This site is supported by the advertisements on it, please disable your AdBlocker so we can continue to provide you with the quality content you expect.

16-50mm as a landscape lens

Discussion in 'Fuji X-Mount Lens Forum' started by randomshotsfired, Jul 31, 2017.

  1. randomshotsfired

    randomshotsfired New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2017
    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    3

    -Return to Top-

    Curious how the 16-50mm lens compare to the 14mm 2.8 as a landscape lens? Id like to save some money if the 16-50mm is on the same level as the 14mm 2.8
     
  2. ojporqpojrewpo

    ojporqpojrewpo Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2015
    Messages:
    951
    Likes Received:
    342
    Location:
    Los Angeles

    -Return to Top-

    There is quite a difference between 14 and 16. In addition, my 16-50 is "OK" but it's not a great lens. I haven't used the 14 but but it has a very good reputation.
     
  3. wmiller549

    wmiller549 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2012
    Messages:
    509
    Likes Received:
    239
    Location:
    Lake Arrowhead, CA

    -Return to Top-

    The 16-50 is an amazing little lens - for an inexpensive, all plastic, slow, kit lens. It is capable of producing professional results, but it definitely has it's shortcomings i.e. corner softness, distortion, chromatic aberration etc.

    The 14 is an all metal, professional quality lens with virtually no shortcomings. It is one of the best wide angle lenses made - by anybody.

    Bottom line:

    Is it possible to make a beautiful landscape photo with the 16-50? Of course it is.

    Is the 16-50 on the same level as the 14? No. Checkers and chess.
     
    morhafren and dem like this.
  4. username

    username Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2013
    Messages:
    95
    Likes Received:
    13

    -Return to Top-

    The 18-55 zoom will get you much further in quality and I don't really think most people need wider for landscapes usually.
     
  5. jamie allan

    jamie allan Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2014
    Messages:
    1,320
    Likes Received:
    1,513
    Location:
    Glasgow Scotland

    -Return to Top-

    I've had the XC16-50 for almost 3 years now and is probably my most used lens and I take a lot of landscape and architecture images with it. It normally is the lens on my camera when the camera is in my bag. Fuji UK don't list it at present for sale new on it's own but the 14mm is £789 new or £549 refurbished. The 16-50 refurbished is £99 at present - so there's a really significant price difference. I've seen a number of comments on this site from people who've had the 16-50 and 18-55 and don't think there's much difference image wise.
    One issue with the XC lenses (and the XF27mm) not having an aperture ring is that if your camera only has 1 command dial (like the X-E2) the dial is dedicated to aperture control. That means you cannot use it to select intermediate shutter speeds - say 1/200.
     
    CWRailman likes this.
  6. dem

    dem Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2015
    Messages:
    524
    Likes Received:
    256
    Location:
    UK

    -Return to Top-

    I would respectfully disagree with both statements.

    There is little difference in image quality between the two zooms especially stopped down to f/8-f/11 (and the OP is not interested in the XF 18-55 lens anyway).

    Each +/-2 mm around 16 mm focal length changes field of view by about 15%. Whether the extra fov and the extra quality (both lens build quality and image quality) are worth buying the 14 mm, or 10-24 mm, or Samyang 12 mm or whatever - is a very personal question. Personally, I have little interest in buying any of these lenses but have been eyeing the 16 mm for its low light and close focus capabilities.
     
  7. Richard_R

    Richard_R Eclectic eccentric

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2011
    Messages:
    6,362
    Likes Received:
    5,518
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia

    -Return to Top-

    My landscape life improved greatly when I changed from an 18mm to a 16mm lens, The difference between the FOV of both focal lengths is quite noticeable.
     
  8. username

    username Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2013
    Messages:
    95
    Likes Received:
    13

    -Return to Top-

    Of course.
    Unless your back is to the wall, extra width in landscape shots is not needed. Going wide is for getting close or for interior shots.
    ***
    Often overlooked with the 18-55 is its IS. This provides it with a huge advantage, especially stopped down.
     
  9. CWRailman

    CWRailman Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2015
    Messages:
    849
    Likes Received:
    1,458
    Location:
    Scottsdale, Arizona USA

    -Return to Top-

    A bit off topic here. When someone talks about soft corners a comment made to me years ago comes to mind. If a viewer is looking at the corners of your image that means that they have little interest in or have been bored by what is in the central portion of that image. That being the case then maybe the photographer should recompose the image, not take the shot, or if after taking the shot finds it not of significant interest it should not be made public in any format. IMHO if someone is looking at the corners of your image that image has other problems. Unless you’re considering some of those really cheep Chinese lenses that have come out recently, the slight soft corner issue is only important for reviewers who shoot brick walls for a living and have to find some issue with every product they review otherwise they are not content. I shoot with both the 16-50 and the 18-55 and like previously said, for much non professional work the average person ( non pixel peeper) will see no difference in image quality between the two lenses. BTW, the 16-50II is great for “product” shots as it can be focused much closer than the 18-55 or most other Fuji lenses and unless you need extreme closeups, makes a macro lens unnecessary.
     
  10. bs0604

    bs0604 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2013
    Messages:
    137
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    sarasota Fl

    -Return to Top-

    I dont have either of the two lenses posted in the OP. but I do have the 18-135 and 10-24 both of which I like. How do people feel these compare for use as landscape lenses, which is the type of photography I enjoy most?
     
  11. johant

    johant Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2015
    Messages:
    1,779
    Likes Received:
    806
    Location:
    Netherlands

    -Return to Top-

    My experience was otherwise. But maybe I had a bad copy of the 18-55 and a good copy of the 16-50.
     
  12. Solsdad

    Solsdad Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2017
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    7

    -Return to Top-

    I can not comment about 14mm but I have 16mm f1.4 and 16-50mm. One of my helpers at work accidentally dropped my 16mm to a hard concrete floor from waist level. It sounded louder than a thunder to me. I have checked the lens if it focuses correctly shooting books and a water bottle at all apertures and referenced with 16-50mm. Fortunately 16mm survived and did not suffer its focus ability and sharpness. All rings are good. In doing so, I found that 16-50mm is as sharp as 16mm f1.4 'at the focus point'. Amazing performance from this little guy. In terms of sharpness, it competes and really performs up to its bigger brothers. But I also found that they render color differently. Colors from 16mm has more contrast and more pleasing to me. Not by much but it is quite noticeable And you don't have to stair to see that. It is just there. Thus make pictures from 16mm look sharper and more dramatic. For landscapes, I would use nicer xf lenses because colors are as important as sharpness I would think.
     
  13. specLegacy

    specLegacy Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2013
    Messages:
    538
    Likes Received:
    155
    Location:
    Houston

    -Return to Top-

    If this is strictly for landscapes, then I would lean towards starting with the 16-50 to see how well it works for you.
    - Wider isn't always better, and you'll probably find a lot of situations where a longer focal length provides a better perspective. The zoom gives you the flexibility to do that.
    - When you need to go a bit wider than 16mm, you can stitch a 3-exposure panorama that will get you around a 12mm field of view. However, this is less feasible if things in the frame are moving around.
    - Don't need the extra stop or two of aperture, since you'll usually want to be shooting at f/5.6 or smaller for increased depth of field.
    - Most of the images will probably be shot in RAW and post-processed, so color rendition is less of a factor, but still should be considered.

    If you change your mind, you can sell the 16-50 and not lose too much money
     
    xanadu and johant like this.
  14. FMW

    FMW Active Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2017
    Messages:
    104
    Likes Received:
    32

    -Return to Top-

    I had a 16-50 with the A3 that I bought and then returned because the hot shoe didn't work. I did some test shots with it on a single day. I later acquired an E2 with the 18-55. The 18-55 is better built to be sure but not significantly better in terms of optical quality. I've considered buying another 16-50 to get the shorter end of the zoom range. It may not hold up to professional use but you can make outstanding images with the 16-50 even at 16mm.
     

Share This Page