I am wondering if anyone in this forum has the 14mm f2.8 and has compared it with the 16mm f2.8. In this video, , Andrew reports that the 16mm f2.8 is actually wider than the 16mm f1.4. And he estimates that it is actually a 15mm f2.8.
I would like to know how the Field of View (FOV) of the 16mm f2.8 compares with the 14mm f2.8. I am considering buying one of those two lenses and there is a substantial difference in price.
There is a substantial difference between 16mm and 14mm primes... it's like comparing 24mm to 21mm FoV on ff sensor. 14mm f/2.8 barely meets my wide angle/landscape needs, it's not really too wide but you'll get used to it. I love 14mm prime because its size, weight, sharpness and absence of vignetting.
bocaminus wrote:
There is a substantial difference between 16mm and 14mm primes... it's like comparing 24mm to 21mm FoV on ff sensor. 14mm f/2.8 barely meets my wide angle/landscape needs, it's not really too wide but you'll get used to it. I love 14mm prime because its size, weight, sharpness and absence of vignetting.
Yes, but I think what the OP is asking is a different question.
The focal length the manufacturer uses to describe the lens is a combination of optics and marketing. Modern Photography magazine used to actually measure and report the focal lengths of lenses they tested. I never saw a report where the lens was what it said it was (usually a bit longer or a bit shorter than the stated focal length).
I think the OP is asking whether the 14mm is closer to 13mm or 15mm (in other words, which side of 14mm is it on). The 16mm f/2.8 seems to be on the wider side of 16mm. If I read the OP's question correctly, a <14mm f/2.8 would be good, but a >14mm f/2.8 not so good because it's that much closer to the <16mm f/2.8.
I don't have an answer, unfortunately. I have the 14/2.8, but not the 16/2.8. Hopefully someone does.
I would like to know how the Field of View (FOV) of the 16mm f2.8 compares with the 14mm f2.8. I am considering buying one of those two lenses and there is a substantial difference in price.
Thanks
So here is another video that indicates the 16 f2.8 is a bit wider than the 1.4. Whether it is equivalent to 15mm, it's hard to know without doing the calculations.
But then the question you have to ask yourself is whether this effect also applies to the 14mm lens? What if it's actually wider than 14mm?
Ultimately only you can decide whether it's worth the extra $300-400 (plus the additional size and weight in your bag) to capture the wider field of view. That entirely depends on your style of shooting. I think if you're someone who takes a lot of very wide angle shots and does not mind the weight, get the 14mm.
mdude85 wrote:
So here is another video that indicates the 16 f2.8 is a bit wider than the 1.4. Whether it is equivalent to 15mm, it's hard to know without doing the calculations.
But then the question you have to ask yourself is whether this effect also applies to the 14mm lens? What if it's actually wider than 14mm?
Ultimately only you can decide whether it's worth the extra $300-400 (plus the additional size and weight in your bag) to capture the wider field of view. That entirely depends on your style of shooting. I think if you're someone who takes a lot of very wide angle shots and does not mind the weight, get the 14mm....Show more →
Thanks for sharing the video. It’s interesting, Andrew (from the other video) claims to have compared the FOV of the Fuji 16mm with FF 24mm lenses and he says that both matched. That’s why he thinks that the 16f2.8 is like a 15mm.
For what it's worth, the 14mm f/2.8 is a terrific lens. It's not very bulky or heavy. I really don't think you can go wrong (unless you need wider, or you prefer zooms).
Good question. I have all three lenses. It will likely be the weekend, but to satisfy my own curiosity I'd be happy to go out and run a controlled test. Tripod, same aperture and ISO, etc. I'll also be happy to post w/ labels on images for easy reference. FWIW they're all great lenses, but for different reasons for my needs. All tack sharp. 16/1.4 - I luv this lens, but 2 caveats - it's big and it won't render Infrared w/o a hot spot which is a big deal for me. 16/2.8 - tiny little thing, works wonders w/ IR but won't work as well in low light. Works perfectly as part of an itty bitty kit w/ an X-Pro2 and 23/2 and 50/2. Wow! 14/2.8 - this is a really an overlooked lens in 2020. Sharp across the entire field, no discernible distortion as far as I can tell, so perfect for architectural images. My issue w/ the focal length is that for my personal work it forces converging diagonals which is not what I'd prefer to do so obviously. A great IR lens that I used for a few years and have to poke myself to remember I have. As an all a-rounder, if you're comfortable with the focal length it's very hard to beat. Not to mention they seem to be going very cheaply on the secondary market. No idea why as they're a hidden gem. Decide what you'd like to use the lens for, pick one and you can't go wrong.
Tom Brayne wrote:
Good question. I have all three lenses. It will likely be the weekend, but to satisfy my own curiosity I'd be happy to go out and run a controlled test. Tripod, same aperture and ISO, etc. I'll also be happy to post w/ labels on images for easy reference. FWIW they're all great lenses, but for different reasons for my needs. All tack sharp. 16/1.4 - I luv this lens, but 2 caveats - it's big and it won't render Infrared w/o a hot spot which is a big deal for me. 16/2.8 - tiny little thing, works wonders w/ IR but won't work as well in low light. Works perfectly as part of an itty bitty kit w/ an X-Pro2 and 23/2 and 50/2. Wow! 14/2.8 - this is a really an overlooked lens in 2020. Sharp across the entire field, no discernible distortion as far as I can tell, so perfect for architectural images. My issue w/ the focal length is that for my personal work it forces converging diagonals which is not what I'd prefer to do so obviously. A great IR lens that I used for a few years and have to poke myself to remember I have. As an all a-rounder, if you're comfortable with the focal length it's very hard to beat. Not to mention they seem to be going very cheaply on the secondary market. No idea why as they're a hidden gem. Decide what you'd like to use the lens for, pick one and you can't go wrong.
Thanks for your reply. Doing the test would be appreciated. I don’t think that I’m the only one asking this question, I’ve seen it in other forums without an answer. Just to be clear, my curiosity is about FOV, not sharpness, distortion, etc.
My guess is that the 14mm will be obviously wider than the 16mm f2.8. But that is just my guess, it will be interesting if the 16mm f2.8 FOV is so close to the 14mm that makes the $500 price difference questionable.
Thanks for your reply. Doing the test would be appreciated. I don’t think that I’m the only one asking this question, I’ve seen it in other forums without an answer. Just to be clear, my curiosity is about FOV, not sharpness, distortion, etc.
My guess is that the 14mm will be obviously wider than the 16mm f2.8. But that is just my guess, it will be interesting if the 16mm f2.8 FOV is so close to the 14mm that makes the $500 price difference questionable.
You can buy 14mm f2.8 used for $400-$450. If is a small but very nice lens.
I can't answer your comparison question. It will be interesting to see what Tom Brayne (who seems to be quite the lens collector) comes up with in his comparison. My hunch — which is worth no more than anyone else's hunch — its that there won't be any big surprises regarding the field of view produced by these lenses.
I suppose each brings some advantages and disadvantages to an overall comparison on all points that might be interesting.
14mm f/2.8 (which I do own and use a lot) has the widest angle of view, is a reasonably small lens, and produces really excellent image quality. I've had mine since I first started using Fujifilm cameras a bit more than 8 years ago, and it has served me very well. It isn't the smallest lens around, but it isn't all that large either. The only downside, as far as I'm concerned, might be the price of a new copy.
16mm f/2.8 (which I do not own) has the advantages of lower cost and smaller size. Reports are that it is generally a fine performer. I agree with the assessment above that it could be a fine addition to a kit built around the concept of small primes with somewhat smaller maximum apertures such as the 23mm, 35mm, and 50mm f/2 lenses, along with the 27mm f/2.8. (A three lens 16mm, 27mm and possibly 50mm kit has some interesting potential for street photography.)
16mm f/1.4 has the advantage of the f/1.4 aperture for those who need that, most likely for handheld shooting in low light. It is reportedly a fine performer, but it is also a rather large lens.
My bet is that, in the end, aside from price the most important thing to consider is how you'll use such a lens. Do you need the widest possible angle of view? Is the smallest possible size the most important thing (or the lowest price)? Do you need f/1.4. Against those questions, I'll bet that the slight variations in expected angle of view won't amount to all that much.
I recently had the 14 and both 16's. Sold the 14 and 16/2.8 last month.
The 16/2.8 is wider than the 16/1.4 and 16-55, likely close to 23mm. My Batis 25mm is closer to 23mm and was similar to the 16/2.8.
The 14 is similar to my FF 21mm in view. FOV from 14 to 16/2.8 is noticeable. I'm just commenting on fov differences.
I have uploaded samples from a test I had the opportunity to shoot yesterday. Out of camera jpgs, type layer added for labels, resaved as jpg. Three scenes, each shot with 14mm/f2.8, 16mm/f1.4, 16mm/f2.8, all shot at f7.1, ISO200. I’ve tried to place easily identifiable and comparable elements on sides of the image, e.g. utility poles or edge of cement slab the bench sits on. Certainly appears that the 16/2.8 is indeed wider than the 16/1.4. I maintained out of camera pixel dimensions, so feel free to download and pixel peep to your hearts’ content. I created a Google Photos album here:
Tom Brayne wrote:
I have uploaded samples from a test I had the opportunity to shoot yesterday. Out of camera jpgs, type layer added for labels, resaved as jpg. Three scenes, each shot with 14mm/f2.8, 16mm/f1.4, 16mm/f2.8, all shot at f7.1, ISO200. I’ve tried to place easily identifiable and comparable elements on sides of the image, e.g. utility poles or edge of cement slab the bench sits on. Certainly appears that the 16/2.8 is indeed wider than the 16/1.4. I maintained out of camera pixel dimensions, so feel free to download and pixel peep to your hearts’ content. I created a Google Photos album here:
Nice! It really looks like the 16/2.8 is a 15-15.5/2.8
But as was stated above, no manufacturer is exact in their mm measurements. Which is why when you read people being pedantic about the 16-80 is a ff equivalent 24-122mm, I just roll my eyes. It might be more of a 25-118. No one should really care as the mm's have been off ever since.... forever. But it is really nice to know that the 16/2.8 is a nicely wide, 22-23mm ff equivalent.
Tom Brayne wrote:
I have uploaded samples from a test I had the opportunity to shoot yesterday. Out of camera jpgs, type layer added for labels, resaved as jpg. Three scenes, each shot with 14mm/f2.8, 16mm/f1.4, 16mm/f2.8, all shot at f7.1, ISO200. I’ve tried to place easily identifiable and comparable elements on sides of the image, e.g. utility poles or edge of cement slab the bench sits on. Certainly appears that the 16/2.8 is indeed wider than the 16/1.4. I maintained out of camera pixel dimensions, so feel free to download and pixel peep to your hearts’ content. I created a Google Photos album here:
Thank you so much for doing this, it is helpful. As expected, the 14mm is noticeably wider than the 16mm f2,8. Enough of a differnece but not sure if 500 dollars difference for daily use. Now I wonder what makes the 14mm f2.8 so special for the hefty price, it is not WR as the 16mm f2.8 is.
