Fuji 12mm, or 14mm - wide prime question

[Peter108]

Hi folks.

I'm really enjoying using primes on the Fuji system and currently the widest i have is 23mm. I don't shoot wide that often but when i do... I really need it. I want wider than 18mm and can't afford the 16 f1.4. The Samyang 12mm F2 seems good value - but it's manual focus- not so bad on such a wide lens but still. Then there is the native 14mm f 2.8. Twice as much £ but it looks pretty good by all accounts...

I shoot wide in landscape/forest/Urbex

Any thoughts?

 

[tonyturley]

I used to own the 14mm. IQ is excellent, among the best of any lens I've used. I eventually sold it, but the only thing keeping me from buying another is that it's not weather sealed. It also has a reputation of having an aperture ring that is easy to nudge out of place, and the one on mine was certainly that way, but beyond that, it is a very good lens.

 

[Bobby T]

For the price of a new 14mm, you can get a used 16mm.

 

[KillRamsey]

I also used to own the 14, and I've now owned the Rokinon (aka Samyang) 12 f2 for about 3 years. Thoughts, should they be of any use:

XF 14 f2.8: Optically you'll never complain. But then it's an XF lens, so you knew that. The AF speed is pretty good from what I recall, but hell, for landscape / urbex, who cares? The focal length is indeed wide, but not wide enough to get a true 90 degree field of view, which matters (to me) when shooting interiors... standing in a corner, you can't QUITE get the whole room in. But it's wide enough to distort faces badly in the corners or when they're super close, so when shooting around people you have to be careful not to get heads / faces outside the center area and step back a little. Wide lenses do strange things to shots (which can be used for good, or evil), and I always felt like this lens wasn't quiiiite wide enough to REALLY do those things when I wanted to, and I just never clicked with it somehow. It was my only wide lens for over a year (next widest was the 35) so I had plenty of chances, and just couldn't bond with it.

Samples I took with it...

Wide open

KBRX1644 by gordopuggy, on Flickr

f4

KBRX0564 by gordopuggy, on Flickr

f7.1. Zoom in on the scarf to the left. Crisp as hell.

KBRX7989 by gordopuggy, on Flickr

Rokinon 12 f2:

This lens benefits (fairly or unfairly – you decide) from Underdog status. It’s a little over $300 new around here, usually $200 used in good shape. So your expectations start off pretty low, which is an easy bar to clear… When you spend $25 on an old Minolta 50mm f1.7 at the flea market and it’s surprisingly crisp at f2.8, you say “cool! Money well spent.” But a month or two later, honestly, you don’t think about what you paid for a lens. Once the reverse sticker shock euphoria wore off for me, I realized there’s not really a catch with this lens. “Yeah but it’s manual focus” is supposed to be the "gotcha," but in practice, I never miss it. At f2 it’s a little soft – and I mean a LITTLE, not “like film lenses from the 70s,” just a little soft, and with a good stop or two falloff at the corners. If you’re shooting in daylight, though, you just peg it at f4 or 5.6, focus a little back from infinity (the focal distances are marked on the barrel, but you’ll quickly do it just by feel), and everything is crisp, everywhere. Things I came to love about it:



- True 90 degree field of view means getting the whole room in, or the entire waterfall you’re standing right in front of.
- Smallish, lightish, and yet f2 on tap = it sneaks into your bag for indoor / evening events.
- Nicely damped focus and aperture rings. It moves a tiny bit in the body mount, but it doesn’t affect pictures.
- Perfect combination of crisp details and a few charming flaws, like the way it flares when pointed right at the sun. People spend hours trying to get that in post, and if you don’t want it … don’t aim at the sun without a hood on!
- Not much saggital coma to speak of + f2 = star shots! The XF16 is soooo good in every other regard, but is prone to coma, which was a no-go for me.
- 12mm is wide enough to do neat stuff with. Tree branches, clouds, foreground elements in landscape photos, things that CAN be allowed to get all bendy start to really draw interest into the shot, without going fisheye. Leading lines are your friend with this lens.
- Bokeh! No seriously, it focuses really close, and the bokeh is smoother than a baby’s butt.



In summary, it’s been a wonderful companion, and I’ve gotten so much good work done with it. I thought it would a specialty toy, but it’s a workhorse.



Some shots with it:

KBRX4893 by gordopuggy, on Flickr

(cropped)

KBRX0078P by gordopuggy, on Flickr



the flare

KBRX0403 by gordopuggy, on Flickr



foreground-as-interest

KBRX7498 by gordopuggy, on Flickr



obligatory star shot

KBRX5065 by gordopuggy, on Flickr

 

[tonyturley]

Stop that! It's still Cyber Week.

 

[Peter108]

I also used to own the 14, and I've now owned the Rokinon (aka Samyang) 12 f2 for about 3 years. Thoughts, should they be of any use:

XF 14 f2.8: Optically you'll never complain. But then it's an XF lens, so you knew that. The AF speed is pretty good from what I recall, but hell, for landscape / urbex, who cares? The focal length is indeed wide, but not wide enough to get a true 90 degree field of view, which matters (to me) when shooting interiors... standing in a corner, you can't QUITE get the whole room in. But it's wide enough to distort faces badly in the corners or when they're super close, so when shooting around people you have to be careful not to get heads / faces outside the center area and step back a little. Wide lenses do strange things to shots (which can be used for good, or evil), and I always felt like this lens wasn't quiiiite wide enough to REALLY do those things when I wanted to, and I just never clicked with it somehow. It was my only wide lens for over a year (next widest was the 35) so I had plenty of chances, and just couldn't bond with it.

Samples I took with it...

Wide open
View attachment 34741KBRX1644 by gordopuggy, on Flickr

f4
View attachment 34742KBRX0564 by gordopuggy, on Flickr

f7.1. Zoom in on the scarf to the left. Crisp as hell.
View attachment 34743KBRX7989 by gordopuggy, on Flickr

Rokinon 12 f2:

This lens benefits (fairly or unfairly – you decide) from Underdog status. It’s a little over $300 new around here, usually $200 used in good shape. So your expectations start off pretty low, which is an easy bar to clear… When you spend $25 on an old Minolta 50mm f1.7 at the flea market and it’s surprisingly crisp at f2.8, you say “cool! Money well spent.” But a month or two later, honestly, you don’t think about what you paid for a lens. Once the reverse sticker shock euphoria wore off for me, I realized there’s not really a catch with this lens. “Yeah but it’s manual focus” is supposed to be the "gotcha," but in practice, I never miss it. At f2 it’s a little soft – and I mean a LITTLE, not “like film lenses from the 70s,” just a little soft, and with a good stop or two falloff at the corners. If you’re shooting in daylight, though, you just peg it at f4 or 5.6, focus a little back from infinity (the focal distances are marked on the barrel, but you’ll quickly do it just by feel), and everything is crisp, everywhere. Things I came to love about it:



- True 90 degree field of view means getting the whole room in, or the entire waterfall you’re standing right in front of.
- Smallish, lightish, and yet f2 on tap = it sneaks into your bag for indoor / evening events.
- Nicely damped focus and aperture rings. It moves a tiny bit in the body mount, but it doesn’t affect pictures.
- Perfect combination of crisp details and a few charming flaws, like the way it flares when pointed right at the sun. People spend hours trying to get that in post, and if you don’t want it … don’t aim at the sun without a hood on!
- Not much saggital coma to speak of + f2 = star shots! The XF16 is soooo good in every other regard, but is prone to coma, which was a no-go for me.
- 12mm is wide enough to do neat stuff with. Tree branches, clouds, foreground elements in landscape photos, things that CAN be allowed to get all bendy start to really draw interest into the shot, without going fisheye. Leading lines are your friend with this lens.
- Bokeh! No seriously, it focuses really close, and the bokeh is smoother than a baby’s butt.



In summary, it’s been a wonderful companion, and I’ve gotten so much good work done with it. I thought it would a specialty toy, but it’s a workhorse.



Some shots with it:

View attachment 34744KBRX4893 by gordopuggy, on Flickr

(cropped)
View attachment 34745KBRX0078P by gordopuggy, on Flickr



the flare
View attachment 34746KBRX0403 by gordopuggy, on Flickr



foreground-as-interest
View attachment 34747KBRX7498 by gordopuggy, on Flickr



obligatory star shot
View attachment 34748KBRX5065 by gordopuggy, on Flickr

Thanks for sharing your experience - its helpful and Know what you mean about "clicking" or bonding with a lens... it's a shame it is hard to tell until you have one!

 

[KillRamsey]

Very true. Some I thought were going to be a no-brainer, and then just couldn't get good work out of them. Some, like the Rokinon 12 and the XC 50-230, I thought "well I'll need this once in awhile" and then couldn't put them down. The mystery is part of the fun, I guess.

 

[Jon Erdmann]

Greetings. when I wanted to see the quality of the Rokinon/Samyang lens, I rented an 8mm fisheye from a LensRental. I loved the crisp results for shooting the night sky, as well as landscapes. I did have to do lens correction in LR to get images to where I liked them. So I then debated between a 10mm f/2.8 and the 12mm f/2.0 The 12mm f/2.0 won out as it is still a 18mm FF equivalent., but doing landscapes and night photography I wanted a WA lens that was great for the job. I haven't tried other Rokinon/Samyang lenses yet, the manual focus doesn't bother me. Maybe I will get the 10-24mm f/4 and try it out, sample photos look awesome.