The 16-55mm f2.8 is my favourite mid range Fuji zoom. Paired with a XT4, the lack of OIS on the lens itself isn't an issue. I also use the lens for portraiture. Now, I just need to get back out and do some more landscape photography ... between catching Covid, subsequent lockdowns and work I've almost forgotten what a camera is !
I would imagine this is a good portraiture and wedding lens. I hope you''ve recovered well from COVID, it knocked me off my feet for a couple of weeks last year so I know what it's like. As for the lockdowns, it's been tricky and things were just starting to pick up again, but we seem to have hit another bump in the road...but I'm optimistic things will get better soon
Excellent review. The 16-55 is my every day lens for hiking and one cannot fault its qualities. It cost me more than I thought as I bought it when I had a XT3, but decided that IBIS was the partner for this lens so then upgraded to an XT4. So my hiking and landscape trio is the 10-24 (Mk I) 16-55 and the wonderful 55-200. Thanks for the review.
I have the 16-55 and 55-200 as my main landscape lenses and paired with the Rokinon 20mm it’s a nice focal range. But that 16-55 is money, so sharp. I almost never shoot wider than 16mm with most of my shots in the 16-35mm range.
Thx for the comment about hiking. I'd love to use this for hiking. I treat my lenses like gold. Have you had any dust issues in the lens or within the rings when hiking? I'm in dusty dry California. Thanks. I'm really looking at picking up this lens.
Great Video! 👌 I sold my 16-55 and picked up the sigma 18-50 both are fantastic lenses. For me the sigma nailed it overall Size,Weight,IQ perfect Allrounder.
Andy, another great review! Thank you for making one for the 16-55mm. Let's hope Fuji can make one with IS. More importantly, your images are gorgeously beautiful!
Excellent review! Can't wait to hear your thoughts on the 16-80. I personally feel it's an incredibly slept on lens but can understand that the f/4 is enough to detract some people.
Thanks for the comment, glad you enjoyed the review. I only did a few test shots with the 16-80, but I was impressed by it. I've heard though that quality is variable across different copies, so perhaps I was just using a good copy. F4 is no problem for me at all for a landscape lens
Great lense.The clarity is superb.The weight and lack of an OIS on hikes is never an issue.The mid range zoom is ideal in Oz bush settings with open vistas.Thanks for your comments.
In the setting of a dedicated landscape photographer it may not truly shine. But for someone who wants a lense they can take to shoot portraits, hike up a hill and shoot the vistas, or shoot street photography; well, it's just a powerful lense. I primarily shoot landscape, but I love how much I can do with this lense. The results are spectacular, as well. Great video, as always.
Thanks Andy. I keep going back and forth on this lens but not willing to have that extra weight and expense. That is why I purchased the Fuji in the first place - it is a small base with lighter lenses and fantastic quality primes. I was able to purchase the 16-80 as my kit lens when I purchased the XT4 - I believe it was a $400 savings. I often switch over to the 50-140 even though I find it heavy - what an amazing lens. I just don't know of an alternative to the 50-140 - maybe the 55-200 that you mentioned. But I love that 2.8! I did purchase a 2x extender and with the 50-140 the photos still look awesome. Always appreciate your professional opinion!
Great review thanks Andy, I love using my 16- 55 but do find it tends to stay in the bag since I got the 10-24 and that along with the 50-140 is used mainly. But I love having the 3 and feel that I have the vast majority of focal lengths I will ever need along with lovely image quality. I am going to have to make an effort with the 16-55 so I will go out with just that and force myself to use it , thanks for giving me the inspiration to do it.
I have this lens and it's hands down my favorite. I love it with my 55-200. Covers so much! Now I just want to swap out my 14mm for a 10-24 and I think I'll be fully landscape ready
Essentially the only lens I use during my travels. I bought it when I was using the XT-20, but then I moved to the XS-10 to have the IBIS and leverage the exceptional definition of the lens. at the moment sits in front of my XH2 with great satisfaction. 😊
Thank you very much for this Excellent review, The 16-55 is my every day lens for street shoot.I decided that IBIS was the partner for this lens so then upgraded to an XH1. So my hiking and landscape is the 16-55 and the 55-200. Thanks for the review.
Thank you very much for this valuable review, Andy. I am just back from some shorter hiking trips and I used the 16-80 as my only lens and I find it super versatile. For me the „no stabilization“ on the 16-55 is the dealbreaker, as I am not always willing to put up my tripod. As many landscapers I tend to shoot at f8. The OIS from the 16-80 is really good and so far the image quality looks good to me. Just my style and thoughts. But it was great to see your comparisons. So, I am curious how you get along with the 16-80. Keep up your great videos.
@Wurzel Tee that‘s true, agree. however I am using the X-T3 as the X-T4 has no benefit for me as a pure photographer, no need to upgrade.. however for using the 16-55 f2,8 the ibis would be welcome 🙂. I find even the 16-80 too big for x-t20 or x-t30..
Thoroughly enjoyed this review. Thank you for another great video. I'm been toying with the idea of getting this lens. I think it will do well in my travel kit
Excellent information, Andy. I was in doubt between the 16-55 f/2.8, the 16-80 f/4 and the 18-55 kit, and not only had information about the 16-55, but the others as well. It helped a lot, thank you very much!
Hi Andy, I like the way you review lenses. I do not own 16-55 but do own 18-55 my finding of using this lens have found best aperture for sharpness is f11, this might be useful to anyone with same lens
This Fuji 16-55mm has been fantastic for my street photography and is a 'keeper' :) I am reducing my use of it during winter, as its f2.8 isn't so strong on gloomy, grey days or night time. The f2.8 also gives relatively little bokeh/separation unless you're relatively close to the subject and ideally using its 55mm zoom. The weight of it hasn't bothered me, as I use a short wrist strap to help my wrist take about half of the total weight. I can do a 10 mile walk with it in my hand, with just a couple of rest breaks (but I am a big bloke). Carrying it as a second lens on long walks is a bit more borderline but I have done it. When I carry it in my hand, it protrudes a bit to my side and feels more likely to get bumped or bashed in London crowds than my more compact 33mm lens. But it's still a terrific lens. Use its zoom ambitiously to get the kind of distortion and or natural framing you need for each shot and you'll hugely appreciate its flexibility. Something I really miss when I'm using a prime lens.
I didn't really mention it in the review, but this is a great lens for video work with an excellent focal range. I very rarely need to shoot video wider or longer
Andy - I used this lens for years and absolutely loved it. In over 36 years of photography and dozens of cameras and lenses, this one is right up there with the very best. I only ever shot it wide open (portraits, events, people), and it was so sharp and crisp - I would judge any of my new XF primes by this lens. I shoot zero landscape and scenery so always shot this lens wide open and it never disappointed. The thing that killed it for me was when I bought the 16mm 1.4 - it blew my socks off. Being able to get in so close at wide angle, and with the 1.4 I could blur out the background - I could never do that with the 2.8 zoom. I was always disappointed at wide angle on the zoom that I couldn't blur my backgrounds. That was the only reason I sold the zoom and now only shoot fast primes. However, that 16 1.4 is so head and shoulders above everything else out there, it alone keeps me locked into the Fuji system. That on my X-T3 for about 70% of all my work and the Z50 1.8 on my z6ii for everything else (especially low light and better DR - noticeably better in those conditions than the APSC Fuji). That kit lens was a piece of rubbish - I had 3 of them and never liked it. The 55-200 was an extremely sharp lens wide open, but not a well made lens or nice in any other way. Thanks for this wonderful review and comparison, many people will find this very helpful.
Exactly what I think about this great lens .I had it for 2 years and bought the 16-80 for the OIS and honestly the versatility and image quality vs the tiny bit sharpness of the 16-55 made me just sell it and no regret yet. Maybe on a future XT5 I could think to buy it again. This laowa 9mm ohhh this is interesting ! Thank you, amazing work ,fan from Montreal.
Thanks for the comment, really glad you found the video interesting. I was surprised at how small the difference was with the 16-80 and I'm looking forward to getting hold of a copy to take with me travelling
I love mine and use it a lot on my XH-1and XPro-3 when I don't want to carry a lot of primes in that range. Saves on lens swapping ;) I didn't realize this less had been out that long.
Hey Andy! Another excellent review: Thanks! Cool to see a review for this lens from a landscape photography perspective. I got this lens second hand when I bought a x-t2 as a backup for my x-t3 and I was expecting to sell the lens, but I tried it and really love it. I can't put my finger on it but I just take way better pictures with it than the 18-55. I just love the experience of using it. (mostly use it for events) Hope you are doing well, and hope to be able to go on one of your workshop trips someday!
Thanks for the comment Jaap, glad you enjoyed the video. I wasn't expecting to enjoy the lens as much as I did, but there is something special about it... ...and I'd love to see you on a workshop someday
can't wait for the 16-80 review, bought that with the 70-300 to replace the 18-135. Like it but definitely a lot more swapping lens. That Tamron all the range seems interesting.
I have an X-T 4 and X-S 10. Both those bodies have IBIS so the lack of lens stabilisation doesn’t matter to me. The 16 - 55 balances the weight a bit better on the former but is very useable on the 10. I think the combination of build and image quality makes this a must have lens. If I’m going to carry just one for a lot of general photography this is the one I take. Good review Andy.
I've always call the 16-55mm fuji's "Prime-Zoom" because even as an optics snob like myself, I found I wouldn't reach for my primes as much, because this 16-55mm was so good. There was almost no difference to my primes at f/8 where I shoot a lot. Now, after ordering the X-H2, I am picking up the kit 16-80mm lens with IOS and have to do a shootout to see what it's got. It may just replace my 16-55mm for most of my travel/scenic uses. Apparently the bokeh is very nice too on the 16-80mm. We'll see if it can resolve those fine details like the 16-55mm can on a 40mp sensor. I think the 40mp sensor will separate the men from the boys so to speak in the Fuji optics.
Great stuff as always Andy. Looking forward to seeing how you get on with the 16-80. I’ve been pleasantly surprised by my own copy given some of the reviews. No complaints at all.
Yeah, I should have one in the new year and take it with me on a trip then. I was pleasantly surprised at how good the one I used for the couple of shots here was
I was considering 16-80 for all-rounder before, but all the negative reviews has held me back. If i'm being honest, it's the more appealing lens in your review.
I was pleasantly surprised by how good the 16-80 was in the few shots I used it to compare with. I should be using one on a trip in the new year to get a better idea of how good it is
Looking forward to your take on the 16-80 Andy. To be fair I don’t think the YT compression did the 16-55 justice, that little extra sharpness in certain areas didn’t really come across, even when watched on a 65” Samsung Q9 Tv. The 16-80s contrast certainly did though. Like you I tend to go with an UW and Tele by default, that was until I borrowed the 16-55, I love it. If you don’t mind I’ll hang back for your views on the 16-80 before I commit, no pressure! 😂. Great review Andy.
Thanks for the comment. I’m curious about the 16-80 as well. For this video I borrowed one from a workshop participant to do a couple of comparison shots, but I’ve not spent any significant time with it. It’s on back order everywhere, and Fuji here haven’t been able to lend me their copy as someone else always seems to have it, but at some point I’ll use it for a trip and get a better idea of it
I have the 16 55 f2.8 and have had both the 16 80 and 18 55. They're all great lenses but that 2.8 is flat out astounding. They all take tack sharp photos but the 16 55 overall is better all across the board.
Would be great to see a review of the Fuji XF 18-135mm compared to the Fuji 16-80mm. I had sold the 16-80mm and kept the 18-135, the image quality seems the same.
Thanks for the great video, Andy. I came across an excellent deal (open box demo) 16-55, so I purchased it. As a retiree, I must choose wisely for bigger ticket items. My 18-55 has always been my “out the door” lens. With no lens OIS & no IBIS on my XT-3, it’ll be a bit more of a challenge that I’ll have to hone my skill on working with this lens.
Great review. Thanks. For long the idea of changing my 16-80 to 16-55 to have a bigger aperture keeps bumping my head. Your review finally makes it clear that maybe it's not worth just for twice as much light and a tiny improvement in sharpness paying more and having heavier not stabilized older lens with-I guess-older coating materials that give that flatter look. I'll probably wait a year or two for the mark2 version of 16-55/2.8 and just keep using my 16-80/4.0 lens.
Thanks for the comment Michael, glad you found the review useful. You could be right about older coater materials giving the lens a flatter look, it really suprised me how much more contrasty the 16-80 looked
Thank you for a great video! For landscape, I have the Fuji 10-24 mm and 55-200 mm lenses. I am thinking of adding a medium zoom -which would you advise? The 18-55mm or the 16-80 mm? Appreciate your thoughts!
Thanks for the comment, glad you enjoyed the video. The best mid range is the 16-55, but if you're choosing between the 18-55 and the 16-80, then I'd say go with the 16-80mm
That really depends on your photography and how much you need the mid range in between 56mm and 16mm. The 16mm is a great lens, and the two together are great…but you do miss a lot in the middle
Thanks for this review. hmmm, the 16-55 has been on my list, but I'm thinking maybe the 16-80 now. It's f4 rather than f2.8, but has OIS and covers more range. I'm shooting on an x-t2, so the OIS will help.
Hey Andy, amazing review. Thank you! Please help me. I can get the 16-55 at 637USD almost new and 16-80 at 517USD almost new too. I'm using an X-S10, I don't mind the weight and my main goal is quality photos, videos, and lifetime usage for trips, portraits, family, landscape, and street. I am also planning to get the 70-300mm in the future for my safari trips. I'm just planning to stick with just two lenses, a medium, and a telephoto. With a 120USD price difference, is it worth it to invest with the 16-55? And, if you'll only get one lens for the rest of your life, would you choose the 16-80 over the 16-55 due to its versatility? Thanks again and cheers!
Well, the 16-55 is a better lens, but that gap between 55 and 70 is a gap I personally shoot a lot in, so the 16-80 makes more sense for me. But it really depends on your shooting style.
Hi Andy, hoping you can help with two Fuji issues. Can I buy an L bracket for the xt4 to use with a battery grip and also can I buy a wireless remote release as the app is terrible. Hope you can help and thanks again for all your excellent videos.
Hi Mark, thanks for the comment, but I'm afraid I can't really answer you. I've never used a battery grip so i'm not sure if there's an L bracket that fits. I always get a third party one, but as far as I know none are made for the battery grip. Really Right Stuff might make one, but it'll be expensive. As for the wireless remote, again, I can't help you. I just use a cable remote or a 2 second timer.
Thanks so much Tim, glad you enjoy the channel. For me personally, the 55-70mm is essential, I use it a lot, and it's more useful to me than the 200-300mm range
This is my first lens always fixed to my X-T2. I was pleasantly surprised about the quality of the 16-80, having that lens such a poor consideration among Fuji shooters. Speaking about the new X-H2 or X-T5 that seem will be appearing next year, which points would definitely appear in your wish list Andy? Perhaps a quick video speking about the pros and cons of the Fujifilm ecosistem and related always to your experience would be really interesting.
Thanks for the comment. The 16-80 did impress me on the few shots I did with it. I'm curious about the XH2 and XT5...principally how Fuji are going to differentiate them (assuming they have the same sensor and IBIS), but generally I'm not big on speculating about cameras and features. I do have a plan to make a new video about my experience with the Fuji system...probably early next year
I use the 16-55 a lot, for all sorts of purposes including landscape. When you start pixel peeping in this video however, I'll have to take your word for it because I can't see the difference in the video.
I liked it a lot for this particular trip (where there wasn't much call for ultra wide), but I'd never trade it for the 10-24 or 55-200. I also love that 35mm 1.4 as well
Love this thing to bits. Every photo I take with it is beautiful! But it's so heavy... terrible for travel, street photography, or even family events. I'd kill to get the Sigma 18-50mm on Fuji. I would miss this a lot but wouldn't hate seeing it go.
The 16 - 80 lens has a bit of a reputation for variable build quality. I sold mine to fund the purchase of the 16 - 55 and it was a good copy. I’ve seen one or two images that look like they were taken in the 19th Century. Christopher Frost said it wasn’t so good above 65 to 70 mm as I recall. Consistence in production is really important.
I've heard that about the 16-80 and it's something that's put me off a little. I did a test shot with the version I used for these comparisons at 70mm to compare with the 55-200mm, and there wasn't too much of a difference
If you are landscape photographer simply you must have 10-24mm and for this type photography you don't need f2.8 and 16mm is not wide enough. I have also 55-200 which is always great to have it. I also buy new 23mm 1.4 WR and Sigma 56mm 1.4 for wedding and portraits and I love this combo for lowlight situations. I don't miss FF camera at all. Fuji APS-C sensor with this amazing lenses is unbelievable.
I agree with you - the 10-24 and 55-200 are my landscape essentials, but there are quite a few people who don’t like the ultra wide look in their images, and if that’s the case then this lens is a brilliant option
@@AndyMumford Yes most people don't like ultra wide lens because have distortion and vigneting. For shooting people (faces) can be a big problem but for landscape is not too much noticeable (only in the corners sometimes you will see distortion if you shot building,church... ) . Maybe now the Tamron 17-70 2.8 is also a nice option and now this year coming Sigma 18-50 2.8. But for me 10-24 give that nice perspective, creativity and you can make leading lines.
Andy, how much weight do you give overall lens sharpness when deciding between lenses of the same focal range versus other things like WR, OIS, weight, aperture, etc.
Good question, but I’m not sure how to answer. Fast apertures are less important to me than weight, and I’m not all that bothered by WR. So it’s usually a balance between sharpness and weight
Thanx for the video. Dont have the lens but it looks really good. But i would love a review between leowa 9 mm and 10-24 mm. In general landscapes and not the least nighttime/aurora/milkyway etc. Have a great day :-)
I've done reviews of both lenses. I can't remember when I reviewed the 9mm whether I compared it with the 10-24mm...I think so. It's pretty sharp, as good in the centers but not as good in the corners, and it vignettes
Thanks for the comment, glad you enjoyed it. The Canon R5 is a full frame camera, so the 9mm wouldn't fit. An equivalent would be something like 14mm, and Laowa do make one for full frame which fits with Canons EF mount....but I don't know enough about Canon to know whether that means it fits their mirrorless cameras.
Fantastic photo’s as always, Andy! The 16-55 is my go-to lens when I’m out and about and don’t know what I will get to shoot. Your test shots were at f/8, but I think you’ll find that if you shoot at 2.8 or 4.0, the differences in IQ with the other Fuji midrange zooms will be much more prominent. For pure landscape (or cityscape) photography, the 10-24 remains my fav lens. Thanks for the wonderful vid!
The lack of OIS in the 16-55 seems odd to me. The 10-24 f4 has it as does the 50-140 f2.8. I have always wondered how Fuji can make an f2.8 50-140 (75-210 FF equivalent) with an internal zoom and OIS, and not be able to make an f2.8 16-55 (24-72 FF equivalent) with the same features.
@@AndyMumford Canon is the same. Its 24-70 f2.8 has a telescoping zoom and no OIS, while its 70-200 f2.8 has an internal zoom and OIS is at least available.
Thanks for the great review Andy. This lens lives on my XT-4, especially when I don't have a plan for what I'm shooting. I'm debating between the 8-16 or the Lowa 9mm for on the wide end for landscape. For tele, I've heard good things about the 90mm f2. I have a trip to Patagonia in 2023 that I have time to save for any of those lenses. Would be happy to hear your thoughts. Thanks.
Thanks for the comment, glad you enjoyed the review. The 90mm is an incredible lens, one of the sharpest that Fuji make. As for the wide angle, I would say wait a little. Tamron have announced they will release 3 lenses for Fuji this year, the first is already out. One of those lenses is expected to be the 11-20mm f2.8, which is a pretty small lens and if the image quality is good, looks like it will be extremely useful. If your trip isn't until 2023 and you can wait, it might be worth waiting to see.
Hi Andy, its a great pleasure for me as a beginner to discover your channel as a lovely gem, and I love how you explain, its way better than any books that made me really learn! May I seek for your kindly advice? I have been using 18-55 lens only with XE2 for my daily life. I will be travelling to Nepal trekking, and I am wondering if i should buy a 16-80 or 70-300 ( I dunno which one to choose) to replace 18-55 is better? Is it better to bring 1 lens only for beginners? Also for camera, I am thinking about upgrading it to Xs10, XT3 and XT30 II, which one will you choose? Thanks a lot for your reply. Take care!
The 16-80 has not more contrast, the whole picture is darker. It just has a worse t value, there is not as much light getting to the sensor as in the other lens. And that would make perfect sense, that a pricier lens gets the better coating for the lens elements which let more light pass which leads to brighter images.
I love your work. I am surprised that you haven't had a mid range zoom in your usual kit bag as it's the one I'd pack 1st. Don't you feel inhibited by the lack of coverage there
Not at all. I've always found the mid range to be the least interesting from a landscape point of view. It's a personal thing, but I enjoy shooting the scene in a such a way that it isn't quite the same as we see it with our eyes, and so I love how an ultra wide angle feels, and I love the intimacy and capacity of a telephoto to create abstracts. The mid range always felt like it doesn't do either, and throughout my years of shooting it's always the lens I use least to the point where I rarely carry one. I did enjoy using the 16-55, it's a super high quality lens, but a lot of the images I shot with it were at either end, which I could have shot with the 10-24 or 55-200mm.
@@AndyMumford I do get you. TBH it's the 16mm end that I'd often use. I've just recently found myself using the longer end for wooded areas, but traditionally my go to landscape lens is 10-24 which is just amazing. West Somerset is good just doesn't quite measure up to the Dolomites!
Fujinon xf 16-55mm f2.8 r lm wr Un obiettivo di notevole qualità in termini ottici e meccanici, ottima luminosità ma un grande grandissimo difetto: la gomma dello zoom (grip anello) si è usurata e scollata utilizzando l'obiettivo in maniera poco intensiva e per brevi periodi. Considerando il costo dell'obiettivo mi aspettavo il massimo in tutto, anche perchè viene venduto come "obiettivo tropicalizzato" cioè resistente alle intemperie, polvere, ecc; per la sostituzione va mandato unicamente al centro assistenza a Milano a vostre spese, costo del cambio gomma tra 100 e 150 euro. Un vecchio obiettivo zoom usato per oltre 20 anni su una reflex analogica le gomme sono praticamente indenni. GRANDISSIMA DELUSIONE (disponibile video)
Excellent review again, your landscape perspective on Fuji lenses is invaluable. Very interested (and surprised) to see how well the 16-80 image quality stood up to the 16-55. I own the 16-80, and for typical landscape shots its image quality is poor, so much more mushy (technical term!) than your samples. It does seem to be the most inconsistent lens Fuji have produced in that regard, but I think you've encouraged me to try another copy, because everything else about it is excellent (OIS, focal range, weather sealing).
Thanks for the comment, glad you enjoyed the review. I only did a few test shots with the 16-80, but I was impressed by it. I've heard though that quality is variable across different copies, so perhaps I was just using a good copy. Hopefully early next year I'll be able to take one away with me on a trip and give it a proper review
The 16 to 80 actually outperforms the 16 to 55 in the same range in mtf charts, slightly. Some weaknesses in the 16 mm corners (but great midframe and center) and definitely not amazingly sharp at 80 mm. Most of the issues with this lens was due to the shutter shock from OIS creating blur to the images. Use electronic shutters.
@@anonymousl5150 I hadn't heard that about the OIS, although I shoot a lot on a tripod, so it shouldn't be such a factor. I have persisted with the lens though, it's so versatile. I also recently purchased DXO Pure RAW which does fantastic things for the image quality of of Fuji raw files, and I think as a result I'll be happy to use the 16-80 for the foreseeable future.
I bought used 16-80 and it seems like my is broken. The IQ is quite mediocre. When I opened the file in Lightroom I was shocked how bad it is. In Capture One thought it's usable, but the contrast is not good and I can't really crop meanwhile with 50-140 I can easily crop a half on a 40MP file without any loss. Now I'm waiting for the 16-55 used again. Will see
I love my 16-55 f2.8 and it has great bokeh too, but I don’t use it as much as I have no cameras with IBIS. I have been considering adding a X-S10 to my kit just for the IBIS. I tend to use the amazing 10-24 f4 and 16-80 f4 most as they pair well with my X-T3. Thanks for the review.
Thanks for the comment, glad you enjoyed the review. I think if you've got the 16-80, then the 16-55 is going to have a lot less use unless you're shooting wide open
I think a lot really depends on what your use case is. For landscapes, which is what I'm talking about in this review, an F4 lens is no problem at all as you're almost certainly going to be using a tripod in low light, rather than shooting at f2.8 and having to worry about depth of field
At 55 mm, 55-200 beats 16-55 at f/5.6-11, not on the same resolution level. At 16 mm, 10-24 beats 16-55 at f/5.6-11, not on the same resolution level again. The red badge is really a disappoinment if one does not use F/2.8.
@@djstuc At first I bought a used 1655 and compared it with 1024 and 55200. Disappointing so I returned the lens and rented a 1655 from a store. This 1655 was better in resolution than the returned one (which might have been defective) but still couldn't be competitive with 1024 and 55200 at 16 mm and 55 mm, f/5.6-f11. A few months later I bought a brand new 1655 but the comparison was the same as the rental one. I keep this 1655 since I need the focal range. But I only take 1024 and 55200 to landscape photo trips. 1655 is too heavy and I don't like its the resolution performance.
![30 ชั่วโมงคนเดียว บนรถไฟชั้น 3 โซเวียต [Around The World Ep. 2]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/MlE9boAVqDA/mqdefault.jpg)
The 16-55mm f2.8 is my favourite mid range Fuji zoom. Paired with a XT4, the lack of OIS on the lens itself isn't an issue. I also use the lens for portraiture. Now, I just need to get back out and do some more landscape photography ... between catching Covid, subsequent lockdowns and work I've almost forgotten what a camera is !
I would imagine this is a good portraiture and wedding lens. I hope you''ve recovered well from COVID, it knocked me off my feet for a couple of weeks last year so I know what it's like. As for the lockdowns, it's been tricky and things were just starting to pick up again, but we seem to have hit another bump in the road...but I'm optimistic things will get better soon
Excellent review. The 16-55 is my every day lens for hiking and one cannot fault its qualities. It cost me more than I thought as I bought it when I had a XT3, but decided that IBIS was the partner for this lens so then upgraded to an XT4. So my hiking and landscape trio is the 10-24 (Mk I) 16-55 and the wonderful 55-200. Thanks for the review.
Thanks for the comment, glad you enjoyed the review
I have the same lineup! Nice
I have the 16-55 and 55-200 as my main landscape lenses and paired with the Rokinon 20mm it’s a nice focal range. But that 16-55 is money, so sharp. I almost never shoot wider than 16mm with most of my shots in the 16-35mm range.
Thx for the comment about hiking. I'd love to use this for hiking. I treat my lenses like gold. Have you had any dust issues in the lens or within the rings when hiking? I'm in dusty dry California. Thanks. I'm really looking at picking up this lens.
Great Video! 👌
I sold my 16-55 and picked up the sigma 18-50 both are fantastic lenses. For me the sigma nailed it overall Size,Weight,IQ perfect Allrounder.
Sigma are putting out some great lenses for the Fuji system
Andy, another great review! Thank you for making one for the 16-55mm. Let's hope Fuji can make one with IS. More importantly, your images are gorgeously beautiful!
Thanks so much for the comment, really glad you like my images
I've literally just bought this lens and can not wait to start using it. Great review, Andy!
It's a lovely lens, I'm sure you'll love it
Thx for the review..this lens is the sharpest and solid lens for my landscape photos..even open its from amazing sharpness.
Thanks for the comment, glad you enjoyed the review
Thank you, Andy. As a Fujifilm user, I always find much help from watching your video. Hopefully, I can join your workshop one day.
Thanks so much for the comment, glad you find the videos useful...and I hope to see you on a workshop someday
Hi Andy,thanks for your feedback.
You're welcome
I use this lens a lot and when traveling add the 55-200. I also carry the sharp, lightweight XC 15-45 for a bit more wide angle.
Its a great lens
Excellent review! Can't wait to hear your thoughts on the 16-80. I personally feel it's an incredibly slept on lens but can understand that the f/4 is enough to detract some people.
Thanks for the comment, glad you enjoyed the review. I only did a few test shots with the 16-80, but I was impressed by it. I've heard though that quality is variable across different copies, so perhaps I was just using a good copy. F4 is no problem for me at all for a landscape lens
forget the camera, your photography is just amazing regardless what camera that you use
Thanks so much for the comment, glad you enjoyed it 🙏
Great lense.The clarity is superb.The weight and lack of an OIS on hikes is never an issue.The mid range zoom is ideal in Oz bush settings with open vistas.Thanks for your comments.
It is indeed a lovely lens
I just bought this lens used. I couldn’t be happier. The added weight over the “kit” 18-55 which I have used for a few years was totally worth it.
Glad you’re enjoying the lens
Well done Andy. Thanks for sharing. Great photos.
Thanks so much, glad you enjoyed the review
In the setting of a dedicated landscape photographer it may not truly shine. But for someone who wants a lense they can take to shoot portraits, hike up a hill and shoot the vistas, or shoot street photography; well, it's just a powerful lense. I primarily shoot landscape, but I love how much I can do with this lense. The results are spectacular, as well. Great video, as always.
Thanks Andy. I keep going back and forth on this lens but not willing to have that extra weight and expense. That is why I purchased the Fuji in the first place - it is a small base with lighter lenses and fantastic quality primes. I was able to purchase the 16-80 as my kit lens when I purchased the XT4 - I believe it was a $400 savings. I often switch over to the 50-140 even though I find it heavy - what an amazing lens. I just don't know of an alternative to the 50-140 - maybe the 55-200 that you mentioned. But I love that 2.8! I did purchase a 2x extender and with the 50-140 the photos still look awesome.
Always appreciate your professional opinion!
Thanks for the comment Eileen, glad you enjoyed the video
Great review thanks Andy, I love using my 16- 55 but do find it tends to stay in the bag since I got the 10-24 and that along with the 50-140 is used mainly. But I love having the 3 and feel that I have the vast majority of focal lengths I will ever need along with lovely image quality. I am going to have to make an effort with the 16-55 so I will go out with just that and force myself to use it , thanks for giving me the inspiration to do it.
It's a lovely lens for sure, and in certain situations the focal length is incredibly useful
I have this lens and it's hands down my favorite. I love it with my 55-200. Covers so much! Now I just want to swap out my 14mm for a 10-24 and I think I'll be fully landscape ready
The 10-24mm is an incredible, you'll really like it
Thank you for this video. My favorite is probably the XF 18-55 mm. Kind regards!
It's a lovely lens
Damn Andy, these pics are incredible.
Thanks so much 🙏
Essentially the only lens I use during my travels. I bought it when I was using the XT-20, but then I moved to the XS-10 to have the IBIS and leverage the exceptional definition of the lens. at the moment sits in front of my XH2 with great satisfaction. 😊
Thanks for the comment and all the best with your travels
Thank you very much for this Excellent review, The 16-55 is my every day lens for street shoot.I decided that IBIS was the partner for this lens so then upgraded to an XH1. So my hiking and landscape is the 16-55 and the 55-200. Thanks for the review.
Wow, XH1 with this lens is a huge setup for street.
That's a pretty decent set up, it gives you a lot of coverage
Thank you very much for this valuable review, Andy. I am just back from some shorter hiking trips and I used the 16-80 as my only lens and I find it super versatile. For me the „no stabilization“ on the 16-55 is the dealbreaker, as I am not always willing to put up my tripod. As many landscapers I tend to shoot at f8. The OIS from the 16-80 is really good and so far the image quality looks good to me. Just my style and thoughts. But it was great to see your comparisons. So, I am curious how you get along with the 16-80. Keep up your great videos.
Thanks for the comment, glad you enjoyed the video. I'm looking forward to using the 16-80 more
@Wurzel Tee that‘s true, agree. however I am using the X-T3 as the X-T4 has no benefit for me as a pure photographer, no need to upgrade.. however for using the 16-55 f2,8 the ibis would be welcome 🙂. I find even the 16-80 too big for x-t20 or x-t30..
Thoroughly enjoyed this review. Thank you for another great video.
I'm been toying with the idea of getting this lens.
I think it will do well in my travel kit
Thanks for the comment, glad you found the review useful
Excellent information, Andy. I was in doubt between the 16-55 f/2.8, the 16-80 f/4 and the 18-55 kit, and not only had information about the 16-55, but the others as well. It helped a lot, thank you very much!
Thanks so much, glad the video was useful
Thanks for a great and thorough review! Very helpful!
Thanks for the comment, glad it was useful
Excellent as always Andy 👍
Thanks so much Steve
Hi Andy, I like the way you review lenses. I do not own 16-55 but do own 18-55 my finding of using this lens have found best aperture for sharpness is f11, this might be useful to anyone with same lens
Thanks for the comment
This Fuji 16-55mm has been fantastic for my street photography and is a 'keeper' :) I am reducing my use of it during winter, as its f2.8 isn't so strong on gloomy, grey days or night time. The f2.8 also gives relatively little bokeh/separation unless you're relatively close to the subject and ideally using its 55mm zoom.
The weight of it hasn't bothered me, as I use a short wrist strap to help my wrist take about half of the total weight. I can do a 10 mile walk with it in my hand, with just a couple of rest breaks (but I am a big bloke). Carrying it as a second lens on long walks is a bit more borderline but I have done it.
When I carry it in my hand, it protrudes a bit to my side and feels more likely to get bumped or bashed in London crowds than my more compact 33mm lens.
But it's still a terrific lens. Use its zoom ambitiously to get the kind of distortion and or natural framing you need for each shot and you'll hugely appreciate its flexibility. Something I really miss when I'm using a prime lens.
Thanks for the comment
Love your reviews Andy. Beautiful images too!
Thanks so much, really glad you enjoyed the video
Breathtaking photography as usual!
Thanks so much, glad you enjoyed it
I knew that this is a great lens but now on my xt5 with the 40 mp sensor it is mindblowing.
It’s an outstanding lens
A very good review. Thanks so much 👍👍👍
Thanks so much , glad you enjoyed it
16-55 2.8 spends 90% of it's time glued to my X-T4, for both video and photo work.
I didn't really mention it in the review, but this is a great lens for video work with an excellent focal range. I very rarely need to shoot video wider or longer
Andy - I used this lens for years and absolutely loved it. In over 36 years of photography and dozens of cameras and lenses, this one is right up there with the very best. I only ever shot it wide open (portraits, events, people), and it was so sharp and crisp - I would judge any of my new XF primes by this lens. I shoot zero landscape and scenery so always shot this lens wide open and it never disappointed. The thing that killed it for me was when I bought the 16mm 1.4 - it blew my socks off. Being able to get in so close at wide angle, and with the 1.4 I could blur out the background - I could never do that with the 2.8 zoom. I was always disappointed at wide angle on the zoom that I couldn't blur my backgrounds. That was the only reason I sold the zoom and now only shoot fast primes. However, that 16 1.4 is so head and shoulders above everything else out there, it alone keeps me locked into the Fuji system. That on my X-T3 for about 70% of all my work and the Z50 1.8 on my z6ii for everything else (especially low light and better DR - noticeably better in those conditions than the APSC Fuji). That kit lens was a piece of rubbish - I had 3 of them and never liked it. The 55-200 was an extremely sharp lens wide open, but not a well made lens or nice in any other way. Thanks for this wonderful review and comparison, many people will find this very helpful.
Thanks for the comment, glad you enjoyed the review
Exactly what I think about this great lens .I had it for 2 years and bought the 16-80 for the OIS and honestly the versatility and image quality vs the tiny bit sharpness of the 16-55 made me just sell it and no regret yet. Maybe on a future XT5 I could think to buy it again. This laowa 9mm ohhh this is interesting ! Thank you, amazing work ,fan from Montreal.
Thanks for the comment, really glad you found the video interesting. I was surprised at how small the difference was with the 16-80 and I'm looking forward to getting hold of a copy to take with me travelling
I love mine and use it a lot on my XH-1and XPro-3 when I don't want to carry a lot of primes in that range. Saves on lens swapping ;) I didn't realize this less had been out that long.
It's a lovely lens...and yeah, it's been out a while now. I switched to Fuji in 2015, and it had already been around a year or so at that point.
Hey Andy! Another excellent review: Thanks! Cool to see a review for this lens from a landscape photography perspective. I got this lens second hand when I bought a x-t2 as a backup for my x-t3 and I was expecting to sell the lens, but I tried it and really love it. I can't put my finger on it but I just take way better pictures with it than the 18-55. I just love the experience of using it. (mostly use it for events) Hope you are doing well, and hope to be able to go on one of your workshop trips someday!
Thanks for the comment Jaap, glad you enjoyed the video. I wasn't expecting to enjoy the lens as much as I did, but there is something special about it...
...and I'd love to see you on a workshop someday
can't wait for the 16-80 review, bought that with the 70-300 to replace the 18-135. Like it but definitely a lot more swapping lens. That Tamron all the range seems interesting.
I should have the 16-80 review early next year. Depends on when I get hold of the lens
I have an X-T 4 and X-S 10. Both those bodies have IBIS so the lack of lens stabilisation doesn’t matter to me. The 16 - 55 balances the weight a bit better on the former but is very useable on the 10. I think the combination of build and image quality makes this a must have lens. If I’m going to carry just one for a lot of general photography this is the one I take. Good review Andy.
Thanks for the comment, glad you enjoyed the review
thanks for your opinion 👍🏼Im considering buying x s10 with a 16-55 mm
I've always call the 16-55mm fuji's "Prime-Zoom" because even as an optics snob like myself, I found I wouldn't reach for my primes as much, because this 16-55mm was so good. There was almost no difference to my primes at f/8 where I shoot a lot. Now, after ordering the X-H2, I am picking up the kit 16-80mm lens with IOS and have to do a shootout to see what it's got. It may just replace my 16-55mm for most of my travel/scenic uses. Apparently the bokeh is very nice too on the 16-80mm. We'll see if it can resolve those fine details like the 16-55mm can on a 40mp sensor. I think the 40mp sensor will separate the men from the boys so to speak in the Fuji optics.
It’s is an excellent lens, and I’m also interested to see how the 16-80 performs on it
It’s is an excellent lens, and I’m also interested to see how the 16-80 performs on it
Are you able to update on your experience with 16-80 vs 16-55
Great stuff as always Andy. Looking forward to seeing how you get on with the 16-80. I’ve been pleasantly surprised by my own copy given some of the reviews. No complaints at all.
Yeah, I should have one in the new year and take it with me on a trip then. I was pleasantly surprised at how good the one I used for the couple of shots here was
Przepiękne zdjęcia. Gratuluję! Mam pragnienie powrotu do fotografii. Marzy mi się Fuji x-t4 i właśnie ten obiektyw.
Pozdrowienia z Polski!
Thanks so much, hope you can get hold of the XT4 and 16-55 soon
Excellent review
Thanks so much, glad you found it useful
I was considering 16-80 for all-rounder before, but all the negative reviews has held me back. If i'm being honest, it's the more appealing lens in your review.
I was pleasantly surprised by how good the 16-80 was in the few shots I used it to compare with. I should be using one on a trip in the new year to get a better idea of how good it is
Looking forward to your take on the 16-80 Andy. To be fair I don’t think the YT compression did the 16-55 justice, that little extra sharpness in certain areas didn’t really come across, even when watched on a 65” Samsung Q9 Tv. The 16-80s contrast certainly did though. Like you I tend to go with an UW and Tele by default, that was until I borrowed the 16-55, I love it. If you don’t mind I’ll hang back for your views on the 16-80 before I commit, no pressure! 😂. Great review Andy.
Thanks for the comment. I’m curious about the 16-80 as well. For this video I borrowed one from a workshop participant to do a couple of comparison shots, but I’ve not spent any significant time with it. It’s on back order everywhere, and Fuji here haven’t been able to lend me their copy as someone else always seems to have it, but at some point I’ll use it for a trip and get a better idea of it
I have the 16 55 f2.8 and have had both the 16 80 and 18 55. They're all great lenses but that 2.8 is flat out astounding. They all take tack sharp photos but the 16 55 overall is better all across the board.
It's a great lens
Would be great to see a review of the Fuji XF 18-135mm compared to the Fuji 16-80mm. I had sold the 16-80mm and kept the 18-135, the image quality seems the same.
I've never really thought about the 18-135. I might have a look at the 18-120mm later next year though
Thanks for the great video, Andy. I came across an excellent deal (open box demo) 16-55, so I purchased it. As a retiree, I must choose wisely for bigger ticket items. My 18-55 has always been my “out the door” lens. With no lens OIS & no IBIS on my XT-3, it’ll be a bit more of a challenge that I’ll have to hone my skill on working with this lens.
It's a great lens, you'll really enjoy it
Great review. Thanks. For long the idea of changing my 16-80 to 16-55 to have a bigger aperture keeps bumping my head. Your review finally makes it clear that maybe it's not worth just for twice as much light and a tiny improvement in sharpness paying more and having heavier not stabilized older lens with-I guess-older coating materials that give that flatter look. I'll probably wait a year or two for the mark2 version of 16-55/2.8 and just keep using my 16-80/4.0 lens.
Thanks for the comment Michael, glad you found the review useful. You could be right about older coater materials giving the lens a flatter look, it really suprised me how much more contrasty the 16-80 looked
I think the 16-55 has superior coatings to the 16-80 if I’m not mistaken
If it's Fuji's lens it might be same one I used. A remarkable piece of glass, at the time I used it with a X-H1 and it's an amazing setup.
It probably is...the lens I borrowed had certainly seen some use.
Thank you for a great video! For landscape, I have the Fuji 10-24 mm and 55-200 mm lenses. I am thinking of adding a medium zoom -which would you advise? The 18-55mm or the 16-80 mm? Appreciate your thoughts!
Thanks for the comment, glad you enjoyed the video. The best mid range is the 16-55, but if you're choosing between the 18-55 and the 16-80, then I'd say go with the 16-80mm
@@AndyMumford Thank you, again sir.
I already own the XF56mm - do you think I'm better off buying the 14mm or 16mm prime instead of this zoom for landscape?
That really depends on your photography and how much you need the mid range in between 56mm and 16mm. The 16mm is a great lens, and the two together are great…but you do miss a lot in the middle
Thanks for this review. hmmm, the 16-55 has been on my list, but I'm thinking maybe the 16-80 now. It's f4 rather than f2.8, but has OIS and covers more range. I'm shooting on an x-t2, so the OIS will help.
Thanks for the comment, glad you enjoyed the review
Hey Andy, amazing review. Thank you! Please help me. I can get the 16-55 at 637USD almost new and 16-80 at 517USD almost new too. I'm using an X-S10, I don't mind the weight and my main goal is quality photos, videos, and lifetime usage for trips, portraits, family, landscape, and street. I am also planning to get the 70-300mm in the future for my safari trips. I'm just planning to stick with just two lenses, a medium, and a telephoto. With a 120USD price difference, is it worth it to invest with the 16-55? And, if you'll only get one lens for the rest of your life, would you choose the 16-80 over the 16-55 due to its versatility? Thanks again and cheers!
Well, the 16-55 is a better lens, but that gap between 55 and 70 is a gap I personally shoot a lot in, so the 16-80 makes more sense for me. But it really depends on your shooting style.
Hi Andy, hoping you can help with two Fuji issues. Can I buy an L bracket for the xt4 to use with a battery grip and also can I buy a wireless remote release as the app is terrible.
Hope you can help and thanks again for all your excellent videos.
Hi Mark, thanks for the comment, but I'm afraid I can't really answer you. I've never used a battery grip so i'm not sure if there's an L bracket that fits. I always get a third party one, but as far as I know none are made for the battery grip. Really Right Stuff might make one, but it'll be expensive.
As for the wireless remote, again, I can't help you. I just use a cable remote or a 2 second timer.
love the channel. Currently have the 16-55, looking to add either the 55-200 or 70-300. Not sure if the 55-70 gap is a huge deal...thoughts?
Thanks so much Tim, glad you enjoy the channel. For me personally, the 55-70mm is essential, I use it a lot, and it's more useful to me than the 200-300mm range
This is my first lens always fixed to my X-T2. I was pleasantly surprised about the quality of the 16-80, having that lens such a poor consideration among Fuji shooters.
Speaking about the new X-H2 or X-T5 that seem will be appearing next year, which points would definitely appear in your wish list Andy? Perhaps a quick video speking about the pros and cons of the Fujifilm ecosistem and related always to your experience would be really interesting.
Thanks for the comment. The 16-80 did impress me on the few shots I did with it. I'm curious about the XH2 and XT5...principally how Fuji are going to differentiate them (assuming they have the same sensor and IBIS), but generally I'm not big on speculating about cameras and features.
I do have a plan to make a new video about my experience with the Fuji system...probably early next year
I use the 16-55 a lot, for all sorts of purposes including landscape.
When you start pixel peeping in this video however, I'll have to take your word for it because I can't see the difference in the video.
Yeah, it's tricky to see the differences after TH-cam compression.
It's a technically great lens but just didn't do it for me. I recently sold mine and picked up the 35mm f1.4 to sit between my 10-24 and 50-140.
I liked it a lot for this particular trip (where there wasn't much call for ultra wide), but I'd never trade it for the 10-24 or 55-200. I also love that 35mm 1.4 as well
Everytime I put this lens on my XT4 , I am surprised how good this lens is.Fortunately it can make us of the IBIS of the XT4
It's a great lens for sure
Love this thing to bits. Every photo I take with it is beautiful! But it's so heavy... terrible for travel, street photography, or even family events. I'd kill to get the Sigma 18-50mm on Fuji. I would miss this a lot but wouldn't hate seeing it go.
It is a lovely lens, but yeah, it's heavy and I can't imagine carrying it as well as the 10-24mm on long hikes.
The 16 - 80 lens has a bit of a reputation for variable build quality. I sold mine to fund the purchase of the 16 - 55 and it was a good copy. I’ve seen one or two images that look like they were taken in the 19th Century. Christopher Frost said it wasn’t so good above 65 to 70 mm as I recall. Consistence in production is really important.
I've heard that about the 16-80 and it's something that's put me off a little. I did a test shot with the version I used for these comparisons at 70mm to compare with the 55-200mm, and there wasn't too much of a difference
If you are landscape photographer simply you must have 10-24mm and for this type photography you don't need f2.8 and 16mm is not wide enough. I have also 55-200 which is always great to have it. I also buy new 23mm 1.4 WR and Sigma 56mm 1.4 for wedding and portraits and I love this combo for lowlight situations. I don't miss FF camera at all. Fuji APS-C sensor with this amazing lenses is unbelievable.
I agree with you - the 10-24 and 55-200 are my landscape essentials, but there are quite a few people who don’t like the ultra wide look in their images, and if that’s the case then this lens is a brilliant option
@@AndyMumford Yes most people don't like ultra wide lens because have distortion and vigneting. For shooting people (faces) can be a big problem but for landscape is not too much noticeable (only in the corners sometimes you will see distortion if you shot building,church... ) . Maybe now the Tamron 17-70 2.8 is also a nice option and now this year coming Sigma 18-50 2.8. But for me 10-24 give that nice perspective, creativity and you can make leading lines.
Great video! Question for you, do you shoot RAW or do you use any film recipes ever?
Thanks for the comment. I always shoot my images in RAW and edit in Lightroom
Andy, how much weight do you give overall lens sharpness when deciding between lenses of the same focal range versus other things like WR, OIS, weight, aperture, etc.
Good question, but I’m not sure how to answer. Fast apertures are less important to me than weight, and I’m not all that bothered by WR. So it’s usually a balance between sharpness and weight
@@AndyMumford Thank you!
Very good review. Were all shots taken with an XT4?
Thanks for the comment. Yes, all the images were XT4
Thanx for the video. Dont have the lens but it looks really good. But i would love a review between leowa 9 mm and 10-24 mm. In general landscapes and not the least nighttime/aurora/milkyway etc.
Have a great day :-)
I've done reviews of both lenses. I can't remember when I reviewed the 9mm whether I compared it with the 10-24mm...I think so. It's pretty sharp, as good in the centers but not as good in the corners, and it vignettes
Hi, i really enjoy all of your videos, keep it up:) One question, can you use the laowa 9mm with the eos R5?
Thanks for the comment, glad you enjoyed it. The Canon R5 is a full frame camera, so the 9mm wouldn't fit. An equivalent would be something like 14mm, and Laowa do make one for full frame which fits with Canons EF mount....but I don't know enough about Canon to know whether that means it fits their mirrorless cameras.
@@AndyMumford thanks a lot for your comment:)
So 9mm is equal to 14mm on full frame?! Thats great!! Thanks and have a good day xD
Fantastic photo’s as always, Andy! The 16-55 is my go-to lens when I’m out and about and don’t know what I will get to shoot. Your test shots were at f/8, but I think you’ll find that if you shoot at 2.8 or 4.0, the differences in IQ with the other Fuji midrange zooms will be much more prominent. For pure landscape (or cityscape) photography, the 10-24 remains my fav lens. Thanks for the wonderful vid!
Thanks for the comment, glad you enjoyed the video.
One of the best Fuji lenses, also for video purposes :)
It’s a great lens for video
The lack of OIS in the 16-55 seems odd to me. The 10-24 f4 has it as does the 50-140 f2.8. I have always wondered how Fuji can make an f2.8 50-140 (75-210 FF equivalent) with an internal zoom and OIS, and not be able to make an f2.8 16-55 (24-72 FF equivalent) with the same features.
It's always been a bit of an oddity that Fuji never gave this lens OIS. Less important now in camera stabilisation, but it still does feel odd
@@AndyMumford Canon is the same. Its 24-70 f2.8 has a telescoping zoom and no OIS, while its 70-200 f2.8 has an internal zoom and OIS is at least available.
Thanks for the great review Andy. This lens lives on my XT-4, especially when I don't have a plan for what I'm shooting. I'm debating between the 8-16 or the Lowa 9mm for on the wide end for landscape. For tele, I've heard good things about the 90mm f2. I have a trip to Patagonia in 2023 that I have time to save for any of those lenses. Would be happy to hear your thoughts. Thanks.
Thanks for the comment, glad you enjoyed the review. The 90mm is an incredible lens, one of the sharpest that Fuji make.
As for the wide angle, I would say wait a little. Tamron have announced they will release 3 lenses for Fuji this year, the first is already out. One of those lenses is expected to be the 11-20mm f2.8, which is a pretty small lens and if the image quality is good, looks like it will be extremely useful. If your trip isn't until 2023 and you can wait, it might be worth waiting to see.
whoooaaaaaaa... speechless ..
Thanks so much 🙏
Thanks so much, glad you enjoyed it 🙏
Hi Andy, its a great pleasure for me as a beginner to discover your channel as a lovely gem, and I love how you explain, its way better than any books that made me really learn! May I seek for your kindly advice? I have been using 18-55 lens only with XE2 for my daily life. I will be travelling to Nepal trekking, and I am wondering if i should buy a 16-80 or 70-300 ( I dunno which one to choose) to replace 18-55 is better? Is it better to bring 1 lens only for beginners? Also for camera, I am thinking about upgrading it to Xs10, XT3 and XT30 II, which one will you choose? Thanks a lot for your reply. Take care!
Thanks for the comment. I'd really recommend the 16-80mm, and from those cameras I'd say the XT3 is the best one to get
@@AndyMumford Thank you so much for your recommendation Andy!
Thanks 🥃🥃
Thanks so much, glad you enjoyed it
The 16-80 has not more contrast, the whole picture is darker. It just has a worse t value, there is not as much light getting to the sensor as in the other lens. And that would make perfect sense, that a pricier lens gets the better coating for the lens elements which let more light pass which leads to brighter images.
I love your work. I am surprised that you haven't had a mid range zoom in your usual kit bag as it's the one I'd pack 1st. Don't you feel inhibited by the lack of coverage there
Not at all. I've always found the mid range to be the least interesting from a landscape point of view. It's a personal thing, but I enjoy shooting the scene in a such a way that it isn't quite the same as we see it with our eyes, and so I love how an ultra wide angle feels, and I love the intimacy and capacity of a telephoto to create abstracts. The mid range always felt like it doesn't do either, and throughout my years of shooting it's always the lens I use least to the point where I rarely carry one. I did enjoy using the 16-55, it's a super high quality lens, but a lot of the images I shot with it were at either end, which I could have shot with the 10-24 or 55-200mm.
@@AndyMumford I do get you. TBH it's the 16mm end that I'd often use. I've just recently found myself using the longer end for wooded areas, but traditionally my go to landscape lens is 10-24 which is just amazing. West Somerset is good just doesn't quite measure up to the Dolomites!
10:14 Image to the right looks to have better overall contrast, micro contrast and clarity.
Yeah it does. Not sure why, but the 16-80 really does look more contrasty
Fujinon xf 16-55mm f2.8 r lm wr
Un obiettivo di notevole qualità in termini ottici e meccanici, ottima luminosità ma un grande grandissimo difetto: la gomma dello zoom (grip anello) si è usurata e scollata utilizzando l'obiettivo in maniera poco intensiva e per brevi periodi. Considerando il costo dell'obiettivo mi aspettavo il massimo in tutto, anche perchè viene venduto come "obiettivo tropicalizzato" cioè resistente alle intemperie, polvere, ecc; per la sostituzione va mandato unicamente al centro assistenza a Milano a vostre spese, costo del cambio gomma tra 100 e 150 euro. Un vecchio obiettivo zoom usato per oltre 20 anni su una reflex analogica le gomme sono praticamente indenni.
GRANDISSIMA DELUSIONE (disponibile video)
Excellent review again, your landscape perspective on Fuji lenses is invaluable. Very interested (and surprised) to see how well the 16-80 image quality stood up to the 16-55. I own the 16-80, and for typical landscape shots its image quality is poor, so much more mushy (technical term!) than your samples. It does seem to be the most inconsistent lens Fuji have produced in that regard, but I think you've encouraged me to try another copy, because everything else about it is excellent (OIS, focal range, weather sealing).
Thanks for the comment, glad you enjoyed the review. I only did a few test shots with the 16-80, but I was impressed by it. I've heard though that quality is variable across different copies, so perhaps I was just using a good copy. Hopefully early next year I'll be able to take one away with me on a trip and give it a proper review
The 16 to 80 actually outperforms the 16 to 55 in the same range in mtf charts, slightly. Some weaknesses in the 16 mm corners (but great midframe and center) and definitely not amazingly sharp at 80 mm. Most of the issues with this lens was due to the shutter shock from OIS creating blur to the images. Use electronic shutters.
@@anonymousl5150 I hadn't heard that about the OIS, although I shoot a lot on a tripod, so it shouldn't be such a factor. I have persisted with the lens though, it's so versatile. I also recently purchased DXO Pure RAW which does fantastic things for the image quality of of Fuji raw files, and I think as a result I'll be happy to use the 16-80 for the foreseeable future.
I bought used 16-80 and it seems like my is broken. The IQ is quite mediocre. When I opened the file in Lightroom I was shocked how bad it is. In Capture One thought it's usable, but the contrast is not good and I can't really crop meanwhile with 50-140 I can easily crop a half on a 40MP file without any loss. Now I'm waiting for the 16-55 used again. Will see
I've not really had a chance to seriously test the 16-80
I love my 16-55 f2.8 and it has great bokeh too, but I don’t use it as much as I have no cameras with IBIS. I have been considering adding a X-S10 to my kit just for the IBIS. I tend to use the amazing 10-24 f4 and 16-80 f4 most as they pair well with my X-T3. Thanks for the review.
Thanks for the comment, glad you enjoyed the review. I think if you've got the 16-80, then the 16-55 is going to have a lot less use unless you're shooting wide open
F4 on apsc just doesn't cut it for me. Especially if you want to travel with just one lens and be able to shoot in low light.
I think a lot really depends on what your use case is. For landscapes, which is what I'm talking about in this review, an F4 lens is no problem at all as you're almost certainly going to be using a tripod in low light, rather than shooting at f2.8 and having to worry about depth of field
At 55 mm, 55-200 beats 16-55 at f/5.6-11, not on the same resolution level. At 16 mm, 10-24 beats 16-55 at f/5.6-11, not on the same resolution level again. The red badge is really a disappoinment if one does not use F/2.8.
@@djstuc Yes, both. So I have done comparisons.
@@djstuc All the three lenses.
@@djstuc At first I bought a used 1655 and compared it with 1024 and 55200. Disappointing so I returned the lens and rented a 1655 from a store. This 1655 was better in resolution than the returned one (which might have been defective) but still couldn't be competitive with 1024 and 55200 at 16 mm and 55 mm, f/5.6-f11. A few months later I bought a brand new 1655 but the comparison was the same as the rental one. I keep this 1655 since I need the focal range. But I only take 1024 and 55200 to landscape photo trips. 1655 is too heavy and I don't like its the resolution performance.
I've not compared it to the 10-24, but I didn't see much of a difference between the 55-200mm and the 16-55mm
I don't believe any of that to be true.
👏👏👏🤘😘
🙏
You consider that mid range lol. It cost 1000$
Not sure what your comment means. I consider "that mid range lol"?? And then something about the cost?
@@AndyMumford probably he thought that "mid range" meant "mid budget lens", just guessing