Fuji A totally unnecessary rambling about the 16mm 1.4, the OVF, and framelines.

Phoenix

All-Pro
Dec 28, 2011
124
Melbourne, Australia
Phoenix Gonzales
This is not a review of the 16mm 1.4, there are already heaps of reviews of this lens all over the net.

This is just my personal rambling regarding the 16mm framelines in the OVF.

Finally bit the bullet and got the 16mm 1.4 today (which pretty much means I'll be living off 2 minute noodles for the rest of the year).

I shoot primarily with the OVF, and the framelines of the 16mm fits the wide magnification of the OVF, for someone who shoots primarily with the OVF this is a big deal (if you shoot primarily with the EVF it would probably be best to probably stop reading here and just carry on living your life), let me explain; I use the 35 1.4 as my daily lens, everything about it just compliments the way I shoot. The framelines fills 85%-90% of the OVF using the standard magnification, it feels so natural that I can see how the image will look like before I even raise the camera to my eye. After awhile I felt like shooting something wider, there are also times where the 35 was just too tight (try shooting around Japan, you'll know what I mean) so I ended up buying the 23mm 1.4, it's slightly wider than the 35, it opens up to 1.4, I was essentially expecting a slightly wider version of the 35 1.4 (whoooboy, guess who was in for a rude awekening).

Straight off I noticed that I can't use the standard OVF magnification, the lens was too wide and the framelines cannot fit in the OVF, so I used the wide OVF magnification and found the framelines to be tight, tighter than the 35 1.4 on the standard OVF magnification. I really wanted to like the 23mm 1.4 but I just found it to be neither here nor there, frustrating to use, and as natural as shoving a cocktail onion up my nostril, mind you there is nothing wrong with the lens, it was a fantastic piece of glass, the problem lies with the idiot behind the camera, so I abandoned the idea of shooting wide.

After awhile I felt like shooting wide again, and when the 16mm 1.4 was announced, the idea of shooting something wide that can open up to 1.4 really tempted me. I finally saved enough to buy it and started to research about it's framelines in the OVF, I was surprised to find that there is almost no information about it online (I thought to myself "bloody hell, here we go again"), this is probably because most people are using it with the EVF of the newer X models.

First thing I did when I got the lens was to check the OVF framelines, as expected it was too wide for the standard OVF magnification, however it fits the wide OVF magnification perfectly, the corners are the framelines. I used my phone to take a photo, here's what it looks like
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


There is significant finder blockage when the standard hood is attached, this can be alleviated by removing the lens hood or by using the after market 16mm lens hood. Here's a comparison between the stock lens hood and the aftermarket 16mm lens hood (LH-XF16)
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


So far I am really liking this lens, I'm sure I'll learn more about it that as I put it though it's paces.
 

Phoenix

All-Pro
Dec 28, 2011
124
Melbourne, Australia
Phoenix Gonzales
Cheers guys, I reckon there's not much point repeating what's already been mentioned over and over, "yeah it's nice, we get it, lets move on." It's just more of a layman's personal perspective.

Most reviews I've read reckon it's great, etc... and you should get one, my question is, why?

Personally these are my reasons as to why someone should get this lens (of course YMMV)
-You need a weather sealed WA lens.
-You need / want a lens with a really good build.
-You want a WA lens that you can use with the OVF, but also goes to 1.4
-.......and that's really it.

As you can see I have separated need and want. Some people shoot photos for a living and will need gear that can survive the elements for where the job will take them. The want however stems from preferences and personal quirks.

-If you shoot photos for a living and need a weather sealed WA lens (wider than the 23mm) then the 16mm really is the only game in town (for the time being anyway).

If you remove the weather sealing from the equation , other WA lenses should be really taken into consideration.
-The 18mm 2.8 lighter and is so much more compact and the framelines are usable in the OVF. Some say that the IQ of the 18mm is not that great, this will probably depend on who's looking, so far most of the images I've seen taken by this lens look fantastic. The build quality of the lens is also something that usually gets mentioned, it is important to remember to compare apples with apples and this will probably depend of the copy of the lens you purchase. It is the fraction of the size and cost of the 16mm, also it's a Fuji, all Fuji lenses are known for their quality (as my old man says, "there is no such thing as bad pizza").

-The 14mm 2.8 although larger than the 18mm is still smaller than the 16mm, it's smaller, lighter and has the same push pull mechanism as the 16mm, it is also has a wider focal length and costs less. You really cannot use the OVF with this lens, but if shooting with the backscreen or with the EVF is your thing then this lens is worth some serious consideration.

Of course this is just a gross generalisation, there are a multitude of factors why a person chooses one lens over another e.g. how wide is too wide? is the 1.4 aperture for subject separation really that important for something that was designed to be shot wide and shoot landscapes? is the heft and cost justifiable? why did the chicken cross the road? etc...

So far I am very happy with it, but not because of the usual reasons stated in the plethora of reviews done. I can use the OVF when using it and it feels natural , at 1.4 I can do some subject separation when needed, and it's wider than the 35 1.4......... basically I like it because it feels like the wide version of the 35 1.4.....yes..I know I'm a nitwit.
 
Dec 31, 2013
124
Louisville, Ky
You left out the 16mm's close focus range as one of the reasons to get this lens. This allows for shots other wide angle lens's can not do. Including all of the currently available 24mm lenses in other systems. And, in my opinion, none of the other wide angle primes give as good of image quality as the 16mm. I've owned the 14, 18, and 23. All really good to really great lenses.

You make another excellent point about lenses. Right now I really really want a 16mm 1.4 and 56mm 1.2. But the 16-55 is better for my current needs. The cool thing for me, is that if my needs change down the road, I can sell my current lenses and fund the 16, 56, and 90. And vise versa, which is how I funded the 16-55/50-140 on the used market.

All of the Fuji lens lineup is good. Regardless of one's budget, in the Fuji system a great lens can be had to fit one's needs at their budget point.
 

unstable_rider

Regular
Apr 2, 2017
28
USA Minnesota
Paul
The wonderful 16mm Fuji prime excels at most everything you ask it to do. It's an available light "master" of tricks, relating subject matter quite magically.
It's also built like a truck. I point it, I shoot it. I enjoy the pics, and don't dwell on the technical stuff. Having come from Canon and Nikon historically, I don't recall anything else that could ring the bell with as much ease as the Fuji 16mm.

~ just me.
 

tonyturley

Hall of Famer
Nov 24, 2014
124
Scott Depot, WV, USA
Tony
<SNIP>

If you remove the weather sealing from the equation , other WA lenses should be really taken into consideration.
-The 18mm 2.8 lighter and is so much more compact and the framelines are usable in the OVF. Some say that the IQ of the 18mm is not that great, this will probably depend on who's looking, so far most of the images I've seen taken by this lens look fantastic. The build quality of the lens is also something that usually gets mentioned, it is important to remember to compare apples with apples and this will probably depend of the copy of the lens you purchase. It is the fraction of the size and cost of the 16mm, also it's a Fuji, all Fuji lenses are known for their quality (as my old man says, "there is no such thing as bad pizza").
My 18mm f2 arrived two days ago, and I spent all morning yesterday photographing waterfalls in a light rain. The IQ, size, and weight are perfect for me. My only concern was when at the base of a couple of large waterfalls that were roaring due to recent rains, the spray was filling the air for quite some distance. In this photo, I was about 30 yards downstream, and you can clearly see the spray that was hitting me and my gear. I had a CP filter on the lens, and I had to keep wiping it dry. That would have been no problem for the 16, but aside from cost, it is a much larger lens than I want to carry on the X-T1. I have stood at this exact spot with the 23mm WR on the X-T1, and was unable to get the whole waterfall. If Fuji does release the rumored 18mm f2 WR, and it's not significantly larger, I'm on it.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dec 31, 2013
124
Louisville, Ky
The wonderful 16mm Fuji prime excels at most everything you ask it to do. It's an available light "master" of tricks, relating subject matter quite magically.
It's also built like a truck. I point it, I shoot it. I enjoy the pics, and don't dwell on the technical stuff. Having come from Canon and Nikon historically, I don't recall anything else that could ring the bell with as much ease as the Fuji 16mm.

~ just me.
Having owned and shot all of the available 24mm options in Canon mount at the time I was shooting Canon. Including the tilt shift. I can agree with this whole heaterdly. The Fuji 16mm is easily the best 24mm effective lens out there.
 

Latest threads

Top Bottom