Fuji XF 16mm f/2.8 R WR lens review with samples
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 ต.ค. 2024
- Continuing on with reviews of baby-sized Fuji lenses, we come to their latest in a line of models ('Fujicron' lenses, to some people) - let's see if this 16mm version is any good.
Find it here (Amazon affiliate link):
geni.us/fujixf...
Remember - Fuji lenses will /only/ work with Fuji cameras.
All pictures taken by me on a Fuji X-T20 camera.
Support me on Patreon! / christopherfrost
Equipment I use to make my videos (Amazon affiliate links):
Canon EOS R5: geni.us/CanonE...
Canon EF-RF Adaptor: geni.us/CanonE...
Sigma 50mm f/1.4 'Art': geni.us/Sigma5...
Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM: geni.us/CanonR...
Marumi Fit and Slim CPL Filter: geni.us/Marumi...
AudioTechnica AT2020USB+ Microphone: geni.us/AT2020...
Rode Smartlav+ Microphone: geni.us/RodeSm...
Rode SC3 adapter: geni.us/RodeSC...
Zoom H1n Recorder: geni.us/ZoomH1...
DJI Mini 2 Drone: geni.us/DJIMin...
Music:
'Opportunity Walks', Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
creativecommons....
Bought this lens for architecture photography about a month ago and I’ve taken hundreds of photos with it. I own all the f2 lenses which are all great but this lens won’t be coming off my camera anytime soon. I love it.
Photographer's half life goes choosing lenses and camera. 😂
I appreciate your Fuji reviews! I find it difficult to find them from reviewers who aren’t only looking at Fuji gear and have a bias. Your videos really help me not only make informed purchase decisions but also teach me how to assess lens quality!
Thanks for reviewing this lens. I don't understand what you are comparing this lens with. It's a tiny tiny prime and you expect more "fireworks" in terms of resolution in the corners, and seem to find the overall performance lackluster. I'm sorry, but what similarly small 16mm prime performs better? Of course, it will have vignetting, it's no "dirty secret" like you say and simply design reality. The other options from other manufacturers are miles behind in terms of performance (for example the Sony 16mm f2.8). I'd say this is actually an top performer, for its size. I think it's all relative and we always have to be very careful what we compare with. Hope we get more reviews, the 16mm f1.4 would be great! Compared to the Sigma 16mm f1.4 for example.
it's size does not negate its terrible performance.
I'm not comparing the lens with anything. I was just saying that I hoped for sharper image quality in the corners (especially considering that this is not a cheap lens)
Thanks for doing the distortion test. Didn't expect to see so much distortion.
More fuji lenses please! This was absolutely brilliant.
With lenses like these and all the f2 versions, Fuji is, in my opinion, the best camera for travel photographers. Those lenses are not only small (I mean really really small) but they also offer excellent image quality (ok, I have to admit the other f2 lenses are way better than this one) and the price is well placed. The weather sealing is essential for travel photographers especially for those who like harsh weather. But not only the f2 versions are good. The f1.4/f1.2 versions are also really small and offer stunning image quality (even though I would nearly always prefer the f2 versions). And if this lens is too big four you, you can still take the 28mm pancake which is perfect for street photography. If a compact camera with stunning image quality and a great and compact lens selection is important to you there is no way around a Fuji camera if you don't want to pay a fortune. Great review by the way I really enjoyed it as always :) keep the good work up.
Perhaps (and I'm inclined to agree as a Fuji-only shooter myself), but everything you just described is true of Micro Four Thirds as well. The (admittedly aging) Olympus E-M5 Mark II is weather sealed, well built, and offers IBIS as well as sensor-shift image stacking. There's plenty of great M43 glass out there and for less money, not to mention potentially even more compact options - good travel companions.
I’m a Sony FF and APS-C shooter, and I think these Fuji lens reviews are actually pretty harsh. The 16mm plastic piece of garbage that Sony sells for APS-C (at almost the same price) is totally awful across the board.
For some reason Christopher seems to think that any APS-C lens priced over $89 should start out “quite well” and sharpen up to “near perfection” by f/5.6 or it’s shunned.
Clearly this isn’t a channel for reviewing lenses like the $1,499 25mm Loxia f/2.4 or $1,399 Sony GM 24mm f/1.4, so maybe go a little easier on the well built, weather sealed nice performing $399 lens?
If you’re going to be so picky about corners on a wide angle lens such as this one, maybe lower expectations elsewhere or stop buying Chinese knockoff optics that distort what you think something should cost. Or get into politics and handle your Brexit problem. 🤷♂️
@@dasaauto2024 Of course you cannot expect topnotch image quality from a 400€ lens. But this lens seems also not to be the best lens of the f2 line-up. That's a pitty if the whole line-up offers great quality but one lens isn't.
who likes harsh weather when travelling?
@@davidqian4480 Well, first of all, you cannot guarantee good weather especially when you are traveling in mountainous landscapes. So that's one aspect of why weather sealing is necessary. On the other hand rain and a dark, cloudy sky can give you unique pictures that are way more fascinating than normal sunshine/ golden hour / blue hour pictures. I hope you understand why some people enjoy shooting in harsh conditions.
I love your reviews! Simple and to the point along with consistency in your approach. Keep it going.
Chris, could you please continue to show lens performance with both in camera corrections turned off and on? I find it very interesting to see just how well engineered modern lenses are, and you are one of the few reviewers who does this. Thanks.
I only ever did that once or twice, really. While it is a little interesting to see the performance without corrections, the reality is that everyone corrects nowadays, either in-camera, or in their RAW conversion software, so, might as well just show the corrected image
The close-up sharpness test with the clock is always so satisfying.
Diolch yn fawr
One would never buy a lens if he/she keeps reading reviews
I've seen pictures from this lens here on YT that were just amazingly sharp. Just don't use it wide open instead go for f8. Perfect lens for street photography with that certain wide look to it.
Haha for sure. Haven’t seen any that have been positive about it. I had a chance to handle it at the shop and would totally be one that I would pick up. It feels a lot smaller in person and would be great for a travel/walk around lens. I’m keeping my eye on the used market.
@@AtomicPixel i have it and it sure is great, i actually like the choice between having distortion or not
The way you present your tests is easily the best on TH-cam Chris, da iawn!
At the end you said "It's not a lens I would spend 350 pounds on" -- so - at the focal length of 16mm-18 or possibly 20 - what is better? I have a hard time finding much in that range. I prefer MF so not having AF actually an advantage for me
I recently bought this lens and I shoot street photography on an xt2, love this combination.
Fun review, hope u get hands on 1.4 version soon :)
@Dan Gir he has not reviewed fujinon 16mm 1.4
I’d love to see your review of the fuji 16mm f1.4 for comparison. thanks for the great reviews!
As you can easily correct it, lens distortion is not a big matter I think. This lens is small light and sharp. I love it. Great review of course!
Hope you get to review the 1.4 version too. Though I own the lens already lol I just like watching your videos
Me too its god glass
Aleksandr Samoilov i sold it for this. People seem to buy it because it’s Fuji‘s best lens. At the end of the day, it’s what it need as a photographer. I don’t use 1.4 or shoot up close often enough to warrant the weight penalty so out it goes. It also has bad CA wide open.
What do you mean by ''suffering from some outlining background''? Thanks.
Yay, Fuji! Hope you’ll try the 18-55mm, I have a feeling it will be you favorite kit lens ever!
I really loved this lens for architecture in Japan where space is tight, however, I got some ultra shapr and very easy shots in low light, and so tiny, light and discreet, important for traveling in Japan. However, I ended up returning it because of what you see at minute 4:48. When I took photos of people they ended up looking a little bit like midgets, shorter than in real life, and I was standing a good deal back, about 8 feet back...
Great review, as usual, thumbs up! I just missed the "howdy everyone" in the beginning. Greetings from Brazil.
Thank you for this Christopher, though I find this lens a whole lot better corrected than a vintage wide angle, that's mostly what I got.
I know you have done a lost of your ten sharpest lenses, but even though it is a stretch (there is a whole lot of lens ground to cover), it would be stellar if you have a list of recommended lenses in each category (wide, tele, normal, long tele) for each mount.
I know it takes a lot of work, but you have certainly covered a whole lot of ground already.
Looking at your video, generally I find the pictures you showed have a lot of contrast, vivid colours and I be a lot happier with that Fujifilm, although I don't have Fuji X mount, rather Sony E.
I think you would like reviewing 16mm 1.4 version. It's usually considered one of the best fujifilm lenses.
I will get round to it eventually :-)
You are the best lens reviewer that I've ever seen on TH-cam right now. You make it so easy to understand, straight to the point, you have my subs man.. keep the good work..
This Barrel distortion was quite severe as you pointed out... Do we see the same on the 16 f1.4?
Have you considered to review the Fuji 16mm 1.4?
Excellent video 😊!
wonder what the F1.4 version is like? tried it in the shop and it looks decent but no amazing testing done.
what about video focusing? is it good enough for video AF?
great comprehensive review, still went with the purchase. used your affiliate link since i've been referring to all your lens reviews by now!
This or the 14mm f2.8? Travel and landscape mainly
Great review, as always. Thank you Chris! Looks like a really fun lens, I don't really mind the corner sharpness (or lack thereof), but as always with Fuji, the price is the issue.
Well, Fujis users already knew this when we bought into the system.
Well from all mirrorless systems Fuji is by far one of the cheapest.
@@jerry9548 I'm not complaining, just poor lol.
But idk, m43 has some really cheap low end lenses. Lacking in many ways, especially build quality, but accessible. Higher end Olympus lenses are amazing and crazy expensive too (more expensive than high end fuji lenses), so I get your point.
I guess cheap chinese manual primes are the way to go for me, at least in wide angle territory where old film lenses aren't that common.
@@onegrapefruitlover I must agree. My first camera was a Panasonic GX80 and the cheap lenses really surprised me. But as you said before: build quality and durability is not the best, which is in my opinion, not a dealbreaker but it is really nice to have a well-built lens. Of course, I would like to see lenses like the Canon "nifty-fifty" that are really cheap (I guess used ~50€) but that is something that would be a nice-to-have for all Mirrorless systems.
Fuji len is well built, mostly metal, aperture ring and WR - not too overpriced imo
would this be a good lens to do a bit of landscape or architecture photography? I have the 35 1.4, but i want another lense that fits more into the frame, to be used as an option
How do you compare this to fuji 18f2 ? Which do you recommend for travel photography ?
Personally I prefer the 18mm lens although the 16mm focal length is a bit more exciting
Will be interesting to see head to head comparison against the f1.4 version
The 16mm f1.4 is by far better in nearly every aspect. It has impressive image quality, great CA handling, good vignetting...etc. The only categories in which this lens is better are the size/weight and the pricepoint. But if you have the money, you schould go for the f1.4.
Jarri I actually own the 16f1.4 (as well as the 23f2 and 35f2) that’s why I’m considering to complete my “f2 collection”. Judging by Chris’s test though the comprises seem a little too much.
Nice litte lens to add to my kit! Thank you Chris for the review!!! By the way which program do you use to reveal Fuji x photos??? Thank you and regards from Uruguay.
RAW Therapee
@@christopherfrost thank you so much! I like that program a lot, but I don't know why it isn't working with the las mac prg version. It closes all of a sudden... I finally reveal my fuji photos with AlienSkin4 quite good prg but not to the length of RT which for me is kind of impressive . :) Cheers from distant Uruguay.
I'd like to compare this with the 16-50 3.5 kit lens at similar f stops.
Well that was a little disappointing as I was considering trading in my 18mm F2 for this. 🤔May have to rethink, nice and to the point review as always.
emgee44 wait for the 18mm mark II. Its around the corner.
@@drs-Rigo-Reus around the corner? It’s been over 1yr and nothing. Where do you get your news from??
@@drs-Rigo-Reus 2024 - that corner must be f* long.
It's always surprising to me how the 'cheaper' (still above €400) Fujifillm primes don't seem to perform better than the 18-55mm kitlens. It's a good kitlens, but you'd think a prime that costs almost the same would perform much better. Price/performance ratio of the Fujifilm primes is making it very hard for me to decide whether or not I should switch to Fujifilm from Sony. The 18-55 Kitlens is an amazing performer on the other hand and is probably more than capable of producing professional looking results. By the way I'd love to see your review of the Tamron 17-70mm f2.8 for E-Mount if you can get your hands on it. Seems like a perfect every day lens for me.
Primes perform significantly better even to the naked eye (without pixel peeping). They are much sharper. These f2/f2.8 primes are more in the XF16-55mm f2.8 league.
@@vtevdo No according to Chris's review. I own the 18-55 which is an exceptional lens, was going to get the 16mm but corners are really bad. The best lens I have tested so far is the 27mm f/2.8, Chris's review also agrees it seems.
list of Fuji X prime lenses that don't correct distortion optically:
1. XF 18mm f2 R
2. XF 35mm f2 R WR
3. XF 27mm f2.8
4. XF 60mm f2.4 R Macro
And newly added to the list 16mm 2.8
Yeah, I prefer some transparency from these companies. Let us turn that correction off. As far as I know, only Canon allows that.
@@diatomsaus For Fuji old f1.4 lenses the distortions are all corrected properly. I guess this is because of the size. no enough space for distortion correction. M4/3 system has the same policy as Fuji, correcting distortion on camera body
@@xiaochengpeng2581 Yep. Doing so brings several benefits:
1. Smaller sized lenses
2. Cheaper optical construction
3. Emphasis placed on other optical qualities such as sharpness and resolution
Just because there's in-camera processing, doesn't mean the lens isn't sharp or lacks resolution. (3) is also related to (2), as it's cheaper to design for less criteria.
The overall (worrying) trend is camera body correction methods. I'm not a huge fan of it to be fair. I do think the better, higher end lenses won't be affected too much which is great. Those usually just invoke correction for vignetting, nothing as drastic as what's illustrated here. Also, these corrections do theoretically bring more readout noise, it's pretty much always non-detrimental though.
Macro Cosmos Microscopy Modern optics can be much smaller and cheaper with some software correction. Demanding a perfectly corrected wide angle lens at $399 with weather sealing and really high build quality is a lot to ask. It looks sharp enough in my book-especially shooting landscapes, not charts. But even still, I wouldn’t blame it’s slightly soft corners on software correction. The 24mm f/1.4 Sony GM uses software correction to dramatically reduce lateral chromatic aberrations and when you look at its size and performance, it makes perfect sense.
Taking a “peek behind the curtain” doesn’t tell you much unless you understand lens design better than we do here.
@@dasaauto2024 Being in the industry, I don't like to brag, but it's fair to say that I know a little more than the average Joe. I'm not saying a $399 UWA should be perfectly corrected. I just want transparency, let us turn the correction off. Software correction methods are commonly used in the industry, it's not something to look down on. I've also stated the advantages, but I just want to be able to switch the thing off. There's major differences between a true raw file and a processed raw file which technically isn't "raw" anymore. Would you call uncooked sausages raw meat? No.
Using these software correction methods allow manufactures to make high quality lenses using less lens elements and thereby lowering the cost. It's welcomed sure, but we should be allowed to switch it off. There's even many applications where it better be turned off such as astrolandscapes, you'd want a raw file as pure as possible to allow the best processing. That's beyond the point though. It's not an unfair thing to ask for. I would personally go further and say we should be allowed to turn debayering and basically any other raw processing off, this will make monochrome conversions way easier to deal with. Call be a purist, but I'm sure you agree with me. Canon lets us turn it off, so should Sony, Nikon, and Fujifilm.
Using it with X-T4 ... great pair
What is the third party software you use? Rawdigger? I'd love to know! Thanks.
RAW Therapee, the latest version
@@christopherfrost Ah, that's a good one. I use DCraw which is free too.
One question. did you have another channel before and have you reviewed sony a77 and a99 there? I think your voice is very similar and I'm wondering
Nope
@@christopherfrost after I listened to another video of yours and watched the other video I've commented on, I have realized I was completely wrong lol. At least I have you a new comment for google stats lol. Also, great video
@@timgomes4810 No problem!
FIRST! I'm not a fan of the Fuji reviews (as I don't own one) but the quality of your videos is always remarkable. Thanks Chris.
I haven't been able to find anywhere else to post my request. Will you be testing the Tamron 35mm-150?
Yup (eventually)
I'm disappointed by the distorsion but then it's a 24mm equivalent. I still think it's a better and more versatile lens than the 18mm overall. The F1.4 version looks better though but it's bigger and more expensive too. Anyway thank you very much for this clear and comprehensive review!
Canon's 10-18mm has far less distortion and it is 16mm equivalent at the wide end. Like Chris said, it's quite literally the worst barrel distortion of any lens he reviewed. I honestly wonder if a pinhole wouldn't have the same degree of distortion
My 15mm prime is also very sharp in the center but soft in the corners, I guess this is the weekness of this prime type of lens. it's fun though.
It is not the sharpest lens at fujinon, but I love it. It is small and compact. It focuses quick and silent. Good for vlogs, or daily family videos.
Seems like size was prioritized over IQ.
I'd like to see how the opposite approach works on the 16mm 1.4 tested with your methodology.
I still can't decide between the 16 f1.4, the f2.8, the 18 f2.8 or the 23 f2 as a wide lens for my dear old X-T1.
onegrapefruitlover Agree. IQ of this lens is really horrible, I would even say that this is the worst Fuji lens I ever had.
That is a nice size. I might get it instead of the 18mm f2 or 27mm. It being a 16mm is a plus.
I like 28mm (equiv) focal lengths most. I may have to get this since the 18mm is rather bad.
Christopher I hope you'll review Fuji's 14mm f2.8 lens. I always believe that your reviews are very complete. Thanks.
Thanks for another well done review!
Does anyone know if this lens could handle a low light pub setting? Thanks.
It won't be great. Having the 16mm f/1.4 would be far better
What the heck? Paid 399 Euro for that lens and I consider this a total cool Deal! Live that lens!
If it makes you happy that's what counts :-)
Excellent review as always. Please review the 1.4 version of this lens :-)
I really like your lens reviews, Christopher. They seem to cover all the aspects that are important to me, including close focusing performance. I would love to see your review of the XF 16mm F1.4, the XF 90mm F2 and the XF 50-140 F2.8.
What leather strap is that on the thumbnail?
A Hard Graft wrist strap
Your review is a masterpiece. It the best concise review I have ever seen for a lens..
hi. i bot FUJIFILM XF 16mm f/2.8 R WR Lens today. but i dnt have a Fuji camera. which i am planing next mnth. my que is wen i rotate the aperture ring of this lens i dint see aperture blade closing or opening like annual lens. is it normal or something wrong with it. Is it only work wen connected to camera. pls help.
It's ok, the aperture control is not mechanical. When you turn the ring, a signal is sent to the camera which then adjusts the aperture
Another detailed and unbiased review from Chris. Great summary of the lens begin a great walk-around lens but not the best option for serious landscape photography. I just made the switch from Fuji to Sony FF, hope will see more FE mount lens review from you.
I really want this to be a good video lens. All my fuji lenses are too loud for video, but I don't think it's worth it to buy a Canon system just for video purposes.
Thanks Chris!
Well, seems rather disappointing, especially compared to the rest of the Fujicrons. Glad I went with the 16mm f1.4 while it was on sale!
@Memeorandum of Understanding My 80mm f2.8 macro would like a word about that! But yes, it is one of the best lenses. Frankly, there are few stinkers in the system... but they tend to be overpriced.
35mm f2 is the only exceptional Fujicron imo. The rest are just decent (not bad at all).
These 2 lenses can't compare, the 16mm f1.4 is double the size and price :) glad you went for it if you value image quality more than size!
Damn, wish I'd seen this review before just hitting the buy button! But to be honest the compact size was the main reason I bought it. Of course the fujicron lineup can't compete in quality with their 1.4/1.2 versions but they're good enough and mean I get the shots I want because I'm prepared to carry my camera around.
Fujicrons are the way to go for APSC so don’t doubt your decision. I sold my 16mm 1.4 for this beauty.
Don’t listen to reviews based on lens charts and pictures of brick walls. In real life photography it is brilliant as is the 1.4 which is slightly better. Now you have had your 16mm for nearly a year what do you think about it?
Gary Manning I couldn’t agree more!
@@ShutterKnack I'm considering selling my 16/1.4 for this and perhaps the 27/2.8ii. I'm just quite hesitant to let go of the 16/1.4 because it was my favorite FL as in 98% my then 24/1.4g lense was attached to my Nikon D800. In addition, it's my only 1.4 lense. I often bring my 16/1.4 whenever my family goes to malls because often the light there is quite low. I also take it to gatherings and travels. But it's quite bulky. Your thoughts?
Curiously, after two years, Tristan, you still had no regrets of selling your 16/1.4?
I saw the baby on board, boy or girl?
Girl :-)
@@christopherfrost Congratulations
It's super compact. That's it. I prefer kit zoom lens over this one
The kit zoom lens is 18mm though
@@Innovate-pq9ci There was a 16-50 and now a there is a 15-45. In fact the 16-50 was a great lens considering it cost 100-110€ used.
@@SuperLisandro86 Ah you mean the XC lenses, I thought we were only talking about XF considering this is a XF lens here. You are right about the 16-50, but let's rememder it's a zoom and not a prime, and it's f3.5, not 2.8
@@Innovate-pq9ci No, you just assumed Edan was talking about the 18-55, when this video was about a 16mm prime.
Considering the 16-50 has a 2-3 OIS sysytem, it makes up perfectly for that half stop of less light gathering, and also considering is a 16mm angle, I am sure you wouldnt be able to differenciate two pictures taken with each lens unless they were side by side.
I know it's a zoom. He was talking about a zoom lens.
Stop comparing only the aspects you want, its terrible to have a conversation with you. Stick to each user words, and dont make up things.
@@Innovate-pq9ci 18mm is the reason why I dont own 18-55mm even though this lens is a "must buy" for fuji. Its not wide enough. I think 16-50mm is more versatile, the new 15-45 even better. f3.5 is not a big downside unless you wanna do astrophotography but in that case this 16mm f2.8 is not perfect too
Chris, please review the new Tamron 35mm F1.4 usd lens, Tamron have just released it :)
I will eventually, yes
very Useful!!!
I think the real star of the X system is the 18-55 f2.8 especially for video!
56mm is a monster, I moved to the system just for that lens.
18-55 really is so special. Its big brother the 55-200mm is just as remarkable.
I like the 60mm and 90mm but it's true that the 18-55mm is stellar. I also like the 80mm but I don't own it, it's probably one of the best lenses ever designed. It's definitely the best macro lens ever.
A review of that lens is coming :-)
Hi Christopher. Please review the Samyang 35 f/1.2 XP.
It's a tricky lens to get hold of
A 16/f2 would have been nice ( to have). This 2.8 is not that great. Bought a 14mm in stead. With 27mm and 50mm a great, sharp and distortionfree trio for travel.
Still love it ❤️👍
The only reviewer I trust.
7artisans 35mm f/1.2 soon?
Yazeed Saber I got you right here: f/1.2 = very soft, f/2 = soft, f/2.8 = not soft, f/5.6 = sharp. I got some good shots and had fun with it, but sold it after a few months. Build quality is actually great.
A review of that lens is coming
Please review fuji 18-55 f2.8-4
A review will come
wish I had that lens :(
I'll pass, Great review.
16-80 & 18-55 please ~
Look on my channel, the reviews are there
Haha nice swiss trainstation watch :D
bạn có thể chia sẻ với lens canon 24 mm ko
This lens ought to be no more than $150 imo
A disappointingly mediocre lens from Fujifilm. For me, the reasons for buying primes are a) faster max aperture and, b) superior image quality. This lens fails on both counts. I would not recommend this lens. The 16mm f/1.4, however, is superb.
I dont see why people praising fuji lens are best ?
This is $400 in the U.S definitely not worth it for me maybe at $300
North worth the money !
165th.
Terribly designed lens, specialy if was announced in 2019!
Vignetting, DISTORTION and close up just unacceptable.
You couldn't be more wrong - what tiny 16mm performs better? none!
Of course, it will have distortion at this size format... I don't think you realize how hard it is to design a lens, if you want no vignetting or chromatic aberrations, you need more elements, which means a bigger, heavier, more expensive lens, and creates problems (the more glass elements, the more the image can get degraded and further need corrections or extra coatings on the internal elements)
You are absolutely correct, the rest of the f2 line up (23, 35 and 50) are way better than this one. I think they have room to made it a little bit bigger to match the size of the 50mm for example and give a sharper and better corrected lens.
PS: Dont even read the previous comment, he is always is Fujirumours in fanboy mode, even justifying stupid things like the 2k$ price for the 8-16mm f2.8 at launch (even thou Fuji discounted it in 200€ even in preorder).
Trusty old Sony 16mm f/2.8 pancake is smaller, also un-sharp, but at last has true rectangular projection, an no mention price, used one cost simply nothing now.
@@SuperLisandro86 How can you compare a 50mm and a 16mm one? Completely different focal lengths hence completely different design constraints. The wider a lens is the more it will be prone to vignetting for example. Of course, you will not get the same amount of vignetting on a 50mm lens... I'm not sure you get how much complicated it is to design a wide angle lens, especially in this size format.
@@GinoFoto still vastly inferior in terms of optical performance, and I will still say that the 16mm f2.8 XF Fujinon lens is the best compact 16mm ever designed so far.
Fujinon lenses are pretty weird. Top feel, but often AF systems from the 80's. What a shame.
Focus manually
expensive and not very high quality
Sigma 16mm 1.4 C is leagues better than this and cheaper...