Yeah, that was a bummer! Thank goodness I had the expensive red badges with me!! I might just have to pick another 18-55 up or get me that 18-50 by Sigma! Do you have either one?
Nice but too bulky and heavy for me. I use the Sigma 18--50mm 2.8 for Fuji. Frankly, the difference in image quality is extremely minimal! In most cases you wouldn't be able to tell who is who on side by side images.
Yes, the Sigma is next for me. Great image quality and half the size sounds amazing for travel. The 16-55 is great but it is heavy:) Thanks for the comment!!
All of the red badge zooms are now old and in need of updating. The 16-55 has been out for nearly 10 years and is no longer competitive with the newer 24-70 offerings from Canon, Nikon and Sony. It is a good lens, but it's no longer state of the art optically, and as you point out, it is way too big and heavy. I sold my X mount gear and shot with the GFX system for a few years, but earlier this year traded it in for an X-T5 and the 16-80. A smaller, lighter, less expensive lens and stopped down to F5.6 or 8, there is no meaningful difference. And since I use that kit for landscape, the 16-55 made no sense for me.
I haven't yet used the 16-80 because I've had the 18-55 and the 16-55. Also on the prime end, I have the 16mm, 35mm, 50mm, 56mm and viltron 85mm. Maybe I need to try the 16-80. It's just never been appealing because so much of what I do is portrait based; I need that wider aperture. What made you drop the GFX to go back to APSC?
@@jasonberkmanphotography8672 I've been shooting Fujifilm cameras since the X-E1, so about 2012 or thereabouts. Love the design, dials and aperture rings. When I switched from film to digital, I used Canon for about 10 years but never really got on with the bodies and having to constantly twirl dials. Although always pleased with the image quality from X mount, I was curious about medium format. So, I traded in most of the X mount stuff, an X-T4 plus 10-24,16-55, 50-140 and 100-400, but kept the X-Pro 3, the X-T2 (almost worthless on the used market) and a few primes. While the image quality of the GFX is definitely better, it simply isn't better enough in prints to justify the size, weight and cost penalties. If one only looks at the images on a high resolution monitor and regularly zooms in to the pixel level, maybe then it makes more sense but for me, the final output is a print and while I may, repeat may, be able to see a difference in image quality when the print is behind glass and hanging on a wall, no one else can. As I'm now over 70, I'm simply unwilling to carry around a large and heavy kit for such an incremental improvement in image quality.
Nah it's old, bulky and heavy for today's apsc standards. The sigma is a gem, it's as sharp where it counts and tiny. Maybe v2 will be smaller (hopefully)
Seems like the consensus is sigma’s 18-50 is the way to go. I need to get ahold of it because the size and weight of the 16-55 is real! Yeah, maybe they’ll make a version 2 the size of the new 1.4 series primes. That would work!!:)
A lot of new sigma lenses are small because the distortion and other optical charateristics are not correct and the fix is demanded to software, that inevitably decreases quality. With sigma you buy a lens that’s worth less but the software makes it appear better. I’m all in favor of software corrections, i think it’s great to have them, but that shouldn’t be an excuse tu purpusely release lenses with low optical quality just because software can patch it
Today the MkII will be announced. Lighter, smaller and sharper. 😎🥳
STELLAR work Jason! 😊 you are so crazy cool behind that lense.
Thanks Page!! You’re mighty amazing in front and behind the camera!!
Which zoom do you want??
omg sotollen in japan? That's crazy... nice review!
Yeah, that was a bummer! Thank goodness I had the expensive red badges with me!!
I might just have to pick another 18-55 up or get me that 18-50 by Sigma! Do you have either one?
Nice but too bulky and heavy for me. I use the Sigma 18--50mm 2.8 for Fuji. Frankly, the difference in image quality is extremely minimal! In most cases you wouldn't be able to tell who is who on side by side images.
Yes, the Sigma is next for me. Great image quality and half the size sounds amazing for travel. The 16-55 is great but it is heavy:)
Thanks for the comment!!
All of the red badge zooms are now old and in need of updating. The 16-55 has been out for nearly 10 years and is no longer competitive with the newer 24-70 offerings from Canon, Nikon and Sony. It is a good lens, but it's no longer state of the art optically, and as you point out, it is way too big and heavy. I sold my X mount gear and shot with the GFX system for a few years, but earlier this year traded it in for an X-T5 and the 16-80. A smaller, lighter, less expensive lens and stopped down to F5.6 or 8, there is no meaningful difference. And since I use that kit for landscape, the 16-55 made no sense for me.
I haven't yet used the 16-80 because I've had the 18-55 and the 16-55. Also on the prime end, I have the 16mm, 35mm, 50mm, 56mm and viltron 85mm. Maybe I need to try the 16-80. It's just never been appealing because so much of what I do is portrait based; I need that wider aperture. What made you drop the GFX to go back to APSC?
@@jasonberkmanphotography8672 I've been shooting Fujifilm cameras since the X-E1, so about 2012 or thereabouts. Love the design, dials and aperture rings. When I switched from film to digital, I used Canon for about 10 years but never really got on with the bodies and having to constantly twirl dials. Although always pleased with the image quality from X mount, I was curious about medium format. So, I traded in most of the X mount stuff, an X-T4 plus 10-24,16-55, 50-140 and 100-400, but kept the X-Pro 3, the X-T2 (almost worthless on the used market) and a few primes.
While the image quality of the GFX is definitely better, it simply isn't better enough in prints to justify the size, weight and cost penalties. If one only looks at the images on a high resolution monitor and regularly zooms in to the pixel level, maybe then it makes more sense but for me, the final output is a print and while I may, repeat may, be able to see a difference in image quality when the print is behind glass and hanging on a wall, no one else can. As I'm now over 70, I'm simply unwilling to carry around a large and heavy kit for such an incremental improvement in image quality.
Nah it's old, bulky and heavy for today's apsc standards. The sigma is a gem, it's as sharp where it counts and tiny. Maybe v2 will be smaller (hopefully)
Seems like the consensus is sigma’s 18-50 is the way to go. I need to get ahold of it because the size and weight of the 16-55 is real! Yeah, maybe they’ll make a version 2 the size of the new 1.4 series primes. That would work!!:)
A lot of new sigma lenses are small because the distortion and other optical charateristics are not correct and the fix is demanded to software, that inevitably decreases quality. With sigma you buy a lens that’s worth less but the software makes it appear better.
I’m all in favor of software corrections, i think it’s great to have them, but that shouldn’t be an excuse tu purpusely release lenses with low optical quality just because software can patch it