This was a great honest comparison. The best I've seen for these lenses. I think the only comment I'd challenge would be the "inconspicuousness" comparison for street. In this time where privacy concern is front and center, shooting street with *anything* is going to raise eyebrows/get smirks, etc. People just seem more sensitive to someone pointing any camera at them. I don't think in this case, and in my street experience, the size makes a noticeable difference. I've gone out with a D810 with no one caring one iota, yet shot with my phone or my XPro with the 18 on it and had people cover their face or shoot me eye daggers. A camera is a camera to those not comfortable with having their pic taken. Anything you put up to your face and point toward someone will get attention. That said , being respectful and even carrying info cards with us can pay dividends when confronted with anyone who approaches us asking questions.
Hmmm. I've had a very different experience to this! While it is true that the best way to take any photo would always be to put the subject at ease (by either calming their worries in advance and explaining, or quickly gesturing and overtly indicating your intentions before snapping)... very many of us are not going to be able to ask every passing stranger if they are happy to be caught in a photo that often isn't really focused on them. And many would not want to take that style of photo in any case. And in those situations where you can't ask... having a smaller inconspicuous camera, that looks pretty much like an everyday tourist taking touristy snaps, definitely draws 10 times less attention or objection. Two or three silent snaps and move on. No one ever really cares. The social situation is actually somewhat reversed with a small camera or phone camera: short of pointing a camera into someone's face from 2-3 feet away... anyone going after or confronting someone using one in public would be considered a bit of a crank and as behaving slightly unreasonably (even though it is always best to immediately agree to delete any photo in any case!). Meanwhile, I find that ANY lens bigger than a relatively small prime... or ANY camera that starts to even look like a zoom DSLR... draws a very different response when pointed. It has an effect somewhat like pointing a gun randomly around you: people start to duck and dive and try to get out of the line of sight/fire. If you look like an American Tourist (I'm not in the US)... you may still get away with people simply smiley-grimacing or rolling their eyes. But if you hang around taking loud clicky photos... with a big lens overtly pointing it at passing people over and over... it is not unusual for someone to take issue. And onlookers tend to sympathise with the person being randomly photo'd.
Thanks for posting this! Really helpful. The portraits you get out of that 16mm 1.4 are where it really shines... or I should say where YOU really shine. They have an energy, and a sense of the world around them that you don't get on a more traditional portrait lens. Something really magic about them that doesn't quite come through on the 2.8 version. Saying that I'm gonna pick up a 2.8. Because I shoot street and I'm cheap. 😜
You always mention your “love” for a 16mm and how good it is, so I got the f/2.8 (I also got the 35mm f/2 LOL), I couldn't be happier, I’m not a professional, I just shoot for fun (X-T2, my first and only digital camera) and I’m always shooting between f/8 and f/11, I don’t have to tell you how great the lenses are at those apertures. Thank you very much for your tutorials, reviews, advice and opinions.
Everything I've read about the 18mm is not so good compared to the other wides. Really interested in that lens until you compare the price to the 16mm 2.8. The 16mm is weather sealed, has a quieter and more accurate auto focus system and is significantly cheaper and apparently sharper. Here in the UK it's about £500 for teh 18mm and £300 for the 16mm 2.8
Great video, thanks for making this. Two minor notes: 1) the difference between f1.4 and f2.8 is 2 full stops, not 1.5. 2) the 18mm f2 lens is also smaller dimensionally than the 16mm f2.8. Cheers!
Can you compare 16mm f2.8 to 14mm f2.8 in terms of IQ and handling? You said the 16mm f2.8 is wider than the 16mm f1.4; is it closer to 14mm wide or 16mm f1.4 wide ?
I'm lucky to have both of these lenses. I really like the 1.4 and I use it when my day is focussed on either long exposure or landscape photography. However, if I'm going to be doing some street photography or travelling, I will definitely reach for the 2.8. Yes, the 1.4 is better than the 2.8, but it depends on what you need it for. Really appreciate your videos. Always informative. Thank you.
Hey Andrew, do you think we could see some sort of comparison with the 18f2? I’m stuck between the two because I want a pocket size wide angle - just sold the 27mm because it was too tight for me and I can’t decide between these two now?!!
I was surprized when Andrew said that the only smaller option is 27mm. And in comments here it seams that everyone forgot about 18mm. But it's close to 16mm and it has f2. Would love to hear Andrew's oppinion about it.
I have the 18mm which prevents me to get any of the 16mm. At f2 the 18mm seats in the middle and the focal length should not be that different. Now I hear that the 16mm 2.8 is actually a 15mm and I think that makes getting the 2.8 more intriguing
Thanks for sharing your opinion Andrew. For me personally, the f2.8 version sounds like a good match and I could use the money I saved to get another lens instead. I think the smaller size and weight are major factors for my run and gun style of photography.
Thx for this video. Until the end of your video I was thinking about replacing the 1.4 with the 2.8, but I was not sure. You helped me to stick with the 1.4 and eased my mind 👍
Love your channel, love the video, very balanced! Just thought I'd point out a small detail: The difference between 1.4 and 2.8 is not 1.5 stops of light as you mentioned, it's actually 2 stops. I assume it was just a slip of tongue, but I'd say it's a bit significant for people deciding between the two. A rule of thumb for those who are curious: Aperture follows an exponential scale where the number doubles every two stops, meaning if you start at f/1, going up whole stops gives you f/1.4, f/2 (two times f/1), f/2.8 (two times f/1.4), f/4, f/5.6, f/8 and so forth :p
I had the 16mm 2.8 first and literally got the 16mm 1.4 few days ago. I can say that they are both very different lenses for very different purposes. I don’t feel silly for having both. 2.8 for more video focused work 1.4 for low light photography like events and weddings
That's a very cool waterfall. IMHO, the 16 1.4 is one of the very best wide angle lenses available for any camera. Keen to try the 2.8 as well of course.
Another fantastic lens comparison, Andrew. Was torn between these two - but now I feel pretty confident knowing which one will fit my needs. Many thanks
Thanks for another great video! I totally agree with your findings when I tested the f/2.8 against f/1.4. A tiny bit sharper but to my eyes also a bit more “processed” rendering! (I am keeping the 1.4😁)
I think 16 2.8 is better to use with XT30/20 series on the street, where the light is good and you want something light and compact. Whereas 16 1.4 is better for indoor, close up for detail.
My comments are admittedly trivial, but... I have a Pro3 and three "Fujicrons," for it. Great for street work, i.e., during the day. But I really like shooting ARCRO in the evening or at night and for that I bought an X-H1 (still the best buy right now anywhere.) For that large body I prefer the faster but larger lenses. I have the 35 f1.4, 56 F1.2 and 90. I was needing something wider, so, what to do? I think you may have either gotten a off copy of the 16mm f1.4. No one likes to hear that but I'm speculating. Other tests I've seen rate the f1.4 version the best Fuji lens hands down and after breaking the tie got one and agree. The trivial part that I mentioned is that the f1.4 version just fits the H1 where the f2.8 version looks silly. I know...don't say it. I guess I won't mention the cool looking lens hood that's available then. Since I wanted the most versatility with the 16mm focal length I went with the f1.4 for better IQ (in my experience) but also for that extra TWO full stops of speed. I like my night shots to have as little noise as possible. F1.4 backed up by IBIS is fantastic. Two stops for me is worth $500, and the 1:4 near macro doesn't hurt either. I would NOT buy a lens because of the really cool looking square lens hood I could get. Really. No, really. Why are you looking at me? Some like Fuji's version of noise and it does render it very cleverly as grain, I get that. I just don't if I can help it...so I helped it with the unexpected Christmas bonus from my company which just happened to be $500. I took this as a clear sign from God. He knows Protestants have difficulty spending money on luxury items and I'm no exception. If I don't have a plausible utilitarian reason then I make one up and by the time I get home from the store I actually believe it. Besides, I like looking at the front of that huge glass and expecting HAL from the movie, 2001, to ask if there is anything he can do for me. "Thank you for asking, HAL Yes there is. We're leaving the ship tonight to collect photographic samples of the inhabitants of the planet below and I'm depending on you to be enthusiastic about the mission."
It is exactly 2 stops. 16/1.4 = 11.4mm is twice the aperture diameter as 16/2.8 = 5.7mm. Twice the diameter also means twice the radius. The aperture area is A = 2*pi*(radius)^2, so twice the radius is 4x the area, which is 4x the light. Each stop is 2x light by definition. So 4x light is 2 stops. Ok, one lens is closer to 15mm, but that also changed the FOV, so it makes no difference in the number of “stops”. Physics and math - makes the World go ‘round... literally. God obviously loves math and science and photography!
Great review very balanced. I bought the f2.8 version on release and love it. Even with all the excellence of the f1.4 of which I have had two copies I don’t miss it all, paired with a 35 f2 (my favourite lens) and finished off with the superlative 50-140 I am a very happy shooter. Just bought a XT3 to supplement my XT2 and am surprised at how good it is. However had use of a XH1 recently and loved the balance, phenomenal shutter release and ibis. Very tempted to change my XT2 body for one if these as I probably wont be able to afford the XH2 when it is released. Fuji gets better all the time.
Was thinking the 16mm f2.8 for landscape, but you say there is much better options for landscape. What would you suggest? 14mm f2.8? 18mm f2? Or do you rec a zoom? I have the 18-55mm kit already, but looking for something a bit wider.
Other than WR, I don't see why I would pick the 16/2.8 over the 14/2.8 especially if the 16/2.8 is more like a 15mm lens. The 14mm gives me a great clutch focus too and I rarely shoot in the rain.
f/2.8 is shorter than f/1.4, so when you take picture of something which is very close, field of view might seem larger. During tests, you should put front element of each lens in the same place, not camera.
Thank you for another really stylish, balanced and helpful review! I agree that sharpness is but one criterion and that usability in a range of scenarios is key. I have, and love, the 16mm 1.4, but you have helped me confirm a growing view that it would be helpful to have both. Keep up the great work!!
Greate comparision! Thanks a lot! At 13:04 - I can not see any significant differences in focus breathing. It looks for me as if 16mm F2.8 doesn't have it like 16mm F1.4.
Hola Andrew, excelente tu presentación comparativa de ambas lentes, me quedó muy claro cual es la que necesito comprar. Todos los aspectos que trataste sobre una y otra fueron muy necesarios y la información proporcionada por ti, lograste complementar perfectamente ofreciendo los pro y los contra de cada objetivo fotográfico. Gracias
The "wider angle of view" thing: did you have the camera fixed when you took the photo? You need to take into account that the more forward front lens element on the 1.4, the calculations start there, not at the focal plane (sensor).
It's a fair point, but the difference between front elements is less than an inch. Doesn't begin to account for the very large angle of view difference.
Hey Andrew !!! You have the best reviews on youtube, demonstrated practically and very factual your a true pro the way you present your self...im a wide angle shooter as i know you love your 16mm 1.4, i was undecided about the 10-24mm or 16mm 1.4 lens to buy so i bought the 10-24 lens a year ago and i love using it more than any of my other fuji lenses i have. I just love shooting wide... and i still feel guilty i dont have the 16mm 1.4 in my collection!!! Is it a must have lens for fuji wide angle lovers??
I love my 1.4 but you're right about how much noise it makes focusing, not something I was aware of until I thought about making a minimal setup with an on-board mic and wrecked a bunch of footage, so that was annoying
I did a test comparing a full frame 24 mm 1.8 G Nikon on a full frame body (D750) vs the 16 / 2.8 on a Fuji body (XE-2S), and it seems to me that the Fuji 16 mm is atleast 5 degrees wider (not a real measurement, just an estimate I made by eye). It places the 16 2.8 somewhere in between the 14 2.8 (21 mm equivalent) and a 24 mm equivalent (16 1.4). My suspicion is that the 16 2.8 is like a 22 mm or 22.5 mm equivalent.
Related to wide angle Fujinons, I wonder why there are so many reviews and fuzz about the 16mm, or the 18mm, and so little about the 14mm. I own the 14mm and it is a marvel. You should give it a try!
16 1.4 is a good semi macro lens and I use it for stills while the 16 2.8 I use for video. Best to have both...that way you have the advantages of both.
I resemble that remark!. Great lens, but my favorite Fuji is the 50-140mm. Yea, it is a beast, but for indoor sports, it is an awesome lens. Might need to pick up some of those other small primes.
I am choosing one of these lenses for my architectural photography work. Is there any lens distortion issue with the F2.8 compare to the 1.4? Because I need lines to be as straight as possible for architecture shooting. I owned the F1.4 lens previous and ,other than size, this is an amazing lens.
Andrew, a random thought on true focal length of the ‘15’ mm f2.8 you discovered. When comparing it to the 10-24mm (and of course the prime is better) to get the same size frame, with my test shots I had to set the zoom to 14mm! Would be interesting to see what focal lengths we are actually buying and why don’t manufacturers just state what they are rather than conforming to the old statutory focal lengths of 18, 24, 35, to 50mm etc. I don’t mind buying a 17mm wide angle, or even a 15mm. Just a thought.
mmgull Having used the 14mm (crop) a few years ago I never felt it was as wide as my Nikon 21mm (35mm equiv.) so I would guess around 13mm on the 10-24.
I think the best combination is the 18 mm of 1.4 which focuses much faster and the 16 mm F2 .8. I use the 18 mm f1.4 for weddings and other events where I need that wide angle but the 16 mm of 2.8 is my travel and fun lens and could be used in a pinch at a wedding to get a little extra width. Although I also have the 16 to 55 mm of 2.8 which goes to every wedding.
Quiet AF? LOL - I had two copies and both were louder than my other "Fujicron" lenses. I had bad experiences with the 16 2.8 unfortunately...particularly auto focus issues using the XT2, it often failed to focus for no reason so I ended up returning it for a full refund. I think it can be better with a firmware update. But I feel like the lens was rushed. I will agree with you though, it was sharp as heck and the contrast for b&w was absolutely crazy! Great review Andrew.
The 16 1.4 is amazing. It is great for indoor ‘event’ shots. However, I found I rarely packed it due to size and weight. I LOVE the 27 on my X-T2 or X-E3. My other lens is the 35 f2 for indoor family shots. With the 27 I’m usually outdoors so it lives at mid-aperture. Lack of ring no issue here.
Hi, nice video. Which lens do you recommend for wild angle landscape and architectural photography on a XT-30? In addition if we can do wild angle portrait that nice. Should I go for a Fujinon 16mm 1,4 or the manuel focus Laowa 9mm 2,8 for fuji? I am concidering both but not sure which one will be more useful. Or another tie breaker?
Xpro body with that 2.8 is a killer combo, especially as a travel camera where you'll be shooting wide scenes/landscapes and you want that wide field of view and don't want all that weight of the 1.4. Honestly the 2.8 should appeal to everyone, if you make money with your gear then go with the 1.4
Thanks for this video! I am intrigued with your opening statement that if you are a landscape photographer, these are not the lenses you would choose. Curious, what do you prefer on Fuji X for landscape? I am undecided about a zoom (and maybe even the kit) or a wide prime and the 16mm range prime since most of my landscape on my Canon is in the range of 20-24.
My point was just that if you plan to be primarily a landscape photographer, you don't need some of the benefits a prime lens gives you (specifically low aperture number) because you're shooting in higher apertures (f8-f16). And at those apertures most Fuji lenses to be very sharp, you get no advantage from shooting with a prime for IQ. But flexibility of a zoom is very important. You never really know ahead of time what a scene will offer to you, and you need as much flexibility to compose as possible. Having said that, I shoot plenty of landscape with my 16mm lenses, simply because they are what I have. But I am also a documentary photographer first, landscape photographer second. Or maybe more like 5th. :)
I own the XF-35mm f1.4 and I noticed that I barely use/need it wide open. Adding that to the price and the size of the 16mm siblings the f2.8 was my choice. I don’t mind the manual focus “issue” since I prefer to use it at f8 with the focus point about 3m away (hyperfocal distance) anyway.
If shooters have been in the Fuji system for some time, they may already have the 1.4. I do, having purchased a mint copy 2nd hand. To my mind, the choice need not be mutually exclusive. The 1,4 is naturally heavier with all that quality glass in it and makes the smaller form X bodies less "nimble". The 2.8 is keenly priced and makes for a lighter overall lens and body package for street shooting and those times you don't need the faster lens speed.
Hey.. just quick question... Fuzi 16.mm 2.8 vs fuzi 16 to 55 mm 2.8 at 16.mm are both same. Specially at close focus??? I am looking for new fuzi xs 10.
Good comparison, I love the 1.4. As I'm contemplating my next purchases, I'd love to see a video that compares the Fuji prime lens fields of view. Can't seem to find one on YT. So, a tripod, a subject, and 16/23/35/50/56/80/90 lenses (you still have most of those, right?!) along with how far the camera is from the subject would be awesome.
What about chromatic aberrations? The 16 1.4 has (at least mine lens) a lot of problem with that, exatly in low light situations at 1.4 i get tons of aberrations, also i read about COMA problems, and i've seen that too on my shots.
I have a very good copy of 16/1.4 but I want also the f2.8. I use my Fujifilm set mostly for alpinisme and see kayaking (in a water proof case). The question is the weight. I build now up my f2 - f2.8 light prime series. I have already the 23/2 but the next will be the 16/2.8.
I sold my f/1.4 and bought a f/2.8 because for me size and weight matters a lot while hiking. And that is where I’m using my camera gear. And I’m so happy with my decision.
@@TheCadocas At my level of photography I don't see any difference in the image quality between these two lenses. Decide yourself: Do you think the quality of this shot is to low: s3-eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/wordpress-flaemig42.de/2019/05/05192026/DXE39270.jpg (X-E3, XF16 f2.8 @ f/5.6, 1/680sec) (I'm happy with it :D )
Thanks! i watch all your videos for a long time now and this one helped a lot. i have been wanting the 16mm f1.4 for a long time and have been shooting on fuji for years and have "OK" collection. But after this video sir... i kinda want the 16mm 2.8 for the sharpness and affordability. Bokeh is nice n all but i usually stop down to 5.6 or 8 anyway. the only thing that still has me on the fence is the focal distance and since im now heavily into macro i need to find out how close i can get with the 16mm 2.8 and that will determine my purchase. You rock and have pretty much influenced the majority of my collection and seem to be beautifully a positive soul in general so...well...thanks in general!
I think BHT hit the nail on the head when he said it's not a comparison between 2.8 and 1.4 and more of how can this lens compliment your f2 series lenses.
I guess it comes down to what you photograph as to witch lens will work best, for the people that say it is a large or heavy lens should spend some time photographing with a camera like the Pentax K1 MKII with the 24-70 f2.8 or any prime like the Pentax 85mm f1.4. That is a heavy setup. I don't have the 85mm but I do have the 24-70 along with Pentax and Sigma primes and zoom lenses I used for event photography so the XT5 with the 16mm f1.4 is light weight in comparison.
IMHO, I am really pleased with my 16mm f1.4 - having also got the 27mm f2.8, 14mm f2.8 and the 18mm f2 I think I have all that I need and the 16mm f2.8 has nothing to tempt me.
What a great review! I love your rationale for IQ not being everything and I share your love of the 16mm f1.4. Even I could tell it was a special lens. Unfortunately I sold mine because I just had too many lenses and as I was offered a good price for it ...... Anyway, I'm after a video lens in that ball park so I've ordered teh f2.8 but now I wish I had my 1.4 back!!
Been a Fuji shooter off and on for past 10 years and recently got the XT3 for video and saw everyone raving about the 16mm 1.4 so decided to pick one up. So far it seems to have something about it that makes it stand out from the other lenses similar to my 35mm 1.4. I already have the 23mm 2.0 so don't think I will be getting the 16mm 2.8. Would be more tempting had it been 2.0
At 2:55 you're saying that this lens doesn't seem to be a good candidate for landscape photography. I also agree that for regular landscape photography use something like the 10-24mm is much more versatile. However, given the tiny size and weight of only 155g, this could be a great lens for photography during mountaineering trips where weight and volume is definitely a big issue. Would you agree with that? (Note that I'm still in the research phase and haven't actually bought any of these Fuji lenses yet :))
The way in which you use your 16mm f1.4 is the reason I'm so torn between the two "16"mm options. I LOVE getting close and I want a wider, indoor capable lens, but I also long for something that is compact... Also worth noting, the 16mm f1.4 is priced very well on the used market, and really only about $200 more than a used 16mm f2.8.
"I'm hanging on the hopes that Fuji will eventually give us some stabilized cameras with fully articulated screens" - yes they will. Greetings from the future.
Thank you Andrew! One of my favorite things about your channel is “Kindness before cameras.” You make me believe it.
This was a great honest comparison. The best I've seen for these lenses. I think the only comment I'd challenge would be the "inconspicuousness" comparison for street. In this time where privacy concern is front and center, shooting street with *anything* is going to raise eyebrows/get smirks, etc. People just seem more sensitive to someone pointing any camera at them. I don't think in this case, and in my street experience, the size makes a noticeable difference. I've gone out with a D810 with no one caring one iota, yet shot with my phone or my XPro with the 18 on it and had people cover their face or shoot me eye daggers. A camera is a camera to those not comfortable with having their pic taken. Anything you put up to your face and point toward someone will get attention. That said , being respectful and even carrying info cards with us can pay dividends when confronted with anyone who approaches us asking questions.
Hmmm. I've had a very different experience to this! While it is true that the best way to take any photo would always be to put the subject at ease (by either calming their worries in advance and explaining, or quickly gesturing and overtly indicating your intentions before snapping)... very many of us are not going to be able to ask every passing stranger if they are happy to be caught in a photo that often isn't really focused on them. And many would not want to take that style of photo in any case. And in those situations where you can't ask... having a smaller inconspicuous camera, that looks pretty much like an everyday tourist taking touristy snaps, definitely draws 10 times less attention or objection. Two or three silent snaps and move on. No one ever really cares.
The social situation is actually somewhat reversed with a small camera or phone camera: short of pointing a camera into someone's face from 2-3 feet away... anyone going after or confronting someone using one in public would be considered a bit of a crank and as behaving slightly unreasonably (even though it is always best to immediately agree to delete any photo in any case!). Meanwhile, I find that ANY lens bigger than a relatively small prime... or ANY camera that starts to even look like a zoom DSLR... draws a very different response when pointed. It has an effect somewhat like pointing a gun randomly around you: people start to duck and dive and try to get out of the line of sight/fire. If you look like an American Tourist (I'm not in the US)... you may still get away with people simply smiley-grimacing or rolling their eyes. But if you hang around taking loud clicky photos... with a big lens overtly pointing it at passing people over and over... it is not unusual for someone to take issue. And onlookers tend to sympathise with the person being randomly photo'd.
Thanks for posting this! Really helpful.
The portraits you get out of that 16mm 1.4 are where it really shines... or I should say where YOU really shine. They have an energy, and a sense of the world around them that you don't get on a more traditional portrait lens. Something really magic about them that doesn't quite come through on the 2.8 version.
Saying that I'm gonna pick up a 2.8. Because I shoot street and I'm cheap. 😜
You always mention your “love” for a 16mm and how good it is, so I got the f/2.8 (I also got the 35mm f/2 LOL), I couldn't be happier, I’m not a professional, I just shoot for fun (X-T2, my first and only digital camera) and I’m always shooting between f/8 and f/11, I don’t have to tell you how great the lenses are at those apertures. Thank you very much for your tutorials, reviews, advice and opinions.
Thanks for an awesome video full of information and a complete lack of sponsors and superfluous b roll. You rock!
I love my 16mm1.4 , it is my second favourite lens behind the 35f2 . It is such an incredible lens !
Yup, I have both those lenses. And the 35 F2 is awesome! 👍🏻
Would this 16 f1.4 pair well with the 35 f1.4?
@@mydearriley absolutely!
Excellent reviews, not only you know your stuff, you're very careful not to upset people of other options, keep it up!
What be interesting would be the XF 18mm 2 vs the 16mm 2.8.
Would love to see this.
Everything I've read about the 18mm is not so good compared to the other wides. Really interested in that lens until you compare the price to the 16mm 2.8. The 16mm is weather sealed, has a quieter and more accurate auto focus system and is significantly cheaper and apparently sharper. Here in the UK it's about £500 for teh 18mm and £300 for the 16mm 2.8
I love my 18mm. Damn its reputation.
@@MikeScammon same here. I don't understand the hate.
My X-T30 loves that 16/f2.8. What a superb little lens. I can live without the little nudge in dof and light gathering. F/2.8 is plenty fast.
The 27mm f2.8 is an absolute pleasure. The sharpness is out of this world. Best walk-around lens imo - but I have yet to try the 16mm f2.8
fyi， the 27mm is about 70 dollars in AU camera pro lol, spectacular value
I agree. The 27 is a sleeper. Keep it mid-aperture & results are excellent.
As a street shooter the 2.8 is what I’m going to get but dam that 1.4 is nice! But hey with the 500 left over I’m also going to pick up the 23 !
Great video, thanks for making this. Two minor notes: 1) the difference between f1.4 and f2.8 is 2 full stops, not 1.5. 2) the 18mm f2 lens is also smaller dimensionally than the 16mm f2.8. Cheers!
Thanks Joel
Can you compare 16mm f2.8 to 14mm f2.8 in terms of IQ and handling?
You said the 16mm f2.8 is wider than the 16mm f1.4; is it closer to 14mm wide or 16mm f1.4 wide ?
I'm lucky to have both of these lenses. I really like the 1.4 and I use it when my day is focussed on either long exposure or landscape photography. However, if I'm going to be doing some street photography or travelling, I will definitely reach for the 2.8. Yes, the 1.4 is better than the 2.8, but it depends on what you need it for. Really appreciate your videos. Always informative. Thank you.
Hi, do you find the 16mm f2.8 being loud on auto focus?
@@MoonNewinHard to recall. I mostly shot with manual focus. Thanks
13:24 - Year 2020
- In-body image stabilization, check
- articulated screens, check
- Zombie apocalypse, check
other UA-camrs saying sorry for the echo but this guy just talking in front of a waterfall
Hey Andrew, do you think we could see some sort of comparison with the 18f2? I’m stuck between the two because I want a pocket size wide angle - just sold the 27mm because it was too tight for me and I can’t decide between these two now?!!
I was surprized when Andrew said that the only smaller option is 27mm. And in comments here it seams that everyone forgot about 18mm. But it's close to 16mm and it has f2. Would love to hear Andrew's oppinion about it.
Second that. I’m also considering between these two.
I have the 18mm which prevents me to get any of the 16mm. At f2 the 18mm seats in the middle and the focal length should not be that different. Now I hear that the 16mm 2.8 is actually a 15mm and I think that makes getting the 2.8 more intriguing
Thanks for sharing your opinion Andrew. For me personally, the f2.8 version sounds like a good match and I could use the money I saved to get another lens instead. I think the smaller size and weight are major factors for my run and gun style of photography.
Thx for this video. Until the end of your video I was thinking about replacing the 1.4 with the 2.8, but I was not sure. You helped me to stick with the 1.4 and eased my mind 👍
Love your channel, love the video, very balanced! Just thought I'd point out a small detail: The difference between 1.4 and 2.8 is not 1.5 stops of light as you mentioned, it's actually 2 stops. I assume it was just a slip of tongue, but I'd say it's a bit significant for people deciding between the two.
A rule of thumb for those who are curious: Aperture follows an exponential scale where the number doubles every two stops, meaning if you start at f/1, going up whole stops gives you f/1.4, f/2 (two times f/1), f/2.8 (two times f/1.4), f/4, f/5.6, f/8 and so forth :p
Thanks for the reminder
1.4 is a 2-stop difference from 2.8, not a stop and a half. Good review, just saying. Cheers :)
Best Comparison video of the 16 1.4 and 16 2.8!!! Ever!!! thank you for this Andrew!!!
Kind words. Thank you
I had the 16mm 2.8 first and literally got the 16mm 1.4 few days ago. I can say that they are both very different lenses for very different purposes. I don’t feel silly for having both.
2.8 for more video focused work
1.4 for low light photography like events and weddings
That's a very cool waterfall. IMHO, the 16 1.4 is one of the very best wide angle lenses available for any camera. Keen to try the 2.8 as well of course.
Another fantastic lens comparison, Andrew. Was torn between these two - but now I feel pretty confident knowing which one will fit my needs. Many thanks
Glad to hear it Andrew!
11:44 are you sure that the 16mm f1.4 ist the real 24mm equivalent? it could also be the 16mm f2.8 right?
Thanks for another great video! I totally agree with your findings when I tested the f/2.8 against f/1.4. A tiny bit sharper but to my eyes also a bit more “processed” rendering! (I am keeping the 1.4😁)
I've missed you!
Great video!
Have the 16mm f1.4 and 35mm F2 due to your recommendations and my needs very satisfied! Love these lenses.
Id love a comparison of the kit lens at 18mmf2.8 vs the 16mmf2.8
I think 16 2.8 is better to use with XT30/20 series on the street, where the light is good and you want something light and compact.
Whereas 16 1.4 is better for indoor, close up for detail.
I have both, the f1.4 is in a different league!!!
My comments are admittedly trivial, but... I have a Pro3 and three "Fujicrons," for it. Great for street work, i.e., during the day. But I really like shooting ARCRO in the evening or at night and for that I bought an X-H1 (still the best buy right now anywhere.) For that large body I prefer the faster but larger lenses. I have the 35 f1.4, 56 F1.2 and 90. I was needing something wider, so, what to do?
I think you may have either gotten a off copy of the 16mm f1.4. No one likes to hear that but I'm speculating. Other tests I've seen rate the f1.4 version the best Fuji lens hands down and after breaking the tie got one and agree. The trivial part that I mentioned is that the f1.4 version just fits the H1 where the f2.8 version looks silly. I know...don't say it. I guess I won't mention the cool looking lens hood that's available then.
Since I wanted the most versatility with the 16mm focal length I went with the f1.4 for better IQ (in my experience) but also for that extra TWO full stops of speed. I like my night shots to have as little noise as possible. F1.4 backed up by IBIS is fantastic. Two stops for me is worth $500, and the 1:4 near macro doesn't hurt either. I would NOT buy a lens because of the really cool looking square lens hood I could get. Really. No, really. Why are you looking at me?
Some like Fuji's version of noise and it does render it very cleverly as grain, I get that. I just don't if I can help it...so I helped it with the unexpected Christmas bonus from my company which just happened to be $500. I took this as a clear sign from God. He knows Protestants have difficulty spending money on luxury items and I'm no exception. If I don't have a plausible utilitarian reason then I make one up and by the time I get home from the store I actually believe it.
Besides, I like looking at the front of that huge glass and expecting HAL from the movie, 2001, to ask if there is anything he can do for me. "Thank you for asking, HAL Yes there is. We're leaving the ship tonight to collect photographic samples of the inhabitants of the planet below and I'm depending on you to be enthusiastic about the mission."
6:02 - Stop and a half? f2.8 to f1.4 is two stops in my book!
RemekTek Media 1-2/3
It is exactly 2 stops. 16/1.4 = 11.4mm is twice the aperture diameter as 16/2.8 = 5.7mm. Twice the diameter also means twice the radius. The aperture area is A = 2*pi*(radius)^2, so twice the radius is 4x the area, which is 4x the light. Each stop is 2x light by definition. So 4x light is 2 stops. Ok, one lens is closer to 15mm, but that also changed the FOV, so it makes no difference in the number of “stops”. Physics and math - makes the World go ‘round... literally. God obviously loves math and science and photography!
That 16 2.8 looks so cute with hood.
Great review very balanced. I bought the f2.8 version on release and love it. Even with all the excellence of the f1.4 of which I have had two copies I don’t miss it all, paired with a 35 f2 (my favourite lens) and finished off with the superlative 50-140 I am a very happy shooter. Just bought a XT3 to supplement my XT2 and am surprised at how good it is. However had use of a XH1 recently and loved the balance, phenomenal shutter release and ibis. Very tempted to change my XT2 body for one if these as I probably wont be able to afford the XH2 when it is released. Fuji gets better all the time.
Was thinking the 16mm f2.8 for landscape, but you say there is much better options for landscape. What would you suggest? 14mm f2.8? 18mm f2? Or do you rec a zoom? I have the 18-55mm kit already, but looking for something a bit wider.
Other than WR, I don't see why I would pick the 16/2.8 over the 14/2.8 especially if the 16/2.8 is more like a 15mm lens. The 14mm gives me a great clutch focus too and I rarely shoot in the rain.
The price might be a very strong argument :)
Exactly, especially since the 16 2.8 is actually a 15.
f/2.8 is shorter than f/1.4, so when you take picture of something which is very close, field of view might seem larger. During tests, you should put front element of each lens in the same place, not camera.
Thank you for another really stylish, balanced and helpful review! I agree that sharpness is but one criterion and that usability in a range of scenarios is key. I have, and love, the 16mm 1.4, but you have helped me confirm a growing view that it would be helpful to have both. Keep up the great work!!
Totally agree with your point on image quality
Greate comparision! Thanks a lot! At 13:04 - I can not see any significant differences in focus breathing. It looks for me as if 16mm F2.8 doesn't have it like 16mm F1.4.
Hola Andrew, excelente tu presentación comparativa de ambas lentes, me quedó muy claro cual es la que necesito comprar. Todos los aspectos que trataste sobre una y otra fueron muy necesarios y la información proporcionada por ti, lograste complementar perfectamente ofreciendo los pro y los contra de cada objetivo fotográfico. Gracias
I own both and kept both for the love of the focal length. They both have their time/place. Thanks for this video Andrew ! Awesome as always
The "wider angle of view" thing: did you have the camera fixed when you took the photo? You need to take into account that the more forward front lens element on the 1.4, the calculations start there, not at the focal plane (sensor).
It's a fair point, but the difference between front elements is less than an inch. Doesn't begin to account for the very large angle of view difference.
@@AndrewGoodCamera Focal length is measured when focused on infinity..
Hey Andrew !!! You have the best reviews on youtube, demonstrated practically and very factual your a true pro the way you present your self...im a wide angle shooter as i know you love your 16mm 1.4, i was undecided about the 10-24mm or 16mm 1.4 lens to buy so i bought the 10-24 lens a year ago and i love using it more than any of my other fuji lenses i have. I just love shooting wide... and i still feel guilty i dont have the 16mm 1.4 in my collection!!! Is it a must have lens for fuji wide angle lovers??
Hi thank you for another great comparison. quick question, what kind of tripod are you using in the video?
It's a benro
13:25 your dream came true. When do you get your XT4?
I love my 1.4 but you're right about how much noise it makes focusing, not something I was aware of until I thought about making a minimal setup with an on-board mic and wrecked a bunch of footage, so that was annoying
Did you mix up the two landscape shots? Because the 1.4 looks wider. Is this the level of focus breathing? 2.8 = 15 mm close and 17 mm further away?
There was a slight crop to straighten both of them, which messed up total resolution
I did a test comparing a full frame 24 mm 1.8 G Nikon on a full frame body (D750) vs the 16 / 2.8 on a Fuji body (XE-2S), and it seems to me that the Fuji 16 mm is atleast 5 degrees wider (not a real measurement, just an estimate I made by eye). It places the 16 2.8 somewhere in between the 14 2.8 (21 mm equivalent) and a 24 mm equivalent (16 1.4). My suspicion is that the 16 2.8 is like a 22 mm or 22.5 mm equivalent.
Related to wide angle Fujinons, I wonder why there are so many reviews and fuzz about the 16mm, or the 18mm, and so little about the 14mm. I own the 14mm and it is a marvel. You should give it a try!
Me to,my favorite of all fuji X lenses is the 14mm.2.8 :)
16 1.4 is a good semi macro lens and I use it for stills while the 16 2.8 I use for video. Best to have both...that way you have the advantages of both.
“Dad with expendable income” Guilty as charged...
I soooo wish I was too 😉
I resemble that remark!. Great lens, but my favorite Fuji is the 50-140mm. Yea, it is a beast, but for indoor sports, it is an awesome lens. Might need to pick up some of those other small primes.
Right! Buying up Fuji gear like nothing lol
I am choosing one of these lenses for my architectural photography work. Is there any lens distortion issue with the F2.8 compare to the 1.4? Because I need lines to be as straight as possible for architecture shooting. I owned the F1.4 lens previous and ,other than size, this is an amazing lens.
Andrew, a random thought on true focal length of the ‘15’ mm f2.8 you discovered. When comparing it to the 10-24mm (and of course the prime is better) to get the same size frame, with my test shots I had to set the zoom to 14mm! Would be interesting to see what focal lengths we are actually buying and why don’t manufacturers just state what they are rather than conforming to the old statutory focal lengths of 18, 24, 35, to 50mm etc. I don’t mind buying a 17mm wide angle, or even a 15mm. Just a thought.
Very interesting!
Where would you need to set the zoom to overlap with the 14mm prime.
mmgull Having used the 14mm (crop) a few years ago I never felt it was as wide as my Nikon 21mm (35mm equiv.) so I would guess around 13mm on the 10-24.
I think the best combination is the 18 mm of 1.4 which focuses much faster and the 16 mm F2 .8. I use the 18 mm f1.4 for weddings and other events where I need that wide angle but the 16 mm of 2.8 is my travel and fun lens and could be used in a pinch at a wedding to get a little extra width. Although I also have the 16 to 55 mm of 2.8 which goes to every wedding.
Great video.
What camera do you shoot the video from?
I will say (for me): 16mm f1.4 for work, 16mm f2.8 for travel or carry around
Quiet AF? LOL - I had two copies and both were louder than my other "Fujicron" lenses. I had bad experiences with the 16 2.8 unfortunately...particularly auto focus issues using the XT2, it often failed to focus for no reason so I ended up returning it for a full refund. I think it can be better with a firmware update. But I feel like the lens was rushed. I will agree with you though, it was sharp as heck and the contrast for b&w was absolutely crazy! Great review Andrew.
The 16 1.4 is amazing. It is great for indoor ‘event’ shots. However, I found I rarely packed it due to size and weight. I LOVE the 27 on my X-T2 or X-E3. My other lens is the 35 f2 for indoor family shots. With the 27 I’m usually outdoors so it lives at mid-aperture. Lack of ring no issue here.
Hi, nice video. Which lens do you recommend for wild angle landscape and architectural photography on a XT-30? In addition if we can do wild angle portrait that nice. Should I go for a Fujinon 16mm 1,4 or the manuel focus Laowa 9mm 2,8 for fuji? I am concidering both but not sure which one will be more useful. Or another tie breaker?
I was just thinking today that I haven’t seen a video from you in awhile
Jay Macro Photos did we ever find out who won that lens from the giveaway video?
JoeyShip I don’t remember seeing a winner
Jay Macro Photos so you’re saying I still have a chance...haha.
JoeyShip lol yep
The 18mm beats them both for size. And renders better than the 1.4 IMHO.
Xpro body with that 2.8 is a killer combo, especially as a travel camera where you'll be shooting wide scenes/landscapes and you want that wide field of view and don't want all that weight of the 1.4. Honestly the 2.8 should appeal to everyone, if you make money with your gear then go with the 1.4
Excellent video as always!
Thanks for this video! I am intrigued with your opening statement that if you are a landscape photographer, these are not the lenses you would choose. Curious, what do you prefer on Fuji X for landscape? I am undecided about a zoom (and maybe even the kit) or a wide prime and the 16mm range prime since most of my landscape on my Canon is in the range of 20-24.
My point was just that if you plan to be primarily a landscape photographer, you don't need some of the benefits a prime lens gives you (specifically low aperture number) because you're shooting in higher apertures (f8-f16). And at those apertures most Fuji lenses to be very sharp, you get no advantage from shooting with a prime for IQ. But flexibility of a zoom is very important. You never really know ahead of time what a scene will offer to you, and you need as much flexibility to compose as possible. Having said that, I shoot plenty of landscape with my 16mm lenses, simply because they are what I have. But I am also a documentary photographer first, landscape photographer second. Or maybe more like 5th. :)
I found the 2.8 to have more yellow than the 1.4 in the images you presented, especially the river shoot.
..and what film simulations did you use in the shots, if any?
Totally agree with your comment on IQ. Love my 16mm 1.4 though; not likely to swap. Your vid confirmed this.
I own the XF-35mm f1.4 and I noticed that I barely use/need it wide open. Adding that to the price and the size of the 16mm siblings the f2.8 was my choice.
I don’t mind the manual focus “issue” since I prefer to use it at f8 with the focus point about 3m away (hyperfocal distance) anyway.
If shooters have been in the Fuji system for some time, they may already have the 1.4. I do, having purchased a mint copy 2nd hand.
To my mind, the choice need not be mutually exclusive. The 1,4 is naturally heavier with all that quality glass in it and makes the smaller form X bodies less "nimble". The 2.8 is keenly priced and makes for a lighter overall lens and body package for street shooting and those times you don't need the faster lens speed.
Does the Fuji XS-10 with IBIS eliminate the 1.4 advantage indoor in low light? As yu can use the 2.8 and significantly lower shutter speeds.
Thank you for the video. 16mm 1.4 is what I'm gonna get. I do street photography mainly at night in Bangkok. Thanks
Hey.. just quick question...
Fuzi 16.mm 2.8 vs fuzi 16 to 55 mm 2.8 at 16.mm are both same. Specially at close focus??? I am looking for new fuzi xs 10.
Good comparison, I love the 1.4. As I'm contemplating my next purchases, I'd love to see a video that compares the Fuji prime lens fields of view. Can't seem to find one on YT. So, a tripod, a subject, and 16/23/35/50/56/80/90 lenses (you still have most of those, right?!) along with how far the camera is from the subject would be awesome.
My "what Fuji lens to buy first" video gets a few of these
What about chromatic aberrations?
The 16 1.4 has (at least mine lens) a lot of problem with that, exatly in low light situations at 1.4 i get tons of aberrations, also i read about COMA problems, and i've seen that too on my shots.
Another top notch review Andrew 👍
This is awesome babe! Love it!
I have a very good copy of 16/1.4 but I want also the f2.8. I use my Fujifilm set mostly for alpinisme and see kayaking (in a water proof case). The question is the weight. I build now up my f2 - f2.8 light prime series. I have already the 23/2 but the next will be the 16/2.8.
Andrew's cap game is strong.. also you are right. The 16/1.4 is less sharp around the edges... Such a bummer..
I sold my f/1.4 and bought a f/2.8 because for me size and weight matters a lot while hiking. And that is where I’m using my camera gear.
And I’m so happy with my decision.
Do you miss the image quality of the 1.4 or just as happy with the 2.8?
@@TheCadocas At my level of photography I don't see any difference in the image quality between these two lenses.
Decide yourself:
Do you think the quality of this shot is to low:
s3-eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/wordpress-flaemig42.de/2019/05/05192026/DXE39270.jpg
(X-E3, XF16 f2.8 @ f/5.6, 1/680sec)
(I'm happy with it :D )
@@bw1faeh0 That picture is amazing!
what the chromatic abberration and the instigation of the reverberation in the station for the information
Thanks! i watch all your videos for a long time now and this one helped a lot. i have been wanting the 16mm f1.4 for a long time and have been shooting on fuji for years and have "OK" collection. But after this video sir... i kinda want the 16mm 2.8 for the sharpness and affordability. Bokeh is nice n all but i usually stop down to 5.6 or 8 anyway. the only thing that still has me on the fence is the focal distance and since im now heavily into macro i need to find out how close i can get with the 16mm 2.8 and that will determine my purchase. You rock and have pretty much influenced the majority of my collection and seem to be beautifully a positive soul in general so...well...thanks in general!
Glad to hear I've been able to help you! All the best.
aaaaaa another lens video from u guys ✨👌
I think BHT hit the nail on the head when he said it's not a comparison between 2.8 and 1.4 and more of how can this lens compliment your f2 series lenses.
I went with the 16mm f/2.8. Small compact and Fujicrons are simply fun to use.
I already have a 24mm f/2.0 Zeiss for the A99II.
I guess it comes down to what you photograph as to witch lens will work best, for the people that say it is a large or heavy lens should spend some time photographing with a camera like the Pentax K1 MKII with the 24-70 f2.8 or any prime like the Pentax 85mm f1.4. That is a heavy setup. I don't have the 85mm but I do have the 24-70 along with Pentax and Sigma primes and zoom lenses I used for event photography so the XT5 with the 16mm f1.4 is light weight in comparison.
I'd like to see an actual comparison of 14mm f2.8 and 16mm f2.8..
IMHO, I am really pleased with my 16mm f1.4 - having also got the 27mm f2.8, 14mm f2.8 and the 18mm f2 I think I have all that I need and the 16mm f2.8 has nothing to tempt me.
10-24mm almost covers them all.
This is a very good and helpful review to me.
What a great review! I love your rationale for IQ not being everything and I share your love of the 16mm f1.4. Even I could tell it was a special lens. Unfortunately I sold mine because I just had too many lenses and as I was offered a good price for it ......
Anyway, I'm after a video lens in that ball park so I've ordered teh f2.8 but now I wish I had my 1.4 back!!
I wonder if the length of the 2.8 lens lends it to be a bit wider than the 1.4.
Great review! I've been shooting the 1.4 for 2 years now... what's your opinion for best landscape lens Fuji offers? Cheers
I prefer 16 mm f 2.8...i don't need that dof at landscapes or shooting indoor..thank you Andrew!
Been a Fuji shooter off and on for past 10 years and recently got the XT3 for video and saw everyone raving about the 16mm 1.4 so decided to pick one up. So far it seems to have something about it that makes it stand out from the other lenses similar to my 35mm 1.4. I already have the 23mm 2.0 so don't think I will be getting the 16mm 2.8. Would be more tempting had it been 2.0
At 2:55 you're saying that this lens doesn't seem to be a good candidate for landscape photography. I also agree that for regular landscape photography use something like the 10-24mm is much more versatile.
However, given the tiny size and weight of only 155g, this could be a great lens for photography during mountaineering trips where weight and volume is definitely a big issue. Would you agree with that? (Note that I'm still in the research phase and haven't actually bought any of these Fuji lenses yet :))
Oh, and before I forget it: Thanks for your great videos, they've been a huge help in research about Fuji cameras and lenses! :)
The way in which you use your 16mm f1.4 is the reason I'm so torn between the two "16"mm options. I LOVE getting close and I want a wider, indoor capable lens, but I also long for something that is compact... Also worth noting, the 16mm f1.4 is priced very well on the used market, and really only about $200 more than a used 16mm f2.8.
Which gimbal would be the best for the X-T3? Cheers!
Great review old chap
Where is this filmed?
"I'm hanging on the hopes that Fuji will eventually give us some stabilized cameras with fully articulated screens" - yes they will. Greetings from the future.
Is it possible the 16mm is wider because it's shorter? Thank you for your informative videos.