« OVF vs. EVF | Main | Housekeeping (Blog Notes) »

Thursday, 10 November 2016


Have one and it is excellent. Wait til you try the Zeiss 12mm. At the wide end that extra 2mm does make a difference. Add in the Zeiss is a work of Art you could put in a frame an display - and you have the best of both worlds.

Fuji does it right with the X series stuff and Zeiss helps just a touch.

One of my favorite lenses, ever.

What has always surprised me is just how versatile this lens is.

I guess I'm too "old school", a f/2.8 lens is still a fast lens in my book, and having a "ultra-fast" wide-angle lens is not important to me. How often is bokeh important on a wide-angle? Seriously. When I'm shooting with this lens, it's almost always about getting as much DOF as possible, not as little.

Still, it's fab as you say, and folks that have been contemplating it should take this opportunity to snag it.

Moving up from the wonderful X100T, I Purchased the XPro2 and 4 fast Fuji primes to replicate the Nikon kit I started my career with 35 years ago. The 14mm has turned out to be an incredible lens, distortion-free and sharp as a tack. Where I though the 35/1.4 or 56/1.2 might spend the most time on my X body, the 14 gets an equal billing these days.

I like the 14, but man, the 16 is even better(for me). Not as wide a view, no, but faster, and and more weatherproof - and sharp.....

For the money, the 14 wins. But if you have the room in your budget, it's definitely worth looking at both.

I admittedly use the the 1.4 aperture a great deal, as this is a travel lens for me - inside dark museums, grabbing my kids, shooting at night - and I needed the speed over the 2 less mm of focal length. Why I love Fuji - they've built a surprising depth of choice into their system - a 14, 16, and 10-24 for wides, with a cheap 18 in their as well.

"...ƒ/2.8 is not a downtown hip-crowd aperture but don't let that put you off. It's fast enough and the lens is quite special."

Well, I find the f/8 of my 9mm Olympus Lenscap Fisheye to be 'fast enough', but I don't use it often. And at the price it's moderately special. ;-)

I just received my Laowa 12mm f/2.8 D-Dreamer (for 35mm):

Stunning quality both in manufacture and rendition. So wide that you almost need to step back from the camera so that you don't end up in the frame! Virtually zero distortion. Those Chinese are very clever people.

Try the 14mm f/4 that is welded to the front of the Sigma dp0. Seriously, just try it.

Love that focal length. I remember most fondly the Zuiko f3.5 21mm on my OM1. BI have to admit it was a Tokina f3.5 17mm on a Pentax that delayed my transition to digital. Now I use Panasonic m43 cameras but my UWA is the little Olympus 9-18 zoom; a wonderful lens. I dream of a 9mm pancake (18mm equiv) and as you say, Mike, f2.8 or even f3.5 would be absolutely fine.

I love the 14mm on my XP2. I always preferred a 20mm over a 28mm when I shot Nikon.

Here's a favorite I shot this summer with the 14mm:

photoscapes | darlene almeda: Fuji XP2 &emdash; #2343

Great writeup on the lens. Prime optics seem to generate a visceral power over us, but then, even with significant amounts of "realistic" scrutiny, I don't find my magical little 18-55 wanting - maybe an age factor, who knows?

However, the biggest enlargement I ever made with my X-Pro 1, was from a Fuji 35mm lens file. Yes, sharper than my zoom for sure. But that was helpful when producing a 43 x 81 inch print! Now constrained to the 24 inch width limit of my Canon iPF6400 printer, I cannot really see enough added quality coming from my old prime (18, 35 & 60) files, when compared directly to my current zoom (the entire system I once had was sold - I am now on my 2nd X-Pro 1 with 2 zooms. I had made a mistake!).

I use mainly the very wide end of the zoom and shoot wide open on occasion. But normally it is F5.6 to 8 on a tripod. If I need a wider angle, I just stitch a couple exposures together and that works most of the time. Never having to change lenses is a joy. And I get OIS to boot though I rarely need it.

Yes, there are certainly differences between my prime files and zoom files printed on even as small as 17x22 paper that I can see. But they are not the sort of differences I find at all distinguishable - or even important - when viewing a print from a "proper distance" mounted on a wall and nicely lighted.

I agree.

Probably the best 'second' lens you can buy if you spend most of your time with the 23.

I submitted a comment about making a very large 43 x 81 inch print from a 35mm Fuji prime lens file, implying it was from a single exposure. That was sort of a fib insofar as the print was made from a composite of several files. But the rest of what I wrote is fine as presented. I have made a few 30 inch wide prints from a single prime lens exposure, with all important conditions and settings just "ideal", and the the prints were lovely.

I opted for the 16/1.4 for my Fujifilm system, no regrets. 14mm covered very nicely by the 10-24/4, which is also stabilised. The 16mm is marvellous, having f/1.4 does add some great creative options.

Indeed it is a good lens, I had during my brief period when I tried Fuji. However, even better one is the Loxia 21 for the Sony FE mount.

I've never been a wide guy, preferring the 50mm-e FoV, though occasionally enjoying a wide angle for a change of pace. When I moved to Fuji a few years ago I bought the 14mm (together with the 35mm f/1.4 and 50-200mm) because I wanted a fastish wide prime "just in case". The 16mm was not even in the rumour sites at that time.

Then my first child was born, and the 14mm was practically glued to my camera; turns out it's a fantastic baby lens! Now I have TWO kids, and I still use the 14mm a lot to get in close when they're interacting and playing with each other. My most memorable photos of my kids have been taken with this lens, and for that it will always hold a special spot in my heart.

As for the f/2.8 max aperture, with good high ISO (as the Fujis have) I've not found myself lusting over the 16mm f/1.4. However, I know myself well enough that had both lenses been available when I was making the decision, I would've probably gone for the 16mm. I'm glad it wasn't and that I saved myself some cash (on top of the savings I got by buying it on sale too).

Short version: I agree with you Mike; it's an excellent lens that can be recommended without hesitation.

As a recent convert to the Fuji fold, can anyone tell me the advantages of the fixed length wide primes over the 10-24 zoom other than 1 stop of speed? I don't shoot super wide often enough to justify buying more than 1 and I've been considering picking something wider than the 23mm f2 I currently have.

Early in my photography journey, I fell in love with the 24mm field of view. I would use 24mm a lot, moving in close to the subject but including a lot of the surrounding environment. Later on, I discovered the 21mm did the same thing but with a little more authority in the surrounding real estate department. The 21mm was also a little more difficult to use. If I was not careful, the results could look gimmicky.

When I bought into the Fuji system, the 14mm seemed unattainable. But thanks to Fuji's frequent sales events, I got it at a truly great price. And I love this lens. It's not my most frequently used lens but it is one of my all time favorites. For lack of a better description, things just look pretty when shot with the Fuji 14.

The f/2.8 maximum aperture is no limitation at all to my use.

Craig H: As a recent convert to the Fuji fold, can anyone tell me the advantages of the fixed length wide primes over the 10-24 zoom other than 1 stop of speed? I don't shoot super wide often enough to justify buying more than 1 and I've been considering picking something wider than the 23mm f2 I currently have.

The 10-24mm weighs about twice as much, uses a 72 filter vs 58 on the 14, and currently costs $200 more. Your shooting experience will differ from a small prime. I use a 10-20mm zoom with a dslr for architectural shooting (tripod mounted), and the zoom has came in handy. But, when I was creating my xp2 kit, I chose the 14 because of the 20mm perspective, and the f/2.8 for when low-light, no-tripod moments occur. The 14 is a small, weight-saving lens for what it does. The 23f/2 is a nice lens, but not wide enough for some things. I use it on my xp2, and my current point and shoot is a x100t. I shot a gallery reception last night with the x100t and feel the xp2+14 would have been better for the perspective, but hand-holding panoramas came out well just the same. Fuji rocks.

I'm not a Fuji shooter (though it appears to be a great system) and I don't generally consider myself a "wide-angle guy." But sometimes a particular lens is just magical in ways we can't always describe. The Zeiss Loxia 21mm f2.8 (on Sony A7-series cameras) must be a cousin to your beloved Fuji 14. There is just a look to it that is so appealing it begs to be on the camera all the time. Count me as a fellow lifelong lens nut who has finally fallen for an ultra-wide.

The comments to this entry are closed.