Honestly I felt 100mm to be way sharper than 400mm on the tele lens. At least on my two copies that I went through before giving up on the 100-400, it was noticeably soft on the long end even on my 26mp sensor xt3. I couldn't believe it made it on the ok-list for 40mp. Maybe you could compare long end to long end on the lenses. This introduces other unfairnesses, I know, but provides another point of view. Remark: Was doing wildlife so needed a wide aperture of 5.6
As an everyday lens or walk around lens, I think the 16-80mm lens is such a versatile focal length. I use it on the XT-3 body & it performs well & the OIS is helpful as the XT-3 does not have IBS. I have owned the lens for many years with no issues, although I shoot stills & not video.
It was interesting to see the 16-80 directly compared to the 100-400, thanks for this review! I have the 16-80 and really enjoy using it, especially for hiking and landscape photography.
Your opening remarks are quite misleading - Fuji has never said it doesn't recommend this lens (or any other not on their infamous list!) What it does say is "this is a list of all the current lens that will resolve the new 40mp sensor. It also says...albeit in the small print at the bottom....that all of it's lenses not on the list (including the 16-80) will perform as well, if not better, with the new sensor. This is because the non listed lenses will resolve between 30 and 35mp depending on the lens, so this is more than you would get from the older 26mp sensor and therefore a better performance. They have actually teamed up this lens with the XT5 as a kit....they wouldn't do that if it they actually said it wasn't recommended. This has been a bad move by Fuji to issue that list and confusing people by doing so.
Fair points, from a marketing point of view it is an odd decision to sell a camera with a lens that cannot resolve the full resolution. However I actually bought my 16-80 as part of an XH2 kit knowing this info. The idea of this video was simply to see if it really mattered in the real world. Which I don’t think it does
@@JasonRowPhotography I agree - they didn't think this through!!! I also agree about the lens, I have it on my XT5 nearly all the time and I am very pleased with the results.
It really depends on what you are looking for. If the images are only ever going to be seen on a screen then the 16-80 is a very good, lightweight lens. If you are going to print large format images, then the 16-55 is a better but much more expensive option
I have a 16-80 and never had any problems. It got bad press when it first came out due to sample differences. No, it’s not as sharp as a 56mm 1.2 but you’ll have to pixel peep to see differences. We’d all like perfect images but the lens outperforms most photographers, is not big, heavy or too pricey, has good colour rendition and is weather sealed. It has a lot going for it. Try it before you condemn it.
@@JasonRowPhotography @rogerhampton2844 I had the 16-80 and sold it, this was used on the 26MP X-T3, It was never good enough outside of the centre for my work, it was just soft , and stopping down to F/8 to make it acceptable creates its own problems. The Fuji list they say relates to when shooting wide open. I use lenses on the list, and not on the list with the 40MP sensor and have no real problems with any of them. However moving forwards i'd not buy any of the older lenses if buying new. However the Sigma, 23mm DC DN and 56mm DC DN are both great on the XT-5
I would say at f/5.6 the 100-400 is definitely sharper at the edges. Stopping down to f/8 it's very very close. F/8 seems to be a sweet spot for the 16-80mm
Worms are predominantly a Lightroom issue, however with a 100,000 plus catalogue of images, I cannot easily drop out of Adobe's ecosphere at the moment
I find it interesting that Fujifilm sold this lens as the “kit lens” for the X-T5. It seems to me that, at the very least, doing that was hypocritical.
Honestly I felt 100mm to be way sharper than 400mm on the tele lens. At least on my two copies that I went through before giving up on the 100-400, it was noticeably soft on the long end even on my 26mp sensor xt3. I couldn't believe it made it on the ok-list for 40mp.
Maybe you could compare long end to long end on the lenses.
This introduces other unfairnesses, I know, but provides another point of view.
Remark: Was doing wildlife so needed a wide aperture of 5.6
I may do a video comparing sharpness at various focal lengths of the 100-400 in the future. Thanks for the suggestion
As an everyday lens or walk around lens, I think the 16-80mm lens is such a versatile focal length. I use it on the XT-3 body & it performs well & the OIS is helpful as the XT-3 does not have IBS. I have owned the lens for many years with no issues, although I shoot stills & not video.
Yes the 16-80 is a decent lens. On balance I felt the 18-55 kit lens was a bit sharper but then it wasn't quite as versatile
It was interesting to see the 16-80 directly compared to the 100-400, thanks for this review! I have the 16-80 and really enjoy using it, especially for hiking and landscape photography.
It's a very decent lens and perfect for the uses you mention
Your opening remarks are quite misleading - Fuji has never said it doesn't recommend this lens (or any other not on their infamous list!) What it does say is "this is a list of all the current lens that will resolve the new 40mp sensor. It also says...albeit in the small print at the bottom....that all of it's lenses not on the list (including the 16-80) will perform as well, if not better, with the new sensor. This is because the non listed lenses will resolve between 30 and 35mp depending on the lens, so this is more than you would get from the older 26mp sensor and therefore a better performance. They have actually teamed up this lens with the XT5 as a kit....they wouldn't do that if it they actually said it wasn't recommended. This has been a bad move by Fuji to issue that list and confusing people by doing so.
Fair points, from a marketing point of view it is an odd decision to sell a camera with a lens that cannot resolve the full resolution. However I actually bought my 16-80 as part of an XH2 kit knowing this info. The idea of this video was simply to see if it really mattered in the real world. Which I don’t think it does
@@JasonRowPhotography I agree - they didn't think this through!!! I also agree about the lens, I have it on my XT5 nearly all the time and I am very pleased with the results.
Thank you Jason
You’re welcome Mark
This test convinces me not to purchase the 16-80 mm from Fuji. There where issues with this lens when it first introduced I remember.
It really depends on what you are looking for. If the images are only ever going to be seen on a screen then the 16-80 is a very good, lightweight lens. If you are going to print large format images, then the 16-55 is a better but much more expensive option
I have a 16-80 and never had any problems. It got bad press when it first came out due to sample differences. No, it’s not as sharp as a 56mm 1.2 but you’ll have to pixel peep to see differences. We’d all like perfect images but the lens outperforms most photographers, is not big, heavy or too pricey, has good colour rendition and is weather sealed. It has a lot going for it. Try it before you condemn it.
@@JasonRowPhotography @rogerhampton2844 I had the 16-80 and sold it, this was used on the 26MP X-T3, It was never good enough outside of the centre for my work, it was just soft , and stopping down to F/8 to make it acceptable creates its own problems.
The Fuji list they say relates to when shooting wide open.
I use lenses on the list, and not on the list with the 40MP sensor and have no real problems with any of them. However moving forwards i'd not buy any of the older lenses if buying new. However the Sigma, 23mm DC DN and 56mm DC DN are both great on the XT-5
Thanks for the video. I wonder whether you could compare the corner sharpness at 80mm?
I would say at f/5.6 the 100-400 is definitely sharper at the edges. Stopping down to f/8 it's very very close. F/8 seems to be a sweet spot for the 16-80mm
I use Luminar and never seen any worms.
Worms are predominantly a Lightroom issue, however with a 100,000 plus catalogue of images, I cannot easily drop out of Adobe's ecosphere at the moment
I find it interesting that Fujifilm sold this lens as the “kit lens” for the X-T5. It seems to me that, at the very least, doing that was hypocritical.
Yes it’s a very odd decision to sell it with a lens that supposedly doesn’t resolve the definition of the sensor