I've been looking at getting a wider lens, fast prime for travel photography (currently the widest prime I have is 23mm, and zoom is the 16-80 F4) for my new XT-5
Looks like the 16mm is not listed by Fuji as a lens that can fully resolve the 40PM, while the 18mm can. I'd prefer the 16mm because it is just a bit wider. Any thoughts/recommendations here? Is there a better third-party option?
Not sure what 16mm lens you're referring to (there are two -- f1.4 and f2.8). Both lenses can "resolve" 40 megapixels worth of data. If you want wider, go for one of those.
mdude85 wrote:
Not sure what 16mm lens you're referring to (there are two -- f1.4 and f2.8). Both lenses can "resolve" 40 megapixels worth of data. If you want wider, go for one of those.
Yeah, that list did cause a lot of controversy in the Fuji fan base... with lots of people taking it out of context.
There was a note at the bottom of the original list, but it was cropped out in the site you linked to. It stated:
*The list specifies our selection of lenses that have high resolution performance from edge to edge at maximum aperture, allowing you to fully experience all that the 40MP sensor has to offer. Lenses not listed will also allow you to experience the improved resolution performance of the 40MP sensor.
mdude85 wrote:
Yeah, that list did cause a lot of controversy in the Fuji fan base... with lots of people taking it out of context.
There was a note at the bottom of the original list, but it was cropped out in the site you linked to. It stated:
*The list specifies our selection of lenses that have high resolution performance from edge to edge at maximum aperture, allowing you to fully experience all that the 40MP sensor has to offer. Lenses not listed will also allow you to experience the improved resolution performance of the 40MP sensor.
The list has since been scrubbed from Fuji's website, possibly due to the confusion it caused.
Very interesting list. It's nice to see that all of the affordable primes made the list.
The other thing that struck me is that the camera offers 160mp pixel shift, even though many of the lens can't handle 40mp. Presumably there is a subset of lenses on the "good for 40mp" list which can provide more detail in pixel shift?
Does pixel shift have any benefit with lenses that are not on the "good for40mp" list? E.g. things other than resolution, like noise or color?
Sax45 wrote:
Very interesting list. It's nice to see that all of the affordable primes made the list.
The other thing that struck me is that the camera offers 160mp pixel shift, even though many of the lens can't handle 40mp. Presumably there is a subset of lenses on the "good for 40mp" list which can provide more detail in pixel shift?
Does pixel shift have any benefit with lenses that are not on the "good for40mp" list? E.g. things other than resolution, like noise or color?
Pixel shifting doesn't change the base level resolution of the sensor. It's more like interpolating an image up to a higher resolution in post. The potential benefit to pixel shifting in-camera is that you exposure the same spot on the subject with differently color filtered pixels on the sensor. As the sensor moves around you get R, G and B pixels on the same resolved "dot" of the subject. The actual resolution of the sensor doesn't change though.
I've not used the 16/1.4 but I've heard nothing but good things regarding resolution and detail. It's an older design so it doesn't have the linear motor focus so in theory at least, slower to focus. The 18/1.4 is a great lens, I love it. But I use the 10-24 more for hiking in varied terrain. You can't go wrong with these choices, whichever FL suits your needs
Tim Carpenter wrote:
I've been looking at getting a wider lens, fast prime for travel photography (currently the widest prime I have is 23mm, and zoom is the 16-80 F4) for my new XT-5
Looks like the 16mm is not listed by Fuji as a lens that can fully resolve the 40PM, while the 18mm can. I'd prefer the 16mm because it is just a bit wider. Any thoughts/recommendations here? Is there a better third-party option?
First off — and everyone should repeat this as often as possible! — the Fujifilm list of lenses that are supposedly “ready for 40MP” is nonsense. Ignore it. It is full of oddball inclusions and exclusions and contradictions. I can share details if you wish, but understand that basing decisions on it is bad approach.
As to whether 16mm for 18mm (or something else) would be most useful for travel photography, how the lens fits into your system is likely far more important that some small and probably not visible difference in purported image quality.
I see that you have the 23mm (f/1.4?) and the 16-80mm f/4. I wonder if either of these wide primes will gain you that much if you plan to continue using the 16-80mm. What are the situations in which you envision using the wide f/1.4 lenses? Many plan to use them to photograph interiors of buildings and churches and the like… but with your XT5, IBIS really extends what you can do at f/4 in those situations. The f/4 aperture should also be just fine for (narrow) street scenes in all but the very darkest conditions… where a 23mm f/1.4 will work well.
I do a fair amount of travel photography, quite a bit of it in those situations and even at night, where I like to do urban handheld street photography. Although I carry two f/1.4 primes (23mm and 35mm), with the XT5 I find that I’m using the 27mm f/2.8 most often now, even in those low light situations.
And when I do want the larger aperture, it is more likely to be in situations where there are people and other moving targets, and for that I’m more inclined to use something that is less wide. The 23mm f/1.4 is quite good for this. The distortion effects at 16mm or 18mm are pronounced in pictures of people.
Underlying all of this is the concern, typical with travel photographers, about carrying too much gear and with trying to keep the weight and bulk to a minimum. Part of that means selecting smaller (and less) gear when possible, and another part is avoiding duplication.
One other option to consider. I use and love the 14mm f/2.8 wide angle lens. It works really well on the XT5, isn’t gigantic, and gives you something wider than what you already get with the zoom, unlike the 16mm and 18mm, which duplicate focal lengths covered by your existing lens.
One thing to also keep in mind if you are trying to parse out the “best” lens: Pretty much all of Fujifilm’s lenses for the x-trans cameras are great performers, differentiated more by features than my photo-making quality.
Image quality differences between the 16 f1.4 and f2.8 should be negligible. The f1.4 is a bit older and thus slower to focus, but has the faster max aperture. On the other hand, it's noticeably larger and heavier than the f2.8. Also much pricier.
Sigma offers a third party option, a 16 f1.4. It's a tad larger and heavier than the Fuji, but it is faster to focus, and about half the price. On the downside, it lacks an aperture ring (aperture would be controlled with a dial on the camera).
If you need f1.4, and budget is a constraint, I recommend giving the Sigma a try. For most people, the f2.8 option should be fine.
If a constant f/2.8 aperture will suffice, consideration might be given to the Sigma 10-18mm f/2.8 zoom. It has a relatively small form factor and very nice IQ.
The 16mm f1.4 is one of Fuji's sharpest lenses. You won't be disappointed by it sharpness wise.
As others have noted the AF might be slightly slower and noisier than the 18mm f1.4 that has the latest linear motors. It also takes 67mm filters, which may be a consideration.
It is also one of the few lenses with an AF/MF clutch, which you may or may not like. While it is a cool but discontinued feature, I have a bad habit of accidently knocking it into MF when pulling it out of the bag and them wondering why AF is not working.
Please ignore Fuji's 40mp lens list. It really is nonsense.
gdanmitchell wrote:
I see that you have the 23mm (f/1.4?) and the 16-80mm f/4. I wonder if either of these wide primes will gain you that much if you plan to continue using the 16-80mm. What are the situations in which you envision using the wide f/1.4 lenses? Many plan to use them to photograph interiors of buildings and churches and the like… but with your XT5, IBIS really extends what you can do at f/4 in those situations. The f/4 aperture should also be just fine for (narrow) street scenes in all but the very darkest conditions… where a 23mm f/1.4 will work well.
This is helpful (as are many of the other comments). I should have clarified that the 23mm is the F2. I have been assuming that in many cases (even if with IBIS of the XT-5, I will need the faster lens capture night time street scenes (over the 16-80mm F4). The other consideration is portraits I may do (who knows if that will actually happen) where I want a shallow depth of field. Of course, if a portrait, I could pull that off with the 35 F1.4 (I love this lens). It seems for wide shots and poor lighting, even with IBIS, the F4 would be a stretch??
Tim Carpenter wrote:
This is helpful (as are many of the other comments). I should have clarified that the 23mm is the F2. I have been assuming that in many cases (even if with IBIS of the XT-5, I will need the faster lens capture night time street scenes (over the 16-80mm F4). The other consideration is portraits I may do (who knows if that will actually happen) where I want a shallow depth of field. Of course, if a portrait, I could pull that off with the 35 F1.4 (I love this lens). It seems for wide shots and poor lighting, even with IBIS, the F4 would be a stretch??...Show more →
Years ago, I assumed that I needed f/1.4 lenses to do night street photography. (When I started doing night photography 20 years ago, I also assumed that I’d need to work from a tripod. Not necessarily.)
But the very narrow DOF at f/1.4 doesn’t aways work well for street. Even at night I often found myself working at f/2.8 or f/4 in order to get a bit more DOF.
The great thing — at least for us who once used earlier kinds of gear — is that contemporary digital cameras work well at much higher ISOs than what we worked with in film days or even with early digital cameras. On top of that IS and IBIS extend our ability to hand hold a camera in low light.
If your night photography is urban, an f/2 lens isn’t really that much of a limitation. Usually that is plenty, and it is already within one stop of f/1.4.
Even with portraits, more often than not you’ll want to work at a slightly smaller than maximum aperture — or you’ll have to deal with stuff like one eye being out of focus or the tip of the nose being out of focus.
Geoff D F wrote:
F2 is enough for night photography in the better lit parts of cities, which is where most people do street.
Exactly.
In fact, recently I went thought a bunch of my night street photos looking for something at f/1.4 with a particular lens (someone asked about its performance wide open) and it was almost impossible to find such a shot. Virtually all of them were made between f/2 and f/4, and the most common apertures were f/2.8 and f/4!
There are basically two situations where I’d shoot wide open with night street subjects, to simplify a bit.
1. It is so dark that it is either f/1.4 or no shot.
2. I actually want the smallest possible DOF.
Both of those are really rare situations. Much more often — almost always, actually — I’m hoping to get a bit more DOF, and the smaller apertures work fine. Last summer I used the 27mm f/2.8 for most of my urban night shots.
I agree on DOF, with the 18 and 33 f1.4's, the DOF is extremely shallow at 1.4 and not all the useful IMO. That said, they are both awesome lenses. Having a mix of 1.4 and 2 primes with F4 zooms works fine for me. I have used the 16-80 indoors in a pinch by finding hand rests but its not ideal for that use.
FWIW re "night" photography. Usually when I do it, people are involved and/or larger subjects involved that are usually "important" to the composition, so I often find myself shooting at f4 to 5.6. The only reason I have faster primes is specifically for the shallowest DoF possible with my system, OR filtering for a specific look I might want at a grab; and usually it's a combination of both.
Since my zooms cover my typical night needs very well and more conveniently, they are usually what's on my camera at night. If I think I'll want the fast prime, one is mounted and usually filtered with a 1/8 BPM filter on the other body.
Currently my only primes are the 35/1.4 and 56/1.2 gen-1. I love the way both of these lenses render, and the 1/8 BPM filter enhances that subtly; both render a great "film-noir" look when used at night with background lights.
So I am in the boat of adding either the 16/1.4 or one of the 18's to fill out my fast trio of primes with something wider. The 16/2.8 is of no interest as my 16-55 works great wide open at f2.8 and 16mm on my 40mp body, regardless of the fact it didn't make the list . The 18/2 was of some interest due to the fact it's so small and the fact the actual difference between f2 and f1.4 DoF at that focal is relatively minimal, BUT according to most reviews of it, it really doesn't sharpen up nicely until f4, so again, useless other than size for my intended purposes, which means I'd likely never use it. So now it's the 16/1.4 or the 18/1.4...
In my case, I know from history that I'd not use either of the shorter lenses nearly as much as the 35, but then probably would use either more than I actually use the 56. And arguably would probably get more use out of the 16 than the 18 on a regular basis, but then by online reviews the 18 is far better optically, especially wide open where I'd be using it -- hence my own personal conundrum.
Jack Flesher wrote:
The 18/2 was of some interest due to the fact it's so small and the fact the actual difference between f2 and f1.4 DoF at that focal is relatively minimal, BUT according to most reviews of it, it really doesn't sharpen up nicely until f4, so again, useless other than size for my intended purposes, which means I'd likely never use it. So now it's the 16/1.4 or the 18/1.4...
In my case, I know from history that I'd not use either of the shorter lenses nearly as much as the 35, but then probably would use either more than I actually use the 56. And arguably would probably get more use out of the 16 than the 18 on a regular basis, but then by online reviews the 18 is far better optically, especially wide open where I'd be using it -- hence my own personal conundrum. ...Show more →
I had the 18 f1.4, and then I sold it a few months later and now I have the 18 f2. Granted I have not done a ton of shooting with them but yes, in my experience the 18 f1.4 is very sharp wide open. But the f2 version is also plenty sharp for almost anything you can throw at it. Side by side the f1.4 version would probably win, but then again, it's much larger, heavily corrected, and of course far more expensive.
The f2 version is tiny. Very nice for street shooting and travel. It was made to pair well with the XPro1, so the engineering and design represents the essence of Fuji APS-C in my opinion.
The f1.4 version focussed more quickly and more quietly than the f2. But for me, it was too big and expensive for what I was getting out of it. And given the focal length there's not a huge perceptible difference in depth of field between f1.4 and f2.
People place a lot of importance on having the newest and best lenses when the older ones are perfectly fine (especially if you are just a hobbyist and no one is demanding the highest image quality but you). And if you're not using it that much anyway, why splurge on the f1.4? Just my two cents.
. The 18/2 was of some interest due to the fact it's so small and the fact the actual difference between f2 and f1.4 DoF at that focal is relatively minimal, BUT according to most reviews of it, it really doesn't sharpen up nicely until f4, so again, useless other than size for my intended purposes, which means I'd likely never use it. So now it's the 16/1.4 or the 18/1.4...