I now own this lens. I traded in my old 16-55 2.8 to help pay for this lens. In spite of some minor issues with the new lens, I will gladly use it compared to lugging around the older beast.
Very good points. I was seriously thinking about being this lens, but seems like waiting a little to let them polish the production is best. Looks like a new pc game these days 😅 half finished but still comes out because you gotta deliver on time
The good news and the bad news. The good news is that I’ve used mind a fair bit since I got it and the zoom ring has smoothed out a noticeable amount. It’s nowhere near as smooth as my 16-80 and 18-55 were, but I too hated the zoom ring when I got it and am pleased that it has improved…I hope it continues to improve. The bad news is I’ve owned over 15 Fujifilm XF lenses over the years and it’s actually astonishing to me that the company can’t create a consistent aperture ring. Even the XF 18, 23, and 33mm lenses all have radically different aperture rings. My 16-80’s aperture ring is so stiff and soft clicked that it’s almost impossible to accidentally change the aperture or nail the aperture change you intentionally made. 😂 I still love that lens…so there is little to zero hope that the aperture ring will be addressed or ever improved upon. If you say anything negative about a Fujifilm product within that community they attack you for being wrong, inept, or advise you to sell it. They don’t want to see anything improved or criticized - it’s shocking. Optically, I find the lens to be phenomenal and it’s for that reason that I plan to keep it as my only standard zoom in Fujifilm. They’re clearly obsessed with this inferior X-T5 40mp sensor, so I may as well use a sharper lens to take advantage of it and actually be able to crop. Cropping on the 16-80 looks pretty soft. Thanks for the video. More people need to be made aware of the lens’ flaws. For me, I’ll be keeping it because there’s nothing else like it on the X-mount that offered “24mm” on the wide end and a fixed aperture, aside from the previous generation lens…which is the size of a full-frame lens so I have no desire to travel with that.
I def agree about the inconsistency in aperture rings. The 18 1.4 feels perfect to me. When shooting my primes, I don’t have any issues cropping (and I secretly enjoy it). I do think it’s a great lens, just perhaps not the right lens for me. Thx for sharing your experience!
My copy does not have the aperture issue that you talk about. The zoom seems a little stiffer at 55mm and 35mm than at the wide end. No big deal for me. The vignetting is also an issue that I preferred to be better.
Hmm, that’s a bit different than my experience. I found that the lens looked like it barely moved from 16 to 23 when in fact it did. The focal length scale was pretty far off on my copy.
Thanks for the video. I have the mki, which also relied pretty heavily on digital correction for distortion and vignetting. That has been the norm for mirrorless lenses, and I don't really care about it, other than knowing I lose some resolution+gain noise. Your experience with the mkii so far reminds me of my experience jumping on the the new 56mm WR - I went through two copies before getting a "good one". All three seemed optically the same, but 2 out of three had white lens polish crap inside the barrel, which made me question what other QC issues might pop up in time. Not ok for a $1,000 lens. I am definitely concerned that mk ii lenses are going out the door with QC issues, and that is enough to keep me away from one for the time being. Looking forward to more reviews of AF performance - tracking, backlit, low light, and flaring/ghosting/veiling behavior. I do A LOT of portrait work and the mk i red badges are beautiful performers - most of the time. I hope they've refined the optics and AF performance pretty significantly. So far, it sounds like they did not. So, either the Mki's were THAT good, or something is going on with the "pro" line at Fuji . . .
Thanks for sharing your experience with the two lenses. My copy of the original 16-55 did not have any noticeable distortion or vignetting so it’s definitely different with the mk ii version. I found even my Sony lenses that rely heavily on corrections were not that bad. Perhaps I’ll try a different copy and see if it was just a bad one I got.
@@RandumbTech With "lens modulation optimizer" turned on, my 16-55 mki is perfect, as far as I am concerned, and I haven't bothered testing the lens with that stuff off since I'd never shoot that way anyway. But other testers have showed it does indeed have optical distortion and vignetting even with a 77mm front filter element. Dropping to 72mm had to have engendered a tradeoff in terms of distortion and/or vignetting, I think. Not to mention it means my 77mm filters are useless (something that may make others hold off from an upgrade). All I can say is that, for $1,200, I want the lens to have similarly buttery-smooth feel, deliver better images, and take a beating. I already know it might be a much better walk-around lens, since it weighs less than my 56 WR, which is crazy. That said, what is the killer feature here? Is it still a "pro" lens? The 16-50 got internal zoom - and it is a kit lens. The 16-80 has excellent OIS. And so on . . . I think Fuji missed a chance to do something crazy and make an f/2 zoom - most pros don't care about size and weight but maybe Fuji is turning into a lifestyle brand or something, IDK.
I’ve had two copies of this lens. A few comments: - Returned the first one because the zoom ring was bad and not enjoyable to shoot with. The second copy, however, is great. - Aperture on mine is either fine or the issue you talked about doesn’t bother me. I tend to use the aperture ring a lot but am not too picky if it shifts by 1/3 stop or so. - I have a moral issue with the lens cap. On both copies of the lens, it had very shallow threading and tended to pop off. I switched to my Kase magnet lens cap instead. But what a dumb design decision for a $1200 lens… - In terms of IQ, sharpness seems great. I am not comparing pictures of brick walls or test charts. I’ve shot extensively with the XF16-80, Sigma 18-50, and Tamron 17-70. It’s better than the 16-80 and at least as good as the other two - Only thing that doesn’t seem great is flaring, which I don’t find particularly well-controlled. But maybe I’m asking a lot here?
Seems like there is quite a bit of sample variation and I may have been a bit unlucky with mine. I may revisit it again in a few months. Hopefully Fuji works through all the kinks with new production line. Thx for sharing your experience in such detail!
It is more than a moral issue. If someone strips the filter threads on this Red Badge lens someday what will it cost to be fixed? What is the resale value of a lens with stripped filter threads?
When you say that the zoom ring was bad and not enjoyable, was it because it was stepped or because it was very smooth? I had never used a Fuji zoom, only the Sigma 18-50, but I feel that the zoom on this new Fuji is so smooth that I have even thought about returning it.
The lens is optically great. Regarding the mechanics, my copy has a sort of tiny step at around 30-35mm when progressing from 16 to 55 and back. I have also noticed that the general zoom action is not so smooth, the progression occurs in tiny stops. May be that is my copy, or may be the very light materials used and the zoom mechanism might be the explanation?
Optically, I think it's pretty average which surprised me because Fuji has had many years to work on this very popular lens. Sounds like your zoom action is not particularly smooth either. I think a good point of comparison would be the Sigma 24-70 mk 2 - they made it a little smaller and lighter, but there is only so much you can do before physics wins.
@@RandumbTechWell, at the end I sent back my copy and, after much thought, I will not ask for a replacement. I think the lack of smoothness is a design problem probably due to the manufacturing materials used. If you zoom during a video recording, you will definetly see the image not in a smooth unique flow but in tiny successive stops. That is not normal for a professional zoom. The Sigma zoom is very smooth. Just tried it in a shop, before taking the decision to send back the Fuji zoom. I have owned a Fuji 16-80mm for 2 years and it was pretty smooth. It is a bit disappointing.
Thanks a lot for sharing your experience, I am on the waiting list in Germany, very hard to get it here. But after hearing your experience I might stick with the „old“ one, which delivers great IQ.. just a bit big and heavy.. :)
I noticed on B&H photo, that the reviewers mentioned that wide open It was soft! Softer than the original. Since I have the original, I figure I’ll just keep it.
I got mine on December 12 from B&H. Although I ordered it in October. I hadn’t really tested it, but after seeing the bad reviews on B&H‘s site, I went out and did some “brick wall“ tests comparing it to the original, which has been my most used Fuji lens out of 10 Fuji lenses, 0:05 and the new version is definitely a bit sharper, even wide open and close up at both 16 and 55 mm. I got the impression that at least two of the “bad reviews“ were from people that only had prior experience with the 18 to 55 and weren’t used to the shallow depth of field of the better lens.
It seems that’s the way Fuji designed it. Personally, I prefer a smoother zoom with a lock switch to prevent creep. It makes the lens borderline unusable for video if you plan to zoom during recording.
So odd when you said it’s sticky. Mine has a bit of zoom creep. When I extend it all the way to 55mm mounted on a camera and give it a little flick, it creeped back down to 35mm…
@@RandumbTech I returned that original copy and got a new one. Didn't have the same issue, so there's some obvious QC issue with this early batch of lenses
It just doesn't live up to the expectations. Mark I was praised to be exceptional at the cost of weight, mark II seems to be a little bit of improvement but (apart from weight) nowhere close to 10 years of progress, as it was with WR versions of 23mm and 56mm. You don't really see any reviewers rave about this one as something groundbreaking.
I own the original 16-55mm. I talked to a Fujifilm representative and I asked him why come out with a new lens and have us pay for something that’s not broken and a red badge lens. He couldn’t give me an answer 😮 but he did say it’s lighter version. Gear doesn’t make you a great photographer
It is noticeably smaller and lighter, but it comes at the cost of optical performance (distortion/vignetting). If you have the mk 1 and are Ok with it's size, probably best to stick with it for now and perhaps see if Fuji addresses any of the potential QC issues.
It may still be worth an upgrade if size and weight are important to you. But if you enjoy using a smooth zoom and nicely clicked aperture, probably best to keep what you have.
A-Roll is looking good! Inconsistent aperture ring clickiness is an annoyance with Fuji lenses for sure. Too bad to hear about all the other build quality issues
If it’s still under warranty, definitely send it in for repairs. Also, some Fuji cameras disable it depending on which mode you are shooting g in (Auto or Program come to mind)
That’s really disappointing, but thanks for the review. I was hoping that this new 16-55 would still be a ‘bag of primes’ like its predecessor, only lighter. I’m not so worried about more dainty aperture clicks, but I am concerned about image quality. I guess that the smaller front element could be contributing to the heavier lifting required by software to correct for distortion, but it doesn’t sound promising. Looking forward to Christopher Frost’s review before committing…
Simmer down - I’ve owned tons of Fuji cameras and lenses over the years and am very familiar with the system. Just because this new lens wasn’t great for me, doesn’t mean the rest of my Fuji gear is somehow bad. It appears to be a fairly isolated incident.
I now own this lens. I traded in my old 16-55 2.8 to help pay for this lens. In spite of some minor issues with the new lens, I will gladly use it compared to lugging around the older beast.
Very good points. I was seriously thinking about being this lens, but seems like waiting a little to let them polish the production is best.
Looks like a new pc game these days 😅 half finished but still comes out because you gotta deliver on time
The good news and the bad news. The good news is that I’ve used mind a fair bit since I got it and the zoom ring has smoothed out a noticeable amount. It’s nowhere near as smooth as my 16-80 and 18-55 were, but I too hated the zoom ring when I got it and am pleased that it has improved…I hope it continues to improve.
The bad news is I’ve owned over 15 Fujifilm XF lenses over the years and it’s actually astonishing to me that the company can’t create a consistent aperture ring. Even the XF 18, 23, and 33mm lenses all have radically different aperture rings. My 16-80’s aperture ring is so stiff and soft clicked that it’s almost impossible to accidentally change the aperture or nail the aperture change you intentionally made. 😂 I still love that lens…so there is little to zero hope that the aperture ring will be addressed or ever improved upon. If you say anything negative about a Fujifilm product within that community they attack you for being wrong, inept, or advise you to sell it. They don’t want to see anything improved or criticized - it’s shocking. Optically, I find the lens to be phenomenal and it’s for that reason that I plan to keep it as my only standard zoom in Fujifilm. They’re clearly obsessed with this inferior X-T5 40mp sensor, so I may as well use a sharper lens to take advantage of it and actually be able to crop. Cropping on the 16-80 looks pretty soft.
Thanks for the video. More people need to be made aware of the lens’ flaws. For me, I’ll be keeping it because there’s nothing else like it on the X-mount that offered “24mm” on the wide end and a fixed aperture, aside from the previous generation lens…which is the size of a full-frame lens so I have no desire to travel with that.
I def agree about the inconsistency in aperture rings. The 18 1.4 feels perfect to me. When shooting my primes, I don’t have any issues cropping (and I secretly enjoy it). I do think it’s a great lens, just perhaps not the right lens for me. Thx for sharing your experience!
My copy does not have the aperture issue that you talk about. The zoom seems a little stiffer at 55mm and 35mm than at the wide end. No big deal for me.
The vignetting is also an issue that I preferred to be better.
Hmm, that’s a bit different than my experience. I found that the lens looked like it barely moved from 16 to 23 when in fact it did. The focal length scale was pretty far off on my copy.
Thanks for the video. I have the mki, which also relied pretty heavily on digital correction for distortion and vignetting. That has been the norm for mirrorless lenses, and I don't really care about it, other than knowing I lose some resolution+gain noise.
Your experience with the mkii so far reminds me of my experience jumping on the the new 56mm WR - I went through two copies before getting a "good one". All three seemed optically the same, but 2 out of three had white lens polish crap inside the barrel, which made me question what other QC issues might pop up in time. Not ok for a $1,000 lens. I am definitely concerned that mk ii lenses are going out the door with QC issues, and that is enough to keep me away from one for the time being.
Looking forward to more reviews of AF performance - tracking, backlit, low light, and flaring/ghosting/veiling behavior. I do A LOT of portrait work and the mk i red badges are beautiful performers - most of the time. I hope they've refined the optics and AF performance pretty significantly. So far, it sounds like they did not. So, either the Mki's were THAT good, or something is going on with the "pro" line at Fuji . . .
Thanks for sharing your experience with the two lenses. My copy of the original 16-55 did not have any noticeable distortion or vignetting so it’s definitely different with the mk ii version. I found even my Sony lenses that rely heavily on corrections were not that bad. Perhaps I’ll try a different copy and see if it was just a bad one I got.
@@RandumbTech With "lens modulation optimizer" turned on, my 16-55 mki is perfect, as far as I am concerned, and I haven't bothered testing the lens with that stuff off since I'd never shoot that way anyway. But other testers have showed it does indeed have optical distortion and vignetting even with a 77mm front filter element. Dropping to 72mm had to have engendered a tradeoff in terms of distortion and/or vignetting, I think. Not to mention it means my 77mm filters are useless (something that may make others hold off from an upgrade).
All I can say is that, for $1,200, I want the lens to have similarly buttery-smooth feel, deliver better images, and take a beating. I already know it might be a much better walk-around lens, since it weighs less than my 56 WR, which is crazy. That said, what is the killer feature here? Is it still a "pro" lens? The 16-50 got internal zoom - and it is a kit lens. The 16-80 has excellent OIS. And so on . . . I think Fuji missed a chance to do something crazy and make an f/2 zoom - most pros don't care about size and weight but maybe Fuji is turning into a lifestyle brand or something, IDK.
I’ve had two copies of this lens. A few comments:
- Returned the first one because the zoom ring was bad and not enjoyable to shoot with. The second copy, however, is great.
- Aperture on mine is either fine or the issue you talked about doesn’t bother me. I tend to use the aperture ring a lot but am not too picky if it shifts by 1/3 stop or so.
- I have a moral issue with the lens cap. On both copies of the lens, it had very shallow threading and tended to pop off. I switched to my Kase magnet lens cap instead. But what a dumb design decision for a $1200 lens…
- In terms of IQ, sharpness seems great. I am not comparing pictures of brick walls or test charts. I’ve shot extensively with the XF16-80, Sigma 18-50, and Tamron 17-70. It’s better than the 16-80 and at least as good as the other two
- Only thing that doesn’t seem great is flaring, which I don’t find particularly well-controlled. But maybe I’m asking a lot here?
Seems like there is quite a bit of sample variation and I may have been a bit unlucky with mine. I may revisit it again in a few months. Hopefully Fuji works through all the kinks with new production line. Thx for sharing your experience in such detail!
It is more than a moral issue. If someone strips the filter threads on this Red Badge lens someday what will it cost to be fixed? What is the resale value of a lens with stripped filter threads?
When you say that the zoom ring was bad and not enjoyable, was it because it was stepped or because it was very smooth? I had never used a Fuji zoom, only the Sigma 18-50, but I feel that the zoom on this new Fuji is so smooth that I have even thought about returning it.
The lens is optically great. Regarding the mechanics, my copy has a sort of tiny step at around 30-35mm when progressing from 16 to 55 and back. I have also noticed that the general zoom action is not so smooth, the progression occurs in tiny stops. May be that is my copy, or may be the very light materials used and the zoom mechanism might be the explanation?
Optically, I think it's pretty average which surprised me because Fuji has had many years to work on this very popular lens. Sounds like your zoom action is not particularly smooth either. I think a good point of comparison would be the Sigma 24-70 mk 2 - they made it a little smaller and lighter, but there is only so much you can do before physics wins.
@@RandumbTechWell, at the end I sent back my copy and, after much thought, I will not ask for a replacement. I think the lack of smoothness is a design problem probably due to the manufacturing materials used. If you zoom during a video recording, you will definetly see the image not in a smooth unique flow but in tiny successive stops. That is not normal for a professional zoom.
The Sigma zoom is very smooth. Just tried it in a shop, before taking the decision to send back the Fuji zoom. I have owned a Fuji 16-80mm for 2 years and it was pretty smooth.
It is a bit disappointing.
Thanks a lot for sharing your experience, I am on the waiting list in Germany, very hard to get it here. But after hearing your experience I might stick with the „old“ one, which delivers great IQ.. just a bit big and heavy.. :)
I bought it for the weight savings, but did not enjoy using it nearly as much as the original. With Fuji, if it’s not fun, I’m not interested.
My lens doesn't suffer from this sticky zoom and the light apperture.
Hmm, that’s interesting. Perhaps will need to try multiple copies.
Mine doesn’t either.
I even feel like mine is too smooth when zooming in or out
I noticed on B&H photo, that the reviewers mentioned that wide open It was soft! Softer than the original.
Since I have the original, I figure I’ll just keep it.
Probably a smart decision at this point. I’d wait until Dustin Abbott and Christopher Frost test it out for real.
I got mine on December 12 from B&H. Although I ordered it in October. I hadn’t really tested it, but after seeing the bad reviews on B&H‘s site, I went out and did some “brick wall“ tests comparing it to the original, which has been my most used Fuji lens out of 10 Fuji lenses, 0:05 and the new version is definitely a bit sharper, even wide open and close up at both 16 and 55 mm. I got the impression that at least two of the “bad reviews“ were from people that only had prior experience with the 18 to 55 and weren’t used to the shallow depth of field of the better lens.
For the record I've had the opportunity to try three different copies and all three had these zoom stuttering issue and to slightly different degrees
It seems that’s the way Fuji designed it. Personally, I prefer a smoother zoom with a lock switch to prevent creep. It makes the lens borderline unusable for video if you plan to zoom during recording.
@RandumbTech exactly. Why use a clickless aperture for video if the zoom isn't smooth???
So odd when you said it’s sticky. Mine has a bit of zoom creep. When I extend it all the way to 55mm mounted on a camera and give it a little flick, it creeped back down to 35mm…
That’s strange - mine was very firm, but not smooth at all.
@@RandumbTech I returned that original copy and got a new one. Didn't have the same issue, so there's some obvious QC issue with this early batch of lenses
It just doesn't live up to the expectations. Mark I was praised to be exceptional at the cost of weight, mark II seems to be a little bit of improvement but (apart from weight) nowhere close to 10 years of progress, as it was with WR versions of 23mm and 56mm.
You don't really see any reviewers rave about this one as something groundbreaking.
You summed it up perfectly. After 10 years, you’d think they could have done better.
I own the original 16-55mm. I talked to a Fujifilm representative and I asked him why come out with a new lens and have us pay for something that’s not broken and a red badge lens. He couldn’t give me an answer 😮 but he did say it’s lighter version. Gear doesn’t make you a great photographer
It is noticeably smaller and lighter, but it comes at the cost of optical performance (distortion/vignetting). If you have the mk 1 and are Ok with it's size, probably best to stick with it for now and perhaps see if Fuji addresses any of the potential QC issues.
Still I’m not chancing from the mk1 to mk2. It’s not a upgrade if you got the mk1
It may still be worth an upgrade if size and weight are important to you. But if you enjoy using a smooth zoom and nicely clicked aperture, probably best to keep what you have.
A-Roll is looking good! Inconsistent aperture ring clickiness is an annoyance with Fuji lenses for sure. Too bad to hear about all the other build quality issues
Thx Phillip! Still enjoying the Fuji primes for now.
My aperture ring stop working … what should I do
Make sure “Silent shooting” is OFF in the menu.
If it’s still under warranty, definitely send it in for repairs. Also, some Fuji cameras disable it depending on which mode you are shooting g in (Auto or Program come to mind)
I'd send it back for sure, being that it's supposed to be top of the line lens.
Yup, already returned it.
That’s really disappointing, but thanks for the review. I was hoping that this new 16-55 would still be a ‘bag of primes’ like its predecessor, only lighter. I’m not so worried about more dainty aperture clicks, but I am concerned about image quality. I guess that the smaller front element could be contributing to the heavier lifting required by software to correct for distortion, but it doesn’t sound promising. Looking forward to Christopher Frost’s review before committing…
I think the smaller 72mm front element has a pretty big impact on vignetting. The original did not suffer at all from it.
Thanks for the review.. I have cancelled my order..
Not a bad idea considering the issues some are having with the first batch.
Your loss, it is a brilliant lens, this guy has a bad copy.
Definitely a QC issue they need to address.
Let’s hope it’s a QC issue and not design flaws. 🤞
Clickless aperture is now a feature?😂😂😂
It is fairly new for Fuji lenses. My issue is that when you want clicks, there is barely any feedback.
@ no its not. There are other older Fuji lenses with basically no clicks
Stick with Sony Sony fanboy do not know what you’re talking about. Trying to make a point still is not making your point that is a great camera lens
Simmer down - I’ve owned tons of Fuji cameras and lenses over the years and am very familiar with the system. Just because this new lens wasn’t great for me, doesn’t mean the rest of my Fuji gear is somehow bad. It appears to be a fairly isolated incident.