Just want to say your channel is a godsend as i'm fairly new to the Fuji system. I appreciate how you review all these lenses, a nice mix of comparison testshots with real world applications and last but not least how you put it into perspective compared to other systems. I think "not blowing you away at any time, but rarely disappoint" is exactly the strength of Fuji these days. I've hauled F2.8 fullframe Nikon gear for 20 years and i'm over that. I got to a point where i feel almost any modern system achieves a level of quality that is sufficient and i'd rather have other features like smaller lenses or lower prices with nicer haptics than another 5% resolution that almost never matter in the end.
Has Fuji changed the optical design of this lens? My experience with it is very different to the one in this review. My copy which I purchased just over a year ago shows more distortion and yet seems to be quite a bit sharper - even on the X-T5.
No, the optical design is the same. Measuring distortion can be a little deceptive in real world use, as just a bit of tilt up or down can cause additional keystoning.
There appears to be a status symbol, a la Leica, in owning the 16 1.4 & the 56 1.2. The 16 mm in apsc format doesn't really suit my shooting style, will just move my feet with other Fuji primes. Also, the 16 2.8, were I to seek to use that focal length is a far newer design than the esteemed 16 1.4 & the newer lens is far more affordable and still fast enough for what I would seek to shoot with it.
Frankly I see little value in an F1.4 aperture in a lens under 28mm. Most often I am using those focal lengths at smaller apertures to have more, not less, in focus.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I’m learning this is the case with me as well. Thinking of trying out the Fuji 18-55mm f2.8-4.0 and 30mm f2 as my only lenses on Fuji once I move over from Sony a6400 and sigma 16mm and 30mm primes.
I just got this lens and I think you're right on the money with this review. Is it the best optical formula out there? No. But for a tiny, well built and weather resistant lens, it's as good as I need it to be. These smaller lenses are great for just taking your camera anywhere without worrying about bulkiness.
I love this lens for its build quality and beautiful small form factor. Mine is also tack sharp in the center. But it CAs like crazy along the borders and in the corners which is non-correctable in LR and is evident even in OOC JPEGs. You can see it in the periphery of every picture which shows tree branches or other edges against the sky.
hey! I have xt-20 body and considering to buy this lens xf16mm f2.8 r wr or xf35mm f2 r wr, which one would you recommend? I more likely to take pics on travelling. really appreciate if you could give me some review. Thanks
This lens top usage is if you need video in a light package because of good AF . As far photography there are better options like 23 f2 which is great in photography and video.
Excellent review again and your view matches my experience with this lens. I own the 16/1.4 which is a great lens imo, but too big for my X-Pro2. I tried this 2.8 but was dissatisfied, so I kept my 14/2.8 instead. Not WR, but the IQ matches that of the 16/1.4 and the14/2.8 is only a bit larger than the 16/2.8. I kept the Fuji platform for personal work and travel because of the compactness, but for paid (studio) work I moved to FF mirrorless. It’s indeed not only the sensor size, but in the end mostly the quality of the lenses that make the difference.
An XT 200 isn't the best reference for a lens test ;-) .... Capture One would be the best choice for Fujifilm files to look at the image quality (better than LR/Adobe software).
From my experience, there are two cases where Capture One gives superior results 1. Sharpening - Capture One gives sharper results by default and additional sharpening does not introduce worm-like artifacts. So the end result is better sharpness wise. Lightroom can achieve similar end results using Enhance Details, but it's an additional step that complicates workflow. 2. Color - Capture One profiles are completely identical to Fujifilm JPEG Film Simulations, while Lightroom profiles are a bit off. It's especially noticeable that skin tones with Lightroom profiles have a slight greenish tint. Of course, it can be compensated with Calibration or HSL sliders, but it's additional work. Capture One gives clearly a better starting point. So in nutshell, without using Enhance Details, Capture One will give sharper end results than Lightroom for X-Trans sensors. But if some lens shows a lack of sharpness on a Bayer sensor (such as XT200), it won't get magically better when used with X-Trans sensor along with Capture One.
@@DustinAbbottTWI It certainly does for X-Trans files. I have both LR Classic (subscription) and C1 here and for RAW files from my X-T3, C1 is hands down far better. For a Bayer sensor like the one used here, LR should be just as good.
Professional as it gets Dustin. Thanks for your hard work with the reviews. Especially Canon and Fuji.
My pleasure!
Just want to say your channel is a godsend as i'm fairly new to the Fuji system. I appreciate how you review all these lenses, a nice mix of comparison testshots with real world applications and last but not least how you put it into perspective compared to other systems. I think "not blowing you away at any time, but rarely disappoint" is exactly the strength of Fuji these days. I've hauled F2.8 fullframe Nikon gear for 20 years and i'm over that. I got to a point where i feel almost any modern system achieves a level of quality that is sufficient and i'd rather have other features like smaller lenses or lower prices with nicer haptics than another 5% resolution that almost never matter in the end.
That's fair feedback, for sure.
Excellent review as always. Thank you.
My pleasure!
This Gentleman is a GREAT Facilitator and an Excellent Communicator.
That's very kind. Thank you!
Has Fuji changed the optical design of this lens? My experience with it is very different to the one in this review. My copy which I purchased just over a year ago shows more distortion and yet seems to be quite a bit sharper - even on the X-T5.
No, the optical design is the same. Measuring distortion can be a little deceptive in real world use, as just a bit of tilt up or down can cause additional keystoning.
There appears to be a status symbol, a la Leica, in owning the 16 1.4 & the 56 1.2.
The 16 mm in apsc format doesn't really suit my shooting style, will just move my feet with other Fuji primes.
Also, the 16 2.8, were I to seek to use that focal length is a far newer design than the esteemed 16 1.4 & the newer lens is far more affordable and still fast enough for what I would seek to shoot with it.
Frankly I see little value in an F1.4 aperture in a lens under 28mm. Most often I am using those focal lengths at smaller apertures to have more, not less, in focus.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I’m learning this is the case with me as well. Thinking of trying out the Fuji 18-55mm f2.8-4.0 and 30mm f2 as my only lenses on Fuji once I move over from Sony a6400 and sigma 16mm and 30mm primes.
I just got this lens and I think you're right on the money with this review. Is it the best optical formula out there? No. But for a tiny, well built and weather resistant lens, it's as good as I need it to be. These smaller lenses are great for just taking your camera anywhere without worrying about bulkiness.
I think that's the right perspective.
Getting one for my X-Pro 3. Thanks for your efforts.
Enjoy!
I love this lens for its build quality and beautiful small form factor. Mine is also tack sharp in the center. But it CAs like crazy along the borders and in the corners which is non-correctable in LR and is evident even in OOC JPEGs. You can see it in the periphery of every picture which shows tree branches or other edges against the sky.
That's unfortunate.
I tried that lens and no, it didn’t convince me at all! I wouldn’t consider it even at that price tag. Great video D.A.
Thanks for the feedback.
hi, how do you think this compares to the sony pancake 20mm f2.8? thanks
It's not a lens I've tested.
hey! I have xt-20 body and considering to buy this lens xf16mm f2.8 r wr or xf35mm f2 r wr, which one would you recommend? I more likely to take pics on travelling. really appreciate if you could give me some review. Thanks
Those are very different focal lengths. I really enjoyed the 35mm F2, but it isn't very wide. These are more complimentary than competing lenses
Are you going to review the 16mm 1.4 for Fuji?
Perhaps at some point, but its not on my radar right now.
This lens top usage is if you need video in a light package because of good AF . As far photography there are better options like 23 f2 which is great in photography and video.
I also like the 35mm F2.
Excellent review again and your view matches my experience with this lens. I own the 16/1.4 which is a great lens imo, but too big for my X-Pro2. I tried this 2.8 but was dissatisfied, so I kept my 14/2.8 instead. Not WR, but the IQ matches that of the 16/1.4 and the14/2.8 is only a bit larger than the 16/2.8. I kept the Fuji platform for personal work and travel because of the compactness, but for paid (studio) work I moved to FF mirrorless. It’s indeed not only the sensor size, but in the end mostly the quality of the lenses that make the difference.
That's a fair observation.
16/2.8 B&W street shooter
That could be a nice application.
Wait I just realised you sound like Michael from The Office lol
LOL - I get accused of looking like him, but this is the first time I've heard that I sound like him!
Thanks for your clearly opinion
Always welcome
Thank you! Greetings from Milan, Italy
Thanks, Giorgio
Thank you! Greetings from Bruges, Belgium
Hi Vince, thanks for watching.
Distortion in RAW files is a whopping 7.73%, according to Lenstip.
That's a lot.
These lenses are perfect for my X-Pro 2 if you do street photography and maintain a low profile. Very non obtrusive set up.
That's true.
An XT 200 isn't the best reference for a lens test ;-) .... Capture One would be the best choice for Fujifilm files to look at the image quality (better than LR/Adobe software).
XT200 is using Bayer sensor filter, not X-Trans, so there is no benefit of using Capture One sharpness wise
Ace is right. The theory that just using CaptureOne makes Fuji gear magically better is a fallacy.
From my experience, there are two cases where Capture One gives superior results
1. Sharpening - Capture One gives sharper results by default and additional sharpening does not introduce worm-like artifacts. So the end result is better sharpness wise. Lightroom can achieve similar end results using Enhance Details, but it's an additional step that complicates workflow.
2. Color - Capture One profiles are completely identical to Fujifilm JPEG Film Simulations, while Lightroom profiles are a bit off. It's especially noticeable that skin tones with Lightroom profiles have a slight greenish tint. Of course, it can be compensated with Calibration or HSL sliders, but it's additional work. Capture One gives clearly a better starting point.
So in nutshell, without using Enhance Details, Capture One will give sharper end results than Lightroom for X-Trans sensors. But if some lens shows a lack of sharpness on a Bayer sensor (such as XT200), it won't get magically better when used with X-Trans sensor along with Capture One.
@@DustinAbbottTWI It certainly does for X-Trans files. I have both LR Classic (subscription) and C1 here and for RAW files from my X-T3, C1 is hands down far better. For a Bayer sensor like the one used here, LR should be just as good.
Is that the new Minolta SRT-101???
Not sure what you are referring to?
@@DustinAbbottTWI Fuji's styling that looks like any old seventies film SLR.