Which Superwideangle?

If you were going to choose between them (and even if you don't use Fuji, you can play here—why not?), would you pick the Fuji XF 14mm ƒ/2.8 or the XF 16mm ƒ/1.4?

The 14mm garners glowing reviews from pretty much all precincts, including this one. It was the first ultra-wide prime in the line, arriving in early 2013. It's reasonably small and light, very wide (equivalent to a 21mm in angle-of-view on FF), and adequately fast. If looks are important to you, it is...homely. Current cost new is a stout $800.

The fast 16mm (above) is only slightly less wide (24mm-e angle of view), fully two stops faster than the 14mm, and was added to the line in 2015. It has fewer fans, probably because fewer people own it, but it seems to get good reviews as well.

Some comparisons:

The 14mm has a 58mm filter size; the 16mm, 67mm.

The slower lens is quite light at 235g (8.3 oz.), the faster one is heavier (but still pretty light in absolute terms) at 375g (13.23 oz.).

The prices of the two are almost equal, as the fast 16mm costs only $50 more than the 14mm. This choice is not bedeviled by dollars.

Small focal length differences in the ultra-wide range makes a big perceptual difference, so 14mm "feels" noticeably wider than 24mm. On the other hand, I've always felt that 24mm-e is as wide a wide-angle as I'll ever actually need.

Speed differences, on the other hand, are less important with ultra-wides, because camera shake is less of an issue (think of handholding an extreme telephoto; the opposite effect is in play at the other end of the spectrum) and depth-of-field differences are minimal in practice. Nobody buys an ultra-wide to get deliberate out-of-focus areas. But fast is fast when it comes to photons. The bigger lens is also an R WR, whereas the 14mm is only R. (In the Fuji universe, R means the lens has a physical aperture ring; WR means water resistant. "Water resistant" means don't plunge it into the bathtub, but a little rain won't hurt. Personally I never mess with water, because I don't know the point of failure for water resistance and the only way to find out is when your lens gets ruined.)

A wrench in the gears here: there is also a slow 16mm "Fujicron" (above), which is light and cheap. It came along last year. It's an R WR too. You could say the Fuji XF 10–24mm ƒ/4 R OIS is a wrench in the works too, coming in from the zoom side of things. That one has in-lens stabilization, which none of the primes has. Not an issue for my X-H1, or for the X-T4, but it is for other Fuji cameras.

One man's (one Mike's?) verdict
I've always had this idea that the lens you use the most, you should put most of your money into; the lens you use the least is the place for economizing; and proportionately in between. So, since I use my ultra-wide the least, that would be the best place for getting by with less. So, if I were buying today, I'd get the Fujicron 16mm, hands down and going away. It would be Spockily logical.

And yet, I'm happy the 14mm was the only thing going when I took the plunge. It's one of the few lenses I've owned in this century that I'm completely happy with. I love the way it renders. It just keeps giving me gifts and never lets me down. Small, light, handy, and great. What's not to love?

Maybe the price, but that only stings once.

The 16mm ƒ/1.4 is the obvious choice for someone who wants the best, because of its far superior maximum aperture. And you hardly pay for that at all, vs. the 14mm. Yet it's one of the few Fuji lenses that have never tempted me. I don't think about it. YMM definitely V.

I don't think there's a bad choice between the three, but that means it's a tough choice.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

Please contribute to The Online Photographer's health and vitality through Patreon

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Steve Biro: "I bought the 14mm ƒ/2.8 very early in my Fuji adventure. As time went on, I bought a number of other lenses—including each Fujicron prime as it was introduced. But when they brought out the 16mm ƒ/2.8, I saw no reason to bother since I had the 14mm, which continues to impress me to this day. It lacks WR, but that's not critical. Now, Fuji has put the 10–24mm ƒ/4 zoom on sale for $699. It normally sells for a grand. Dang—I've been trying to cut back on gear."

Trevor Johnson: "The 14mm ƒ/2.8 Fuji is the reason I would buy into the Fuji X system. But I won't as my small Sony A... with the Touit 12mm in Sony E mount (I was shooting with it yesterday) is terrific for when I want to go compact/lightweight."

Mike replies: The Zeiss Touit 12mm is also available in native Fuji X mount. And I have one to sell if anyone's interested.

Rob L.: "I flat-out love the 16mm ƒ/1.4, and I use it at ƒ/1.4 often. Mostly that's a result of it being a fantastic lens for closeup people shots in places like Disney rides, so it's not been heavily used for a while. It's sharp, just fun to use, and, on the X-H1, a 16mm ƒ/1.4 in the dark, handheld, is amazing. I used it on a cave trip, where the only other usable photos were from my IR camera with an IR flash commander as a flash. We're opposites on the 14mm and 16mm: never tempted by the 14—that is why I love the Fuji system so much. There's a great amount of specialization at the most-used focal lengths allowing for a lot of very different shooters to find their perfect fit. I also must admit, the subject separation and out of focus areas is a big reason I love the 16mm so much more than the 14mm...."

Dogman: "I have both the 14mm and the 16mm ƒ/2.8 Fujinons. The 14mm is truly a beautiful lens and I love the look it gives to photos. The only thing I dislike about it is that I can't comfortably use the OVF of my X-Pro cameras with this lens. It requires me to use the EVF and I'm not really a fan of that feature. But the lens is so good I put up with that inconvenience. When the 16mm ƒ/2.8 was announced, I pre-ordered it. It is now more or less permanently mounted on an X-Pro2. It's usable with the optical finder, small, and optically pretty darn good. I've always liked the 24mm in 35mm format. Back in the film days, I completely wore out a Nikkor 24mm ƒ/2.8, and a second one was well on the way to being used up before I retired it in favor of autofocus gear."

Ken Bennett: "Hey, Mike, I've been shooting Fuji full time professionally since mid-2013. Is it bad that I have every single one of the lenses you mentioned? Yes, including both 16mm versions. (Hangs head in shame.) I actually do use them all, too, for different purposes. The 16mm ƒ/1.4 is a primary work/journalism/documentary lens. The ƒ/2.8 version goes in my little everyday carry bag with an X Pro2 and several 'Fujicrons.' The 14mm is very useful for landscapes and architecture, though honestly I do most of that now with the GFX system. The 10–24mm is a terrific wide zoom and very useful. I've been very happy with the entire system."

Jim Simmons: "For architectural interiors, it is helpful to fine-tune the focal length, so I am very happy using the 10–24mm zoom. It is rectilinear, as is the 14mm (but I believe that's not the case with either of the 16mms). The zoom is not as sharp at the 24mm end, but not by too much. "

Leon Droby: "I've owned both but not at the same time. And I liked both but for different reasons. The 14mm ƒ/2.8 is great for carrying around and using at ƒ/5.6 or ƒ/8 for landscapes. The 16mm ƒ/1.4 is great when I want to get up close to things but have limited DOF.

"Recently I've come back to Fujifilm with an X-T4 (although I never really left; just flirted with others). I've been using too many different cameras lately so that my photography has suffered. So, I'm committing to one camera and lens for a while. The X-T4 and 35mm ƒ/1.4. But, if I did want an ultra wide, it'd be the 16mm ƒ/2.8. Small, light and weather resistant. Quality? They're all very good. (My how my priorities have changed over time.). It'd be a great fit for the X-T4."

David Brookes: "I have the 14mm ƒ/2.8 and the 10–24 ƒ/4 and feel they complement each other—I would not want to be without either. The 16mm ƒ/1.4 has a great reputation, but I have read some less than flattering reviews of the 16mm ƒ/2.8."

Nick: "I think it depends on your use case—when I shot Fuji I had the 16mm ƒ/1.4 which was fantastic whenever the light got low. Think handheld shots which would otherwise be challenging with a slower lens such as at weddings, or travel photography in dark cathedrals etc. It was also good for astrophotography where you need a fast-ish shutter speed to stop star trails while keeping ISO down. I loved that lens and would not have picked any of the other options instead. If it was just for general purpose walkaround stuff, then the 16mm ƒ/2.8 would have been the best size and cost choice for occasional use, but there are still advantages to fast apertures even given the existence of IBIS and tripods. And the Fuji ƒ/1.4 is still small and light (and cheap) compared to the full frame equivalent."

Thomas Walsh: "I have the 10–24 and it pairs well with X-T3. It can also be used for street photography, which is a big plus if you only want to carry around one lens."

Chris Kilkes: "I own the 16mm ƒ/1.4 (and the ƒ/2.8 as it happens, don’t ask) and when I take up close macro-ish type shots aiming for artsy blur versus clinical sharpness I love how my 16mm ƒ/1.4 renders the out of focus areas and bokeh in exactly the same way my older generation primes do (i.e. the 23mm ƒ/1.4, 35mm ƒ/1.4 and 56mm ƒ/1.2). Sounds like that’s probably an edge use case. But then when I take it out to shoot landscapes and architecture and stop it down it’s ridiculously sharp. All in all it’s turned into one of my favorite and most-used lenses. But mileage may vary as you say Mike."

Comments

[Herb Cunningham]

A vote for the focal length. I shoot only full frame, that at 21mm Loxia being on the camera most of the time.
It is the way I "see" stuff, which is landscape 95% of the time.

[Craig]

I don't know much about the 16mm f/2 (Fujicron), but the other two are both great lenses -- sharp as hell with minimal geometric distortion or CA. Either one is a fine choice, and I think the choice really ought to come down to focal length rather than anything else. Personally, I tend to go as wide as possible with ultra-wides. I have the 14mm f/2.8 and I see no reason to buy either of the 16mm lenses.

I don't agree that the 16mm f/1.4 is "better" just because it's faster. f/2.8 is fast enough for anything I would want to do with an ultra-wide lens, and like many super-fast lenses, the 16mm f/1.4 isn't as sharp below f/2.8. Sharpness certainly isn't everything (as Cartier-Bresson noted, it's a "bourgeois concept", i.e. the sort of technical detail that people obsess over if they have no clue about art), but I just don't see many use cases for f/1.4 with an ultra-wide anyway. The IQ of today's sensors at high ISO levels is such that you'd practically have to be in the dark to need f/1.4 for light collection, and as you note, you're not going to get buttery bokeh with an ultra-wide at any aperture.

[Mike Plews]

Modern glass and sensors are so good that unless you really need the speed the Fujicron seems like a slam dunk. My own superwide lens is a Tokina 11-16 2.8 on a D7100. Well built and sharp at all apertures (I'm not a pixel peeper so your mileage may vary). It's a zoom but I tend to use it at 11 most of the time.
It's not on the camera all the time but I do find myself using it more than I anticipated.

[Dave Van de Mark]

I've lived for two decades with wide angle preferences in my photographic life. Yet, depending on which camera I owned at the time, be it Canon, Nikon or Fuji, I only had certain "ranges" of wide angle available to me, with 24mm being the widest and, curiously, I never hankered for wider. Regretfully, I just learned what I've been missing.

The acquisition of a new camera and purchase of an adaptor for it, allowed me to borrow a 16-35mm Canon F2.8 (series II) zoom. It must be a good sample cuz it is exquisitely sharp on my Panasonic S1R. But the key point is it gave me the chance to really explore what the "downside" of 24mm is all about, especially the 18 to 22 or so range.

Now that I have also experienced the "bigness" of the FF world (camera, lenses, file sizes and resolution), more than ever does it call for keeping a foot in the Fuji APS-C ecosystem. To bring to it the experiences I've discovered in the FF world, the Fuji 14mm lens would do it. Attached to a light 26MP Fuji camera (doesn't really matter which one), that lens and my superb 18-55 F2.8-4 Zoom, would be a "fitting" (as in smaller, lighter & very competent) companion to my new FF Panasonic beast. Notice I didn't refer to it as a "backup" either.

[Albert Smith]

I have always been a 24mm (full frame) user, having one from both Pentax and Nikon for decades. I have traveled the world with a minimum set of prime lenses, and 24mm was my go-to wide-angle. It pairs well with a 35mm (full frame) because of some basic math.

When holding the 35mm horizontal the side to side coverage is equal to the side by side coverage with a 24mm held vertically. My brain sees this way and I choose the lens based on how important the composition is for landscape or portrait orientation.

I own both of the Fujifilm 16mm f/1.4 and the f/2.8 models. If you go to Amazon and look up the f/2.8 version, my review is number one, and explains why I have both.

The f/1.4 is spectacular in every way. It has a well earned reputation and the hype is real. With the electronic shutter of the Fuji bodies, I shoot at full aperture often in bright sun and get images that I couldn't with DSLRs. If you go this route, I find the optional square hood to be better for the lower profile than the large petaled hood that comes with the lens.

With that said, I use the f/2.8 model about 4 to 1 times more often simply because it is so small and light. It is effortless to carry and a joy to wield on the street. It is optically fine from one stop down but more than good enough wide open.

When I do drag the f/1.4 out after an extended time, I am always reminded why it has such a good reputation. It is so big, so I need a specific reason to lug it. The f/2.8 slips effortlessly into a pocket.

In the end... I'm glad I have both. If this is a 15% lens, f/2.8 is fine.

[albert erickson]

Mike, I have owned both the 14 f 2.8 and the 16 f 2.8 and sold them both. The reason, I owned both the 10-24 f 4 and the 16-55 f 2.8 and found both of those lenses equal in image quality. Now to be fair there is a weight and size difference, but I find that I would rather have a very good zoom available to me when I am out shooting than to have to think about which lens to use and to keep switching primes. I am generally a travel and landscape shooter so that may be the reason. I will say both the 10-24 and the 16-55 are great lenses. I would rate them as some of the best I have ever used. When traveling I usually just take the 16-55 and the 50-200, which is a good lens as well. Eric

[Michael J. Perini]

I remember when you got that lens......and you took pictures of everything with it and seemed to love it. If I remember correctly, you were surprised at just how much you enjoyed it. That's a wonderful thing. And when a lens gives you that feeling, you should keep it.

I would also add , that by FF standards , none of those lenses are particularly wide, with 16mm being the equivalent of the wide end of the most common ' normal zoom' the 24-70.

So having something a little wider than that would seem to make sense, especially given how much you liked the way it sees the world.

[Steve]

I have the 14 and the 16 1.4. Hard to go wrong with either one. If you like the 23 1.4 you will probably like the 16 1.4.

The Wide Zoom is on sale now also. It's $300 off:

https://fujifilm-x.com/en-us/deals/?utm_medium=summer_deals_rauh&utm_source=adestra&utm_campaign=summer_promotion

To me there is a big difference between the 14 and 16. Numerically it may not seem like much, but they are significantly different in terms of perspective.

[Alex Mercado]

My vote is for the 14mm. It's purely a personal preference, but I feel if you're going to go there, then go all the way—16mm strikes me as simply not being enough when compared to the 14mm.

However, of those two 16s, I'd go with the Fujicron.

[Robert Roaldi]

I'm not fussy about wide, I'd go with the Fujicron 16 mm and save the money for something else. And f2.8 is fine for me. Come to that, I find 24e mm too wide and would prefer 28e mm.
As an aside, I keep looking at the aperture ring on their lenses and feel a tug at my wallet to switch to Fuji. I've been shooting Olympus 4/3s and m4/3s for over a decade, Canon EF before that, but I still find myself reaching for an aperture ring after all these years, the way I learned on a Spotmatic in the late 1960s. I must have some as yet undiscovered muscle memory deficit syndrome.

[Dave Wilson]

I have the 16mm f/1.4 and the 10-24mm f/4 zoom. They suit different use cases: both stabilised on my X-H1, the 16mm Fujilux obviously works better in low light situations, the 10-24 works well as a good light walkabout lens when you need the 15mm (e). The wide end of the 16-55mm f/2.8 is also a great option although that lens with an X-H1 with battery grip is pretty heavy. If I had to choose just one it would be the 16mm f/1.4. It just suits what I shoot.

[J Williams]

FWIW I have never cared about speed with ultra wide angles. I shoot them to get everything in focus. Fast apertures are of no use there. The Fuji 14 2.8 has always seemed like a great lens from all I have read. As for 14 vs 16 when trying to make such decisions I say you can always crop a shot, but can never put back something that was not there. If one is sure you don't need wider than the 16mm gives on APSC, then the 16 2.8 seems like a little jewel. The 1.4 lens, for me at least, is more money and more weight to carry around with little benefit. Others mileage may vary though.

[Robin Harrison]

I think you'll find what you want, Mike, is the 15mm f2.0.

[Sroyon]

Unless the angle of view is very similar (100mm and 105mm for example) I first decide what focal length I need, and then look at other factors like maximum aperture, size, price, etc. So I don't think I'd ever even ask myself such a question; either I'd want a 21mm (35mm-e), or I'd want a 24mm, or (conceivably) I'd want both. If I wanted both but could only afford one, I'd choose based on the next lens I have. If I have a 28, I'd probably get the 21; if I have a 35, I'd probably get the 24.

As it happens, my favoured prime-lens lineup is 20-28-50..., so I'd probably go with the 14mm Fuji. Besides, I have a strong (really strong) preference for small lenses. And f2.8 seems plenty fast, especially since wide lenses can be handheld at slower speeds, so a 21mm is effectively one stop "faster" than a 50mm.

As a caveat, I say all this not really knowing whereof I speak. I've never used a Fuji, my only digital camera is a 7-year-old Nikon DSLR, and the widest lens I've used on it is an 18-55 kit lens (27mm equivalent at the wide end). Though I have used wider lenses on film: a Voigtlander 25mm f4 which I eventually sold, and a Zeiss Flektogon 20mm f4 which I love unconditionally. I've used these to shoot 35mm film, usually between ISO 50 and 400. Now you know why f2.8 on a digital sensor sounds like low-light luxury to me :-)

[Ben]

Between the two and without hesitation, the 16mm f/1.4, for sure.

[Bill Bresler]

I'd go with a 16mm, although that's because the 24mm focal length is one of my faves on full-frame.

[Stan B.]

As stated, the 14mm is one ugly duckling of a lens, I curse it the field- but the results are... stunning! I'm tempted by the 16mm 2.8 simply because it's so small and cute, but I've always found the 24mm (equivalent) such an in between focal length- a little too wide for 28mm needs, and too long for 20mm. Then you have people saying it's sharp and others saying anything but- don't know if that's quality control, or individual viewpoint. I suspect it's adequate, as is the Fujinon 18mm (28mm equivalent) of which there's been long standing rumors of a new and improved on the way- not that I'm waiting, since when it does arrive it will no doubt be some giant, supersized megalith I will not want to carry...

[Jeff1000]

After having exhaustively researched Fuji for myself, but ultimately deferring to Nikon, I came up with this lens lineup:

Fuji XF 14/2.8 R
Fuji XF 23/2.0 R WR
Fuji XF 35/1.4 R
Fuji XF 56/1.2 R

Pretty much what you said about wide angles and maximum apertures, plus the extra two millimeters of width from the 14/2.8 is significant.

[Daniel]

Between the two? The 12mm Zeiss Touit.
On the wide end you can always crop a bit but you just can't go wider without multiple exposures and stitching.
Having both the 14Fuji nd 12Zeiss - both are sharp and work well. The Fuji is being sold and the Zeiss kept. Reason? As stated.

[Scott]

"Nobody buys an ultra-wide to get deliberate out-of-focus areas."
Yeah, people do. There are lots of YouTube reviews that mention the "extra bokeh" you get with faster wide-angle lenses.
Seems to me like driving a nail with a wrench, but I guess it's nice that everybody's different.

[scott kirkpatrick]

I used the 16/1.4 with an X-T2 in incredibly poor light -- indoors at a costume and environment show to celebrate Purim at our son's school a few years back.
https://www.flickr.com/gp/133969392@N05/U40fA6
It did a great job. I have since been using 24mm whenever the density of people reaches the maximum pre-coronavirus levels. And will again someday, I hope.

[Moose]

One Man's Super . . .

Speaking in FF equivalents:

My Sony zoom for FF starts @ 24 mm. My WA zoom starts @ 16 mm.

Five of the zooms I own or have owned for µ4/3 start @ 24 mm eq. One started @ 18, and the current WA one @ 14 mm eq.

Back in film days, I thought of my Zuiko 21 mm as Super WA and 18 mm as Ultra WA.

Now I have a Voightländer 10/5.6 for FF. They label it as Hyper WA.

I suggest that the 16 mm for Fuji APS, 24 mm eq. is just WA and the 14, 21 mm eq. is just barely Super WA.

The whole area of WA lenses has changed dramatically over the last decades. I used to lust over amazing, dedicated super wide 6x12 and 6x17 cameras with the Super-Angulon lenses. I have far wider lenses now.

"I've always felt that 24mm-e is as wide a wide-angle as I'll ever actually need"

From over here, you have rather narrow tastes. \;~)>

As to why one might want such WA lenses, consider this ancient room in a church in Dublin.

Or these shots in canyons in So. Utah, a farm house in Bhutan, etc., where I also used a fisheye lens 'un-fished.'

All are about 150° AoV. And they are fine for web display. But the distortion correction seriously affects resolution away from center. Now, if I can ever travel again, I can get those shots with a rectilinear lens.

"Stretch" Moose

[Severian]

For my two cents, getting to an effective 20 or 21 mm is vital - if I need to be really wide, 24mm is usually not enough.

[William Lewis]

That's a very easy choice - for me at least! - based on the specs you provide. I'd get the 14/2.8 smaller, lighter, smaller filters I already own, and so on. As far as speed is concerned, the difference between a 2.8 lens and 1.4 is only DOF anymore given modern digital sensors. For what I'd photograph with a superwide (landscapes) the narrow end of the DOF would be unused and so unneeded.

It's all stuff you mention and it's all where I'd be found :)

[SteveW]

I'm a Nikon guy, but have to tip the hat to Fuji for nice choices in prime lenses for APS-C.

I'm a 50mm guy as primary, so am of a mind to agree with you on spending less on secondary less used lenses. I have 58mm 1.4G as my "primary prime" and have 28mm 1.8G as my second lens, which gets much less use, and cost less as well.

I'd probably go for the Fuji 35mm 1.4 as primary and the 16mm Fujicron as second lens if I was starting a Fuji system. 24mm-e is as wide as like to go, and I prefer 28mm-e.

[Ken]

For my use, I wouldn't consider 14 mm and 16 mm lenses as interchangeable considering the signifcant differences in perspective at such wide angles (approx. 21 mm vs. 24 mm in full-frame equivalent).

[Kye Wood]

Which one do you yearn for? If the answer is none, regardless of why that's the case, save your money. And spend it on a weekend away to recharge your eyes and spirits. If pressed, more than 24mm ff equivalent is for real estate agents 😊

[Patrick Medd]

I had the 14mm and sold it with some other Fuji equipment to help pay for my darkroom project. I regret selling it now, but then regretting things is the one thing I’m really good at in life so that may not tell you very much.

[James]

I would get the 16 2.8 and be done with it. If I am not wrong, you have said that you are not much of a wide angle lens lover. Add to that 16mm is not really much of a soft bokeh focal length so why pay more for the fast aperture?

[Stephen Scharf]

I've owned the Fujinon 14mm f/2.8 since it appeared on the market in 2013, and I think it is one of the finest lenses I've ever used. I bought mine LNIB in 2013 from Fred Miranda Buy/Sell forums for $700, which was a good price at the time as the lens sold new then for $900.

I've taken many memorable photos with it, and one of the things that have surprised me was just how versatile it has proven to be; I think I've taken about 40% of my photos with it.

And if memory serves, I recommended it to you back when you first got into the Fujifilm system.

Sweetheart of a lens.

[I think you did. --Mike]

[Earl Dunbar]

There would be no dithering for me. The 21mm (e) is just my cup of tea, which surprised me a bit. I have the Zuiko 21/2, which is a stunning lens. I am quite comfortable with it on film, and it was my absolute favourite lens when I had the XPro-1. It draws so well whether on film (there is very little distortion) or APS-C, where its ~32 e FOV a very nice compromise between 28mm & 35mm.

I also had the Zuiko 24/2.8 and never got on with it. I really wanted to love it. But the photos I got with it just seemed awkward and weird, as if the geometry wasn’t just right. I’m sure it was me, because I sold it on to Bill Smith, another OM shooter in Oakville, ON, and he does nice work with it.

I agree the Fuji 14 maximum f2.8 if pretty much inconsequential although faster is better for shallow DOF (if you want it) on a smaller sensor.

https://flic.kr/p/v3p6e

[Stéphane Bosman]

Well, is there a bad choice in Fuji's lens lineup?

For wide angles, the 10-24mm has kept me happy for more than 5 years now and I can't see that changing anytime soon.

When I replaced my Nikon D800 with the X-T1, the 10-24mm replaced the Nikkor 16-35mm f/4. The difference in size and weight was shocking.

The size, weight and rendering of the 10-24mm are such that I never feel I should have gone with a prime.

[Patrick Perez]

I don't shoot Fujifilm, being a m43 denizen. But my experience from a long time ago when I bought a Brooks Veriwide thinking I'd be making giant prints (well, someone else making them for me) educated me on extreme wides. The Brooks had a Schneider Super Angulon 90mm f8 lens and it was a 6x9 format. 6x9 is a loosely interpreted format from what I gather, where the long side can be anywhere from 82 to 88mm. The Brooks was the latter. It had, IIRC, a 100 degree field of view.

What I learned while using it is that the distance gets far away real fast. I never could get the hang of composing with it, and it didn't help that it used a wire 'sport finder' for framing.

In short, for me, 24mm equivalent is about the widest I enjoy using, though I have always wanted a Zeiss Hologon, for no damn good reason. And there was a historic large format lens that was made of 2 opposing concave elements (I think it had a fan blade between the elements to minimize light fall-off) whose name I can't recall that intrigued me. I'd never shoot with it, but it was so curious. I thought it was a Heliogon, but a Googly search doesn't bring it up with that name.

Patrick

[Ilkka]

If you shoot at night, two stops is useful. Otherwise, not. Slightly wider lens is always better. You can always crop a bit to get the exact same framing, but you cannot do the reverse. Smaller and lighter lens is always better, you will appreciate it more as time goes and you carry and use it more. It is hard to use a lens that is at home when you need it.

[Richard E Skoonberg]

I shoot Pentax, but I feel I must say something. What is the point of 1.4 16mm lenses? It isn't bokeh, that's for sure. Low light? With a 16mm lens in low light, one can easily shoot at 15th of a second if needed, or one can adjust the ISO up, as most sensors today offer low noise up to ISO 1600. or you can lift the exposure because of the sensor's dynamic range. The challenge of making a wide-angle lens with an f1.4 aperture, that is distortion-free, is very hard to do and expensive. Wide-angle lenses are typically prone to the distortion that normal or telephoto lenses. I just don't get it, Mike.

[Patrick D Perez]

My memory kicked in. I was thinking of the Hypergon.

https://cameraquest.com/hyper.htm

Patrick

[s.wolters]

If I used Fuji gear the 16mm ‘Fujicron’ would be my choice.
I would save some money so I could buy that sweet 27mm pancake, even if I already had the 23mm and 35mm.
I am not a superwideangleman anyway. Sóóó Seventies.
Hate distortions too, not to mention all those lovely background elements that suddenly disappear behind the horizon.
The last ten years I did not need anything wider than my 14mm Panasonic. Occasionally. Until last week when I wanted to take a picture of a monstrous building that did not fit the frame.
Now what should I do, buy a wider angle or start a petition that it should be torn down?

[Peter Baglole]

The 14 is nice for shooting the Milky Way.

[Paulo Bizarro]

I have used all 3, no bad choices. Back in 2013, ony the 14mm was available, and it is an excellent lens. However, too wide for me.

Since I am more comfortable with 16mm, I tried the 16 f/2.8, very nice for travel and landscapes. It might be the best choice for XPRO shooters since it blocks the OVF less than the f/1.4 lens.

Today I have settled with the 16 f/1.4, because I occasionally shoot star trails and nightscapes. The extra 2 stops come in very handy.

[Reg Feuz]

Timely reminder from a "wideangle perspective": World Snooker Championships start 31st July in Sheffield England. And the world numero uno is named 'Trump'. Go Figure! I still fancy O'Sullivan to hold his nerve.

[Curt Gerston]

A lot of people are questioning the utility of a wide angle f/1.4 lens, which I understand if your use case involves non-moving subjects in any kind of decent light...landscape for instance. But I find the 16 or 23 f/1.4 lenses, wide-open, to be very useful when shooting theatre, especially candids backstage, where it’s dark and people are on the move.

I also shoot a lot (thousands each year) of candids in-and-around my school for yearbook, slideshows, etc, and again find the extra stops very useful for fast moving kids in their environment.

That doesn’t seem like your kind of subject, Mike, so f/2.8 would probably be plenty.

[Amin Abdollahzadeh]

I went with the 16mm f/1.4 as I like wide angle lenses and I wanted something that would work well in less brightly lit interiors. It is a superb lens optically, built like a tank and focuses fast and accurately.

I am not familiar with the other lenses you mentioned so my opinion is of limited value in this regard.

However, I really do wish Fuji would make an equivalent to the - by all accounts, excellent - Rokinon/SAMYANG 12mm f/2 with autofocus and the rest of the trimmings. I can live with a 12mm manual focus lens but the lack electronic communication by the lens with the camera is a bit too much, especially at the price the lens is being sold.

[Alex Mercado]

At the risk of offending the most discriminating of lens connoisseur, I'll admit to owning an Olympus 9mm (18mm-e) fisheye body cap for my OM-D.

It's an odd grouping of glass that doesn't even get the Zuiko badging, but with surprisingly good sharpness for its fixed aperture of f/8 and 140º angle of view, I have to recommend all m43 users get one because it's just fun.

[Fred Tuman]

In my 40 years of image making, a 24mm lens is as wide as I will go so the photo doesn't look stretched...so it gets lots of use. The old 24mm f2.8 nikkor was the best of the bunch even though its really an F5.6 for critical work. I've used the Leica 24mm f2.8R and the nikkor 24mmf2 extensively...both were soft with no bite. In today's digital age the 24f2 zeiss on a Sony A mount is very disappointing...it't character is like a stiff wire brush. The Olympus micro 4/3rds, 12mm f2 is not bad at f4. If you can use a Fuji 16mm f1.4 wide open or even at f2.8 for a decent 24"x16" exhibition print...Then sign me up.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

I was never a wideangle guy. Except...I got a 24mm/2 (Nikon) in 1983 (for a trip to Australia and New Zealand), as an extension of the 28-90 Vivitar Series 1 I was using at the time. And then I got a 20mm (Nikon) (for a trip to England). And then I got a 17mm (Tokina I think?) (for a different trip to England). And then I got a 12-24mm (Sigma) (no excuse). So...maybe I got over it?

Don't have any of those any more, they were all for Nikon.

I never used the 17mm much.

Was very pleased to find the Laowa 7.5mm f/2 for Micro Four Thirds (15mm angle-of-view equivalent for full frame). It's manual focus, but the DOF is so monstrous that's not much trouble. It's plenty fast for something that wide. And it's fairly cheap (I think it was $500 when I got it). Wide lenses are a problem for M43. It's one annoyance is some visible barrel distortion (at least when a building line that's parallel to the edge of the frame is also close to the edge of the frame). At f/4 about '10' on the Adobe Camera Raw correction fixes it.

(Unlike some, I take no issue with lenses that use the optical capabilities to correct things that can't be fixed later, and to keep the price down, and depend on digital tricks to fix the things digital can fix perfectly. I'd be happier if it managed to encode that info into the files so ACR did it automatically when I turned on corrections, though.)

[Bear.]

Rarely go wide but if I do, I prefer wider than faster. So the 14 mm for me.

[Henning]

As a former architectural photographer, wides have always been very important for me. In the 70's I got a 15/3.5 Nikon when it came out, and a 15/8 Hologon for my Leica M's. For 6x12 I got a 35mm, and for 4x5 I shot quite a bit with a 47, and for 8x10, a 90.

Now I shoot mainly with m43 and FF; for the former I have at the short end a very nice 7-14 and a great 7.5/2 lens, and for the latter a 10/5.6 (soon to be gone), a 10-18 zoom (also going), a 12-24 zoom and just now a 9/5.6 which is a lot better than the 10 and 10-18 zoom. Now I just wish someone would make a 4.5 or 5mm for m43.

I know the 14 Fujifilm a bit, and it is definitely a very well performing lens, but it just has a bit narrow an angle of view to be a superwide.

[Sven W]

Most of my photography is in the 24mm to 105mm range (FF). I have a 24-105mm f4 zoom but I also have an excellent 24mm f1.4, which doubles as a 35mm in "APS" mode i.e the camera does the crop.

A fast 24mm does the usual suspects like architecture and landscapes, but it's also great for astrophotography (not my thing) and environmental portraits (which is).

https://www.sony.net/Products/di_photo-gallery/lens/SEL24F14GM/

[Josh Hawkins]

What's on your personal lens roadmap?

I'd go with the slower one, unless you need the stops for a reason. And I do buy fast wideangles to get shallow DOF, sometimes.