the 14/2.8 initially.
...Show more

Thank you for the answer!



Aug 14, 2019 at 05:22 PM
Vertigo2020
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · 16mm 2.8


pw-pix wrote:
They definitely are in Lightroom Classic (subscription).
Toggling the "Enable Profile Corrections" tick box does nothing to the displayed image.
With Fuji raw files the corrections are in-built and Lightroom applies them with no opportunity to see the un-corrected version.

A sample raw conversion can be seen here. White balance and exposure adjustments only, resized to 2000px.
http://s1255.photobucket.com/user/pwbike/media/16-2.8-sample-lr-4069-w.jpg.html]https://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh629/pwbike/16-2.8-sample-lr-4069-w.jpg


Thanks. I’m still trying to digest the applied changes in C1. The 16mm f2.8 isn’t listed in the supported lens profiles and only shows as “built in”. The weird thing is when comparing jpg to raw the difference is obvious. I guess I have to dig a little deeper into what’s actually going on.



Aug 14, 2019 at 05:42 PM
AndrewNYC
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · 16mm 2.8


Same for Leica Q

gdanmitchell wrote:
I've had the 14mm f/2.8 since I got my first x-trans system about seven years ago. It is an excellent performer in every way. With that in my bag, I don't have any need for the 16mm f/2.8.

Fujifilm applies lens optimization adjustments to the raw files with many of their lenses. In fact, in some cases you will read reviews that rave about their nearly complete lack of distortion... written by reviewers who fail to recognize that the lenses themselves do possess distortion, but that it doesn't appear in files because the in-camera optimization adjusts for it.

The question is whether
...Show more



Aug 14, 2019 at 10:28 PM
PaulGuy88
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · 16mm 2.8


gaopa wrote:
Have you considered the Fuji 14/2.8? I have one and find it to be an excellent lens. I'm shooting it on an X-T2 and recommend it highly.


I'd second that emotion.



Aug 16, 2019 at 07:55 AM





FM Forums | Fuji Forum | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.