Good content on the lens, but what I found most enjoyable was the ease in which your daughters posed for your shots. Precious moments for bonding between dad (the photographer) and daughters. I have three daughters now all grown and gone; the close relationship we now enjoy was built on moments and events in their journey to adulthood.
Cheers Gary, thanks for the comment. Love hanging out with my daughters. As they grow up so fast, I’m making sure I don’t miss out by spending as much time as possible with them. Glad to hear your relationship is still strong, even though they have moved on with their own life’s.👍
Thank you for that review. I have this lens and completely agree with your findings, it is a wonderful travel lens and even more than that, it is sharp through the whole range for a zoom lens. It is very frustrating to me that some reviewers are continually doing negative reviews on this lens and people are basing their lens purchases on these negative reviews, hence are missing out on the pleasure of owning this lens (that's their loss I guess). Christopher Frosts review is extremely frustrating as he is very negative on this lens and is convinced that the 18 55 is better, I have sold my 18 55 since owning this lens and "locked horns" with him over this. I admit I do not pixel peep or cannot quote technical figures on sharpness etc, but I do know the images I get from this lens on my XT3 long pass my expectations ( I don't believe my expectations are low). I beleive photography is creative and enjoyment comes from having a camera in hand, not from looking at a computer screen, mouse in hand, enlarging images by 200% looking for soft corners
You don’t look old enough to have daughters of that age.. they are lovely... best video I’ve seen so far.. extremely well thought out. Thank you.. have a great day
Thanks for your kind words, glad you found it beneficial. Don’t mind my outer appearance, looks can be deceiving, I definitely feel like a dad in my 40’s on the inside.
Thank you for the very well done review. Earlier this year I spent over $300.00 U.S. having my X--T2 sensor cleaned by Fujifilm U.S. after a month in Mexico. I also know for a fact that I missed shots because I didn't have time to change lenses on the fly. This and my trusty 35 f1.4 will be traveling with me from now on. I have pre-ordered it!
@They Caged Non Hello They caged, You are so right about cleaning one's own sensor. I have cleaned my own sensor in the past but this was a piece of dirt under the glass, so the glass had to be removed to access it. I had to pony up and send it in to Fuji in New Jersey.
Very nice review. I think the lens did pretty good. I started out with the 18-55 and when I bought my first prime lens I basically stopped using the kit zoom. The images with that lens while good lack the contrast and even adding in post the images still look flat comparing them to the primes. I have the 35 1.4 and 23 1.4 I would love to add the 56 1.2 but my funds will not allow for now. I would like to have a good zoom for all the reasons you mentioned but the image quality always makes me take the primes. Although I do have the 10-24 and 55-200 and I am very happy with the way they render. Much better than the 18-55 lens I have. Thanks again for the review. I would really like to see a comparison like you did but with the 18-55 and 16-55. I wonder if the 16-55 would be a clear winner for image contrast.
Thanks for watching and commenting. I unfortunately have never directly compared the 18-55 to the 16-55, but having owned the 18-55 many years ago for a short time, my opinion is that the 16-55 is a superior lens for sure. Your currently lens lineup is great, all those primes, similar to mine are good as you get in the Fuji x world. I would say the 16-80 is close to the 16-55 in quality and the benefits to both are as discussed in my video. You would just have to decide how often you’d use the zoom, and if not much, just keep the 18-55 for those few times. Cheers
Hi John! Recently watched your review of the X-T4 and have now made the switch from Full Frame. Also opted to go for the XF16-80 as the kit lens (shouldn't really call it a kit lens). Best move I ever made! Great reviews on your channel on both, so thank you for that! Love your video style and content. You and Andy Mumford are now my go to channels!
A sideeffect of this video: you show an aspect of photography, that is much more important (for the beauty of a picture) than the lens used. The light!
My pleasure to subscribe. Your videos are very detailed and comprehensive. Appreciate the time you put into making this video. The 16-80 looks like a great travel lens but the F4 minimum aperture certainly restricts shooting in less than ideal light conditions. I still use the 18-55 for my midrange zoom lens but I do not use it that much since adding some primes. That lens lacks contrast and gets soft past 35mm. From the reviews I have seen the 16-80 has a bit more contrast but at the wide end never has good corner resolution. That is kind of a bummer for landscape and wide city shots where you want to see the detail across the image. I have been thinking about adding the 16-55 as that lenses optical performance seems great throughout the frame. Thanks again for the review.
Thanks for subbing Paul, much appreciated, glad to hear my videos are helpful. I think there are many trying to decide on which of the three lenses to go for, 18-55, 16-55 & 16-80, all offering something different in a midrange zoom.. Cheers
I think zoom lenses have really improved in recent years. I recently switched to Fuji from Micro 4/3, and both the Panasonic 12-60 f/2.8-4.0 and the Olympus 12-100 f/4.0 are really great. So far I'm also extremely impressed with the Fuji kit lens, the 18-55 f/2.8-4.0, it's putty out really nice images!
Excellent no nonsense review!! Well presented without stupid intro,music or stupid comments...keep it real!!! Thats what us fuji fans like!! Ive subscribed...👍👌 Ok now for the lens... i already have the 16-55mm and that is a damn good lens for image quality being a zoom,also called a bag of primes!! but its pretty heavy and known as the BRICK!! The fuji 16-80 lens i believe is brilliant for travel and especially with it being stabilized so using that F4 aperture in low light conditions wont be much of an issue and especially at that 80mm focal length aswel.so while this16-80mm lens is a great all rounder and the Brick 16-55mm is great for events photography and portraiture and its still light compared to full frame zoom lenses but with this new contender i might exchange it for the 16-80mm as my travel lens instead of my 16-55mm. I do miss having image stabilisation on my 16-55 sometimes...any comments would be great about the comparison for both zooms thanks..
Thanks for subscribing Mr Bop, glad you enjoyed. The 16-55 is a great lens. I haven’t compared the 16-55 to 16-80 as yet, hopefully in future I’ll get a chance. Just remember an image stabiliser won’t freeze action, only allows hand holding at low shutter speeds. F2.8 is a stop faster, so that’s the difference between freezing action at 125th, where the same exposure on the 16-80 shot at f4, would give you m shutter speed of 60th, which is a bit more difficult to freeze action. However you can hand hold the 16-80 at incredibly low shutter speeds like 1/8th with the OIS. So a few things to think about. Thanks again.
An excellent review , except for the Tattooed Monkey this is as good or better as any review I have seen on this excellent Kit Zoom. How lucky you are to have such beautiful Daughters as subjects for your review. Thanks, Cheerio.
I've definitely got to work on getting some video samples into my reviews. As I am not a videographer, its not something that always comes to mind. Thanks for your time.
Great review John! Thanks for this great comparison to the primes. I'm very interested in this lens myself since I do a lot of travel for work (I'm just an enthusiast, not a professional photographer). I currently own the 16-55mm and very much love this lens for a one solution for all types of photos. I also own the 23mm 1.4 and the 56mm 1.2 for low light and subject isolation. I wonder how the image quality stacks up against the 16-55mm - not sure whether you have experience with that lens, but it would be very interesting to know. I could sell my 16-55mm and get the 16-80mm for only a little extra. I love the idea of it being lighter and smaller with the extra reach, but if it comes at the price of IQ, I'm not sure I'd make the shift. The sharpness seems fine, but I do find myself worrying about the drop in contrast you spoke of...hard to measure though and to know whether it matters as much as one might think. The 6 stop image stabilisation is certainly a plus too. Once again thanks for doing this great review - its awesome seeing a fellow South African on youtube.
Cheers Stefan, thanks for your kind words and for watching. Thats a tough one, for the type of work I do and if I wanted a a zoom, the 16-55 would be my preference, because 2.8 is more important to me then the extra reach. I have friends who shoot with the 16-55 and rave about it. The 16-80 most likely will not out perform the 16-55 in image quality, not necessarily worse, but not better. The OIS will allow hand held at low shutter speeds which helps in low light, but the 2.8 will give you a faster shutter speed in low light. So it really comes down to your needs. The set of lenses you currently use are amazing.
Mind was blown when it turned out to be two different girls being photographed. The comparison with the 56mm prime was enlightening, was surprised by how much detail like freckles and individual hairs it was rendering so much more clearly.
Another excellent review, John, backed up by excellent photography to provide context and examples. Personally, I've been waiting for just this lens since buying into the Fujifilm system back at the very end of 2012. I personally really like f/4 zooms (the Canon 17-40/4 was a "go-to" lens for me back when I shot with Canon). I like f/4 zooms because they're compact, light, sharp, and very flexible for a range of use-cases and provide very good performance over a range of focal lengths and apertures. Just a couple of comments regarding the lens performance specifically: looks like the 16-80/4 has a slightly softer contrast profile than the primes. Personally, I prefer this as it provides me with more control over the tonal and contrast profile in post than a "contrasty" lens, e.g. the Fujicron 23mm f/2. Also, just a side note: I actually prefer the portrait at 56mm at f/4 from the 16-80 over that of the 56/1.2. I find the additonal bit of detail in the background provides better context of where the portrait was taken, and I find there's some fringing in the edges of hills from the 56/1.2 image. Keep up the great work, and best regards. - Stephen from California
Cheers Stephen, thanks for the comment and feedback. This lens is definitely going to be a great option for many, for the exact points you raised. I personally prefer my fast primes for my work. As you say, often people do prefer more detail in the backgrounds with greater depth of field, but what the 56mm and other primes do offer is the choice to either shoot wide open or closed to suit the situation. You can use the 56mm in more varied situations for portraiture, for example, you can literally photograph a portrait in a car park, pick up on the sun reflecting off the cars in background, shot wide open at 1.2, and create a photograph that a person viewing the photo wouldn’t even know it’s a car park, so there are definitely benefits to suit certain situations. But for a lens with this focal range, it does do very well.
@@JohnArmstrongPhotography Yep, I would concur with your assessments. As a fellow pro, you know that its all about which gear helps each of us best fulfill our specific requirements. As someone who is more photojournalism and architecturally focused, a small kit of three very high quality zooms (or maybe a kit with two zooms & a small prime; I really love that 14mm f/2.8 prime) best meets my needs, but I fully understand the preferences of studio and portrait photographers who primarily prefer fast primes. Side note: I've been using the exemplary 8-16mm f/2.8 for my real estate and architectural work, and that lens is.... _amazing._ Cheers, mate!
If the lens holds up at f22 in corner sharpness then this only means its very soft right from f4. You can't beat physics....(diffraction). Iam excited to test this lens for myself.
Thanks Mark, yes I unfortunately left out a few points, one being OIS. In the short time I had the lens, I never really tested it, so thought it not right to make judgment on it in the video. If Fujifilms OIS in general is anything to go by, people will be pleased and I’m sure incredibly low speeds will be possible hand hold. Cheers
In every case here the primes win, even if it's only by a hair, they can also open up a lot wider. The only reason to buy this lens is for convenience. As expected - F4 just won't cut it for the winter for many, especially if they like to shoot indoors without flash. Also, the 16mm 1.4 would have been a much better comparison to the 14mm, it eats the 14mm alive so we can assume it'll crush this zoom at 16mm.
The 56mm prime lens definitely beats out the zoom lens by a WIDE margin, the sharpness and ESPECIALLY the bokeh are just no match. Not that this is surprising, prime lenses are usually better at a specific focal range.
I just got the 18-135 as I don’t have any zoom lenses and wanted something versatile but I completely forgot this 16-80 was in the pipeline! I guess I’ll be making a return 😄
If you shoot the 16-80 a bit closed down, not wide open at f4, it will be probably even closer... A really good lens, but in my experience f4 is often woo slow for me, in low light you quickly get ridiculously high ISO speeds.
Cheers Bernhard, yes the lens did very well considering the primes had the advantage of being stopped down by a stop or two. Being a portrait shoot, I really wanted to shoot wide open and directly compare image quality with similar framing and depth of field. Cheers, thanks for the comment.
Thanks for the great review, I'm thinking of getting this or the 18-135 as a versatile travel and family lens when you don't wan't to be swapping out. I have the 10-24 but hardly ever use it so it may replace that.
Cheers Adam, the 18-135 will certainly give you a ton of versatility, but in my opinion may not give you the same image quality and performance of the 16-80. It’s just a case of balancing out your wants and needs. Whatever you do get , enjoy.
It would probably have been better to stop the zoom (and the primes) 1 or at least half a stop down from wide open, it would have been even stronger than wide open. At f4, the 35 is already 3 stops closed down which is proably it's sharpest aperture.
@@romandulce999 I wonder if there is some sort of image processing/lens correction/sharpening that is messing with the out-of-focus areas My friend recently got the 56 1.2 and has found similar issues, very busy bokeh and some questionable results that don’t make sense
Great vid thank you. Those fuji lenses are so good they make the two girls look almost identical! Struggling to think of what other lens to get with my XT4 if I get the 16-80mm. I'll definitely be tempted by the 100-400 zoom at some stage for a fairly specific need, but I can't think of a prime to cover my needs that the 16-80 doesn't already cover. I was thinking of the 16mm 2.8 for vlogging, but I the 16-80mm may be light enough even for my skinny arms
I am sure the 16-80 will work fine for vlogging, it’s very versatile. You could vlog and do general photography & video work all with one lens. If you are looking for a faster lens to pair with it for vlogging, you could also look at the 23mm1.4 or f2, might be a good field of view for vlogging. Maybe try 16-80 out first to see how you get on, before buying anything else. Enjoy.
I can sign to everything you had said about Canon's 24-105mm lens - is was (is) simply awful. That being said, I had not much more luck with 24-70mm f2,8; at 24 mm it vignetted like crazy. But than agin, maybe that was just my copy. Regarding 16-80mm, I'm sure it's a great lens, and I knew it was coming for some time, but I still bought the 16-55mm a couple of weeks ago. Namely, I already have the 18-135mm which I purchased in a bundle with the XT1 back in the day, so I thought 16-80 is too similar. And I do need a bit more bokeh and low light capability. In one lens. BTW, subbed for quite some time 😁
I did the same thing. Bought a 16-55 that arrived only today. There's no way Fuji would ever make a cheaper zoom lens than their red badge zoom lenses that is superior in IQ, but I'm sure the difference isn't more than 15% honestly. Fuji wants every customer to eventually buy their red badges, it makes perfect sense. They would never want you to stop at a more budget lens, they use those lure you in. Smart. BTW, did you feel liked you're missing out on OIS? My logic is that I can keep the 16-55 with my xt20 until the next Fuji camera comes out that has IBIS. I think that's gonna be the pro 3, and I will definitely pick one up.
@@ams914 I'm always missing on IBIS when I'm shooting video while a beer in too many 🤣 Yet seriously, 16-80 has (almost) everything 18-135 should have - amazing range (wider at the short end), great IQ and constant aperture, whatever that F number might be. And new Fuji camera with IBIS? Who knows. 3 years ago Fuji claimed they can not make it working yet now we have the X-H1. Speaking of which, these days that camera is so cheap I'm considering buying it, if you don't mind the bulk compared to the X-T20...
Yip I remember at 24mm at 2.8 on the 24-70 did produce a bit of vignetting, but overall it was superior to the 24-105, that was just horrible. You can’t go wrong with the 16-55 2.8, it’s a top performing lens and 2.8 to many is very important. I use only primes except for one lens, the 10-24mm. For the type of work I do, and if I wanted a zoom, it would be the 16-55 over the 16-80 for sure. Each to their own. Thanks for subbing, much appreciated.
Nothing wrong with the Canon 24-105. Still use on my 6D, not sure why you didn't send it back? Btw: I have tended to purchase primes for the x 2 Fuji X series bodies I have, + the excellent so called "kit"" zoom. Very happy. Think the lens under review is very pricey.
I'm not John, I'm not doing photography professionally (not even close) but I'll share my opinion. I almost never shoot 18-55 at f2.8. 18-55 is no good for anything like astro, so on the short end it's only good for landscapes for me, stopping it down increases depth of field which is good. I would love to shoot f2.8 on 55mm, but on 55 it's only f4, the same as 16-80. So you're not losing anything comparing to 18-55. If I were buying new lens now, I'd go for 16-80 over 18-55 without thinking. However, 18-55 bought as a kit costs you about $250. I'd still go for body + 16-80 vs 18-55 kit, but for more price-conscious people the price difference (~$500) may be significant It's more complicated if you're thinking about migration from 18-55. First, about motivation. I now often travel with 18-55 + 14. These lenses share filter thread, and still, I find lense changes in travels or during hiking to be a major hassle: remove filters from lens #1 remove lense #1 install lense #2 reinstall filters I hope, that those extra 2mm would help me change my lenses not as often or even travel with one lens (14 vs 16 still makes a huge difference, but convenience of having just one lense is still too tempting). The price of the migration is getting even higher if you count in filters. I'd need to buy just new filter holder adapter (I use 100mm system) and larger CPL filter so it's just ~$100. But if you only use screw-on filters, it'll cost you more. And of course you'll lose some money on selling 18-55 used. I'd say the price of migration in this case is getting pretty close to the full price of 16-80. And I'm still considering doing this. Another factor, is that if I migrate from 18-55 to 16-80 and still want to have that ultra-wide range 14 offers, I'll likely want to replace my 14 with 10-24 to share filters between the two. So it's even more money.
This lens has a MAJOR flaw for video, it has very serious focus "wobble" when recording and zooming from 16 to 80 or vice versa... this is yet to be fixed through firmware update and is a huge problem when zooming in video and AF
Thanks for your time. Unfortunately I did not get to test out it’s video capabilities. In future I’ll try add in some video info when reviewing. Cheers
Thank you for this informative review. I am selling some Canon kit, including a 24-105 f4 and wanting to get this 16-80 f4. Do you think it would be to big/heavy on a X-T30?
Thanks for your time and question. It would also depend on which other lenses you currently own or plan to purchase. If these lenses were the only consideration, I’d go for the 16-80. The 18-55 is good lens and is a stop faster on the wider angles, but the 16-80’s overall build and image quality, with the bonus of the extra reach, would be my choice. Enjoy your new gear!
I stumbled onto your channel during my search for information comparing the 16-80 f4.0 with the 16-55 f2.8. I enjoyed your straight forward & calm video, & subscribed. My question : is the 16-80 @ f4.0 sufficiently fast indoors to avoid unusable high ISO results or should I purchase the 16mm f1.4 or 23mm f2.0 for such low light situations (I refuse to carry a tripod or flash). I am not a professional, shooting family activities (mostly indoors & travel. Thank you in advance for your reply.
Thanks Morrie for your question and subscribing. The 16-80 has a decent image stabiliser built in so hand held shots at slow shutter speeds are possible to avoid unusable high ISO’s, but you will not be able to freeze action or people movement within the shot. In this case one of the several faster primes would do the trick. Try find a focal length that could be most useful. Both those lenses you mentioned are excellent lenses. The 16mm 1.4 in particular has great image quality. The 23mm probably has more versatility for most shoots. You may actually find you’ll use it more then the zoom. Enjoy.
you miss the OIS effectiveness when shooting at low shutter speed. However the comparison part with each prime len which has same focal length is valuable to me ! Thank you
Thanks for watching, glad the comparisons helped. There were a couple things I decided to leave out, like video features and OIS, i really tried to keep the video as close to 15min as possible. In the short time I had the lens sample, I wasn't really in a shooting scenario where I could give insightful feedback on the OIS other then specs off the spec sheet. It is a welcome addition to this lens for hand held low light work.
Found a vid that tests the OIS at slow shutter. First test is a comparison with the 18-55 zoom range. Then the shutter test. ruclips.net/video/d4-etPXtUNg/видео.html
Nice review, thank you. I am about to ore-order the new X-S10 and am in doubt between the 16-80 f4 and the 18-55 f2.8-4. Which one would you recommend for a general purpose walk around and travel lens?
Thanks for the question. Both have great image quality. Even though the 18-55 is a stop faster on the wide end, I think the greater reach at 80mm while still maintaining good image quality is a great benefit on the 16-80. If you are looking for a good general purpose lens that you can keep on all the time, I’d personally go with the 16-80. Whichever you decide on, you can’t go wrong, they are both good lenses. Enjoy
The Angry Photographer says the 16-80 is basically a perfect lens. He loves the bokeh and says it's better than the 16-55. I feel like I need to test it for myself to really know. I definitely have my doubts, especially after seeing John's review.
it looks like there's more noise in the left picture of the girl posing on the rock. Did you have to raise your iso to compensate for the brightness of the prime?
Thanks Floyd, the only thing it could be in my opinion is the way LumaFusion (edit software) rendered the video and compressed the images in the video. All images were taken at low a ISO setting and all images have the exact same exposure settings, same aperture, same shutter speed, cheers.
Nice review John, it will be fill my landscape lens gap 10-24 and 50-140, at the end 80mm quite impressive on par with the 90mm @ F4. Is the ois really steady at 5-6 stop?
Thanks Yan, thanks for watching. Unfortunately I didn’t have enough time with the lens to do a video test and OIS review. I didn’t feel it was right for me to comment on the OIS if I hadn’t properly tested it. From my experience, Fujifilm is pretty honest about their OIS figures and I’m sure it will impress many. Thanks again
Yes I do think it’s well suited for reportage or photojournalism due to its versatility. Again all depends on the light conditions, but I’m sure the vast majority of photojournalistic work is in reasonably well lit areas. At some stage you could also carry one of Fuji’s affordable small faster primes, like a 16mm or 18mm f2, incase you need to keep up your shutter speed in very low light.
@@JohnArmstrongPhotography You're right. I use 16 / 2.8, 23/2 and 50/2 lenses. Why not trying the scene photo with this new zoom (50 to 80mm / f4, 1/60) ?
Thanks for the question. If money was not an issue, I wanted to shoot on fujifilm x series system, I was a portrait photography and preferred zooms over primes, then I’d pick the 16-55 f2.8. The three zooms that work well together are 8-16 f2.8, 16-55 f2.8 and 50-140 f2.8, that’s a (35mm sensor) field of view of 12-210mm.
the F stop comparison is flawed, any lens stopped down ie f4 on the 14/2.8 will out perform any lens that is wide open, both should be compared at 1 stop from max to compare apples with apples ie 5.6 on the zoom 4.0 on the prime, lenses have depth of field scales that show the areas in focus at given stops for the distance focused on, lens reviewers often ignore the laws of physics to push their point, over all though good first look at this nice optic.
Thanks for your time and info. As a portrait photography, the test was to show the quality of shots wide open. The comparison to a prime was just for interest sake. As you correctly said, stopping down from wide open to compare quality in general would be best. When people do find themselves shooting a portrait with this lens, in most cases they’ll shoot at f4. The fact the prime had the stop advantage, shows how well it did. Thanks again, cheers
Very nice review, John! 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 16-55) 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 the Xf16-55? Thanks!
Cheers Steve, glad you enjoyed. I’ve unfortunately never compared the two lenses directly. I however do know the 16-55 2.8 is a beautiful lens and if that focal range with the benefit of f2.8 is sufficient for your needs, there would be no reason to change. The only benefits I would see, are the extra reach, size and OIS for hand holding at low shutter speeds. OIS does not freeze action, a faster/wider aperture does. I’d prefer not comment too much on the Angry photographers view of this lens, but it would be next to impossible to rate a lens 10 out 10 with this kind of focal range. There are always trade offs for this extreme focal range, which prevents it from being a 10 out of 10. If his 10 out 10 doesn’t mean perfection, but rather the best results he has seen for this type of lens, then ok, but if perfection is the standard, I cannot concur. For the 16-80 to perform and control things like vignetting, lens distortion, contrast and sharpness the way it does throughout the focal range, it is incredible, a perfect lens, no.
Thanks for the comment. Yes in theory that is correct, which shows the 16-80 did very well wide open. With my comparison being made in regards to portraiture, I kept the 16-80 wide open at f4 and compared the primes at same aperture purely for interest sake. I would have had to stop the lens down by 1 to 2 stops depending on the prime being compared to for closer comparison.
Thanks Patrick. It’s been a long time since I owned and used the 18-55. I remember it being a really good compact zoom. I would say the 16-80 does perform better with image quality, but is it that much better to justify purchasing it if you already own the 18-55? No I don’t think so. If extra reach, a constant aperture, and OIS is important to you, then yes.
Great review I'll be buying one, but for goodness sake if you want shallow DOF its the wrong format you would do better on Full Frame or even better GFX format
Thanks Jonathan, glad you enjoyed the review and thanks for commenting. You’d be surprised when looking at shallow depth of field and format size. I’m fortunate to have been able to work with a GFX system in my work and in the past, when I shot on a canon 35mm sensor camera, I owned the 35mm 1.4, 50mm 1.2, 85mm 1.2 and 135mm 2. All beautiful lenses and as fast as one gets (native) for 35mm sensors. Besides my 14mm, all my primes are f1.2, f1.4 and f2 on the fujifilm x-series. Let’s take just one portrait lens from each the APSC, 35mm and GFX medium format to compare. The fastest lens on the gfx is the 110mm f2, the fastest on the canon (and most other brands) is the 85mm f1.2 and the x-series fujifilm XF56mm f1.2, all roughly equivalent field of view. Excluding other benefits associated with large sensor size, the difference between these three lenses in almost unnoticeable. One other thing to mention, when I owned and used the canon 85mm, I hardly shot it at 1.2, the hit rate was so low, most of the time I’d stop it down by a third or two for accuracy. I shoot the 56mm open all the time. If I photographed a subject at 6 feet from my film plain, the size of the DOF, near to far would be on the canon 85mm shot at 1.2, 0.1 feet, on the xf56mm shot at 1.2, 0.15 feet and gf 110mm shot at f2, 0.09 feet. The difference here could not be seen with the naked eye. So format size doesn’t count much to DOF if the correct lenses are used. Once I knew I could achieve similar results on the x-series, there was no longer justification to carry around massive heavy gear. Cheers.
John Armstrong Photography Yes thanks John all well reasoned. I’m mostly shooting GFX and my problem is trying to get enough focus depth it’s so shallow cheers!
Did you test it in video when zooming in/out do you see the flickering? Im looking to buy this lens mainly for video but if it has this flickering issue like the 18-55 lens it will be quite disappointing. All Fuji 18-55 lenses flickers when doing video at constant aperture and its not smooth :/
Unfortunate I did not do any video tests. Others have asked the same question. Strangely enough, some said their 16-55 flickered, others said their 16-55 was fine, but their 10-24 flickered. I’d imagine a variable aperture would flicker, strange to hear a constant aperture flickers. Sorry couldn’t help.
Cheers Moxy. The great thing about fujifilm “kit” lenses is that they all offer a high level of quality. I’ve used both, but if I had to choose, personally I’d go with the 16-80, the image quality is great and you’ve got the versatility with the longer focal length. The extra stop on the wide end of the 18-55 is good, but not a big difference.
Just subbed.... really like the laid back approach.. no silly music or ridiculous intros that most you tubers do.. excellent John. Already a fan
Or 3 hours of squarespace plugs.
Good content on the lens, but what I found most enjoyable was the ease in which your daughters posed for your shots. Precious moments for bonding between dad (the photographer) and daughters. I have three daughters now all grown and gone; the close relationship we now enjoy was built on moments and events in their journey to adulthood.
Cheers Gary, thanks for the comment. Love hanging out with my daughters. As they grow up so fast, I’m making sure I don’t miss out by spending as much time as possible with them. Glad to hear your relationship is still strong, even though they have moved on with their own life’s.👍
Thank you for that review. I have this lens and completely agree with your findings, it is a wonderful travel lens and even more than that, it is sharp through the whole range for a zoom lens. It is very frustrating to me that some reviewers are continually doing negative reviews on this lens and people are basing their lens purchases on these negative reviews, hence are missing out on the pleasure of owning this lens (that's their loss I guess). Christopher Frosts review is extremely frustrating as he is very negative on this lens and is convinced that the 18 55 is better, I have sold my 18 55 since owning this lens and "locked horns" with him over this. I admit I do not pixel peep or cannot quote technical figures on sharpness etc, but I do know the images I get from this lens on my XT3 long pass my expectations ( I don't believe my expectations are low). I beleive photography is creative and enjoyment comes from having a camera in hand, not from looking at a computer screen, mouse in hand, enlarging images by 200% looking for soft corners
Thanks for your time and comment Tony, glad to hear your thoughts and that you are enjoying the lens, that’s all that counts.
Most thorough walk through of comparisons. Excellent video all around.
You don’t look old enough to have daughters of that age.. they are lovely... best video I’ve seen so far.. extremely well thought out. Thank you.. have a great day
Thanks for your kind words, glad you found it beneficial. Don’t mind my outer appearance, looks can be deceiving, I definitely feel like a dad in my 40’s on the inside.
Amazing comparison! Great job! I think it's great that you compared it with the primes!
The primes in your examples are sharper more contrasty and surprisingly compress space more pleasing to me. Good video.
I really appreciate a no BS photography channel on you-tube. You got a new subscriber.
Just bought this lens and really like it. Very sharp and nicely balanced on the X-T3 body.
Thank you for the very well done review. Earlier this year I spent over $300.00 U.S. having my X--T2 sensor cleaned by Fujifilm U.S. after a month in Mexico. I also know for a fact that I missed shots because I didn't have time to change lenses on the fly. This and my trusty 35 f1.4 will be traveling with me from now on. I have pre-ordered it!
@They Caged Non Hello They caged, You are so right about cleaning one's own sensor. I have cleaned my own sensor in the past but this was a piece of dirt under the glass, so the glass had to be removed to access it. I had to pony up and send it in to Fuji in New Jersey.
Very nice review. I think the lens did pretty good. I started out with the 18-55 and when I bought my first prime lens I basically stopped using the kit zoom. The images with that lens while good lack the contrast and even adding in post the images still look flat comparing them to the primes. I have the 35 1.4 and 23 1.4 I would love to add the 56 1.2 but my funds will not allow for now. I would like to have a good zoom for all the reasons you mentioned but the image quality always makes me take the primes. Although I do have the 10-24 and 55-200 and I am very happy with the way they render. Much better than the 18-55 lens I have. Thanks again for the review. I would really like to see a comparison like you did but with the 18-55 and 16-55. I wonder if the 16-55 would be a clear winner for image contrast.
Thanks for watching and commenting. I unfortunately have never directly compared the 18-55 to the 16-55, but having owned the 18-55 many years ago for a short time, my opinion is that the 16-55 is a superior lens for sure. Your currently lens lineup is great, all those primes, similar to mine are good as you get in the Fuji x world. I would say the 16-80 is close to the 16-55 in quality and the benefits to both are as discussed in my video. You would just have to decide how often you’d use the zoom, and if not much, just keep the 18-55 for those few times. Cheers
Hi John! Recently watched your review of the X-T4 and have now made the switch from Full Frame. Also opted to go for the XF16-80 as the kit lens (shouldn't really call it a kit lens). Best move I ever made! Great reviews on your channel on both, so thank you for that! Love your video style and content. You and Andy Mumford are now my go to channels!
Great to hear Mike, enjoy your new camera gear. Thanks for your support, I appreciate your comment.
A sideeffect of this video: you show an aspect of photography, that is much more important (for the beauty of a picture) than the lens used. The light!
The far best lens review.
Can’t wait to try it out.
Thanks and greetings from Croatia
Thanks David for watching, glad you enjoyed. Greeting from South Africa.👍
Javi da li se isplati uzet kad isprobaš :D
My pleasure to subscribe. Your videos are very detailed and comprehensive. Appreciate the time you put into making this video. The 16-80 looks like a great travel lens but the F4 minimum aperture certainly restricts shooting in less than ideal light conditions. I still use the 18-55 for my midrange zoom lens but I do not use it that much since adding some primes. That lens lacks contrast and gets soft past 35mm. From the reviews I have seen the 16-80 has a bit more contrast but at the wide end never has good corner resolution. That is kind of a bummer for landscape and wide city shots where you want to see the detail across the image. I have been thinking about adding the 16-55 as that lenses optical performance seems great throughout the frame. Thanks again for the review.
Thanks for subbing Paul, much appreciated, glad to hear my videos are helpful. I think there are many trying to decide on which of the three lenses to go for, 18-55, 16-55 & 16-80, all offering something different in a midrange zoom.. Cheers
I think zoom lenses have really improved in recent years. I recently switched to Fuji from Micro 4/3, and both the Panasonic 12-60 f/2.8-4.0 and the Olympus 12-100 f/4.0 are really great. So far I'm also extremely impressed with the Fuji kit lens, the 18-55 f/2.8-4.0, it's putty out really nice images!
Thanks Brent for your comment. Agreed, zooms are improving for sure. Glad to hear you are enjoying your fujifilm gear, cheers.
Excellent no nonsense review!! Well presented without stupid intro,music or stupid comments...keep it real!!! Thats what us fuji fans like!! Ive subscribed...👍👌
Ok now for the lens... i already have the 16-55mm and that is a damn good lens for image quality being a zoom,also called a bag of primes!! but its pretty heavy and known as the BRICK!!
The fuji 16-80 lens i believe is brilliant for travel and especially with it being stabilized so using that F4 aperture in low light conditions wont be much of an issue and especially at that 80mm focal length aswel.so while this16-80mm lens is a great all rounder and the Brick 16-55mm is great for events photography and portraiture and its still light compared to full frame zoom lenses but with this new contender i might exchange it for the 16-80mm as my travel lens instead of my 16-55mm.
I do miss having image stabilisation on my 16-55 sometimes...any comments would be great about the comparison for both zooms thanks..
Thanks for subscribing Mr Bop, glad you enjoyed. The 16-55 is a great lens. I haven’t compared the 16-55 to 16-80 as yet, hopefully in future I’ll get a chance. Just remember an image stabiliser won’t freeze action, only allows hand holding at low shutter speeds. F2.8 is a stop faster, so that’s the difference between freezing action at 125th, where the same exposure on the 16-80 shot at f4, would give you m shutter speed of 60th, which is a bit more difficult to freeze action. However you can hand hold the 16-80 at incredibly low shutter speeds like 1/8th with the OIS. So a few things to think about. Thanks again.
Great video, well happy with my x-t3 with the 16-80mm....so glad I picked Fujifilm its so tactile...
Glad to see the images compared, good info, very good and very close, I'll stick with primes.
An excellent review , except for the Tattooed Monkey this is as good or better as any review I have seen on this excellent Kit Zoom.
How lucky you are to have such beautiful Daughters as subjects for your review. Thanks, Cheerio.
Great stuff John. So good to see your wonderful daughters assisting dad too! :)
Cheers Ian, hope you guys are well.
Uau... didn't know about this lens... i was looking for a 18-135 but now you got me with this one, definitely my next buy.
Excellent review. And an excellent lens it seems. This is the first review I’ve seen and it’s the only one I need to see.
Cheers, thanks for your time.
Thanks for such a comprehensive review of the image quality of the lens. Wish you'd performed a flare and video test as well.
I've definitely got to work on getting some video samples into my reviews. As I am not a videographer, its not something that always comes to mind. Thanks for your time.
The fixed in every case is worth the cost difference/inconvenience TO ME...but to many, the extra costs are not worth it.
Great review...thank you! I have this lens and love it!
Best 16-80 comparative ever.
Great review, thank you. I'm looking forward to getting this lens for travel. I doubt I'll use it for portraits, but a great walking around option.
Great review John! Thanks for this great comparison to the primes.
I'm very interested in this lens myself since I do a lot of travel for work (I'm just an enthusiast, not a professional photographer). I currently own the 16-55mm and very much love this lens for a one solution for all types of photos. I also own the 23mm 1.4 and the 56mm 1.2 for low light and subject isolation.
I wonder how the image quality stacks up against the 16-55mm - not sure whether you have experience with that lens, but it would be very interesting to know. I could sell my 16-55mm and get the 16-80mm for only a little extra.
I love the idea of it being lighter and smaller with the extra reach, but if it comes at the price of IQ, I'm not sure I'd make the shift. The sharpness seems fine, but I do find myself worrying about the drop in contrast you spoke of...hard to measure though and to know whether it matters as much as one might think. The 6 stop image stabilisation is certainly a plus too.
Once again thanks for doing this great review - its awesome seeing a fellow South African on youtube.
Cheers Stefan, thanks for your kind words and for watching. Thats a tough one, for the type of work I do and if I wanted a a zoom, the 16-55 would be my preference, because 2.8 is more important to me then the extra reach. I have friends who shoot with the 16-55 and rave about it. The 16-80 most likely will not out perform the 16-55 in image quality, not necessarily worse, but not better. The OIS will allow hand held at low shutter speeds which helps in low light, but the 2.8 will give you a faster shutter speed in low light. So it really comes down to your needs. The set of lenses you currently use are amazing.
Mind was blown when it turned out to be two different girls being photographed. The comparison with the 56mm prime was enlightening, was surprised by how much detail like freckles and individual hairs it was rendering so much more clearly.
Another excellent review, John, backed up by excellent photography to provide context and examples. Personally, I've been waiting for just this lens since buying into the Fujifilm system back at the very end of 2012. I personally really like f/4 zooms (the Canon 17-40/4 was a "go-to" lens for me back when I shot with Canon). I like f/4 zooms because they're compact, light, sharp, and very flexible for a range of use-cases and provide very good performance over a range of focal lengths and apertures. Just a couple of comments regarding the lens performance specifically: looks like the 16-80/4 has a slightly softer contrast profile than the primes. Personally, I prefer this as it provides me with more control over the tonal and contrast profile in post than a "contrasty" lens, e.g. the Fujicron 23mm f/2. Also, just a side note: I actually prefer the portrait at 56mm at f/4 from the 16-80 over that of the 56/1.2. I find the additonal bit of detail in the background provides better context of where the portrait was taken, and I find there's some fringing in the edges of hills from the 56/1.2 image. Keep up the great work, and best regards. - Stephen from California
Cheers Stephen, thanks for the comment and feedback. This lens is definitely going to be a great option for many, for the exact points you raised. I personally prefer my fast primes for my work. As you say, often people do prefer more detail in the backgrounds with greater depth of field, but what the 56mm and other primes do offer is the choice to either shoot wide open or closed to suit the situation. You can use the 56mm in more varied situations for portraiture, for example, you can literally photograph a portrait in a car park, pick up on the sun reflecting off the cars in background, shot wide open at 1.2, and create a photograph that a person viewing the photo wouldn’t even know it’s a car park, so there are definitely benefits to suit certain situations. But for a lens with this focal range, it does do very well.
@@JohnArmstrongPhotography Yep, I would concur with your assessments. As a fellow pro, you know that its all about which gear helps each of us best fulfill our specific requirements. As someone who is more photojournalism and architecturally focused, a small kit of three very high quality zooms (or maybe a kit with two zooms & a small prime; I really love that 14mm f/2.8 prime) best meets my needs, but I fully understand the preferences of studio and portrait photographers who primarily prefer fast primes. Side note: I've been using the exemplary 8-16mm f/2.8 for my real estate and architectural work, and that lens is.... _amazing._
Cheers, mate!
Excellent review. Very much appreciated. Up to the point and straight forward approach which is different from many youtubers.
Thanks for your time, glad you enjoyed.
If the lens holds up at f22 in corner sharpness then this only means its very soft right from f4. You can't beat physics....(diffraction). Iam excited to test this lens for myself.
Great review John.
You didn’t mention that the lens has 6 stop OIS! This makes the lens excellent for handheld lowlight and video.
Thanks Mark, yes I unfortunately left out a few points, one being OIS. In the short time I had the lens, I never really tested it, so thought it not right to make judgment on it in the video. If Fujifilms OIS in general is anything to go by, people will be pleased and I’m sure incredibly low speeds will be possible hand hold. Cheers
In every case here the primes win, even if it's only by a hair, they can also open up a lot wider. The only reason to buy this lens is for convenience. As expected - F4 just won't cut it for the winter for many, especially if they like to shoot indoors without flash. Also, the 16mm 1.4 would have been a much better comparison to the 14mm, it eats the 14mm alive so we can assume it'll crush this zoom at 16mm.
Great review, definitely the best on RUclips so far👏🇿🇦📸
The 56mm prime lens definitely beats out the zoom lens by a WIDE margin, the sharpness and ESPECIALLY the bokeh are just no match.
Not that this is surprising, prime lenses are usually better at a specific focal range.
How’s it for vlogging? Your thoughts?
The OIS (XT3) seems better than the kit for video if you care.
Extremely useful video. Just what I was looking for (fix vs zoom). Thanks!
Good to hear
Great review, well presented with calm descriptions and excellent comparisons pointing out the positive benefits of this lens. Thank you!
thank you for the in depth review. really enjoyed it with all the comparison shots.
Great review, thanks; can you do the comparison against the 18-55? to see if the extra range is worth it.
I’ll definitely look into getting a copy of the 16-55 and 16-80 from fujifilm to do a comparison. Thanks for your time.
Thanks for this great review John!
Cheers Lou, glad you enjoyed! thanks for your time.
I just got the 18-135 as I don’t have any zoom lenses and wanted something versatile but I completely forgot this 16-80 was in the pipeline! I guess I’ll be making a return 😄
If you shoot the 16-80 a bit closed down, not wide open at f4, it will be probably even closer... A really good lens, but in my experience f4 is often woo slow for me, in low light you quickly get ridiculously high ISO speeds.
Cheers Bernhard, yes the lens did very well considering the primes had the advantage of being stopped down by a stop or two. Being a portrait shoot, I really wanted to shoot wide open and directly compare image quality with similar framing and depth of field. Cheers, thanks for the comment.
Thank you for this great lens review, from start to finish so concise and direct to the subject point. You just got another subscriber.
Cheers, thanks for your time and support.
Thanks for the great review, I'm thinking of getting this or the 18-135 as a versatile travel and family lens when you don't wan't to be swapping out. I have the 10-24 but hardly ever use it so it may replace that.
Cheers Adam, the 18-135 will certainly give you a ton of versatility, but in my opinion may not give you the same image quality and performance of the 16-80. It’s just a case of balancing out your wants and needs. Whatever you do get , enjoy.
@@JohnArmstrongPhotography Thanks, appreciate your thoughts. 👍
It would probably have been better to stop the zoom (and the primes) 1 or at least half a stop down from wide open, it would have been even stronger than wide open. At f4, the 35 is already 3 stops closed down which is proably it's sharpest aperture.
Hopefully, about to buy this lens. Armstrong, that's a great Scottish Borders name.
The out-of-focus areas on the 56 @ 1.2 looked really bad to my eyes
same here
@@romandulce999 I wonder if there is some sort of image processing/lens correction/sharpening that is messing with the out-of-focus areas
My friend recently got the 56 1.2 and has found similar issues, very busy bokeh and some questionable results that don’t make sense
Great vid thank you. Those fuji lenses are so good they make the two girls look almost identical! Struggling to think of what other lens to get with my XT4 if I get the 16-80mm. I'll definitely be tempted by the 100-400 zoom at some stage for a fairly specific need, but I can't think of a prime to cover my needs that the 16-80 doesn't already cover. I was thinking of the 16mm 2.8 for vlogging, but I the 16-80mm may be light enough even for my skinny arms
I am sure the 16-80 will work fine for vlogging, it’s very versatile. You could vlog and do general photography & video work all with one lens. If you are looking for a faster lens to pair with it for vlogging, you could also look at the 23mm1.4 or f2, might be a good field of view for vlogging. Maybe try 16-80 out first to see how you get on, before buying anything else. Enjoy.
I’ll be very anxious to see your review on the xt -4!
Excellent review of this lens. I’ll be selling my 18-55 kit lens ASAP to get the 16-80, as it’s perfect for travel. Cheers and subbed!
I can sign to everything you had said about Canon's 24-105mm lens - is was (is) simply awful. That being said, I had not much more luck with 24-70mm f2,8; at 24 mm it vignetted like crazy. But than agin, maybe that was just my copy.
Regarding 16-80mm, I'm sure it's a great lens, and I knew it was coming for some time, but I still bought the 16-55mm a couple of weeks ago. Namely, I already have the 18-135mm which I purchased in a bundle with the XT1 back in the day, so I thought 16-80 is too similar. And I do need a bit more bokeh and low light capability. In one lens.
BTW, subbed for quite some time 😁
I did the same thing. Bought a 16-55 that arrived only today. There's no way Fuji would ever make a cheaper zoom lens than their red badge zoom lenses that is superior in IQ, but I'm sure the difference isn't more than 15% honestly. Fuji wants every customer to eventually buy their red badges, it makes perfect sense. They would never want you to stop at a more budget lens, they use those lure you in. Smart. BTW, did you feel liked you're missing out on OIS? My logic is that I can keep the 16-55 with my xt20 until the next Fuji camera comes out that has IBIS. I think that's gonna be the pro 3, and I will definitely pick one up.
@@ams914 I'm always missing on IBIS when I'm shooting video while a beer in too many 🤣
Yet seriously, 16-80 has (almost) everything 18-135 should have - amazing range (wider at the short end), great IQ and constant aperture, whatever that F number might be.
And new Fuji camera with IBIS? Who knows. 3 years ago Fuji claimed they can not make it working yet now we have the X-H1. Speaking of which, these days that camera is so cheap I'm considering buying it, if you don't mind the bulk compared to the X-T20...
Yip I remember at 24mm at 2.8 on the 24-70 did produce a bit of vignetting, but overall it was superior to the 24-105, that was just horrible. You can’t go wrong with the 16-55 2.8, it’s a top performing lens and 2.8 to many is very important. I use only primes except for one lens, the 10-24mm. For the type of work I do, and if I wanted a zoom, it would be the 16-55 over the 16-80 for sure. Each to their own.
Thanks for subbing, much appreciated.
Great video, good solid information with no bs, big thanks
Great review! I can't wait for mine to arrive in the country.
Enjoy Vanessa!
Great review I own a 16/80 and love it. The lens is sharp between f5.6 to f8 so I’m satisfied for sure 👍🏼😊
Thanks J C, glad to hear you are enjoying the lens.
Great review, answered a number of question I had regarding this lens.
Glad I could help Phillip.
Thanks for your review! Everything i needed to know.
Fantastic review with detailed information and comparison between the lenses 👍. Just Subscribed 😊
Glad you enjoyed, thanks for subscribing.
Nothing wrong with the Canon 24-105. Still use on my 6D, not sure why you didn't send it back?
Btw: I have tended to purchase primes for the x 2 Fuji X series bodies I have, + the excellent so called "kit"" zoom.
Very happy.
Think the lens under review is very pricey.
Curious about your thoughts on this vs the 18-55 lens. Is it worth the extra ~$300 to get this instead of buying the kit?
I'm not John, I'm not doing photography professionally (not even close) but I'll share my opinion.
I almost never shoot 18-55 at f2.8. 18-55 is no good for anything like astro, so on the short end it's only good for landscapes for me, stopping it down increases depth of field which is good. I would love to shoot f2.8 on 55mm, but on 55 it's only f4, the same as 16-80.
So you're not losing anything comparing to 18-55.
If I were buying new lens now, I'd go for 16-80 over 18-55 without thinking.
However, 18-55 bought as a kit costs you about $250. I'd still go for body + 16-80 vs 18-55 kit, but for more price-conscious people the price difference (~$500) may be significant
It's more complicated if you're thinking about migration from 18-55.
First, about motivation. I now often travel with 18-55 + 14.
These lenses share filter thread, and still, I find lense changes in travels or during hiking to be a major hassle:
remove filters from lens #1
remove lense #1
install lense #2
reinstall filters
I hope, that those extra 2mm would help me change my lenses not as often or even travel with one lens (14 vs 16 still makes a huge difference, but convenience of having just one lense is still too tempting).
The price of the migration is getting even higher if you count in filters. I'd need to buy just new filter holder adapter (I use 100mm system) and larger CPL filter so it's just ~$100. But if you only use screw-on filters, it'll cost you more. And of course you'll lose some money on selling 18-55 used.
I'd say the price of migration in this case is getting pretty close to the full price of 16-80.
And I'm still considering doing this.
Another factor, is that if I migrate from 18-55 to 16-80 and still want to have that ultra-wide range 14 offers, I'll likely want to replace my 14 with 10-24 to share filters between the two. So it's even more money.
Great video, thank you very much, John!
Great review THANKS
It would have been interesting to add the 16-55 to see the difference.
This lens has a MAJOR flaw for video, it has very serious focus "wobble" when recording and zooming from 16 to 80 or vice versa... this is yet to be fixed through firmware update and is a huge problem when zooming in video and AF
Very nice and professional. I loved the way you compared to the primes. No B/S, crappy intro either like other people have. Philip
Cheers Philip, glad you enjoyed.
Im enjoying your videos John. Very helpful
Thanks John, great video, useful review. 😉
Do you have any thought/experience about video capability of this lens?
Thanks for your time. Unfortunately I did not get to test out it’s video capabilities. In future I’ll try add in some video info when reviewing. Cheers
I really enjoyed your review! Thank you! Subscribed
Thank you for this informative review. I am selling some Canon kit, including a 24-105 f4 and wanting to get this 16-80 f4. Do you think it would be to big/heavy on a X-T30?
First time I see someone saying a 5x zoom ils as good on all the range as thé equivalent primes. A bit far fetch?
Very helpful, but this turned out to be an expensive youtube video for me. I now need to buy this lens for my travelling! ;) ;) ;)
Thank you, John! :)
Glad I was of some help. A lighter lens and a lighter wallet, good combo. Just keep enough to pay for the travels.
@@JohnArmstrongPhotography Guess I have to sell some gear.... :) Look forward to your next video.
Good video. I need this lens for travel use :)
Thanks for the review! I'm planning to buy the XT3 and I'm debating with which lens to buy it- 16-80 VS 18-55? What do you recommend? 🙏😊
Thanks for your time and question. It would also depend on which other lenses you currently own or plan to purchase. If these lenses were the only consideration, I’d go for the 16-80. The 18-55 is good lens and is a stop faster on the wider angles, but the 16-80’s overall build and image quality, with the bonus of the extra reach, would be my choice. Enjoy your new gear!
@@JohnArmstrongPhotography
Thank you! I'm also own the Samsang 12mm f2 for landscape.
So I think it will be good combination with both of the lenses 🙏
I stumbled onto your channel during my search for information comparing the 16-80 f4.0 with the 16-55 f2.8. I enjoyed your straight forward & calm video, & subscribed. My question : is the 16-80 @ f4.0 sufficiently fast indoors to avoid unusable high ISO results or should I purchase the 16mm f1.4 or 23mm f2.0 for such low light situations (I refuse to carry a tripod or flash).
I am not a professional, shooting family activities (mostly indoors & travel.
Thank you in advance for your reply.
Thanks Morrie for your question and subscribing. The 16-80 has a decent image stabiliser built in so hand held shots at slow shutter speeds are possible to avoid unusable high ISO’s, but you will not be able to freeze action or people movement within the shot. In this case one of the several faster primes would do the trick. Try find a focal length that could be most useful. Both those lenses you mentioned are excellent lenses. The 16mm 1.4 in particular has great image quality. The 23mm probably has more versatility for most shoots. You may actually find you’ll use it more then the zoom. Enjoy.
you miss the OIS effectiveness when shooting at low shutter speed. However the comparison part with each prime len which has same focal length is valuable to me ! Thank you
Thanks for watching, glad the comparisons helped. There were a couple things I decided to leave out, like video features and OIS, i really tried to keep the video as close to 15min as possible. In the short time I had the lens sample, I wasn't really in a shooting scenario where I could give insightful feedback on the OIS other then specs off the spec sheet. It is a welcome addition to this lens for hand held low light work.
Found a vid that tests the OIS at slow shutter.
First test is a comparison with the 18-55 zoom range.
Then the shutter test.
ruclips.net/video/d4-etPXtUNg/видео.html
Nice review, thank you. I am about to ore-order the new X-S10 and am in doubt between the 16-80 f4 and the 18-55 f2.8-4. Which one would you recommend for a general purpose walk around and travel lens?
Thanks for the question. Both have great image quality. Even though the 18-55 is a stop faster on the wide end, I think the greater reach at 80mm while still maintaining good image quality is a great benefit on the 16-80. If you are looking for a good general purpose lens that you can keep on all the time, I’d personally go with the 16-80. Whichever you decide on, you can’t go wrong, they are both good lenses. Enjoy
@@JohnArmstrongPhotography thanks. How do the 2 compare image quality wise?
Great review John. Why can't the phony Angry Photographer do reviews like this?
Cheers, thanks for your time, glad you enjoyed.
The Angry Photographer says the 16-80 is basically a perfect lens. He loves the bokeh and says it's better than the 16-55. I feel like I need to test it for myself to really know. I definitely have my doubts, especially after seeing John's review.
Ken loves this lens.
Awesome thank you for your review.
great review, thank you..
Great looking pair of model.
YEP, it is the '4' take makes me say NO.
We're you using a flash on these or just that golden hour glow??
it looks like there's more noise in the left picture of the girl posing on the rock. Did you have to raise your iso to compensate for the brightness of the prime?
Thanks Floyd, the only thing it could be in my opinion is the way LumaFusion (edit software) rendered the video and compressed the images in the video. All images were taken at low a ISO setting and all images have the exact same exposure settings, same aperture, same shutter speed, cheers.
Nice review John, it will be fill my landscape lens gap 10-24 and 50-140, at the end 80mm quite impressive on par with the 90mm @ F4. Is the ois really steady at 5-6 stop?
Thanks Yan, thanks for watching. Unfortunately I didn’t have enough time with the lens to do a video test and OIS review. I didn’t feel it was right for me to comment on the OIS if I hadn’t properly tested it. From my experience, Fujifilm is pretty honest about their OIS figures and I’m sure it will impress many. Thanks again
@@JohnArmstrongPhotography I agree with you my 50-140 ois perform really2 well and very confident too using in very low lighting with static object.
Thank you for sharing. Is-it a good lens for photojournalism (local press) and social media ?
Yes I do think it’s well suited for reportage or photojournalism due to its versatility. Again all depends on the light conditions, but I’m sure the vast majority of photojournalistic work is in reasonably well lit areas. At some stage you could also carry one of Fuji’s affordable small faster primes, like a 16mm or 18mm f2, incase you need to keep up your shutter speed in very low light.
@@JohnArmstrongPhotography
You're right. I use 16 / 2.8, 23/2 and 50/2 lenses. Why not trying the scene photo with this new zoom (50 to 80mm / f4, 1/60) ?
@@JohnArmstrongPhotography Couldn't agree more...
Great video, thank you very much !
If money is not an issue, would you recommend 16-80 f4 or 16-55 f2.8 ?
Thanks for the question. If money was not an issue, I wanted to shoot on fujifilm x series system, I was a portrait photography and preferred zooms over primes, then I’d pick the 16-55 f2.8. The three zooms that work well together are 8-16 f2.8, 16-55 f2.8 and 50-140 f2.8, that’s a (35mm sensor) field of view of 12-210mm.
the F stop comparison is flawed, any lens stopped down ie f4 on the 14/2.8 will out perform any lens that is wide open, both should be compared at 1 stop from max to compare apples with apples ie 5.6 on the zoom 4.0 on the prime, lenses have depth of field scales that show the areas in focus at given stops for the distance focused on, lens reviewers often ignore the laws of physics to push their point, over all though good first look at this nice optic.
Thanks for your time and info. As a portrait photography, the test was to show the quality of shots wide open. The comparison to a prime was just for interest sake. As you correctly said, stopping down from wide open to compare quality in general would be best. When people do find themselves shooting a portrait with this lens, in most cases they’ll shoot at f4. The fact the prime had the stop advantage, shows how well it did. Thanks again, cheers
10:20 The 16-80 looks great. Just curious, what are you using for flash in these sample photos? on-camera?
I used a simple off camera setup, with a godox ad200 and small reflector dish.
John Armstrong Photography Thanks
Looks to me like the 35mm f4 is considerably sharper.
Cheers Doug, thanks for your comment. The 35mm is a fantastic lens, one of my personal favourites.
Very nice review, John! 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 16-55) 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 the Xf16-55? Thanks!
Cheers Steve, glad you enjoyed. I’ve unfortunately never compared the two lenses directly. I however do know the 16-55 2.8 is a beautiful lens and if that focal range with the benefit of f2.8 is sufficient for your needs, there would be no reason to change. The only benefits I would see, are the extra reach, size and OIS for hand holding at low shutter speeds. OIS does not freeze action, a faster/wider aperture does. I’d prefer not comment too much on the Angry photographers view of this lens, but it would be next to impossible to rate a lens 10 out 10 with this kind of focal range. There are always trade offs for this extreme focal range, which prevents it from being a 10 out of 10. If his 10 out 10 doesn’t mean perfection, but rather the best results he has seen for this type of lens, then ok, but if perfection is the standard, I cannot concur. For the 16-80 to perform and control things like vignetting, lens distortion, contrast and sharpness the way it does throughout the focal range, it is incredible, a perfect lens, no.
Wouldn’t the primes be sharper anyway at f4 since they are stopped down compared to the zoom being wide open?
Thanks for the comment. Yes in theory that is correct, which shows the 16-80 did very well wide open. With my comparison being made in regards to portraiture, I kept the 16-80 wide open at f4 and compared the primes at same aperture purely for interest sake. I would have had to stop the lens down by 1 to 2 stops depending on the prime being compared to for closer comparison.
Great review. Appreciate your effort.
Cheers, thanks for your time and comment.
Would you rate this lens optically superior in image quality to the kit 18-55 lens?
Thanks Patrick. It’s been a long time since I owned and used the 18-55. I remember it being a really good compact zoom. I would say the 16-80 does perform better with image quality, but is it that much better to justify purchasing it if you already own the 18-55? No I don’t think so. If extra reach, a constant aperture, and OIS is important to you, then yes.
Great review I'll be buying one, but for goodness sake if you want shallow DOF its the wrong format you would do better on Full Frame or even better GFX format
Thanks Jonathan, glad you enjoyed the review and thanks for commenting. You’d be surprised when looking at shallow depth of field and format size. I’m fortunate to have been able to work with a GFX system in my work and in the past, when I shot on a canon 35mm sensor camera, I owned the 35mm 1.4, 50mm 1.2, 85mm 1.2 and 135mm 2. All beautiful lenses and as fast as one gets (native) for 35mm sensors. Besides my 14mm, all my primes are f1.2, f1.4 and f2 on the fujifilm x-series. Let’s take just one portrait lens from each the APSC, 35mm and GFX medium format to compare. The fastest lens on the gfx is the 110mm f2, the fastest on the canon (and most other brands) is the 85mm f1.2 and the x-series fujifilm XF56mm f1.2, all roughly equivalent field of view. Excluding other benefits associated with large sensor size, the difference between these three lenses in almost unnoticeable. One other thing to mention, when I owned and used the canon 85mm, I hardly shot it at 1.2, the hit rate was so low, most of the time I’d stop it down by a third or two for accuracy. I shoot the 56mm open all the time.
If I photographed a subject at 6 feet from my film plain, the size of the DOF, near to far would be on the canon 85mm shot at 1.2, 0.1 feet, on the xf56mm shot at 1.2, 0.15 feet and gf 110mm shot at f2, 0.09 feet. The difference here could not be seen with the naked eye. So format size doesn’t count much to DOF if the correct lenses are used. Once I knew I could achieve similar results on the x-series, there was no longer justification to carry around massive heavy gear. Cheers.
John Armstrong Photography Yes thanks John all well reasoned. I’m mostly shooting GFX and my problem is trying to get enough focus depth it’s so shallow cheers!
Did you test it in video when zooming in/out do you see the flickering? Im looking to buy this lens mainly for video but if it has this flickering issue like the 18-55 lens it will be quite disappointing. All Fuji 18-55 lenses flickers when doing video at constant aperture and its not smooth :/
Unfortunate I did not do any video tests. Others have asked the same question. Strangely enough, some said their 16-55 flickered, others said their 16-55 was fine, but their 10-24 flickered. I’d imagine a variable aperture would flicker, strange to hear a constant aperture flickers. Sorry couldn’t help.
Great video! What are your thoughts on the two kit lenses for the X-T4, (1) XF 16-80mm f/4 R OIS WR and the (2) XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 R LM OIS?
X-T
Cheers Moxy. The great thing about fujifilm “kit” lenses is that they all offer a high level of quality. I’ve used both, but if I had to choose, personally I’d go with the 16-80, the image quality is great and you’ve got the versatility with the longer focal length. The extra stop on the wide end of the 18-55 is good, but not a big difference.