Evaluating the Three Fujifilm 16mm f/2.Eight lenses


So, you shoot Fujifilm and want to realize 16mm f/2.Eight and also you’re undecided find out how to get there? Let this be your information. 

Fujifilm makes 4 lenses that may shoot at 16mm f/2.Eight. The 16mm f/1.4, the 16-55 f/2.8, the 8-16mm f/2.8, and the brand new 16mm f/2.8. I’m not together with the f/1.four, as a result of when taking pictures at f/2.Eight, it has an unfair benefit on this check — we wish to preserve all three with f/2.Eight as a relentless variable. Let’s undergo these lenses one after the other.

16mm f/2.Eight

Out of the three, this lens might be my favourite technically. It is sharp, with minimal distortion and vignetting, and small. It is odd how shut in measurement it’s to my 23mm f/2.0 whereas being such a distinct focal size, however I assume Fuji needs this the 23mm and the 35mm f/2.0 to really feel like the identical household, as all three are very related in measurement and weight with solely 25 grams separating the lightest (the 16mm f/2.Eight at 155 grams) and the heaviest (the 23mm at 180 grams).

However that is neither right here nor there. The query is how the lens performs. The 16mm f/f/2.Eight lens is part of what I name Fuji’s “Gen 2” lenses, which is something after the 16-55mm f/2.Eight, the place Fuji up to date their autofocus mechanisms, enhancing AF efficiency, and this lens exhibits this off in spades with some snappy, quick autofocus!

As you’ll be able to see within the sharpness check above, vignetting is there, however underneath management, and distortion could be very minimal, particularly when in comparison with the 16-55mm f/2.Eight.

16-55mm f/2.Eight

The 16-55mm f/2.Eight is the one lens of the three I truly personal. It’s a grand lens, a flexible shooter with a 24-82.5mm focal vary in full-frame discuss. This lens is probably not the sharpest, although it’s sharp, and positively has extra distortion than the opposite two lenses at 16mm, however it’s in all probability one of the best catch-all lens. However we’re (attempting) to not discuss in regards to the different makes use of of the lens and simply discuss in regards to the 16mm finish, and on this case, I’d say it’s the weakest of the three with probably the most distortion and probably the most vignetting at 16mm.

Eight-16mm f/2.Eight

On a technical stage, this lens is true within the center in the case of 16mm lenses. It has much less distortion than the 16-55mm and is barely softer than the 16mm f/2.Eight. This lens is certainly a specialty lens and priced that manner. The Eight-16mm offers it a 12-24mm equivalence. However I wish to consider simply the 16mm finish of the spectrum! If you need an in-depth overview of this lens, fellow author Dylan Goldby wrote a improbable overview here, and whereas this lens is fairly freaking nice, I really feel it’s too costly and an excessive amount of of a specialty case to suggest as one of the best 16mm f/2.Eight on the market.

Which Ought to You Purchase?

Effectively, all of it comes down to make use of. Are you a portrait/vogue/occasion photographer? The 16-55mm f/2.Eight is your finest guess. Whereas it’s not the sharpest (that goes to the 16mm f/2.Eight prime), it’s positively probably the most versatile. 

Do you shoot a variety of structure, or aspire to be the following Mike Kelley? The Eight-16mm goes to be your finest buddy on this planet, in a position to get the widest of wides whereas additionally being versatile sufficient to seize these all vital medium wides.

Are you a avenue shooter? Searching for one thing somewhat wider than the 23mm f/2? The 16mm f/2.Eight is your finest guess. In case you have the cash, the 16mm f/1.four is quicker, however in case you aren’t taking pictures a variety of low gentle, you might be higher off with the newer 16mm, as it’s smaller, cheaper, and lighter. That is positively the sharpest of the three, although I personally discover sharpness overrated except you are printing massive. 

Do you’ve gotten any of those three lenses? Which did you select and why?