Hello all...I'm new to Fujifilm having switched from many years with a Canon FF system. I shoot primarily landscapes with the occasional grand church interior and such and I rarely shoot without a tripod. I am interested in an ultra wide angle so that narrows my search down to the 10-24 or the 8-16 (if I stay on brand). From everything I have read the 8-16 is optically superior but is the IQ that much better to justify twice the weight and an extra $400 (based on current pricing in my area). Would love to hear your thoughts. Thanks
Tuckamore47 wrote:
Hello all...I'm new to Fujifilm having switched from many years with a Canon FF system. I shoot primarily landscapes with the occasional grand church interior and such and I rarely shoot without a tripod. I am interested in an ultra wide angle so that narrows my search down to the 10-24 or the 8-16 (if I stay on brand). From everything I have read the 8-16 is optically superior but is the IQ that much better to justify twice the weight and an extra $400 (based on current pricing in my area). Would love to hear your thoughts. Thanks
IQ is very subjective. How are you viewing your photos? Who is the audience for your photos? Yesterday I printed a test shot with the XF 33mm F1.4 and XC 15-45 at 20X13 inches. From 5' away there wasn't anything in it. As soon as I got any closer the XF easily outperformed it. Screens tend to show deficiencies more because it's so easy to punch in to 100 or even 200 percent. So it mostly just depends on the end use case for your images.
I imagine the 8-16 is probably better wide open but I'm guessing you'll be stopping down most of the time if you always use a tripod. And the Sigma takes normal filters.
I just bought the Sigma myself yesterday but haven't gotten it yet.
I shoot with the 10-24 for landscapes quite often and like the IQ. I've read the same regarding the higher IQ of the 8-16 but have never been tempted on bulk, weight, and lack of screw on filters. I shoot with a polarizer quite often and even switched to magnetic filters to simplify the on/off of my polarizer. The 8-16 just doesn't seem like a lens suited to the XT5, carrying it and shooting handheld. I also have a GFX50 w/20-35mm and even that awesome MF lens is lighter than the 8-16 and takes screw on (or magnet on) filters.
I got the 10-24 when it came out and have been shooting with it ever since. I'm picky about my print quality and have been happy with the images from this lens. When the 8-16 came out I was tempted but ultimately decided to stick with what I had. At this point I'd get the 8mm prime and carry that if I wanted something wider.
(I was also tempted by the Mark II version of the 10-24, which added a marked aperture ring -- why oh why did Fuji miss that feature in the original? Sheesh. But again, my wallet won out over my emotions lol.)
SGinNorcal wrote:
Good point, I have been tempted by the 8mm prime. The 8 and 10-24 weigh less than just the 8-16mm.
This is true. The 8-16 is 805 grams and the combined weight of the 10-24 + 8mm is about 600 grams. However, the combined price is about $700 more (about 40% more than what I can get the 8-16 for) plus, I don't get the f2.8 max aperture which would be a very nice feature for astro.
Fujinon 8-16/2.8 is absurd big and heavy lens as for apsc standards. It's even bigger and heavier than Fujifilm own medium format GF 20-35/4
Granted, XF 8-16/2.8 has much more wider FOV and it's f/2.8 rather than f/4, but who needs f/2.8 for landscape?
For astrophotography f/2.8 is not bright enough for serious work.
Unless You are dying hard Fuji fan, I would not recommend 8-16/2.8 to anyone, if there is so much better choice in FF competition, which has similar size and weight (like Sigma Art 14-24/2.8 dg dn)
Tuckamore47 wrote:
Hello all...I'm new to Fujifilm having switched from many years with a Canon FF system. I shoot primarily landscapes with the occasional grand church interior and such and I rarely shoot without a tripod. I am interested in an ultra wide angle so that narrows my search down to the 10-24 or the 8-16 (if I stay on brand). From everything I have read the 8-16 is optically superior but is the IQ that much better to justify twice the weight and an extra $400 (based on current pricing in my area). Would love to hear your thoughts. Thanks
The Fuji XF 8-16mm f2.8 has the best image quality of any ultra wide zoom I've ever used, from any brand or format, and I've owned most of them... but only you can decide if you can deal with the extra bit of weight and the need to use 150mm filters with a special adapter.
Previous time I had Fuji, I got the 8-16. Great image quality, royal pain to change lenses on the go because of its size, shape, and weight. This time around, I went with the Sigma 10-18 2.8. No regrets so far.
But if you're doing tripod work, my issues with the lens likely won't be issues for you.
molson wrote:
You're going to have to carry a tripod to do astro no matter what lens you choose, so the lens weight is a bit of a moot point for that use case.
That was my point for astro, but the OP's primary use is landscape.
I think this thread shows the compromises made in lens design quite well and the choices we must make to get what we need. The Fuji X line really has parallel paths, small and light or bigger, faster, better OQ. I have focused on the smaller X lenses since I also have a porky Gfx and the whole point of my XT5 is to carry it most of the time. But if you wanted to stay with one body, I could see having both larger and smaller X lens lines to give huge versatility.
Thanks all for the information. I had purchased the 8-16 very recently (no rentals anywhere near me) and then rented the 10-24 gen 1. I went through a series of comparison tests for both. Tripod, various apertures/focal lengths with one lens, repeat with the other lens. Then I did a side by side comparison in Lightroom. The 8-16 does have better IQ in the corners in certain circumstances but, for me, not enough to justify the significant price jump. Not to mention the extra size/weight and the inability to use filters without an expensive holder.
So I returned the 8-16 yesterday and got a great deal from Amazon for the 10-24 WR. It just arrived and so far I am pleased. No pics yet and that will be the real test but I expect it will be great for my needs.
I recently tested the 10-24 (new version) vs. the 8-16 2.8 side by side. The first thing I noticed was that the 10-24 has a (sticky?) zoom ring. When zooming it tends to get stuck in some focal length, not smooth at all. The 8-16 has a smooth zoom mechanism.
The 8-16 is about the same size and weight as the 50 f/1. It's huge! The 10-24 is much easier to lug around.
Image quality.. no contest, the 8-16 is much better, especially near the corners. It has more bite to it, but the 10-24 isn't far behind. Most people won't notice the difference if viewed on phones/social media. The 8-16 has more pronounced perspective distortion (converging lines). You will have to compose more carefully with it.
For landscapes where you'll be on a tripod most of the time, I think I'll go with the 10-24, it's just more versatile and has the ability to mount a circular filter. But for most other uses - especially events, I'd go with the 8-16. The 2.8 just gives you a cleaner image when shooting in low light.
I have been planning to add the XF 10-24mm f/4 WR to the kit for some time now, since trading away the first version. I was surprised to find, however, that Fujifilm did not list it among the lenses that could fully resolve on the 40mp sensor despite its more recent release. This made me think I should just accept the heavier lens and more constrained focal range of the XF 8-16mm f/2.8. Opinions vary about how much Fujifilm's list matters but I prefer to get as much image quality as I can out of the wide angle that I'll primarily use for landscapes.
Well then maybe the porker 8-16 is worth it for you. But that list is just Fuji marketing, I wouldn't waste time on it. I've used the 10-24 on trips where it took 80% of my shots. When I looked at FL data, it was typically at 10-12 or 20-24, almost never at 16. So to me, the 10-24 is along with lighter, more versatile.
