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.

I cant decide between 10-24mm or 16mm 1.4

Discussion in 'Native X-Mount Lens Forum' started by randomshotsfired, Aug 12, 2017.

  1. randomshotsfired

    randomshotsfired New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2017
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    4

    -Return to Top-

    I currently shoot with a X-T20 with 50mm f2 and 35mm 1.4 as my only 2 lenses. I want to add a wide angle lens and it has come down to between 10-24mm and 16mm 1.4. I do mostly street photography (80% of the time). Both lenses are pretty much same size and weight, and price. Both have its advatages and disadvatages (prime vs zoom). My heart wants the 16mm but my head is telling me to get the 10-24mm.

    The 14mm 2.8 is not an option because I think its overpriced, and the samyang 12mm is too much of a specialized lens.
     
  2. ojporqpojrewpo

    ojporqpojrewpo Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2015
    Messages:
    1,036
    Likes Received:
    382
    Location:
    Los Angeles

    -Return to Top-

    Other than low light I'd go with 10-24
     
  3. vague_logic

    vague_logic Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2014
    Messages:
    354
    Likes Received:
    132
    Location:
    UK

    -Return to Top-

    For 'street' consider the 18mm too. A much underrated lens.
     
    Angus likes this.
  4. specLegacy

    specLegacy Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2013
    Messages:
    586
    Likes Received:
    178
    Location:
    Houston

    -Return to Top-

    The versatility of the 10-24 is hard to argue with, as long as you don't need the fast aperture. For street photography, you'll probably be stopping down and zone focusing anyway, rather than shooting at large apertures.
     
  5. Robert Morgans

    Robert Morgans New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2015
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0

    -Return to Top-

    I have both lenses. The 16mm F1.4 may well be the best lens made on any system. It is incredible and focuses really close, is sharp, and near perfection.

    The 10-24 is very versatile with OIS. Little distortion if any all through the range.

    Both could be used for street photography.

    I'm glad I have them both but unless you need the fast aperture then the 10-24 is possibly the one to get. Both are built like tanks and worth the money.
     
  6. David Schneider

    David Schneider Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2012
    Messages:
    2,488
    Likes Received:
    932
    Location:
    NJ, USA

    -Return to Top-

    I've had the 14mm since 2012. Hardly overpriced. A gem of a lens and great for travel because it's so small. I have 10-24 and, as said, versitility is fantastic, but still haven't sold the 14mm.
     
  7. streetsntravel

    streetsntravel Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2011
    Messages:
    918
    Likes Received:
    493
    Location:
    USA

    -Return to Top-

    I echo @vague_logic 's suggestion. Putting a WA lens with the 35mm lens for street photography especially when your second street lens is a 50mm is a bit of a challenge. The two lenses you are using suggest a preference for a tighter lens for street work, the 16mm in terms of angle of view is a great deal wider than the 35mm.

    IMO, the 16mm is more of a reportage lens (hence its maximum f/1.4 aperture for low light events). As a street lens, the much of the expense that is incurred by the f/1.4 aperture is not needed. The angle of view is certainly usable for what I envision as street work, maybe more applicable for the "architecture" role, but it will be a bulky lens on the X-T20.

    Even though the 23mm lens seems close in angle of view to the 35mm, it is an excellent choice for traditional street photography. The 18mm is just a bit wider and a good choice if you like working close to your subjects. The 18 has the benefit of a very compact footprint and hence a great unobtrusive match for the X-T20.

    IMO the large zoom just adds another control (e.g. the zoom) that needs to be managed for fast developing street photography. It again comes in on the bulky side for unobtrusive work.

    When I think of street photography, I think of crowded spaces, public transportation, revolving doors, moving vehicles and bicycles and everything that adds to bulk adds to something more to manage in that crowd.

    I occasionally use my 14mm for street, but that's when I need to get within a few feet of my subject such as in a crowded market.

    Anyway just some thoughts .....

    Roger
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2017
    Angus likes this.
  8. Topsy

    Topsy Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2012
    Messages:
    2,122
    Likes Received:
    1,025
    Location:
    Devon, UK

    -Return to Top-

    For street 23mm.
     
    Richard_R likes this.
  9. F2Bthere

    F2Bthere Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2014
    Messages:
    2,616
    Likes Received:
    1,372
    Location:
    Austin

    -Return to Top-

    The advantages of the 16: close focus capability, faster (low light and even subject isolation when combined with close focus), ability to easily set manual focus distance for Zone focusing. Plus it has a certain "magic." A jewel of a lens.

    The zoom has OIS which partially makes up for the slower speed. Other than in low light or for close focusing, it is a more versatile lens. If you need wider and cant back up enough with the 16 (interiors, cliffs, brambles), you can still zoom.

    They are both extraordinary lenses with impressively low distortion in lens classes where this is quite an achievement. I don't think there is a bad choice :).
     
  10. Fujiphotog

    Fujiphotog Amateur photographer.

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2015
    Messages:
    1,305
    Likes Received:
    933
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada

    -Return to Top-

    I have both. I don't do much low light photography. I use the 10-20 at least 3 x as much as the 16 because of its range of focal lengths and the desire not to be changing lenses.

    If I travelled with the 16 alone I would miss a lot of the shots that I currently take at wider angles than 16, and would have to crop a lot more at narrower angles, or keep changing lenses. This would mean carrying more lenses, in a camera bag, rather than just one camera and one lens.

    I don't notice any difference in the sharpness between the two lenses. Other differences in rendering are subtle.
     
  11. liggy

    liggy GASaholic Camera Fondler

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2014
    Messages:
    1,604
    Likes Received:
    1,008
    Location:
    PacNW

    -Return to Top-

    ^^^ Agreed. Both great lenses. I use the 10-24 far more often than the 16mm.
     
  12. Tom239

    Tom239 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2014
    Messages:
    193
    Likes Received:
    295
    Location:
    Lone Pine, California

    -Return to Top-

    If you mean distortion as corrected by the camera, that's not really a comment about the lens.

    Lenstip.com measured considerable distortion in raw images (4.62% barrel at f=10mm and 2.15% pincushion at f=24mm). See Please login or register to view links
     
  13. Michael Eric Bérubé

    Michael Eric Bérubé Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Messages:
    293
    Likes Received:
    177
    Location:
    Wild, Wooded, Western Hills of Maine, USA

    -Return to Top-

    I use the 10-24 for 98% of all of my shooting (Real Estate). I don't have the 16, but I've never needed faster than f/4, even in available darkness. I like the multiple focal lengths, the OIS is fantastic and close up the bokeh is pretty nice as well when shot wide open.
     
  14. PixelPincher

    PixelPincher Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2014
    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    27
    Location:
    Lawley Village, Shropshire, UK

    -Return to Top-

    A terrible dilemma to be in for sure.
    Choosing between the logical and the emotional is tough.

    Is there any way you could hire, or borrow, them for a short time to see which one you bond with?

    Failing that you could try the mental exercise of imagining you've bought one and lived with it for say, 6 months. Do you feel you've made the right choice? Did you perhaps get persuaded by the convenience of the zoom or the shallower depth of field of the prime?
    Do you have that sinking feeling of regret?

    Both lenses are technically superb but for myself I always opt for the emotional attachment a piece of equipment might give me: the more I love it the more likely I am to pick it up, take it for an outing and maybe, just maybe, get one or two shots I'm not entirely unhappy with.

    Difficult choice buddy.
    Good luck.
     
  15. Bud James

    Bud James Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2013
    Messages:
    739
    Likes Received:
    350
    Location:
    SE PA

    -Return to Top-

    I own and use both of these excellent lenses. I have great images from each, therefore, I'm not as concerned about some one off review pointing out distortion in the corners. I don't see that in my images, so I'm happy.

    I was in Iceland in March and Italy in June/July. In Iceland, about 40% of my images where shot with the 10-24. In Italy, about 60% were shot with the 10-24. I didn't bring the 16 with me on either of these vacations. You can't beat the versatility of the 10-24 for shooting tight streets, large landscapes or the massive interiors of the beautiful old churches in Italy and Europe.

    Happy shooting!

    Regards,
    Bud James

    Please login or register to view links
     
  16. Narsuitus

    Narsuitus Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2015
    Messages:
    1,680
    Likes Received:
    754
    Location:
    USA

    -Return to Top-

    Both are fine lenses. When I had to choose, I decided on the 16mm f/1.4 because the 10-24mm f/4 was not fast enough for my situations. However, 16mm was not wide enough for some of my situations. Therefore, I also purchased the Rokinon 12mm f/2. The 16mm and the 12mm delivered exactly what I needed.
     
  17. F2Bthere

    F2Bthere Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2014
    Messages:
    2,616
    Likes Received:
    1,372
    Location:
    Austin

    -Return to Top-

    This sounds about right to me. Both great lenses. There seem to be no reasons why one lens is a bad choice. I agree with @PixelPincher that if you go with your heart, you are more likely to bond with and use the lens.
     
  18. randomshotsfired

    randomshotsfired New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2017
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    4

    -Return to Top-

    Thanks for the input guys, I went ahead and bought a 16mm 1.4 off EBay. Got it in "flawless" condition for $775. Now I just have to wait for it to get here. I eventually went with my heart instead of what my head was telling me.
     
    F2Bthere likes this.
  19. Narsuitus

    Narsuitus Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2015
    Messages:
    1,680
    Likes Received:
    754
    Location:
    USA

    -Return to Top-

    Good deal, that is $224 less than I paid for a brand new one over two years ago.
     
  20. LionSpeed

    LionSpeed Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2016
    Messages:
    526
    Likes Received:
    360
    Location:
    SoCal

    -Return to Top-

    10-24 all the way for our travel, vacation, architecture... My 16mm is left at home collecting dust. Get the 16mm later because it is after all, a magnificent lens for different occasions. Don't get 14mm, yes overpriced. No Samyang/Rokkinon for me either. Had them didn't like their CA & manual focus. I guess different strokes...
    Anyway, don't worry about low light. We've been in dark dark caves, shooting at 1/9s with sharp sharp images. OIS kicked in quite nicely on this one. :) The more I use it, the more I can't go on a vacation without AF at 10mmF4.
     
    trainer likes this.

Share This Page