Could you do more academic videos about artist, history, photographing styles etc. I know there is lot of demand for gear videos, I used to watch lot of gear videos, not these days. I would imagine that there would be others as well who want more academic videos.
He has a lot of wonderful videos if you go back in the catalogue! I am watching his series on photographers now, talking about style and craft, as well as other videos on the craft of photography itself! Keep up the good work Ted, can't get enough of these videos!
Hey, not sure how you benchmarked, but I’ve seen a lot of people saying the 2.8 is actually less than 16mm, rather than the 1.4 being longer. I was lucky enough to get the 1.4 when I moved from canon & love it.
The day the f2.8 was released, I was kinda ready to buy it, and I went to the camera store to try it out first. Just in store, so no amazing photographic moments or anything, but just to get a feel for it. I was like, ok.. 16mm lens. Ok.. Yeah nice. Then I saw the f1.4 and tried it too, and I was like Wow, this looks so much nicer! I shoved them back and forth a couple of times and shot, and I just couldn't get rid of that wow impression of the f1.4 version. There was a certain quality something about the pictures that was just so much more delicate and refined than with the f2.8. In the end I didn't buy any of them, lol, dang it...
Great video, as always! I got the 16mm f2.8 when it came out because I wanted a 16mm lens but knew that I don’t need it too often and if i need it it will mostly be during the day. Another reason was the size - I switched to fujifilm because I wanted a lighter package and I now have the 16/2.8, 23/2 and 35/2 all in my bag and it’s really light to carry around all the time. I like that fujifilm gives us a choice here. I also think that the “fujicrons” are a perfect fit for the X-Pro series.
Share your sentiment on the f1.4 lens, one of the best I’ve ever owned on any system, mostly because of how it handles. My perspective is to pick lenses that fit the mission and make me happy, never worry about the tech specs - every lens Fuji makes is more than good enough to make great images.
This was a really interesting video, including your discussion of MTF charts vs maximum aperture and perceived sharpness vs chart-based analysis. I am relatively new to the X system and am enjoying mixing “old” lenses (like the 35 1.4) with the newer ones, including the 23 f2 and the wonderful 8-16 f2.8. You get what you pay for, and I like the fact that Fujifilm offers users a wide variety of lenses at different price points. Also, based on past experience with expensive glass, including Nikon’s higher end lenses and Leica’s lenses, I find Fuji’s fast glass to be very reasonably priced given their quality.
Thanks for this video Ted! I have the 1.4 and was really impressed with the 2.8 when I tried it. I agree with you that they’re so different that it’s worthwhile having both for e.g. indoor vs. outdoor applications. A few things you didn’t mention: the 2.8 has massive barrel distortion that is software corrected, whereas the 1.4 is optically corrected. You always lose resolution when you have to use software correction. And the close focus of my sample of the 1.4 is a ridiculous 8 cm - the spec. sheet of the 2.8 lists it’s close focus as 17 cm (which is still very good).
Brett Patching are you measuring distance from the front of the lens or the sensor? Manufacturers typically measure minimum focus distance from the sensor I believe, which could be the difference you’re seeing. By the way, do you prefer either lens to the other?
Got the 16 1.4 myself. I'm somewhat relieved that it's not that I have a bad sample, turns out according to your video, the lens is indeed soft wide open that gets sharp when the aperture is closed down to f2 in my case. Other than that, it's really a great lens because of that sweet minimum focus distance. I did some street shootin' one time with it and it's really great that I can also take almost macro shots if I found something interesting. I'm proud of how good the 2.8 version is, it's made where I'm from :) .
I'm glad that you used the term "tool" to describe the lenses because that is exactly what they are. As a beginner/intermediate photographer I would get the less expensive one because it is the more affordable tool. Once I have it, I can use to learn, create, and grow. The extra 2 stops of light would be great to have but not really necessary for me.
You fell into error @2:50. You concluded, based on A/B testing, that the 1.4 is longer than 16mm. Focal length is the distance from the optical center of the lens to the imaging plane: it's a mathematical equation, not dependent upon which lens is newer. So it is possible that the 2.8 actually is shorter than 16mm, or that the 1.4 is longer than 16mm, or that the 1.4 is longer than 16mm *and* the 2.8 is shorter than 16mm. Or maybe *both* lenses are longer or shorter than 16mm.
I have the 16mm 1.4 and it's superb. It's a very big lens so not one I would want to carry around all day (I have done so on my XH1 and it's like carrying a DSLR!). However, 16mm is kind of my focal length of choice these days so when I saw Fuji doing a decent discount on the 16 2.8 I snapped it up. Ho boy. For the price and if you don't need the extra stop(s), then buy the 2.8 with a clear conscience. It's brilliant. I honestly cannot tell the difference at f6.3 and onwards. I took the 2.8 out with me for some landscape work at the weekend and the only drawback is the tiny lens front thread means you need multiple adapter rings to get to 77mm for my Firecrests. A reasonable price to pay, I think, for the weight saving. Yes, Ted is right, if you can afford both get them both. But if you own neither, buy the 2.8. You can make up with ISO for any stops lost. No worries.
Another thing to consider is macro. The 16-50 3.5 kit lens can focus up to about 3 inches from a subject at the 16mm setting. And by the way, it takes crazy great macro shots. So, which one of these has closer macro, and how close?
It’s so great you are doing these vids on Lenses . It really separates you from 99% of every other gear review out there . Also loved the Artist series. I love my Fuji 18mm f2 . Suits my needs . Great work .
Great video, Ted. I’ve owned the 16mm f/1.4 for a few years now, and two of my favorite things about it are the manual focus collar and the close focusing abilities. I know it’s not a macro lens by any stretch nor to we typically use a lens of this focal length or field of view for closeups, but the minimum focus distance and the wide aperture give it yet another purpose in the bag. We’re you able to compare the two lenses in this regard?
I would own the 1.4 over the 2.8 just for the reason of having a good bright lens for taking photos when it is darker (such as evening, in shadows on an overcast day or indoors. It also would be incredible for astrophotography of course.
One of the smartest videos I've seen in terms of photo equipment. Yes, each lens, even if they have the same focal length, can have different uses, so it can be relevant to have two 18mm, two 50mm, etc. Anyway, congratulations for this video, and for this channel, very interesting and useful !
Great review. Thanks. How do you know as to focal lens difference that 16/1.4 is more like 17? Could it be that it's 16/2.8 is more into 15 focal length?
Have had the 16 1.4 for a while and since trading my XE2s for a Xpro2 I've been picking up the fujicrons. Based on other reviews and now this one, I ordered the 16 2.8 for 249.00 used in excellent condition. I will keep Both! However Ill sell my 23 1.4 and pick up the 23 2.0. Thank you for your excellent reviews and commentary. Always informative. I Also have an XH-1 which I love. I shoot Street and food mostly.
Posting this before watching the video to the end: I love my little 16mm 2.8. Not the best lens in the world technically and of course the 1.4 is a very well build lens, maybe the best in die fuji system, but the form-factor of the 2.8 is so convenient! And I dig the look of the image. Though with the photography I´m currently doing, I don´t need perfect image quality in a ultra-wide.
I can't agree more with you. In my case, as a travel (almost backpacker) photographer, lighter is better, so the 2.8 was a no brainer for me. I love it: is light, compact, looks great on my X-T30 and delivers good quality.
Good segment, Ted! I would like to have seen you find the sweet-spot for both lenses. In another words, is F8 or F11 on the 1.4 the same or better than 2.8? Just curious. Thanks!
I own both and the 1.4 is more versatile with it being able to focus close up and being better at subject isolation but if your a street shooter and landscape then the 2.8 version is better being used at f4 onwards. The key selling point for the 2.8 lens is its size.
Thanks Ted Forbes for loving and being so Passionate about Photography! If someone knows his stuff is you Sir, I guess in the end what I get from this comparison is if money is no issue go with the 1.4 but if not we will be fine with the 2.8.
I can't comment on the 16mm but I own both f/1.4 and f/2 of the 23mm (35mm equivalent) lenses; and I still can't decide which one I like best. I use them both about equally, and like them for different reasons.
Ted, as a prime lover and shooting Fuji, I love the 16/1.4. I also own the 23, 35 & 50/2's and a few other similar primes - Mitakon, Rokinon, etc. When Fuji inroduced the 16/2.8 - I swore I'd avoid obvious redundancy. But 3 months later, I succumbed to the compact stealthiness of the near "fujicron" nature of the 16/2.8 and bought it. Absolutely no regrets and my 16/1.4 is NOT for sale. Different lenses for different purposes. Excellent lenses - both. Totally agree with your unconventional - but all so true conclusion. - ps - I also love my Canon 50/1.2L and my 50/1.0L. Same comments.
Curious about your comment about the 1.4 being around 17.5mm in your test. Wouldn’t it be possible that the FOV appeared longer because the lens itself is longer than the 2.8? I’ve seen this happen with reviewers switching lenses without accommodating for the plane where the light hits the lens (i.e. keeping the camera exactly at the same spot) in theory that could be why the 1.4 seemed to be at 17ish mm. Food for thought. Love your videos keep up the awesome work! Been following you for a while now.
if you look at them, purely on the physical aspect, you can see the difference in size is relevant.. somehow i would say it's normal because they propped lots of more glass inside the 1.4 one and that has to have an impact. I'm impressed the FOV didn't change harder to be honest.
Great comparison Ted. I would also like to see a comparison of the 16mm f2.8 vs the 16-55mm F.2.8 at 16mm. Since I already own the the 16-55mm F2.8 I'm curious how the image quality compares.
Gentlemen, what is your expection of this test? What for you like to buy the 16mm f2.8? If you are happy withe the zoom go with it and shoot. Stop try to improve you photography by buying the probably best gear.
@@johnleftwich650 you are right maybe I was misinterpreting your comment. You simply asked for a image quality comparison with no deaper intention. Well then you will have this information and do what ever you like to do with it. I go back in my hole and relax.
So, if you already owned the 16-55mm and weren’t bothered about being discreet or carrying the larger lenses around, would there be any point in buying the 16mm f2.8 in terms of image quality?
Size & cost is much more noticeable on long tele lenses. I bought both 300mm nikkor lenses - the f2.8 and the f4. I love the f2.8 but I dont always carry it around unless I really need it. The Nikon trilogy is great but it weighs too much. Some new lenses are getting lighter but not by much. Whether its for a DSLR or Mirrorless the design limitations on size of the lens is the same.
I’m buying one of these tomorrow to go with my 35 1.4.I do a lot of nightime city stuff and size v stops is thing as you say.Think it will be the 1.4 but if the 2.8 was a 2.0 it may be different.Great video.
Thanks for this, I am still thinking if I should add a 16mm prime to my Fuji lens line-up. So far I have added the f1.4/35 & 1.2/56mm to the compact f2.0 primes, but focal length wider than 23mm I am still on f4/10-24. And recently Fuji come-up with their f3.5/8mm but that also requires higher ISO in low light...
thanks to this video I understood what kind of photographer I am NOT. I'm not interested in the technicalities about gear. I just wanted to know what the compromise between the two is, except for the obvious in terms of aperture. Don't get me wrong, it's not that it's a bad video, it's fantastic and very informative, and I appreciate that it shed some lights onto my own self perception as a photographer! Thanks
You made some excellent points which are logical and should be applied just like that rest ... pictures taken from lens side by side will tell the story ..... thank you so much
Hi Ted, that was aj very well, down- to- earth- comparison of two great lenses. But (imho, at least), there is another huge element factoring in the pricing of wide aperture lenses: The quality of the autofocus. The faster the lens, the better the autofocus has to be to really nail that focus where you need it (like the eye, in the case of portraits).
@@ventricity"Fast lens" refers to lenses with a large aperture, so it allows more light to enter. More light means less time is required for the exposure - > faster exposure - > faster glass. Usually, with good quality lenses, every time you double the maximal aperture (due to mathematics the actual number decreases by the square root of 2) you double the price of the lens. So a good prime lens with the maximal aperture of f/1.2 can easily reach a four figure price.
Superb video, very detailed and honest. 100% agree that these days many are chasing perfection, but I bet we all can't recognise it if we do achieve it.
The fujinon 16mm f2.8 will be perfect for my street photography, its on my wish list. For macro photography I will get the extension tube for a cheap price, I've seen it works well for detail work.
Glad you went to the Zeiss test chart with both at 2.8. Other wise it would not be a true comparison. Did you ever do a sample pics of that WWC 150mm filter kit including some showing if there is any color cast & pic quality? I would like to see a vid on that please!
Hi, great video. Just wanted to point out. It's the other way round. The 16mm 1.4 is actually 16 and the 16mm 2.8 is actually wider, as opposed to your theory that the 16mm 1.4 is actually 17.
Thanks Ted, for another interesting talk on lenses. Since I have an XT2, this presentation was of particular interest to me. Unfortunately my budget would dictate the less expensive lens but so far none of the fujinon lenses have been a disappointment to me. Keep educating us.
Andrew over at Denae & Andrew's channel always mentions the differences within the lengths of these two lenses. But he says the opposite, that the 16mm 2.8 is actually a 15mm while the 1.4 is correctly labelled at 16mm.
That's interesting because a guy I barely know was generous enough to lend me his 16 f/1.4 for a couple of weeks and I compared it to my 16-55. At 16mm, the 16-55 was wider than the 16 f/1.4. I would be inclined to believe the 16 f/1.4 is actually 17 or 17.5 (as Ted stated) if both the 16 f/2.8 and 16-55 are wider.
I am pretty sure it’s likely to do with the position of the front element. As the 16mm f1.4 is longer, it is technically closer to the subject than the f2.8 or 18mm as they are shorter lenses (assuming that the body stays in the same spot/tripod)
I will go with 16mm 2.8, better size, weight, price. It is weather sealed, get less attention on the street and less room in the bag and pairs well with most Fuji X bodies.
4 ปีที่แล้ว
You made a couple of very good comments. They are both different lenses and you could own both at the same time, optical perfection isn't the most important point.
It might be worth noting that the XF16mm 2.8 is also environmentally sealed - something that we in the Pacific Northwest find especially desirable. When paired with my X-T2, I can head out and about most any time!!!
When comparing the two lenses field of view, you need to place both lenses+body at the optical center. If you leave the body in place it is like getting closer with the 16mm f/1.4. An other way is to either shoot object far away.
the angle of view was mentioned by andrew of denae and andrew, and he argued that the 16mm 1.4 was marked correctly, and that the 2.8 was closer to 14mm
Now Ted, you talked about wide open, you talked about stopped down one stop... But what about F/4? F/5.6? I'm going for massive depth of field in landscapes. Which of these two lenses provide the most resolution when stopped down to just before defraction sets in? I own the 1.4 but would be interested in the 2.8 if I could squeeze greater depth of field out of my images. I really like this new lens series. Thanks for making such entertaining videos!
I do Landscape Pictures with ND Filters and Long Time Exposure. One of my Buddys was so Kind to lent me his 1,4/16 so I was able to compare it to my 1:2,8/16. Well, at f/5,6 till f/8 I did not see any diffenrence in Shaprness and Contrast. So, because the 2,8 one is lighter, I prever that one. An other Argument. When you have to carry a Wodden Tripod from Berlebach to get what you want, you will think to reduce Weight.
what 16mm lens is better for landscape photography? i don't care much about F1.4 (and will probably never use it ,expect some curiosity). But I've seen landscapes made with 16mm/1.4 and 24MP camera at F5.6-8 and they are perfectly sharp in corners. What about 16mm/2.8, does it match the same performance at F4/5.6/8 ?
I always wonder about comparing the compact prime to the larger one and people saying they have different focal lengths. Surely the larger/longer prime's front element would be more forward if the tripod hasn't been repositioned?! The lenses have to be measured with the front element being in exactly the same place (imagine the lenses without the hoods pressed up against the pane of glass of a building's window, that being the fixed point).
I got both of these. I think the difference between them in real life is much bigger than what you present it to be. At least with my copies the 1.4 has much better contrast. Another anoying feature of the 2.8 is that its VERY prone to VERY ugly flaring wich makes it almost useless in a whole lot of situations. Corner sharpnes is also a problem with the 2.8, and makes it a pretty hopeless even for amateur landscapephotography.
Slightly off topic but it can be applicable here as well. Old Man "I love my 24mm f2.8!" Young man " I love that focal length as well!" Old Man "No son, I have a f2.8 zoom. I'm a professional and that's a professionals tool." Young Man "But sir! I have a 24mm prime lens that's at f2.8 too." Old Man "No son, that's just an amateurs lens. Its not fast enough. You have a lot to learn!"
I know the topic is a battle of 16mm lenses, but what about the 18mm f2? Its very sharp, it's f/2 instead of f/2.8 (but not 1.4, i know), It's smaller and lighter than both the 16mm lenses. And its only a bit tighter than the 16mm 1.4 (tested it with borrowed 16 and my 18). And a personal win, I got it second hand for 160€ (its also cheaper second hand than both). I find it the best of both worlds, however, it's not weather sealed.
16mm isn't the most useful angle of view for me, but I still keep picking up the 16mm f/1.4 because the images it produces look so good, particularly wide open.
I also noticed the difference in focal length between the two. But are you sure that it is the f/1.4 that is not a 16mm and not the f/2.8? I compared the f/2.8 with the Fujinon 14mm. And they were actually very close. So maybe the f/2.8 is more a 15mm?
I know there isn't a fuji x mount of the sigma 16mm f1.4 but I am wondering how will it stack up against the fuji 16mm f1.4. The sigma is around the same price as the fuji f2.8. I love the size of the f2.8 though
Great video and now you have a new subscriber. I am surprised you don’t have more....it’s likely just a matter of time. I have the 16/2.8 and love the small size. Carrying this around with the 23/2 and 35//2 make for a very compact 3 lens prime kit.
Would this be a good supplement for my 35mm 1.4 lens? I'm looking for a lens that fits more into the frame so I can do a bit of landscape photography for instance.
Great review. I recently purchased the 16mm f1.4. Can you please respond and tell us what metal lens hood you have on the lens in the video. The Heliopan 67 mm metal short is too long and cuts the image corners! Struggling to get a great lens hood. Thanks!
Is the apparent focal length difference maybe due to focus drift, maybe the 1.4 suffers it and the 2.8 doesn't? Also coma on both is horrible wide open, so for any astrophotography a better choice is to buy a used 16-55mm f/2.8
I thought your analogy and the way you explained it was excellent, if you take it and compare with eg a car, your always going to have differences of opinion in the bells and whistles, engine size etc and we all know that some of it is practice and other parts are irrelevant to the average person, ie how fast can you go and how many people actually go off road? but as you rightly explained the reasons and therefore costs, it rings true, more than the average person will do when they own the top model. Sound advice that gives people the option on what they want to achieve v budget they have. DG New Forest U.K.
It was such a hard decision after the 16mm f2.8 was announced, but I went with it and may do exactly what you recommended in the video. Excellent job, as always.
I’d be happy to just own one of them, but if it was a choice without worrying about budget, I’d prefer the f1.4 version, because it is optically a better lens, let alone being faster, whereas the smaller one relies on a lens profile to correct significant barrel distortion, one of those compromises that makes it small. You might argue, as long as you either shoot jpg or your Raw software uses the lens profile, and the sharpness is still there, what will it matter in the end. And that may well be true, esp if size is an issue, eg if you use an X-Pro.
A 16mm 1.4 lens does not let in as much light as a 24mm 1.4. 16/1.4 = 11.4mm aperture diameter, which is 103 square mm of area. 24/1.4 = 17.1mm aperture diameter, which is 231 square mm of area. So in the same amount of exposure time, and same FOV, the 24mm will let in 2.25x as many photons of light that land on the full-frame sensor compared to the 16mm lens with an APS-C sensor. Because the full-frame sensor is larger, the photon density per unit area of sensor is the same. But if both are 24Mp sensors, each pixel on the full frame sensor is getting 2.25x as many photons. So how come the APS camera image isn’t 1 stop dimmer? Because the Amplifier that gains up the sensors output has twice the gain as the one in the full-frame camera. Which is why the APS camera is noisier at the same ISO setting. It’s all simple math. Nevertheless, I still prefer the other advantages (size and weight) of my APS-C camera and the tiny 16/2.8 lens, which is letting in even far less light. So good job to you for pointing out how important size is in certain situations.
Nice... It would be interesting to see how the test chart reproduced with both lens stopped down to f4 or f5.6 or even f8 (mostly used aperture). Also some Fuji lenses behave badly against light source, exhibiting flares.... comparison are worth more when a lens is tested against light..
I have the 16 f/1.4. Love the IQ but it almost never gets out of the bag, and I must admit that I primarily purchased it based on internet and TH-cam ravings. Either I just do see the world that way or I don't know how to apply it. I ended up selling my Fuji kit and going FF with a Canon R6. Just sold that kit and now I'm back with Fuji. Just picked up the 23 and 35 F/2 and I'm looking at either one of these or the MUCH older 14 F/2.8. I'm leaning towards the 16 f/2.8 for weight savings, cost, and I'm still not sure this is the ideal lens for me.
![[ENG] Fujifilm 16mm F1.4 Vs. 18mm F1.4 - Should you Upgrade?](/img/n.gif)
Could you do more academic videos about artist, history, photographing styles etc. I know there is lot of demand for gear videos, I used to watch lot of gear videos, not these days. I would imagine that there would be others as well who want more academic videos.
He has a lot of wonderful videos if you go back in the catalogue! I am watching his series on photographers now, talking about style and craft, as well as other videos on the craft of photography itself! Keep up the good work Ted, can't get enough of these videos!
@@marius_thsch Yes he has 👍 I have been watching hes channel multiple years now. New videos still would hurt😎
I used to follow this channel closely, back in the days … ;)
Hey, not sure how you benchmarked, but I’ve seen a lot of people saying the 2.8 is actually less than 16mm, rather than the 1.4 being longer. I was lucky enough to get the 1.4 when I moved from canon & love it.
The day the f2.8 was released, I was kinda ready to buy it, and I went to the camera store to try it out first. Just in store, so no amazing photographic moments or anything, but just to get a feel for it. I was like, ok.. 16mm lens. Ok.. Yeah nice. Then I saw the f1.4 and tried it too, and I was like Wow, this looks so much nicer! I shoved them back and forth a couple of times and shot, and I just couldn't get rid of that wow impression of the f1.4 version. There was a certain quality something about the pictures that was just so much more delicate and refined than with the f2.8. In the end I didn't buy any of them, lol, dang it...
I have to agree with you, there is something about how the 1.4 renders that is kinda special, particularly for black and white
Omg its cuckoo
Admit it, you just went for the Fuji store's free coffee? And then left with the 18mm f1.4...
Just got the 16mm 2.8 & lovin’ it so far.
Keep doing what you’re doing Ted 👍🏻
Thank you for the review 🙏 I just bought this 16mm 2.8 at my local store here in Bahrain. It's my first prime lens.
Great video, as always!
I got the 16mm f2.8 when it came out because I wanted a 16mm lens but knew that I don’t need it too often and if i need it it will mostly be during the day. Another reason was the size - I switched to fujifilm because I wanted a lighter package and I now have the 16/2.8, 23/2 and 35/2 all in my bag and it’s really light to carry around all the time.
I like that fujifilm gives us a choice here. I also think that the “fujicrons” are a perfect fit for the X-Pro series.
I just bought the same lenses! How did it go for you 4 years later?
@@AlejandroPerez-kt8tb surprised to see the late response here! I continue to use this setup, switched bodies, but still rocking that lens lineup!
Share your sentiment on the f1.4 lens, one of the best I’ve ever owned on any system, mostly because of how it handles. My perspective is to pick lenses that fit the mission and make me happy, never worry about the tech specs - every lens Fuji makes is more than good enough to make great images.
The 16 1.4 is also my favourite lens and the best I've had with any system over the years.
all fuji lenses is amazing, you can work with any of them
Yes, they is.
This was a really interesting video, including your discussion of MTF charts vs maximum aperture and perceived sharpness vs chart-based analysis. I am relatively new to the X system and am enjoying mixing “old” lenses (like the 35 1.4) with the newer ones, including the 23 f2 and the wonderful 8-16 f2.8. You get what you pay for, and I like the fact that Fujifilm offers users a wide variety of lenses at different price points. Also, based on past experience with expensive glass, including Nikon’s higher end lenses and Leica’s lenses, I find Fuji’s fast glass to be very reasonably priced given their quality.
Channels like yours deserves lots of subscribers being so helpful , greetings from Canada 🇨🇦
Thanks for this video Ted! I have the 1.4 and was really impressed with the 2.8 when I tried it. I agree with you that they’re so different that it’s worthwhile having both for e.g. indoor vs. outdoor applications. A few things you didn’t mention: the 2.8 has massive barrel distortion that is software corrected, whereas the 1.4 is optically corrected. You always lose resolution when you have to use software correction. And the close focus of my sample of the 1.4 is a ridiculous 8 cm - the spec. sheet of the 2.8 lists it’s close focus as 17 cm (which is still very good).
Brett Patching are you measuring distance from the front of the lens or the sensor? Manufacturers typically measure minimum focus distance from the sensor I believe, which could be the difference you’re seeing. By the way, do you prefer either lens to the other?
Got the 16 1.4 myself. I'm somewhat relieved that it's not that I have a bad sample, turns out according to your video, the lens is indeed soft wide open that gets sharp when the aperture is closed down to f2 in my case. Other than that, it's really a great lens because of that sweet minimum focus distance. I did some street shootin' one time with it and it's really great that I can also take almost macro shots if I found something interesting. I'm proud of how good the 2.8 version is, it's made where I'm from :) .
I'm glad that you used the term "tool" to describe the lenses because that is exactly what they are. As a beginner/intermediate photographer I would get the less expensive one because it is the more affordable tool. Once I have it, I can use to learn, create, and grow. The extra 2 stops of light would be great to have but not really necessary for me.
You fell into error @2:50. You concluded, based on A/B testing, that the 1.4 is longer than 16mm. Focal length is the distance from the optical center of the lens to the imaging plane: it's a mathematical equation, not dependent upon which lens is newer. So it is possible that the 2.8 actually is shorter than 16mm, or that the 1.4 is longer than 16mm, or that the 1.4 is longer than 16mm *and* the 2.8 is shorter than 16mm. Or maybe *both* lenses are longer or shorter than 16mm.
I have the 16mm 1.4 and it's superb. It's a very big lens so not one I would want to carry around all day (I have done so on my XH1 and it's like carrying a DSLR!).
However, 16mm is kind of my focal length of choice these days so when I saw Fuji doing a decent discount on the 16 2.8 I snapped it up. Ho boy. For the price and if you don't need the extra stop(s), then buy the 2.8 with a clear conscience. It's brilliant. I honestly cannot tell the difference at f6.3 and onwards.
I took the 2.8 out with me for some landscape work at the weekend and the only drawback is the tiny lens front thread means you need multiple adapter rings to get to 77mm for my Firecrests. A reasonable price to pay, I think, for the weight saving.
Yes, Ted is right, if you can afford both get them both. But if you own neither, buy the 2.8. You can make up with ISO for any stops lost. No worries.
hey paul lately i was thinking about getting this lends for landscape photography. is it good in that aspect?
Another thing to consider is macro. The 16-50 3.5 kit lens can focus up to about 3 inches from a subject at the 16mm setting. And by the way, it takes crazy great macro shots. So, which one of these has closer macro, and how close?
It’s so great you are doing these vids on Lenses . It really separates you from 99% of every other gear review out there . Also loved the Artist series. I love my Fuji 18mm f2 . Suits my needs . Great work .
Great video, Ted. I’ve owned the 16mm f/1.4 for a few years now, and two of my favorite things about it are the manual focus collar and the close focusing abilities. I know it’s not a macro lens by any stretch nor to we typically use a lens of this focal length or field of view for closeups, but the minimum focus distance and the wide aperture give it yet another purpose in the bag. We’re you able to compare the two lenses in this regard?
I would own the 1.4 over the 2.8 just for the reason of having a good bright lens for taking photos when it is darker (such as evening, in shadows on an overcast day or indoors. It also would be incredible for astrophotography of course.
One of the smartest videos I've seen in terms of photo equipment. Yes, each lens, even if they have the same focal length, can have different uses, so it can be relevant to have two 18mm, two 50mm, etc. Anyway, congratulations for this video, and for this channel, very interesting and useful !
I owned the f2.8 version of the 16 but sold it because my 16-55 f2.8 was just as sharp as the 16 prime. It is really hard to best the 16-55 f2.8 lens.
Great review. Thanks. How do you know as to focal lens difference that 16/1.4 is more like 17? Could it be that it's 16/2.8 is more into 15 focal length?
I actually read somewhere that the 2.8 is about 15 too.
Have had the 16 1.4 for a while and since trading my XE2s for a Xpro2 I've been picking up the fujicrons. Based on other reviews and now this one, I ordered the 16 2.8 for 249.00 used in excellent condition. I will keep Both! However Ill sell my 23 1.4 and pick up the 23 2.0. Thank you for your excellent reviews and commentary. Always informative. I Also have an XH-1 which I love. I shoot Street and food mostly.
Posting this before watching the video to the end:
I love my little 16mm 2.8. Not the best lens in the world technically and of course the 1.4 is a very well build lens, maybe the best in die fuji system, but the form-factor of the 2.8 is so convenient! And I dig the look of the image. Though with the photography I´m currently doing, I don´t need perfect image quality in a ultra-wide.
Thanks for video. Happy new year
At @8:05 the vertical axis is the '% transmission of light' not the distance from center of lens, that's the horizontal axis.
I can't agree more with you. In my case, as a travel (almost backpacker) photographer, lighter is better, so the 2.8 was a no brainer for me. I love it: is light, compact, looks great on my X-T30 and delivers good quality.
Good segment, Ted! I would like to have seen you find the sweet-spot for both lenses. In another words, is F8 or F11 on the 1.4 the same or better than 2.8? Just curious. Thanks!
Ted, I've seen other reviewers saying that actually the 16mm f/2.8 is a 15mm or 15.5mm.
I own both and the 1.4 is more versatile with it being able to focus close up and being better at subject isolation but if your a street shooter and landscape then the 2.8 version is better being used at f4 onwards. The key selling point for the 2.8 lens is its size.
I'm genuinely curious, what do you use your 16mm for besides street and landscape? This is a focal length I always struggle with.
Thanks Ted Forbes for loving and being so Passionate about Photography! If someone knows his stuff is you Sir, I guess in the end what I get from this comparison is if money is no issue go with the 1.4 but if not we will be fine with the 2.8.
I can't comment on the 16mm but I own both f/1.4 and f/2 of the 23mm (35mm equivalent) lenses; and I still can't decide which one I like best. I use them both about equally, and like them for different reasons.
Ted, as a prime lover and shooting Fuji, I love the 16/1.4. I also own the 23, 35 & 50/2's and a few other similar primes - Mitakon, Rokinon, etc. When Fuji inroduced the 16/2.8 - I swore I'd avoid obvious redundancy. But 3 months later, I succumbed to the compact stealthiness of the near "fujicron" nature of the 16/2.8 and bought it. Absolutely no regrets and my 16/1.4 is NOT for sale. Different lenses for different purposes. Excellent lenses - both. Totally agree with your unconventional - but all so true conclusion. - ps - I also love my Canon 50/1.2L and my 50/1.0L. Same comments.
Curious about your comment about the 1.4 being around 17.5mm in your test. Wouldn’t it be possible that the FOV appeared longer because the lens itself is longer than the 2.8? I’ve seen this happen with reviewers switching lenses without accommodating for the plane where the light hits the lens (i.e. keeping the camera exactly at the same spot) in theory that could be why the 1.4 seemed to be at 17ish mm. Food for thought. Love your videos keep up the awesome work! Been following you for a while now.
if you look at them, purely on the physical aspect, you can see the difference in size is relevant.. somehow i would say it's normal because they propped lots of more glass inside the 1.4 one and that has to have an impact. I'm impressed the FOV didn't change harder to be honest.
Great comparison Ted. I would also like to see a comparison of the 16mm f2.8 vs the 16-55mm F.2.8 at 16mm. Since I already own the the 16-55mm F2.8 I'm curious how the image quality compares.
Gentlemen, what is your expection of this test? What for you like to buy the 16mm f2.8? If you are happy withe the zoom go with it and shoot. Stop try to improve you photography by buying the probably best gear.
Photonerd go back into your hole. You totally did not understand my comment. If you can’t make an intelligent comment just stay on the sidelines.
@@johnleftwich650 you are right maybe I was misinterpreting your comment. You simply asked for a image quality comparison with no deaper intention. Well then you will have this information and do what ever you like to do with it. I go back in my hole and relax.
Great video. I'm a Nikon DSLR guy and want to move to Fuji. What camera would you recommend? Thanks
So, if you already owned the 16-55mm and weren’t bothered about being discreet or carrying the larger lenses around, would there be any point in buying the 16mm f2.8 in terms of image quality?
According to several other reviewers, it is the 16 f2.8 that is wider than 16 (more like 15) while the 16 1.4 is relatively correct.
Size & cost is much more noticeable on long tele lenses.
I bought both 300mm nikkor lenses - the f2.8 and the f4.
I love the f2.8 but I dont always carry it around unless I really need it.
The Nikon trilogy is great but it weighs too much.
Some new lenses are getting lighter but not by much.
Whether its for a DSLR or Mirrorless the design limitations on size of the lens is the same.
I’m buying one of these tomorrow to go with my 35 1.4.I do a lot of nightime city stuff and size v stops is thing as you say.Think it will be the 1.4 but if the 2.8 was a 2.0 it may be different.Great video.
Thanks for this, I am still thinking if I should add a 16mm prime to my Fuji lens line-up. So far I have added the f1.4/35 & 1.2/56mm to the compact f2.0 primes, but focal length wider than 23mm I am still on f4/10-24. And recently Fuji come-up with their f3.5/8mm but that also requires higher ISO in low light...
Happy New Year!!! My next purchase the 16/2.8. Thanks for all the great education on your videos.
That small one is really underrated ... its on my XE4 ... very light set up for street photography and perfect for zone focusing
Owned both. Loved both. Sent back the f2.8
There is just something alive and special about the 1.4. Perfect lens.
thanks to this video I understood what kind of photographer I am NOT. I'm not interested in the technicalities about gear. I just wanted to know what the compromise between the two is, except for the obvious in terms of aperture.
Don't get me wrong, it's not that it's a bad video, it's fantastic and very informative, and I appreciate that it shed some lights onto my own self perception as a photographer! Thanks
You made some excellent points which are logical and should be applied just like that rest ... pictures taken from lens side by side will tell the story ..... thank you so much
Great video! I wonder how the 16mmf2.8 compares to the 14mmf2.8
how would you say the f 1.4 would be as an astrophotography lens?
Hi Ted,
that was aj very well, down- to- earth- comparison of two great lenses.
But (imho, at least), there is another huge element factoring in the pricing of wide aperture lenses:
The quality of the autofocus.
The faster the lens, the better the autofocus has to be to really nail that focus where you need it (like the eye, in the case of portraits).
I'm new to photography, but what do you mean by a fast lens? is that something other than shutter speed?
@@ventricity"Fast lens" refers to lenses with a large aperture, so it allows more light to enter. More light means less time is required for the exposure - > faster exposure - > faster glass. Usually, with good quality lenses, every time you double the maximal aperture (due to mathematics the actual number decreases by the square root of 2) you double the price of the lens. So a good prime lens with the maximal aperture of f/1.2 can easily reach a four figure price.
Superb video, very detailed and honest. 100% agree that these days many are chasing perfection, but I bet we all can't recognise it if we do achieve it.
Which lens would be ideal for video? Debating the cost difference, thanks!
The fujinon 16mm f2.8 will be perfect for my street photography, its on my wish list. For macro photography I will get the extension tube for a cheap price, I've seen it works well for detail work.
Glad you went to the Zeiss test chart with both at 2.8. Other wise it would not be a true comparison. Did you ever do a sample pics of that WWC 150mm filter kit including some showing if there is any color cast & pic quality? I would like to see a vid on that please!
I really love my 16mm 1.4 - I will never sell it
@S Tra ha ha
@S Tra yes ,off course and I will buy 1k 16 .1.4 lens other . Hi hi
Hi, great video. Just wanted to point out. It's the other way round. The 16mm 1.4 is actually 16 and the 16mm 2.8 is actually wider, as opposed to your theory that the 16mm 1.4 is actually 17.
Thanks Ted, for another interesting talk on lenses. Since I have an XT2, this presentation was of particular interest to me. Unfortunately my budget would dictate the less expensive lens but so far none of the fujinon lenses have been a disappointment to me. Keep educating us.
Andrew over at Denae & Andrew's channel always mentions the differences within the lengths of these two lenses. But he says the opposite, that the 16mm 2.8 is actually a 15mm while the 1.4 is correctly labelled at 16mm.
That's interesting because a guy I barely know was generous enough to lend me his 16 f/1.4 for a couple of weeks and I compared it to my 16-55. At 16mm, the 16-55 was wider than the 16 f/1.4. I would be inclined to believe the 16 f/1.4 is actually 17 or 17.5 (as Ted stated) if both the 16 f/2.8 and 16-55 are wider.
What is this square lens hood that you use on the 16mm 1.4 in this video? Where can I buy one? Please let me know, thanks!
How certain are you the 16mm 1.4mm is at 17mm? In another TH-cam comparo I saw the person said he noticed the 2.8 is wider at ~15mm?
An object lesson in Lens judgement, enjoy what you have 👍
Maybe the 2.8 is wider than 16mm - 🤔
!!!!
@@roguegeek I had the 16mm f1.4 (borrowed) and 18mm f2 and there was very little difference in FoV. So he's not wrong.
I am pretty sure it’s likely to do with the position of the front element. As the 16mm f1.4 is longer, it is technically closer to the subject than the f2.8 or 18mm as they are shorter lenses (assuming that the body stays in the same spot/tripod)
Man.. this is a really great video and point of view..! Thank you so much!
I will go with 16mm 2.8, better size, weight, price. It is weather sealed, get less attention on the street and less room in the bag and pairs well with most Fuji X bodies.
You made a couple of very good comments. They are both different lenses and you could own both at the same time, optical perfection isn't the most important point.
Thank you for this in-depth comparison. :) It was truly worth watching as I am considering a prime for landscape photography for my X-T4.
It might be worth noting that the XF16mm 2.8 is also environmentally sealed - something that we in the Pacific Northwest find especially desirable. When paired with my X-T2, I can head out and about most any time!!!
When comparing the two lenses field of view, you need to place both lenses+body at the optical center. If you leave the body in place it is like getting closer with the 16mm f/1.4. An other way is to either shoot object far away.
the angle of view was mentioned by andrew of denae and andrew, and he argued that the 16mm 1.4 was marked correctly, and that the 2.8 was closer to 14mm
... if I recall he said it was 15mm...
Does anyone know how the 2.8 handles infrared in terms of hot spots?
Now Ted, you talked about wide open, you talked about stopped down one stop... But what about F/4? F/5.6? I'm going for massive depth of field in landscapes. Which of these two lenses provide the most resolution when stopped down to just before defraction sets in? I own the 1.4 but would be interested in the 2.8 if I could squeeze greater depth of field out of my images. I really like this new lens series. Thanks for making such entertaining videos!
I do Landscape Pictures with ND Filters and Long Time Exposure. One of my Buddys was so Kind to lent me his 1,4/16 so I was able to compare it to my 1:2,8/16. Well, at f/5,6 till f/8 I did not see any diffenrence in Shaprness and Contrast. So, because the 2,8 one is lighter, I prever that one. An other Argument. When you have to carry a Wodden Tripod from Berlebach to get what you want, you will think to reduce Weight.
what 16mm lens is better for landscape photography? i don't care much about F1.4 (and will probably never use it ,expect some curiosity). But I've seen landscapes made with 16mm/1.4 and 24MP camera at F5.6-8 and they are perfectly sharp in corners. What about 16mm/2.8, does it match the same performance at F4/5.6/8 ?
I always wonder about comparing the compact prime to the larger one and people saying they have different focal lengths. Surely the larger/longer prime's front element would be more forward if the tripod hasn't been repositioned?! The lenses have to be measured with the front element being in exactly the same place (imagine the lenses without the hoods pressed up against the pane of glass of a building's window, that being the fixed point).
Brilliantly clear and wise commentary. THANK YOU VERY MUCH INDEED
I got both of these. I think the difference between them in real life is much bigger than what you present it to be. At least with my copies the 1.4 has much better contrast. Another anoying feature of the 2.8 is that its VERY prone to VERY ugly flaring wich makes it almost useless in a whole lot of situations. Corner sharpnes is also a problem with the 2.8, and makes it a pretty hopeless even for amateur landscapephotography.
Slightly off topic but it can be applicable here as well.
Old Man "I love my 24mm f2.8!"
Young man " I love that focal length as well!"
Old Man "No son, I have a f2.8 zoom. I'm a professional and that's a professionals tool."
Young Man "But sir! I have a 24mm prime lens that's at f2.8 too."
Old Man "No son, that's just an amateurs lens. Its not fast enough. You have a lot to learn!"
I know the topic is a battle of 16mm lenses,
but what about the 18mm f2? Its very sharp, it's f/2 instead of f/2.8 (but not 1.4, i know), It's smaller and lighter than both the 16mm lenses. And its only a bit tighter than the 16mm 1.4 (tested it with borrowed 16 and my 18). And a personal win, I got it second hand for 160€ (its also cheaper second hand than both). I find it the best of both worlds, however, it's not weather sealed.
Is that XPro3 yours or a loaner?
16mm isn't the most useful angle of view for me, but I still keep picking up the 16mm f/1.4 because the images it produces look so good, particularly wide open.
I also noticed the difference in focal length between the two. But are you sure that it is the f/1.4 that is not a 16mm and not the f/2.8? I compared the f/2.8 with the Fujinon 14mm. And they were actually very close. So maybe the f/2.8 is more a 15mm?
I know there isn't a fuji x mount of the sigma 16mm f1.4 but I am wondering how will it stack up against the fuji 16mm f1.4. The sigma is around the same price as the fuji f2.8. I love the size of the f2.8 though
Have been thinking about this decision. Thanks for this relevant analysis.
Great video and now you have a new subscriber. I am surprised you don’t have more....it’s likely just a matter of time. I have the 16/2.8 and love the small size. Carrying this around with the 23/2 and 35//2 make for a very compact 3 lens prime kit.
Would this be a good supplement for my 35mm 1.4 lens? I'm looking for a lens that fits more into the frame so I can do a bit of landscape photography for instance.
I went out recently to shoot landscape with the 2.8. even at f8 I just feel it is not sharp enough. I got sharper results from the kit lens 18-55
Great review. I recently purchased the 16mm f1.4. Can you please respond and tell us what metal lens hood you have on the lens in the video. The Heliopan 67 mm metal short is too long and cuts the image corners! Struggling to get a great lens hood. Thanks!
Is the apparent focal length difference maybe due to focus drift, maybe the 1.4 suffers it and the 2.8 doesn't?
Also coma on both is horrible wide open, so for any astrophotography a better choice is to buy a used 16-55mm f/2.8
hi! this or the 16mm f1.4 for filming and photography? which one do you think is better? more noisy? and gives better bokeh ish? ty
I thought your analogy and the way you explained it was excellent, if you take it and compare with eg a car, your always going to have differences of opinion in the bells and whistles, engine size etc and we all know that some of it is practice and other parts are irrelevant to the average person, ie how fast can you go and how many people actually go off road? but as you rightly explained the reasons and therefore costs, it rings true, more than the average person will do when they own the top model.
Sound advice that gives people the option on what they want to achieve v budget they have. DG New Forest U.K.
it could be interesting to compare the 16mm f2.8 against the 16mm within the 8-16mm and 16-50mm both f2.8
Is the 1.4's FOV narrow or is the 2.8 wider than it should be? I can't remember who said it but they thought the 2.8 was essentially a 15mm lens
It was such a hard decision after the 16mm f2.8 was announced, but I went with it and may do exactly what you recommended in the video.
Excellent job, as always.
Should I pay more for F1.4 if I already own 35mm F1.4 and I need 16mm for landscape mostly?
I’d be happy to just own one of them, but if it was a choice without worrying about budget, I’d prefer the f1.4 version, because it is optically a better lens, let alone being faster, whereas the smaller one relies on a lens profile to correct significant barrel distortion, one of those compromises that makes it small. You might argue, as long as you either shoot jpg or your Raw software uses the lens profile, and the sharpness is still there, what will it matter in the end. And that may well be true, esp if size is an issue, eg if you use an X-Pro.
I tend to agree... One thing more. The f/2.8 also has much more distortion in the corners. But still like it for its weight size and low AF noise.
A 16mm 1.4 lens does not let in as much light as a 24mm 1.4. 16/1.4 = 11.4mm aperture diameter, which is 103 square mm of area. 24/1.4 = 17.1mm aperture diameter, which is 231 square mm of area. So in the same amount of exposure time, and same FOV, the 24mm will let in 2.25x as many photons of light that land on the full-frame sensor compared to the 16mm lens with an APS-C sensor. Because the full-frame sensor is larger, the photon density per unit area of sensor is the same. But if both are 24Mp sensors, each pixel on the full frame sensor is getting 2.25x as many photons. So how come the APS camera image isn’t 1 stop dimmer? Because the Amplifier that gains up the sensors output has twice the gain as the one in the full-frame camera. Which is why the APS camera is noisier at the same ISO setting. It’s all simple math. Nevertheless, I still prefer the other advantages (size and weight) of my APS-C camera and the tiny 16/2.8 lens, which is letting in even far less light. So good job to you for pointing out how important size is in certain situations.
Then why is the exposure exactly the same no matter the sensor size?
Why not keep the 1.4 and add the 14/2.8? Price aside...?
Nice... It would be interesting to see how the test chart reproduced with both lens stopped down to f4 or f5.6 or even f8 (mostly used aperture).
Also some Fuji lenses behave badly against light source, exhibiting flares.... comparison are worth more when a lens is tested against light..
I have the 16 f/1.4. Love the IQ but it almost never gets out of the bag, and I must admit that I primarily purchased it based on internet and TH-cam ravings. Either I just do see the world that way or I don't know how to apply it. I ended up selling my Fuji kit and going FF with a Canon R6. Just sold that kit and now I'm back with Fuji. Just picked up the 23 and 35 F/2 and I'm looking at either one of these or the MUCH older 14 F/2.8. I'm leaning towards the 16 f/2.8 for weight savings, cost, and I'm still not sure this is the ideal lens for me.
Is the 1.4 longer, or is the 2.8 a bit shorter?