Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
Any impressions from people who have owned or used both the 14mm and the 10-24mm? Since I am awash in 90 degree lenses for big Fujis and Leicas, I was thinking about replacing my 14 with the zoom to give the X a unique capability (and to widen my broadest wide without dealing with the associated Leica issues of color shift, etc.). Though the 14 is a killer lens, and I do like zone focusing with the scale.
How does this lens handle on the X-Pro1?
Thanks!
Dante
How does this lens handle on the X-Pro1?
Thanks!
Dante
Jack Sparrow
Well-known
Can only say it's a sweet lens on the X-T1. The advantage of the 14mm is mainly its size; speed is only one stop improved and mostly just beneficial for light, not DoF/bokeh. Using primes on the Leica is what it is, but decided to "relax" with the Fuji and go mostly zooms.
Michiel Fokkema
Michiel Fokkema
I had 10-24 for a short while. I think it is a good lens, just couldn't bond with it. The 14 has more wow factor and I now mainly use the Zeiss 12 which I like very much.
darya151
Established
I am curious, how does the Zeiss 12mm differ from the Fuji 14mm (besides focal length)! Darya
oltimer
Well-known
I just got the 14mm, and the 23 yesterday for recent XE-2 purchase. As sharp as you can get in both and distortion free. The other lenses in the Fuji X line, I'm going to use/try my Leicas 1st before anymore additions.
Jack Sparrow
Well-known
You can't go wrong with any of the Fuji lenses, honestly. The Leica lenses work really well on the Fuji cameras too, but be careful of the wider lenses.
jja
Well-known
Jack Sparrow, have you tried a 28mm on Fuji? Any issues with the Voigtlander 28/3.5?
Back to wides: the XF 14mm looks great. Then there's the upcoming 16/1.4.
Jack Sparrow
Well-known
rybolt
Well-known
I've had the 10-24 for as long as it's been available in the US. I've used it extensively on the X Pro 1 and only recently on the Xt1. I haven't used the 14mm since I got it and have now given that one to my wife. I found myself using the LCD screen rather than the EVF with the X Pro 1 but find myself using the EVF on the XT1. Having the camera level indicator active is critical with this lens.
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
PhotoMat
Well-known
A similar thought has crossed my mind. I love the 14mm on my X-Pro 1 -- it's one of my most used lenses when shooting landscapes/nature. I like having a depth of field scale for this kind of work. Since the majority of the 10-24's focal length range would necessitate using the EFV on the X-Pro 1, I've decided to hold off on getting this lens until an X-Pro 2 is released with a higher resolution EFV.
Now, if I had the X-T1, I'd probably make the jump much sooner. As it is, my bank account remains intact, for the time being.
Now, if I had the X-T1, I'd probably make the jump much sooner. As it is, my bank account remains intact, for the time being.
willie_901
Veteran
I use the 10-24/4 XF lens with X-T1 bodies for 99% of all my commercial interior photography gigs. I am very pleased with this lens. With the on-board lens correction parameters it out performs the Nikkor 12-24/4 DX, 17-36/3.8 D, 16-36/4 G and Tokina 11-16/2.8 DX zooms I once owned and used often.
The barrel-distortion corrections at 10-16 mm are especially good as I do not see any evidence of uncorrected high-order barrel distortions. This saves me quite a bit of time in post-production. The AF works well too. I use the lens on a tripod, so I can't comment on the IS. The lens seems to present lower levels of ghosting compared to the F-mount zooms when the sun is just outside the frame. About 75% of the images I license are taken with a 14mm focal length. I like the contrast and color rendition too.
The lens has some weaknesses. First, the hood is more difficult to attach than it should be. The fly-by-wire aperture ring has no markings. The lens seems large, but it is relatively compact which means I often grab the zoom ring instead of the manual focusing ring... and vice-versa. The sharpness at 23-24 mm is only acceptable (unlike shorter focal lengths where the sharpness is excellent).
For me the lens is worth every penny of its cost.
The barrel-distortion corrections at 10-16 mm are especially good as I do not see any evidence of uncorrected high-order barrel distortions. This saves me quite a bit of time in post-production. The AF works well too. I use the lens on a tripod, so I can't comment on the IS. The lens seems to present lower levels of ghosting compared to the F-mount zooms when the sun is just outside the frame. About 75% of the images I license are taken with a 14mm focal length. I like the contrast and color rendition too.
The lens has some weaknesses. First, the hood is more difficult to attach than it should be. The fly-by-wire aperture ring has no markings. The lens seems large, but it is relatively compact which means I often grab the zoom ring instead of the manual focusing ring... and vice-versa. The sharpness at 23-24 mm is only acceptable (unlike shorter focal lengths where the sharpness is excellent).
For me the lens is worth every penny of its cost.
OP, you summed it up. No zone focus and typical Fuji screwy controls.
Fuji has outstanding optics, but they always manage to screw their lenses up. I use gaffers tape on the 14's aperture ring cause it is sooooo loose.
They need to take some lessons from Zeiss when it comes to proper friction of the controls..
Fuji has outstanding optics, but they always manage to screw their lenses up. I use gaffers tape on the 14's aperture ring cause it is sooooo loose.
They need to take some lessons from Zeiss when it comes to proper friction of the controls..
JohnL
Very confused
Michiel Fokkema
Michiel Fokkema
I have both and for me they perfrom very similar. I prefer the extra wideness of the 12 though.
jja
Well-known
Thank you, John. It's early days for me w/ the X-T1, and while I like the results w/ various M-mount lenses, I don't know how much I like the way these lenses balance on the camera. It will take getting used to. So far, I am impressed with the kit lens (18-135) and can see myself shooting with the 14mm or other wide XF-mount lenses.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
The Zeiss isn't as good. Uses digital distortion correction and has less field flatness than the Fuji. Build quality is not as nice, in my opinion. And it's more expensive. And the Touit lens hoods really suck.
The XF 14 is just stompingly good. It has no major flaws that I can detect.
Neither of the Touit lenses is a winner versus the Fuji equivalents IMO. The 35 is a pig compared to the XF. Horrible spherochromatism ("color bokeh") I got one and returned it after a week.
For the 10-20 -- build quality is spectactular and IQ is very very good for a wide, compact zoom.
The versatility of the 10-20 is huge and it balances gorgeously on the Fuji bodies. Internal focusing and zoom mechanisms. Just lovely. But the 10-20 relies on digital correction of geometric distortion and the 14 does not.
The difference in max. aperture is a non-issue since the 10-20 has optical image stabilization.
For a wide lens, I chose the XF 14. I'm still not positive that I chose correctly…
noimmunity
scratch my niche
The 14 reminds me of the Zeiss ZM 21/4.5 . Smallish, light, rectilinear, sparkle.
Sometimes I'd like a wider FOV.
Sometimes I'd like a wider FOV.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Completely agree. Two of my favorite lenses ever. I really miss that little Biogon-C.
kuzano
Veteran
Do I understand you correctly???
Do I understand you correctly???
Do I understand you correctly? The only justification one needs for buying new gear is to give your old stuff to your wife.
Man, I gotta get married. Someone with money perhaps?
That would solve two issues with re-loading my camera bag.
Do I understand you correctly???
Do I understand you correctly? The only justification one needs for buying new gear is to give your old stuff to your wife.
Man, I gotta get married. Someone with money perhaps?
That would solve two issues with re-loading my camera bag.