I was going to purchase a Fuji XT-5 and saw that this lens is offered as a bundle with a $300 savings on the lens. I hadn't planned on acquiring a new lens but the offer is very attractive and I may just go for it after watching your review and others as well.
Thanks Greg! A good friend of mine Bill FORTNEY, a former Nikon rep and now a Fuji X photographer told me he thinks the 16-80 is one of the finest zoom lenses made in that range. He used to sell the Nikon in that range and believes it surpasses that lens.
Thanks Kirk. I really enjoyed your review and the kinda laid back style in which you present. In my opinion this lens is ideal for the hobby /enthusiast photographer that wants to capture good quality images but does not want to have to carry 3 or 4 lenses around all day. I've heard this lens described as a jack of many trades but a master of none and I would agree with that. You certainly won't get the IQ of a prime or the 16-55mm f/2.8 but you should not expect that sort of image quality out of this lens. It definitely has a place in a lot of Fuji shooters kit bags but it would not be the lens I would pull out if I was a professional shooter doing paid work. Myself, I'm not too worried about a little bit of softness in the corners. 99% of people that look at my images would not bother to look at the corners. If you are looking at corners then what is in the centre can't be too interesting.
Thanks Mike! I have had this lens for about a year now and have done a bunch of videos on it or using it. The only time I have noticed any issue with the corners, and it’s minor, is at 80 at all apertures. But as you say if you’re paying attention to the edges there is something wrong. I have a number of primes and agree the lens is not up to the quality of my 16 1.4 or 90 f2. But honestly, I have a number of portfolio images taken with this lens. Now if I was still a working photojournalist I would be using the 16-55 2.8 for the speed and quality but it’s big and heavy. So for the landscape work and out and about shooting I do now the 16-80 f4 is the perfect all around lens for hiking for shooting landscapes.
Hello Kirk. I've just bought this lens. To be honest mainly due to your videos. I was little afraid as this lens did not have good reviews (at least on Polish reviews sites). However after some test shots I can say that this lens is really great option as a general walkaround zoom. The IQ is decent and the mechanical quality is superb.
Just recently purchased an xt4 kit with this lens I haven't tried it yet so I'm just checking out what others are experiencing and what to look for thank you for posting your video. Happy shooting
JDE thanks! I use this lens for everything. It is outstanding. I ran a workshop in June with a Fuji X photographer he had the 16-80 on his X-T4 all the time. Three other photographers were using that lens all the time. I love the lens.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography I did a bunch of research and yes, that card is sufficient, however you will not maximize the cameras ability to perform at full potential, which is why I went ahead and purchased a Kingston Canvas React UHS II form factor for $104 CND at #MemoryExpress 128 Gig upto 300 MB/s Read speed. Comes with 3.2 Gen 1x1 card reader. The cost of those SanDisk cards is cost prohibitive. I have confidence is both Kingston and SanDisk. Thanks for replying good information to share. Happy Shooting.
First time viewer here....well done! My wife and I love Rockport. Have to get back there one of these days. I’m a bit taken aback by all the naysayers regarding the sharpness of this lens. First of all, comparing it to a 16-55mm makes no sense. In the 24-120mm equivalent, have you ever heard of THAT focal range being sharper or as sharp as it’s same brand 24-70mm? The extra focal length is what you get with this lens and it has historically been a compromise in sharpness, at least in my experience. The longer the zoom the lower the performance. That being said, this appears to be the first lens of this focal length to actually approach the performance of its shorter brother. I thought I did a lot of research before placing my order with B&H and most of the reviews I read, were stellar! Ordered it 2 weeks ago, but still on back order.
Rob I think you will like it! I just got back from shooting foliage and waterfalls in NH (Weds video) and everything I have shot with it is just beautiful! Thanks for subscribing and watching.
Thanks Kirk. I just moved from Panasonic to Fuji. I like the retro feeling and the choice of APS-C lenses. I got the X-T5 with the 16-80 and I'm very happy with it . I will probably purchase the 100-400 for birds and sports. I come to Rockland every summer. Maybe we'll bump into each other. Until then thank for the info.
Great review! I think the 16-55 is sharper, but it's also heavier, which is a big deal since I'm older and don't want to carry a lot of weight. After going back and forth between this and the 16-55, I finally bought the 16-80. I don't shoot weddings or any paid gigs, so this will be fine for me.
Great review, I’ve had this with my X-t3 as the kit lens and it’s fantastic... also brought the Viltrox 23mm 1.4f which is really excellent for the price of £300.
Nice practical review... In the comparisons, the first three photographs shot at 16mm in various apertures, I noticed that the corners of the images were may be 2 to 3 foot closer to the lens from the point of focus; that's padlocks... "Focal plane curvature" or "field curvature" may be... The shots at 80mm at various f stops; it's the door only in the frame, which is almost "Plano perfect" of sort hence a little softness at the corners... Again good practical usage test... Neat and Nice... It's the characteristics of any lens, whether $200 lens or $2000 lens... Process lenses excluded...
Good review, and good to hear your thoughts. I was considering this as a possible replacement travel/video lens to the 18-55 that is great for that. I shoot vlogs at f2.8 in lower light, so f4 on this lens could work but isn't ideal. I still might need to rent it myself. Thanks for the great video!
I am looking forward to my lens arriving tomorrow. I was just up in Rockport a few weeks ago and saw the same flowers. I stayed at Bearskin Neck Motor Lodge. Beautiful place up there and I miss the seafood.
I like the overall range of this lens. The 18-55 is nice, but I am always wanting a bit more mid-range zoom compression than that lens provides. I use a 24-105 on my Canon so this seems to be a good complement to what I am used to using.
I bought an XT5 with this lens. I really like it but it is not listed as one of the lenses Fuji recommends with the XT5 probably due to the 40mp sensor. Strange.
I’m thinking of getting the 16-80 as a bundle with the xt5 as an all round carry kit. My only worry is f4 in low light, does the image stabilisation on lens and camera help with this problem if hand holding at a lower shutter speed and higher iso or does the image quality suffer as a result?
flowersky, I've been using this lens for a few months now and compared to their fastest lenses it is just as fast and silent. I have a 23 f2 which is extremely fast focusing and it is just as fast.
I really debating getting the x100v for the ultimate compactness and style for travel photography or a used xt3 plus this lens and a prime say the 23mm f2, I feel the later is the most practical do it all setup, and the x100v is a bit on the hipster side, it's the new hotness and everyone wants one.
When a lens starts at f4, sharpness must be there already. What worries me are some pics I saw at f4 and they were not crisp. The reviews on the internet are also very mixed. Your copy seems fine so I will test the hell out of it at my camerashop before buying it. It will not be the first time the camerashop guy must unpack 3 copies before I am satisfied with a certain lens;))
@@RedTick2 Saw the pics from dpreview to. Not very convincing. I planned this lens for my X-T30 but rather go for my primes 14, 23, 35 and 56mm. I will see.
I’ve just been trying this lens as an alternative to the 18-55 as I can’t decide which to buy but have found it soft in a few areas. I really want like it as the extra reach is nice but very unsure. It’s a used one so I can’t buy another from store before my holiday! I have days to decide and haven’t had an 18-55 to try yet 🤦🏻♀️
Tracey - I use mine for everything. I got one of the first copies so it might be better than later ones. The copy you have tested may be a poor one. The 18-55 is a very nice lens but for me does not have enough reach.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography thanks. I liked the idea of the extra reach but it’s a decent size and weight. I then compared it to my 18-135 and there’s only 50g difference in weight - you can’t tell so I will probably use that one for the extra reach and maybe the 18-55 as a lightweight option.
I'm looking to swap over from Sony to Fuji soon. I made the mistake of choosing a system that does far more than I need it to. I currently shoot landscapes and general travel photos with Sony's 24-105 on the a7III. If I swap, I'll be getting a 35mm f2 lens as well, as it's my absolute favorite APS-C focal range. I find myself either needed more reach than 105mm or more witness than 24mm offers quite often. I've shot more than 1/3 of my entire photo library at 24mm on that lens over the last three years, so I would prioritize a wider or mid-range lens over a telephoto at first. Would you recommend starting out my new kit with the original, non-WR Fuji 10-24 or the 16-80 to compliment the 35mm prime?
Hi Ian, I guess if you are only shooting wide the new 10-24 makes sense. Then if you love shooting with the 50 mm FF equivalent 35 f2 you would be fine just no real length at all. If you go that route you would also need the 55-200. That’s why I advocate people buy the 16-80 because it gives you a FF equivalent of 24-120. I use this lens all the time it’s wonderful.
Very nice review, Kirk! I have the excellent Fuji XF16-55 f/2.8 Zoom, and have a major question...How does image sharpness on the XF16-80 (at 16-55mm) compare to that of the XF16-55 at say, f/8? The "Angry Photographer" rated the XF16-80 a "10", so I'm quite interested to see if it's even better than my XF16-55, which is tack sharp at most all focal lengths and especially the apertures I use most (f/8-11), Thanks!
Hi Steve - I don't own the 16-55 2.8. But I did rent it for a week and i felt it was an absolutely stunning lens. I would say that if you are comfortable with the size of the lens (I was not) then there is no need to switch. I would say that they are pretty equal in the sharpness area at f8 but that the 16-55 is a much better lens in build quality. I found that to balance that lens off on the X-T3 I needed to have the grip on it. I have seen so many reviews that are all over the place on this lens that it must be an issue with build quality.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography Hi Kirk. Very interesting! Well, though I do have a gripped X-T3 and shoot 99% of the time on a good tripod, using the 10-second timer for maximum sharpness, there are those occasional times when I'm hand-holding when walking around, and in those instances, likely would appreciate the OIS of the XF16-80. I am comfortable with the size/weight of the XF16-55, as again, I use it tripod-mounted almost all the time. However, the extra 25mm on the long end of the XF16-80, plus OIS, do intrigue me! That said, I would not want to sacrifice ANY sharpness at all, as I'm somewhat of a "sharpness fanatic". (Indeed, I use the stellar Fujinon XF80mm f/2.8 Macro for my product photography (If interested, see my work at totalqualityphoto[dot]com), which I believe to be the absolute sharpest lens I've ever used in 40+ years of photography! Your comment about sharpness equality at f/8 is MOST appealing indeed. If I do go that route, I'd probably want to do side-by-side test comparisons before selling the XF16-55. Thanks again for your expert advice! Regards, Steve
I think you would be disappointed having the 16-55 and thinking you are going to get as good or better image quality out of this 16-80. Keep the 16-55 and 80mm for your work use. This would be a good "kit level" lens but nothing more. If you care about top image quality this is not the lens to buy.
@Steve TQP The 16-80 seems to get a lot of mixed reviews and I think optically probably can't compare with the 16-55. I am thinking of switching from the 16-55 though as I think in most cases the 16-80 is 'good enough'. I like the fact I could save on a bit of size and weight and the OIS makes up for the F4 aperture, It also has a 72mm filter thread so I can pair it with my 50-140 (or a 10-24) for landscape/travel.
Hey Kirk! Thank you for all the videos. Love them. Have a piece of advice to ask. I’m torn between the 16-55 2.8 and the 16-80 f4. With the current specials Fuji has right now both the lenses are reallly close in price. Image quality which one is better and sharp. I have a problem with pixel peeping as much as I try not to. I still end up doing it with my 18-55 kit lens and always disappoint myself. So I’m in the market for a better mid range zoom and don’t want to have to buy another one after this. Lol.
Since they are only $100 difference I would purchase the 16-55 f2.8. It’s a red badge lens and is exquisite. I don’t own one because I do less and less news assignments now which require f2.8. I can usually get away with a stop less light and also have more length with the 16-80. Plus the 16-80 is much lighter for landscape hiking. Good luck.
Nice review. But there are so much mixed reviews on this though. Some say it's unusable at 16 and 80. Some have AF issues. Maybe you got one of those rare good ones...
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography Yeah, your copy looks a fair bit sharper than similiar 'brick wall' style tests from other copies. Copy variation is always a bit confusing.
Brick wall shooters are finding it soft in the corners at 16mm f/4. But they focused in the center, so I think the corners are further away and might be a bit out of focus. On top of that, it is super difficult to guarantee that the camera axis is perfectly orthogonal to the brick wall, so each corner might be at a different distance. I’ve suggested to a few of them to move their focus point to each corner and shoot an image for just evaluating that corner. It might result in a sharper corner. The issue is they have wide FOV and are pretty close to the wall. I think the right test is corner sharpness across a landscape where everything is far away at near infinity. Or for testing, follow my suggestion and take 5 images - one focused in center and one focused at each of the four corners. BTW, you might notice in this review, the lower left corner grass/plants are not on the plane of the barn doors. And the barn is further back. He wasn’t standing so close to fill the frame with just barn door. It seems to make a difference.
Kirk, any more thoughts on this lens in 2022? I'm taking one to Scotland and wondering if I'd be better off with the 16-55 in my bag (even though it is large/heavier.
Bill take the 16-80 you won’t regret it. The OIS is superb so f4 is not an issue. I use mine all the time. The extra reach you get at 80 makes a world of difference.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography Thank you Kirk! I was hoping to catch some details of Architectural reliefs while visiting Scotland. So the 80mm should work well.
Your honesty was appreciated. Thanks for telling it like it is. Please don’t let ever freebies from FujiFilm to influence you like what happens to many youtubers. Like you we all love our FujiFilm gear but when something’s isn’t perfect we need to call it out to be fair.
Thanks IllumiGraphic! That's the goal, tell it like it is. So far no freebies here. I purchase all my own gear all though I was loaned the 50 f1 for four days. Early on I decided not to review Chinese lenses with the Fuji mount. I have been offered all sorts of stuff and have said no to all of them. I will only review Fuji gear as that is what I feel works best for this channel.
Jack, the 18-55 is a very nice lens but the 16-80 is just as sharp in the 18-55 range. I'm not going to say it's better because it's about the same which is darn sharp. The 16-80 is bigger, weather resistant, and has a much longer range.
Obviously the 16-80, or 24-120 focal length is the true catch all lengths that anyone could want or need. I hope this sharpness business is put to rest as I really want this lens. I have used the 18-55 vigorously and I like the 18-55 but there are its shortcomings as the bokeh or out of focus areas are too nervous for my liking, so without resorting to the size and cost of the 16-55 2.8, this lens has gotta have written all over it.
Hi, the background rendering is really great on the 16-80, especially on close ups! MUCH better than the 18-55, and I love the extra 2mm. And you can focus pretty close too, so I don't need a macro that much any more. I have used mine a lot the first week, excellent lens for hiking, covers most of my needs there. The stabilizer is amazing to, I have managed pretty sharp results on 0,13s hand held!
@@OleMartinHelgesen Thank you for this reply and I suspected that the IQ would be better than some of the hedging reviews that Ive read so far, a couple other than the currant one. I'm going back to Paris next year and I shot some 750 shots when there with the 18-55. The 18-55 is finicky because it throws a surprise every now and then, but all in all, I knew I needed the extra 2mm on the wide and defiantly a longer focal length. Its crucial to react in a city like Paris with a zoom lens. The 16-80 should cover it all. Cheers!
I’ve been a professional for over 40 years. This lens is very sharp!!! Yes at 80 it’s a little soft in the corners. I use it every day. You must have a bad copy. I have one out of the first batch and it’s great. Friends have had terrible copies and have sent them back for another. Luck if the draw in this day and age.
When you say "sharp", is it like Fuji 90mm F/2 sharp, or more like 16-55 F/2.8 sharp. For me the last one is not sharp at all, although many reviewers called 16-55 f/2 sharp. Thank you!
To me it's nice and sharp but not 90 f2 sharp. I used the 16-55 for a week and it was pretty dam sharp wide open. My feeling is that it depends on the copy you get unlike Canon where all the lenses are made in Japan or should I say all the "L" series lenses are. Hope that helps.
90mm set a new bar for sharpness to me. I want all Fuji lenses were like that. 35mm f/2, 50mm f/2 follow, but not 16-55. It is not a bad lens, but it just does not cut the mustard for me :) Thank you once again for your clarification.
One reviewer noted that images shot with the subject fairly close like this at 80mm come out very sharp, but for subjects further from the lens when the image is captured (still at 80mm), the softness is exacerbated. I don’t know what the technical cause could be, but that was interesting that it wasn’t as much the focal length, but a combination of focal length to subject distance.
There is nothing about this lens that is really exciting. It basically a small step us from the much cheaper 18-55, and only a bit cheaper than the superior 16-55. I think its over priced for what it is. A f4 "kit quality" lens.
PT76251 I think it is exciting as a travel lens or as a general walkabout zoom lens. It has a good zoom range, 16-80mm. It is wider than the 18-55mm and longer than the 16-55mm. It also has optical image stabilization and is weather resistant. For those who wants a lighter and smaller zoom lens than the 16-55 f/2.8 and a zoom lens that goes wider than the original kit lens 18-55 - this lens is the lens 😊 Perhaps the image quality in the corners is not as good as the ’professional’ red label 16-55 f/2.8 throughout the entire zoom range. But then, this lens is not a red label lens. I’m looking to buy a zoom that starts at 16mm so for me its either this lens or the 16-55. But the 16-55 does not have OIS and it is also a bit larger and heavier, and I like to keep it as small and lightweight as possible.
This lens checks a number of boxes for me. I have the 18-55 and love it's small size but hate that it is not wider. The 16-55 is a superior lens but is huge in comparison. I need the battery grip to balance it out therefore I passed on it. $800 is not cheap but in comparison to other lenses like the Canon 24-105 f4L IS ll it's $300 less. For me a landscape guy it's all about size weight and cost. With OIS and WR to boot I'm happy to pay $800.
![[TF2] The Russian Bear Trap](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YFNSwz2_rOA/mqdefault.jpg)
Only the second of your videos I've watched, I just love the more mellow mature review. Stay well sir and thanks for the great review.
Thanks Henry! Much appreciated
I was going to purchase a Fuji XT-5 and saw that this lens is offered as a bundle with a $300 savings on the lens. I hadn't planned on acquiring a new lens but the offer is very attractive and I may just go for it after watching your review and others as well.
James - It's a good deal take it. I have been using the lens and it is just fine.
Glad to hear your surgery went well. This lens is on my radar now for certain.
Thanks Paul! All is well now I need to lose some weight. Lens is even better with the firmware upgrade.
Great 'real world use' review. Thinking of buying this lens with an X-H2 and your video has helped make my mind up!
A friend of mine just bought this combination and loves it.
A reassuring and well done review, reassuring because I’ve just bought this lens to match with an XT-4. Thanks for this and other reviews!
Thanks Greg! A good friend of mine Bill FORTNEY, a former Nikon rep and now a Fuji X photographer told me he thinks the 16-80 is one of the finest zoom lenses made in that range. He used to sell the Nikon in that range and believes it surpasses that lens.
Great rig!
Thanks Kirk. I really enjoyed your review and the kinda laid back style in which you present. In my opinion this lens is ideal for the hobby /enthusiast photographer that wants to capture good quality images but does not want to have to carry 3 or 4 lenses around all day. I've heard this lens described as a jack of many trades but a master of none and I would agree with that. You certainly won't get the IQ of a prime or the 16-55mm f/2.8 but you should not expect that sort of image quality out of this lens.
It definitely has a place in a lot of Fuji shooters kit bags but it would not be the lens I would pull out if I was a professional shooter doing paid work.
Myself, I'm not too worried about a little bit of softness in the corners. 99% of people that look at my images would not bother to look at the corners. If you are looking at corners then what is in the centre can't be too interesting.
Thanks Mike! I have had this lens for about a year now and have done a bunch of videos on it or using it. The only time I have noticed any issue with the corners, and it’s minor, is at 80 at all apertures. But as you say if you’re paying attention to the edges there is something wrong. I have a number of primes and agree the lens is not up to the quality of my 16 1.4 or 90 f2. But honestly, I have a number of portfolio images taken with this lens. Now if I was still a working photojournalist I would be using the 16-55 2.8 for the speed and quality but it’s big and heavy. So for the landscape work and out and about shooting I do now the 16-80 f4 is the perfect all around lens for hiking for shooting landscapes.
Hello Kirk. I've just bought this lens. To be honest mainly due to your videos. I was little afraid as this lens did not have good reviews (at least on Polish reviews sites). However after some test shots I can say that this lens is really great option as a general walkaround zoom. The IQ is decent and the mechanical quality is superb.
I use this lens most every day for photojournalism and my landscape work. I love it!
Shame on the people who dis like these videos kirk does a very good job with his reviews and is very relaxing to watch keep up the good work GOD bless
Thanks so much Steve!
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography your welcome kirk anytime
Just recently purchased an xt4 kit with this lens I haven't tried it yet so I'm just checking out what others are experiencing and what to look for thank you for posting your video.
Happy shooting
JDE thanks! I use this lens for everything. It is outstanding. I ran a workshop in June with a Fuji X photographer he had the 16-80 on his X-T4 all the time. Three other photographers were using that lens all the time. I love the lens.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography Just for fun, what SD cards did you end up running with on the XT4?
I only use Sandisk Ultra 64g 170’s the performance is great.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography I did a bunch of research and yes, that card is sufficient, however you will not maximize the cameras ability to perform at full potential, which is why I went ahead and purchased a Kingston Canvas React UHS II form factor for $104 CND at #MemoryExpress 128 Gig upto 300 MB/s Read speed. Comes with 3.2 Gen 1x1 card reader. The cost of those SanDisk cards is cost prohibitive. I have confidence is both Kingston and SanDisk.
Thanks for replying good information to share. Happy Shooting.
First time viewer here....well done! My wife and I love Rockport. Have to get back there one of these days. I’m a bit taken aback by all the naysayers regarding the sharpness of this lens. First of all, comparing it to a 16-55mm makes no sense. In the 24-120mm equivalent, have you ever heard of THAT focal range being sharper or as sharp as it’s same brand 24-70mm? The extra focal length is what you get with this lens and it has historically been a compromise in sharpness, at least in my experience. The longer the zoom the lower the performance. That being said, this appears to be the first lens of this focal length to actually approach the performance of its shorter brother. I thought I did a lot of research before placing my order with B&H and most of the reviews I read, were stellar! Ordered it 2 weeks ago, but still on back order.
Rob I think you will like it! I just got back from shooting foliage and waterfalls in NH (Weds video) and everything I have shot with it is just beautiful! Thanks for subscribing and watching.
just switched from Nikon d5300 to fuji xt3 can't wait for that lens
Congrats on the switch! I dumped high end Canon gear. This lens and the X-T3 are great together. You will love it.
Thanks Kirk. I just moved from Panasonic to Fuji. I like the retro feeling and the choice of APS-C lenses. I got the X-T5 with the 16-80 and I'm very happy with it . I will probably purchase the 100-400 for birds and sports. I come to Rockland every summer. Maybe we'll bump into each other. Until then thank for the info.
Nice choice! I’m actually in Rockport MA
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography Oh well.
Great review Kirk, many thanks.
Thanks Tony
Thank you for a helpful review.
Thanks Gary I still love this lens it's so versatile!
Great review! I think the 16-55 is sharper, but it's also heavier, which is a big deal since I'm older and don't want to carry a lot of weight. After going back and forth between this and the 16-55, I finally bought the 16-80. I don't shoot weddings or any paid gigs, so this will be fine for me.
Geoff you will love the lens!
Great review, I’ve had this with my X-t3 as the kit lens and it’s fantastic... also brought the Viltrox 23mm 1.4f which is really excellent for the price of £300.
Very nice!
I just recently bought my 16-80 and it was largely based on excellent reviews like yours. Thank you for all the work that you put into your reviews!
This lens is on my X-T3 all the time.
Fab review . Thank you. Hope you are back to 100% soon.
Thanks Patrick coming along nicely
Great review.
Nice practical review...
In the comparisons, the first three photographs shot at 16mm in various apertures, I noticed that the corners of the images were may be 2 to 3 foot closer to the lens from the point of focus; that's padlocks... "Focal plane curvature" or "field curvature" may be...
The shots at 80mm at various f stops; it's the door only in the frame, which is almost "Plano perfect" of sort hence a little softness at the corners...
Again good practical usage test... Neat and Nice...
It's the characteristics of any lens, whether $200 lens or $2000 lens...
Process lenses excluded...
Yes true!
Take care and rest well
glad everything was good for you sir, hope you the best!
Thanks
Good review, and good to hear your thoughts. I was considering this as a possible replacement travel/video lens to the 18-55 that is great for that. I shoot vlogs at f2.8 in lower light, so f4 on this lens could work but isn't ideal. I still might need to rent it myself. Thanks for the great video!
Good idea to rent it first and see if it fits your workflow.
this looks like an excellent lens for the price and especially since its a zoom. Im buying one.
You will love it. I use it on the X-T3 and X-T30 all the time.
Perfect for me. Loving being out in the rain and hiking, one lens for easy packing.
It’s the perfect lens for hiking. Pretty lightweight set with any of Fuji’s cameras.
I am looking forward to my lens arriving tomorrow. I was just up in Rockport a few weeks ago and saw the same flowers. I stayed at Bearskin Neck Motor Lodge. Beautiful place up there and I miss the seafood.
Brian - come back again, awesome place.
I really enjoyed this and I don't know anything about cameras, seems like you go through the paces showing what the lens is capable of.
Thanks Alex I appreciate it.
They are all good.
Yes Christopher you are correct.
The equivalent of my old Nikkor 24mm - 120mm 'Street Sweeper' everyday lens but far sharper!
Yup
I like the overall range of this lens. The 18-55 is nice, but I am always wanting a bit more mid-range zoom compression than that lens provides. I use a 24-105 on my Canon so this seems to be a good complement to what I am used to using.
Bruce this lens is very similar to the Canon 24-105 but with even more reach. It's pretty awesome.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography thanks for your honest review and experience.
We shall enjoy photography. being picky about everything is not .
That's why most of my reviews are not pixel peeping reviews but about using the lens.
Nice Vidoe and Review. Thinking about moving to Fuji from Canon.
Hi Don, I made the switch a year ago and don't regret it.
Just got an X-S10 with this lens. $1500 for that bundle is a stupidly good bundle if you're starting from scratch with Fuji
I like this lens on my X-T30 so I imagine it’s just as great on the X-S10. Yes, either way you cut it a great bundle price.
I bought an XT5 with this lens. I really like it but it is not listed as one of the lenses Fuji recommends with the XT5 probably due to the 40mp sensor. Strange.
Yes very strange! If you like the results don’t let it bother you.
Great images thanks
I’m thinking of getting the 16-80 as a bundle with the xt5 as an all round carry kit. My only worry is f4 in low light, does the image stabilisation on lens and camera help with this problem if hand holding at a lower shutter speed and higher iso or does the image quality suffer as a result?
yeah , one of the fujifilm lens so sharp. can u test autofucus, If it fast I want buy this one
flowersky, I've been using this lens for a few months now and compared to their fastest lenses it is just as fast and silent. I have a 23 f2 which is extremely fast focusing and it is just as fast.
I really debating getting the x100v for the ultimate compactness and style for travel photography or a used xt3 plus this lens and a prime say the 23mm f2, I feel the later is the most practical do it all setup, and the x100v is a bit on the hipster side, it's the new hotness and everyone wants one.
Hi Su, I think you would be better off with a used X-T3 with the 16-80 and the 23 f2. I have them both and the X-T3 and they are wonderful.
When a lens starts at f4, sharpness must be there already. What worries me are some pics I saw at f4 and they were not crisp. The reviews on the internet are also very mixed. Your copy seems fine so I will test the hell out of it at my camerashop before buying it. It will not be the first time the camerashop guy must unpack 3 copies before I am satisfied with a certain lens;))
I am seeing the same thing. The reviews are all over the place. Some of the pics I saw by DPreview maybe... anyway they were NOT great in the corners.
@@RedTick2 Saw the pics from dpreview to. Not very convincing. I planned this lens for my X-T30 but rather go for my primes 14, 23, 35 and 56mm. I will see.
So far I am seeing no issues with this lens besides a bit soft in the corners at 80mm. I am enjoying it.
@@Audimann Here is another review that makes me want to wait. ruclips.net/video/JdMw9lQTNnc/видео.html
what a beautiful town!
Im very lucky to live where I do!
I’ve just been trying this lens as an alternative to the 18-55 as I can’t decide which to buy but have found it soft in a few areas. I really want like it as the extra reach is nice but very unsure. It’s a used one so I can’t buy another from store before my holiday! I have days to decide and haven’t had an 18-55 to try yet 🤦🏻♀️
Tracey - I use mine for everything. I got one of the first copies so it might be better than later ones. The copy you have tested may be a poor one. The 18-55 is a very nice lens but for me does not have enough reach.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography thanks. I liked the idea of the extra reach but it’s a decent size and weight. I then compared it to my 18-135 and there’s only 50g difference in weight - you can’t tell so I will probably use that one for the extra reach and maybe the 18-55 as a lightweight option.
I'm looking to swap over from Sony to Fuji soon. I made the mistake of choosing a system that does far more than I need it to. I currently shoot landscapes and general travel photos with Sony's 24-105 on the a7III. If I swap, I'll be getting a 35mm f2 lens as well, as it's my absolute favorite APS-C focal range. I find myself either needed more reach than 105mm or more witness than 24mm offers quite often. I've shot more than 1/3 of my entire photo library at 24mm on that lens over the last three years, so I would prioritize a wider or mid-range lens over a telephoto at first. Would you recommend starting out my new kit with the original, non-WR Fuji 10-24 or the 16-80 to compliment the 35mm prime?
Hi Ian, I guess if you are only shooting wide the new 10-24 makes sense. Then if you love shooting with the 50 mm FF equivalent 35 f2 you would be fine just no real length at all. If you go that route you would also need the 55-200. That’s why I advocate people buy the 16-80 because it gives you a FF equivalent of 24-120. I use this lens all the time it’s wonderful.
Very nice review, Kirk! I have the excellent Fuji XF16-55 f/2.8 Zoom, and have a major question...How does image sharpness on the XF16-80 (at 16-55mm) compare to that of the XF16-55 at say, f/8? The "Angry Photographer" rated the XF16-80 a "10", so I'm quite interested to see if it's even better than my XF16-55, which is tack sharp at most all focal lengths and especially the apertures I use most (f/8-11), Thanks!
Hi Steve - I don't own the 16-55 2.8. But I did rent it for a week and i felt it was an absolutely stunning lens. I would say that if you are comfortable with the size of the lens (I was not) then there is no need to switch. I would say that they are pretty equal in the sharpness area at f8 but that the 16-55 is a much better lens in build quality. I found that to balance that lens off on the X-T3 I needed to have the grip on it. I have seen so many reviews that are all over the place on this lens that it must be an issue with build quality.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography Hi Kirk. Very interesting! Well, though I do have a gripped X-T3 and shoot 99% of the time on a good tripod, using the 10-second timer for maximum sharpness, there are those occasional times when I'm hand-holding when walking around, and in those instances, likely would appreciate the OIS of the XF16-80. I am comfortable with the size/weight of the XF16-55, as again, I use it tripod-mounted almost all the time. However, the extra 25mm on the long end of the XF16-80, plus OIS, do intrigue me! That said, I would not want to sacrifice ANY sharpness at all, as I'm somewhat of a "sharpness fanatic". (Indeed, I use the stellar Fujinon XF80mm f/2.8 Macro for my product photography (If interested, see my work at totalqualityphoto[dot]com), which I believe to be the absolute sharpest lens I've ever used in 40+ years of photography! Your comment about sharpness equality at f/8 is MOST appealing indeed. If I do go that route, I'd probably want to do side-by-side test comparisons before selling the XF16-55. Thanks again for your expert advice! Regards, Steve
I think you would be disappointed having the 16-55 and thinking you are going to get as good or better image quality out of this 16-80. Keep the 16-55 and 80mm for your work use. This would be a good "kit level" lens but nothing more. If you care about top image quality this is not the lens to buy.
@Steve TQP The 16-80 seems to get a lot of mixed reviews and I think optically probably can't compare with the 16-55. I am thinking of switching from the 16-55 though as I think in most cases the 16-80 is 'good enough'. I like the fact I could save on a bit of size and weight and the OIS makes up for the F4 aperture, It also has a 72mm filter thread so I can pair it with my 50-140 (or a 10-24) for landscape/travel.
Looks great
Thanks Anthony
Hey Kirk! Thank you for all the videos. Love them. Have a piece of advice to ask. I’m torn between the 16-55 2.8 and the 16-80 f4. With the current specials Fuji has right now both the lenses are reallly close in price. Image quality which one is better and sharp. I have a problem with pixel peeping as much as I try not to. I still end up doing it with my 18-55 kit lens and always disappoint myself. So I’m in the market for a better mid range zoom and don’t want to have to buy another one after this. Lol.
Since they are only $100 difference I would purchase the 16-55 f2.8. It’s a red badge lens and is exquisite. I don’t own one because I do less and less news assignments now which require f2.8. I can usually get away with a stop less light and also have more length with the 16-80. Plus the 16-80 is much lighter for landscape hiking. Good luck.
16-55 F2.8 is not stabilised. So it is usable only on X-T4 or X-S10.
Nice review. But there are so much mixed reviews on this though. Some say it's unusable at 16 and 80. Some have AF issues. Maybe you got one of those rare good ones...
I must have because it's really sharp at 16 at all apertures and sharp in the middle at 80 and only a little off in the corners.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography Yeah, your copy looks a fair bit sharper than similiar 'brick wall' style tests from other copies. Copy variation is always a bit confusing.
Brick wall shooters are finding it soft in the corners at 16mm f/4. But they focused in the center, so I think the corners are further away and might be a bit out of focus. On top of that, it is super difficult to guarantee that the camera axis is perfectly orthogonal to the brick wall, so each corner might be at a different distance. I’ve suggested to a few of them to move their focus point to each corner and shoot an image for just evaluating that corner. It might result in a sharper corner. The issue is they have wide FOV and are pretty close to the wall. I think the right test is corner sharpness across a landscape where everything is far away at near infinity. Or for testing, follow my suggestion and take 5 images - one focused in center and one focused at each of the four corners. BTW, you might notice in this review, the lower left corner grass/plants are not on the plane of the barn doors. And the barn is further back. He wasn’t standing so close to fill the frame with just barn door. It seems to make a difference.
Kirk, any more thoughts on this lens in 2022? I'm taking one to Scotland and wondering if I'd be better off with the 16-55 in my bag (even though it is large/heavier.
Bill take the 16-80 you won’t regret it. The OIS is superb so f4 is not an issue. I use mine all the time. The extra reach you get at 80 makes a world of difference.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography Thank you Kirk! I was hoping to catch some details of Architectural reliefs while visiting Scotland. So the 80mm should work well.
Nice lens, I am debating between this one and the 18-135mm. Any suggestions?
Hi Benjamin - I would go with the 16-80. For an all around lens a 35 equivalent 24-120 is the perfect lens.
Useful info, thanks for sharing👍
Thanks Anthony I'm glad it helped!
Your honesty was appreciated. Thanks for telling it like it is. Please don’t let ever freebies from FujiFilm to influence you like what happens to many youtubers. Like you we all love our FujiFilm gear but when something’s isn’t perfect we need to call it out to be fair.
Thanks IllumiGraphic! That's the goal, tell it like it is. So far no freebies here. I purchase all my own gear all though I was loaned the 50 f1 for four days. Early on I decided not to review Chinese lenses with the Fuji mount. I have been offered all sorts of stuff and have said no to all of them. I will only review Fuji gear as that is what I feel works best for this channel.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography awesome!! Looking forward to it!! Thanks for making these fun videos bringing us along with you.
Looks good! How does it compare with the 18-55mm f2.8-4.0 lens optically?
Jack, the 18-55 is a very nice lens but the 16-80 is just as sharp in the 18-55 range. I'm not going to say it's better because it's about the same which is darn sharp. The 16-80 is bigger, weather resistant, and has a much longer range.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography Okay, thank you for the prompt response!
What happens when you zoom in and manual focus in video?
Since this lens is not a video lens the focus will shift slightly. I prefer to not zoom when rolling. I like to shoot then change focal lengths.
Obviously the 16-80, or 24-120 focal length is the true catch all lengths that anyone could want or need. I hope this sharpness business is put to rest as I really want this lens. I have used the 18-55 vigorously and I like the 18-55 but there are its shortcomings as the bokeh or out of focus areas are too nervous for my liking, so without resorting to the size and cost of the 16-55 2.8, this lens has gotta have written all over it.
If you can test it at a camera store to check the copy you are getting that would be ideal.
Hi, the background rendering is really great on the 16-80, especially on close ups! MUCH better than the 18-55, and I love the extra 2mm. And you can focus pretty close too, so I don't need a macro that much any more. I have used mine a lot the first week, excellent lens for hiking, covers most of my needs there. The stabilizer is amazing to, I have managed pretty sharp results on 0,13s hand held!
@@OleMartinHelgesen Thank you for this reply and I suspected that the IQ would be better than some of the hedging reviews that Ive read so far, a couple other than the currant one. I'm going back to Paris next year and I shot some 750 shots when there with the 18-55. The 18-55 is finicky because it throws a surprise every now and then, but all in all, I knew I needed the extra 2mm on the wide and defiantly a longer focal length. Its crucial to react in a city like Paris with a zoom lens. The 16-80 should cover it all. Cheers!
Don after further testing over the past few weeks I love this lens. It would be great for you to take to Paris with you.
It’s comfortable and quick. Sharp it is not, especially in the corners, 80mm is clearly unsharp at every fstop. For the lazy photographer, imo.
I’ve been a professional for over 40 years. This lens is very sharp!!! Yes at 80 it’s a little soft in the corners. I use it every day. You must have a bad copy. I have one out of the first batch and it’s great. Friends have had terrible copies and have sent them back for another. Luck if the draw in this day and age.
When you say "sharp", is it like Fuji 90mm F/2 sharp, or more like 16-55 F/2.8 sharp. For me the last one is not sharp at all, although many reviewers called 16-55 f/2 sharp. Thank you!
To me it's nice and sharp but not 90 f2 sharp. I used the 16-55 for a week and it was pretty dam sharp wide open. My feeling is that it depends on the copy you get unlike Canon where all the lenses are made in Japan or should I say all the "L" series lenses are. Hope that helps.
90mm set a new bar for sharpness to me. I want all Fuji lenses were like that. 35mm f/2, 50mm f/2 follow, but not 16-55. It is not a bad lens, but it just does not cut the mustard for me :) Thank you once again for your clarification.
I'm looking to get this lens seem good for all around work
Yes it's great for all around still work. Video I'm not so sure.
I wonder why your results are so different from other reviewers I've seen/read. A lot of others have found the corners to be awfully soft.
Hi Rob, No idea why that is the case. As you can see by my test results and the images I have made the edges are nice and sharp.
To be honest the first example at 16mm looks soft to me through video
One reviewer noted that images shot with the subject fairly close like this at 80mm come out very sharp, but for subjects further from the lens when the image is captured (still at 80mm), the softness is exacerbated. I don’t know what the technical cause could be, but that was interesting that it wasn’t as much the focal length, but a combination of focal length to subject distance.
There is nothing about this lens that is really exciting. It basically a small step us from the much cheaper 18-55, and only a bit cheaper than the superior 16-55. I think its over priced for what it is. A f4 "kit quality" lens.
PT76251 I think it is exciting as a travel lens or as a general walkabout zoom lens. It has a good zoom range, 16-80mm. It is wider than the 18-55mm and longer than the 16-55mm. It also has optical image stabilization and is weather resistant. For those who wants a lighter and smaller zoom lens than the 16-55 f/2.8 and a zoom lens that goes wider than the original kit lens 18-55 - this lens is the lens 😊 Perhaps the image quality in the corners is not as good as the ’professional’ red label 16-55 f/2.8 throughout the entire zoom range. But then, this lens is not a red label lens. I’m looking to buy a zoom that starts at 16mm so for me its either this lens or the 16-55. But the 16-55 does not have OIS and it is also a bit larger and heavier, and I like to keep it as small and lightweight as possible.
This lens checks a number of boxes for me. I have the 18-55 and love it's small size but hate that it is not wider. The 16-55 is a superior lens but is huge in comparison. I need the battery grip to balance it out therefore I passed on it. $800 is not cheap but in comparison to other lenses like the Canon 24-105 f4L IS ll it's $300 less. For me a landscape guy it's all about size weight and cost. With OIS and WR to boot I'm happy to pay $800.
Fuji is going to sell the crap out of this lens
I agree. Folks need to check the quality carefully though. I was lucky and got a great copy. Others have not been so lucky.
Kirk Williamson you shouldn’t have to take a lottery to get a good copy at this price.