Menu
What's new
The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

18mm thoughts/comments

G

greypilgrim

New member
Hi all,
I've seen the conventional "wisdom" that the 18mm is not a strong performer (certainly compared to others like the 35 or 14), but I am wondering what the thoughts are of folks here. I have the 14, 35, and 55-200, and they are all performing wonderfully for me, but the gap between the 14 and 35 leaves me wanting something inbetween (really wish there was a 16mm...).

Thanks in advance,
Doug
 
Braeside

Braeside

New member
You would be much better going for the 23mm, it is superb.

I do have the 18mm but prefer the kit 18-55mm at 18mm. Stopped down the 18mm is not too bad in the corners, but it has a high degree of optical distortion that is corrected in software, hence the softer corners.
 
G

greypilgrim

New member
I thought about that, but the 23mm won't get me wide enough. I thought about the 18-55, but I really didn't want another zoom.

So the question for me has really ended up whether the 18 could fill that gap nicely, or if it would always leave me wanting something more... Which would then lead me to looking at older manual lenses adapted...

Doug
 
G

greypilgrim

New member
Already have the 14, so I ruled that out, plus I prefer primes in general. Hence the question as to people's real world opinions on the 18... Not a knock on the 10-24, just explaining how I got to be asking about the 18.

Thanks,

Doug
 
Braeside

Braeside

New member
Hi again Doug,

I still have my 18mm, but rarely use it now I have the 14 and the 18-55, as I feel they are both quite a bit better optically. I would use the 14 and crop rather than use the 18 in most cases if I had the choice, and the zoom is also better in my opinion, in fact it is a brilliant lens.

I keep ithe 18/2 in the bag with an IR filter on it where for some reason I find I quite like it.

I suppose it depends on what kind of photos you are thinking of taking, if the corners don't matter, like street, people close up, then it is fine. But for interiors and landscape, not a stunning lens, certainly the poorest of all the Fujinon X lenses I have, but perhaps it is that the others are just so good. It is nice and small and light though.

It is inexpensive enough to pick up, and perhaps it is worth getting one and trying it for yourself. I got a used one myself from someone who didn't like it.

Of course you will find that there are some great photos taken with that lens, Jim Radcliffe for example makes it shine.

Cheers
 
P

Pelao

New member
Hi

In my view and experience it is not a bad lens at all. I like the size, weight and the performance. Sure, it's not in the same league as say, the 35. What will you use it for?

Overall, while I agree it's a lesser performer than most other Fuji lenses, if you are a good photographer, editor and printer, I think you would be hard pressed to notice the difference in a largish print at everyday viewing distances.

Buy one and try, return if it doesn't work for you.
 
ashwinrao1

ashwinrao1

Active member
Generally considered a weaker performer in the X lens line up, due to the softer corners, but it's fine and sharp in center, focuses fast, and provides nice OOF when your primary subject is close. It's good for street, but I think the 18-55 would be close enough if you have it (as I do). I think the primary benefit would be size, and like others have said, it's a lens that, if you bond with it, could shine. I had one in my first go around with the x system. It was my least used lens. I have the 23 now, and it's remarkable, and I don't yet see a need for the 18. Focal lengths are better spread out too with a 14/23/35/55-200 set, unless you really dig the 28 mm equiv way of seeing.
 
GrahamWelland

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
I'm in the same boat as Pelao and Ashwin in that I've used the 18mm and generally found it a very acceptable lens for my uses. Initially it filled the wide normal niche that I use for walkaround shooting and it's fast. I found the 35/1.4 a sharper and better lens overall but I'm not a 50mm equivalent shooter and so the 18mm had to do for my 'near 35mm equivalent' lens. However, once the 23/1.4 became available the poor 18mm has been relegated to the bottom of the bag. It's not that it's bad, just that the 23/1.4 is so much better. The 18-55mm is more convenient but obviously slower and bigger. For a lightweight walkaround outfit I'll often just use my X-E2 and the 27mm pancake instead.
 
Last edited:
G

greypilgrim

New member
Braeside said:
Hi again Doug,

I still have my 18mm, but rarely use it now I have the 14 and the 18-55, as I feel they are both quite a bit better optically. I would use the 14 and crop rather than use the 18 in most cases if I had the choice, and the zoom is also better in my opinion, in fact it is a brilliant lens.

I keep ithe 18/2 in the bag with an IR filter on it where for some reason I find I quite like it.

I suppose it depends on what kind of photos you are thinking of taking, if the corners don't matter, like street, people close up, then it is fine. But for interiors and landscape, not a stunning lens, certainly the poorest of all the Fujinon X lenses I have, but perhaps it is that the others are just so good. It is nice and small and light though.

It is inexpensive enough to pick up, and perhaps it is worth getting one and trying it for yourself. I got a used one myself from someone who didn't like it.

Of course you will find that there are some great photos taken with that lens, Jim Radcliffe for example makes it shine.

Cheers
Click to expand...
I would be using it mainly for landscape, so corner softness could be an issue. If you really think the 14 cropped to the same angle of view is better, that is a pretty telling statement.

Thanks for the thoughts,

Doug
 
G

greypilgrim

New member
ashwinrao1 said:
Generally considered a weaker performer in the X lens line up, due to the softer corners, but it's fine and sharp in center, focuses fast, and provides nice OOF when your primary subject is close. It's good for street, but I think the 18-55 would be close enough if you have it (as I do). I think the primary benefit would be size, and like others have said, it's a lens that, if you bond with it, could shine. I had one in my first go around with the x system. It was my least used lens. I have the 23 now, and it's remarkable, and I don't yet see a need for the 18. Focal lengths are better spread out too with a 14/23/35/55-200 set, unless you really dig the 28 mm equiv way of seeing.
Click to expand...
For me, 14/23/35 is too spread out between the 14 and the 23. I have to admit, I do not shoot 35mm FF equivalent too much. For M43, I was at 12, 20, 45 (14, 40, 90) and really liked it. I wasn't crazy about getting the Fuji 35, but boy has it won me over. But that does leave a big gap for me between the 14 and 35, and I miss the 24-28 range. (If there was just a 16, I would happily go with that and the 35, but alas, there isn't).

Thanks,

Doug
 
Braeside

Braeside

New member
Doug, I also would like a 16, as the equivalents of 24/35/50 would be so nice. When I first got the X-Pro1, there was only the 18,35 and 60 available and I felt 18 was not wide enough, the 14 was a godsend. I had serious doubts about getting the 18-55 zoom, but I am glad I did, as it is so good, the OIS is an advantage and it as good as any zoom I have used on other systems, and a lot better than some. I wish it went to 16mm though.
 
A

archiM44

Member
Not having used it for quite a while, I took a look at some images I made with it, and I was surprised at how good this lens is!
Will start using it again
 
R

Rayto

New member
My most often used lens. Small, quickest AF of the lenses we have (14, 18, 27, 35, 18-55), will quickly lock focus on near anything, good indoor and low light lens.
 
G

greypilgrim

New member
pgmj said:
Maybe the Samyang 16/2,0 ED AS UMC CS could be a good choice? Haven't tried it, though.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I missed that one. It seems to hold its own pretty well. The only downside I see is 1.35 lbs and 77mm filters. This is not a small lens :eek:.

Doug
 
Last edited:
Streetshooter

Streetshooter

Subscriber Member
For me the 18 does what it was designed to do. The FOV is unmatched by any other lens comparing size and speed. It focus very fast on the XP1 even in low light. There is very little hunting. I'm usually at f/5 out to f/8 and there is no soft corners. I am not a PP so I'm more concerned with content than corner sharpness. It has a very nice contrast that doesn't cut into the highlights.

I use it a lot for the FOV mostly and on the streets. It fits in my Trinity, 18, 23, 35.
good luck.
 
A

ahbrown73

New member
greypilgrim said:
For me, 14/23/35 is too spread out between the 14 and the 23. I have to admit, I do not shoot 35mm FF equivalent too much. For M43, I was at 12, 20, 45 (14, 40, 90) and really liked it. I wasn't crazy about getting the Fuji 35, but boy has it won me over. But that does leave a big gap for me between the 14 and 35, and I miss the 24-28 range. (If there was just a 16, I would happily go with that and the 35, but alas, there isn't).

Thanks,

Doug
Click to expand...
My first post... Originally I bought the xe1 with the 18-55 and 35,and then later the 14. I also didn't like the gap I created so, after some thought, decided to buy the 27 and the 18 during the last sale. Lens speed is not primary for me and I liked the size of the 27 and 18. The 18 is actually better than I feared from some of the comments. So far, Fuji has produced really good lenses. I would love to have the 23 as well, but maybe later. BTW, love the xt1. Thanks for all the info through the years.
Best,
Alan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top