funny how this lens doesn't feel like a replacement for the 18-55 but rather a replacement for XC16-50 mainly because it basically removed the good things about the 18-55 (the aperture, the OIS) and replaced it with other good things (WR, resolution, internal zoom) so, we got good things by removing other good things.
If sigma 18-50 can make a lens that’s F2 .8 throughout its focal length, why can’t Fuji? They’re both about the same size. Also, I don’t like the new f4.8 instead of the F4 on the old lens!
The Sigma has no aperture ring, no OIS and is not an internal zoom. And I believe is not advertised as weather resistant either. The Sigma is a better value for money at pure retail price, specially if you have a body with IBIS.
Another amazing review, thanks Richard! Now I'm also curious as other comments mentioned the comparison with the Sigma equivalent. Hope you accept the challenge of getting your hands on both lenses at the same time haha!
Richard, thanks so much for your helpful video. Do you have any thoughts on how the AF performance and IQ of this 16-50 2.8-4.8 lens compare to the larger Fujifilm XF16-55 2.8 lens?
Very nice comparison, and it's got me interested in the 16-50 even more. I've never really liked the 18-55 that much, and it looks like this new lens basically fixes all the problems I had with the old one, especially the sharpness at 55mm, and the bokeh (the 18-55's is horrendous). Happy to give up half a stop of aperture, especially if it means a lighter lens that is also weather resistant.
Feels like a bit of a downgrade, no OIS, slower on the tele end, not quite as impressive as the 18-55mm was when it came out. Also full frame equivalent of 24-75mm f/4.2 to f/7.2 just feels a bit uninspired, not much light gathering.
Anyone else spend more time with video in this lens? The focus breathing issues seem a bit concerning, anyone know if that’s something firmware update could help? N00b deciding whether to get xs20 with 18-55 or 16-50 kit lens
This is a very helpful review. Thank you so much! I would have loved to have a little comparison regarding the OIS from the old lens. Have you noticed any noticable difference with just IBIS instead IBIS + OIS?
did you happen to find out if the lens re-focusses while zooming in video mode? All other Fujifilm lenses do this which makes certain video shots look really bad 🙁
Thanks for another useful review, Richard. Finally, I’ve sold 18-55 and bought 16-50. 16-50 is perfect in every way. For me the sharpness is most important parameter and 16-50 is definitely much sharper than 18-55. 18-55 was perfect lens in the past but now it doesn’t resolve 40 megapixel sensor resolution
The sigma is super soft at 50mm 2.8, so that’s the compromise there. To me this defeats the 2.8 constant aperture advantage and I would stop that lens down to f4 anyway at 50mm, for photos at least. Just too soft. But 4.8 on the Fuji is very slow. I’m impressed with the sharpness though. Really a different level than the sigma.
Can that elephant shoot at 16mm? It's also got rather soft not pleasant corners and no aperture ring, no WR, zooms the wrong way if you've got other Fuji zooms, and the IQ quickly deteriorates focussing at that MFD. It heavily relies on in camera corrections, the RAWS reveal the heavy distortion (why it has that corner performance) and vignetting. It also doesn't give a very solid impression. I sold my sigma after not very long using it. I hoped it could replace the 16-55, but it just falls behind in too many ways. It cost me more, too. Compared to the 18-55, well it depends on the body, because OIS is worth more than 1 stop for lowlight work. And for separation and portrait, a faster prime is preferable anyway. But the sigma is priced much better for lens only buyers. If you don't crop, pixel peep, shoot at MFD and will just be sharing on social media or friends and family, the sigma is absolutely good enough. But the same can be said for many cheap kit lenses. As a kit, this new lens makes a lot of sense. The added value of a wider field of view on a camera cannot be understated. It makes a big difference. Internal zoom on a lens like this? Unnecessary perhaps, but again adds to it's use anywhere purpose.
Great honest r review, thankyou. Nikon user here, think I will get this one for a walk around and holiday camera with the new zoom. I have been considering the nikon zf, but the form factor of the Fuji will probably win.
Excellent review. I have used the 18-55 since I joined Fujiland in 2016. It's a great general purpose and hiking lens. But, I wanted 16mm and WR, so ordered the 16-50 this morning (I'll trade-in the 18-55). The small additional improvement in sharpness is welcomed. Looking forward to it arriving, hopefully in June.
I'm facing the same dilemma, which one did you choose? Sharpness, bokeh and min focus distance is more important to me than the extra 2mm (sigma has macro capabilities)
Excellent review once again Richard. Not sure that the front is much less susceptible to dust ingress, as it looks to still move in and out, only that it does so within the dimensions of the exterior barrel. Either way, it is not really something I worry about though. The improved sunstars (at a reasonable aperture like f/5.6) are good to see, as Fuji have never prioritised them before now, so hopefully this is a sign of thing to come for future lens releases from them too.
@@TheRealRichardWong I think you are correct. They appear to be moving stabilisation into the camera bodies. If we get an X-E5 I'll have to start saving and swap my X-E4 for one.
Having WR is a very good advantage. But, not having the OIS is very, very, very bad for those having the XT-3. A XT-3 is always a very good camera, but do not have the OIS in is body. That is the reason why I prefer the 16-80 with both WR and OIS and not the old 18-55. It woul really be interesting to have OIS and WR on this new lense. But without OIS, it is not interresting.
@@TheRealRichardWong thanks! I am thinking if i need another prime lens probably a 23mm f1.4 to compliment this lens (for portraits, streets, low light)
Honestly the optical diffrence is so marginal that only a pixel peeper will see it. I think the old 18-55 has a better build and the IOS comes in so handy with the older fuji's that don't have IBIS. I think I will be holding on to my 18-55. I do wonder if Fuji will offer anything for people that recently purchased the X-T5 kit that came with the 18-55, maybe a trade in?
An excellent review. I just ordered this lens as travel lens on overseas shootings. In August I'm in the US and Canada. I'm sure this lens will serve me well, traveling with a "light" camera bagback.
The fact that the 16-50 is internal zooming is a game changer, this is huge. Possibly, this is the first internal zooming lens Fujifilm ever made for the X system. If you ever had an internal zoom lens, you will not want to go back again to use protruding lenses. This 1650 lens alone is enough reason to go for the X-T50. I am hesitating between the fantastic X-T50 and gorgeous S9, but there is no internal zooming lense in the L-mount system, so this lens for X-T50 is really a "decisive moment" to paraphrase Bresson.
The older Fujifilm XC 16-50 F3.5-5.6 is very underrated. Pros: 1. Cheap 2. Small, Lightweight, No front heavy 3. Starts with 24mm 4. OIS 5. Weather resistance (excellent in actual use, although not “officially” weather resistant) 6. Resistance to scratch (plastic, no paint coming off from metal body) 7. Great optics Cons: 1. Not F2.8 Comparisons: Fuji XF 16-55 F2.8, Pro: F2.8 Cons: big/heavy, expensive, no OIS, not resistance to scratch Fuji 15-45, Cons: power zoom slow to operate Fuji 18-55 F2.8-4, Pros: one stop faster Cons: no 24mm, not resistance to scratch, more expensive New Fuji 16-50 F2.8-4.8, Pros: 1/3 (tele) ~ 1 (wide) stop faster Cons: much more expensive, not resistance to scratch, no OIS. To me, the best standard zoom for Fuji is the XC 16-50.
The XC 15-45 has poor image quality, and the XC 16-50 is also not great. The XC lenses lack the same corrections as XF lenses (both in-body and in most RAW converters). To me, the XC lineup feels like kit lenses from other brands. The XF lineup is a cut above.
@@henrikhelmers1412 I have compared directly the 16-50 with the 16-55 F2.8, they are very very close. Yes, very very close. Even at the far corners, even at 16mm, which is generally poor with small lenses.
Great comparison, thanks! My 18-55 has a very strong field curvature at 18mm, I expected way worse performance in the corners in your comparison. Did you focus in the corners there?
Hi there :). in this review, I've explained the soft corner I got from the 18-55 initially when I focused at center, then if i focus at corners, the corner is sharp, but then the centre is soft
@@opalyankaBG oh sorry i miss read "18mm" as "55mm". No I didn't notice field curvature at 18mm with the 18-55mm. My test photo were shot with focus at centre and it was sharper than the 16-50mm lens
I'm thinking of picking this up for my X-T30ii. I'm just stating out and don't have a zoom lens yet. Would they pair well? Do you have a different suggestion? Would appreciate it!
This is not internal zoom lens and story about designer freedom and perfect sense to not have OIS is simply to explain as it was for Fujifilm cheaper to make one without OIS. There is no any sense and let alone conveniance to not have OIS as dual stabilisation option. Same thing is with rubber rings ,they are cheap and feel cheap when compared to metal .
@@Wordsalad69420 so we're just gonna ignore that it has internal zooming, that it's lighter, has weather resistance, that 16mm is more interesting wide angle than 18mm, that 16-50 has better image quality in many aspects (especially for the new 40mp sensor) and 18-55 had quality control all over the place with many soft copies. But it's darker by f0.8 on one end, what's why it's worse, right? Because you lose like a few minutes ability to shoot in the sunset or what? Or your bokeh balls become smaller by 2%? Fujifilm made sure we have a better overall lens and experience with it, and if you care about f0.8 difference you're just wrong
The 18-55 is blowing it out the water.. They are giving you a cheaper lens. It is not made as strong as the 18 and 55 because it got less metal and more plastic in it. This is why the 16-55 is lighter. And then I do not have image stability. FUJIFILM is trying to go the cheaper route… and this idiot is talking about the 18-55 is very soft. He’s a liar. he would do anything to help Stay on his channel by reviewing these lenses
My 18-55 doesn't have much field curvature, bit surprised here. I also think that new lens despite being a tad sharper is actually cheaper and completely overprice. Because of inflation the quality in general among all brands is going down unfortunatly.
@@Kliffotit’s not overpriced moron. you only should buy this lens in the kit with the T5 and T50… it’s 300 bucks cheaper when bought with the body.. if you already have a body this makes no sense to get it as a standalone. also a new lens doesn’t mean everyone should get this.. it’s new for specific people..
I agree with your discoveries about the 18-55's field curvature. I didn't get why many people praised that lens as sharp because it is not. cheers, great review
Depends. If you shoot brick walls for a living, you might notice the field curvature. For most normal purposes, the 18-55 is amazingly sharp. It was razor sharp on the first generation sensors, kept up really well on the 24-26mp sensors, and even today on extremely demanding 40mp sensors you have to zoom to 200% to see any real difference in sharpness. It completely deserves its status as best kit lens ever.
@@mdvp123 Sorry but I disagree, and I do not shoot brick walls for a living. Field curvature is also important when focusing and recomposing, though. I have a copy of it for video on my X-T3 but for pictures any Nikon kit lens, the 18-105 for example is sharper and with less field curvature. I guess if you believe it can keep up with the 40mp sensors, your image quality standards are lower than mine, for sure. Cheers.
No it's a bad lens especially the edges and it's sold at an exaggerated price especially in Europe with taxes. Fujifilm must make zoom lenses without compromises and a revision of the 16/55 F2.8 If he is not able to do it, he must have the courage to have the lenses made by Sigma. The new 24 70 Art Mark 2 is fantastic, sharp in the center and also at the edges.
I noticed the 18-55 was sharper in the corners at the wide end, and also had more contrast in all the shots. The blacks were blacker, and the colors were more punchy.
@@paulthomas8986 for me this new lens is unusable. Fuji engineers should be ashamed of themselves. Their hi-tech development is far behind other brands. And these prices... Its a comedy.
funny how this lens doesn't feel like a replacement for the 18-55 but rather a replacement for XC16-50 mainly because it basically removed the good things about the 18-55 (the aperture, the OIS) and replaced it with other good things (WR, resolution, internal zoom)
so, we got good things by removing other good things.
The 18 to 55 mm makes more sense for me. My XT30 doesn't have IBIS and I really don't feel any need to upgrade.
If sigma 18-50 can make a lens that’s F2 .8 throughout its focal length, why can’t Fuji? They’re both about the same size.
Also, I don’t like the new f4.8 instead of the F4 on the old lens!
So that you are more likely to buy their primes , i mean i guess..
@@breeze7403
At least they put a 16mm at the wide end.
Fuji literally has a constant f2.8 zoom lens, their 16-55mm.
The Sigma has no aperture ring, no OIS and is not an internal zoom. And I believe is not advertised as weather resistant either.
The Sigma is a better value for money at pure retail price, specially if you have a body with IBIS.
We need Sigma to produce a 16-50mm for any real comparison. Getting these wider angle zoom lenses optically perfect is not so easy.
Another amazing review, thanks Richard! Now I'm also curious as other comments mentioned the comparison with the Sigma equivalent. Hope you accept the challenge of getting your hands on both lenses at the same time haha!
Excellent video. Thank you for your hard work on this. I like the upgrades to in lens zoom and minimum focus distance.
Richard, thanks so much for your helpful video. Do you have any thoughts on how the AF performance and IQ of this 16-50 2.8-4.8 lens compare to the larger Fujifilm XF16-55 2.8 lens?
Very nice comparison, and it's got me interested in the 16-50 even more. I've never really liked the 18-55 that much, and it looks like this new lens basically fixes all the problems I had with the old one, especially the sharpness at 55mm, and the bokeh (the 18-55's is horrendous). Happy to give up half a stop of aperture, especially if it means a lighter lens that is also weather resistant.
Feels like a bit of a downgrade, no OIS, slower on the tele end, not quite as impressive as the 18-55mm was when it came out. Also full frame equivalent of 24-75mm f/4.2 to f/7.2 just feels a bit uninspired, not much light gathering.
Mediocre at best, yawn….. where is 18/2 update??
Anyone else spend more time with video in this lens? The focus breathing issues seem a bit concerning, anyone know if that’s something firmware update could help? N00b deciding whether to get xs20 with 18-55 or 16-50 kit lens
This is a very helpful review. Thank you so much! I would have loved to have a little comparison regarding the OIS from the old lens. Have you noticed any noticable difference with just IBIS instead IBIS + OIS?
I haven't notice any difference. But I do need to do some proper side by side test to tell if there is and how much
Much superior sunstars I have to give it that
Hi Richard, what’s your opinion on the best travel lens for the XT-50? This one in the video or the 16-80? Thank you :)
did you happen to find out if the lens re-focusses while zooming in video mode? All other Fujifilm lenses do this which makes certain video shots look really bad 🙁
no sorry i don't think i have test it for this lens
Very thoughtful review. Thank you.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Thanks for another useful review, Richard. Finally, I’ve sold 18-55 and bought 16-50. 16-50 is perfect in every way. For me the sharpness is most important parameter and 16-50 is definitely much sharper than 18-55. 18-55 was perfect lens in the past but now it doesn’t resolve 40 megapixel sensor resolution
@@inessa52 glad to hear you are enjoying your new lens Rafael!
Hey Richard, thanks for this nice review. Now the elephant in the room is a comparison to the Sigma 18-50/2.8 on a 40MP sensor Fuji camera 😅
I bought weeks ago the 18-50 for my XT5 and I’m impressed. Fuji not having a constant aperture is a huge miss.
That would be a nice comparison! The challenge for me is to get access to both lenses at the same time :(
The sigma is super soft at 50mm 2.8, so that’s the compromise there. To me this defeats the 2.8 constant aperture advantage and I would stop that lens down to f4 anyway at 50mm, for photos at least. Just too soft.
But 4.8 on the Fuji is very slow. I’m impressed with the sharpness though. Really a different level than the sigma.
Can that elephant shoot at 16mm?
It's also got rather soft not pleasant corners and no aperture ring, no WR, zooms the wrong way if you've got other Fuji zooms, and the IQ quickly deteriorates focussing at that MFD. It heavily relies on in camera corrections, the RAWS reveal the heavy distortion (why it has that corner performance) and vignetting. It also doesn't give a very solid impression.
I sold my sigma after not very long using it. I hoped it could replace the 16-55, but it just falls behind in too many ways. It cost me more, too.
Compared to the 18-55, well it depends on the body, because OIS is worth more than 1 stop for lowlight work. And for separation and portrait, a faster prime is preferable anyway.
But the sigma is priced much better for lens only buyers. If you don't crop, pixel peep, shoot at MFD and will just be sharing on social media or friends and family, the sigma is absolutely good enough. But the same can be said for many cheap kit lenses.
As a kit, this new lens makes a lot of sense. The added value of a wider field of view on a camera cannot be understated. It makes a big difference. Internal zoom on a lens like this? Unnecessary perhaps, but again adds to it's use anywhere purpose.
Dustin Abbot has been checking some recent lenses on the 40MP sensor, including the Sigma compared against the XF 16-55mm.
Great honest r review, thankyou.
Nikon user here, think I will get this one for a walk around and holiday camera with the new zoom. I have been considering the nikon zf, but the form factor of the Fuji will probably win.
Fantastic review! You really had absolutely everything I was hoping to learn about the lens.
Thank you very much glad you like the review
Very comprehensive review! Thank you!
Thank you very much
I prefer Xf 18-55mm with ois ;)
Very informative…thank you!
Excellent review. I have used the 18-55 since I joined Fujiland in 2016. It's a great general purpose and hiking lens. But, I wanted 16mm and WR, so ordered the 16-50 this morning (I'll trade-in the 18-55). The small additional improvement in sharpness is welcomed. Looking forward to it arriving, hopefully in June.
I sold my XF18-55, it was soft. I'm going to decide whether the new XF16-50 or the Sigma 18-50, I'm all about image quality. My body is Fujifilm X-S10
I'm facing the same dilemma, which one did you choose? Sharpness, bokeh and min focus distance is more important to me than the extra 2mm (sigma has macro capabilities)
Consider tamron 17-70
Image Stabilization comparison would be nice
Excellent review once again Richard.
Not sure that the front is much less susceptible to dust ingress, as it looks to still move in and out, only that it does so within the dimensions of the exterior barrel. Either way, it is not really something I worry about though.
The improved sunstars (at a reasonable aperture like f/5.6) are good to see, as Fuji have never prioritised them before now, so hopefully this is a sign of thing to come for future lens releases from them too.
thanks for your always support Bayonet!
This is a review, with plenty of comparisons, tests and thoughts. Thank you.
PS: that’s more quality than the words kit lens mean in general opinion
Thanks for watching!
No OIS, I'll have to stick with my XC 15-45mm OIS on the X-E4. I have been waiting on getting a an 18-55mm hoping this new lens had stabilisation :(
I have a feeling the new lenses (at least the wide to standard) won't have OIS from now onwards. It's the same for most other brands as well.
@@TheRealRichardWong I think you are correct. They appear to be moving stabilisation into the camera bodies. If we get an X-E5 I'll have to start saving and swap my X-E4 for one.
One of the best lens review videos I have seen. Really practical and smart tests. Subscribed.
Thanks for the sub!
Hi, I’m with my X-T50 right now but the xc lens, and I willing to buy a new lens, anybody can recommend me between 1650/2.8-4.8 and 1655/2.8 thx!
Good job, however does the 16-50 lose focus while zooming in a video?!
Having WR is a very good advantage. But, not having the OIS is very, very, very bad for those having the XT-3. A XT-3 is always a very good camera, but do not have the OIS in is body. That is the reason why I prefer the 16-80 with both WR and OIS and not the old 18-55. It woul really be interesting to have OIS and WR on this new lense. But without OIS, it is not interresting.
May I know which is a good lens for general landscape and portrait (for travel)?
This lens is a good choice I think?
@@TheRealRichardWong thanks! I am thinking if i need another prime lens probably a 23mm f1.4 to compliment this lens (for portraits, streets, low light)
I am gonna wait for the next xf16-55 , this nem kit is not impressive!
Which lens would you pick for someone who mainly shoot videos but also a bit of photos? Camera that I’ll be using it with is the xs20
Honestly the optical diffrence is so marginal that only a pixel peeper will see it. I think the old 18-55 has a better build and the IOS comes in so handy with the older fuji's that don't have IBIS. I think I will be holding on to my 18-55. I do wonder if Fuji will offer anything for people that recently purchased the X-T5 kit that came with the 18-55, maybe a trade in?
How would you say the image quality performs at a specific focal length, like 23mm, compared to the fujifilm prime lens at that focal length? Thanks
Nice review. By the way, any opinion about this lens and the old 16-55, just image quality wise?
Sorry i don't have too much experience with the 16-55 so can't really comment about it.
An excellent review. I just ordered this lens as travel lens on overseas shootings. In August I'm in the US and Canada. I'm sure this lens will serve me well, traveling with a "light" camera bagback.
thank you, enjoy your new lens!
The fact that the 16-50 is internal zooming is a game changer, this is huge. Possibly, this is the first internal zooming lens Fujifilm ever made for the X system. If you ever had an internal zoom lens, you will not want to go back again to use protruding lenses. This 1650 lens alone is enough reason to go for the X-T50. I am hesitating between the fantastic X-T50 and gorgeous S9, but there is no internal zooming lense in the L-mount system, so this lens for X-T50 is really a "decisive moment" to paraphrase Bresson.
Not 'the first internal zooming lens Fujifilm ever made' though. There is XF 18-120 F4 power zoom lens
@@OMURFERAHCAN thank you I've checked that lens. interesting, I hope that this 1650 is going to be much better lens.
This lens will come as a kit for the xt5 as well so you might want that instead of the xt50 combo
I don’t understand why people find it a huge deal
The older Fujifilm XC 16-50 F3.5-5.6 is very underrated.
Pros:
1. Cheap
2. Small, Lightweight, No front heavy
3. Starts with 24mm
4. OIS
5. Weather resistance (excellent in actual use, although not “officially” weather resistant)
6. Resistance to scratch (plastic, no paint coming off from metal body)
7. Great optics
Cons:
1. Not F2.8
Comparisons:
Fuji XF 16-55 F2.8,
Pro: F2.8
Cons: big/heavy, expensive, no OIS, not resistance to scratch
Fuji 15-45,
Cons: power zoom slow to operate
Fuji 18-55 F2.8-4,
Pros: one stop faster
Cons: no 24mm, not resistance to scratch, more expensive
New Fuji 16-50 F2.8-4.8,
Pros: 1/3 (tele) ~ 1 (wide) stop faster
Cons: much more expensive, not resistance to scratch, no OIS.
To me, the best standard zoom for Fuji is the XC 16-50.
The XC 15-45 has poor image quality, and the XC 16-50 is also not great. The XC lenses lack the same corrections as XF lenses (both in-body and in most RAW converters). To me, the XC lineup feels like kit lenses from other brands. The XF lineup is a cut above.
@@henrikhelmers1412
I have compared directly the 16-50 with the 16-55 F2.8, they are very very close. Yes, very very close. Even at the far corners, even at 16mm, which is generally poor with small lenses.
great video, but I wont be giving up my faithful 18-55mm
Fair enough! Thanks for watching
Wow very nice technical side-by-side review. Subscribed! I am not usually a fan of this kind of video but this was so well done, I am very impressed.
Oh thank you so much!
Great comparison, thanks!
My 18-55 has a very strong field curvature at 18mm, I expected way worse performance in the corners in your comparison. Did you focus in the corners there?
Hi there :). in this review, I've explained the soft corner I got from the 18-55 initially when I focused at center, then if i focus at corners, the corner is sharp, but then the centre is soft
@@TheRealRichardWong Ah, I thought it was mentioned for 55mm only ;)
@@opalyankaBG oh sorry i miss read "18mm" as "55mm". No I didn't notice field curvature at 18mm with the 18-55mm. My test photo were shot with focus at centre and it was sharper than the 16-50mm lens
I'm thinking of picking this up for my X-T30ii. I'm just stating out and don't have a zoom lens yet. Would they pair well? Do you have a different suggestion? Would appreciate it!
In your case, since your camera doesn't have IBIS (inbody image stabiliser) , I might suggest a lens with OIS like the 18-55 OIS
Or maybe the xc 15-45mm if you shoot more on the wide side.
nice review, help me understanding new kit lens a lot, thanks richard wong
Thanks for watching
This is not internal zoom lens and story about designer freedom and perfect sense to not have OIS is simply to explain as it was for Fujifilm cheaper to make one without OIS. There is no any sense and let alone conveniance to not have OIS as dual stabilisation option. Same thing is with rubber rings ,they are cheap and feel cheap when compared to metal .
What an informative video. Thank you for your time and for sharing your expertise with the rest of us.
Glad it was helpful!
Superb, excellent, complete Review. Thank you.
Glad you liked it!
I don't understand this lens. They literally made it worse because it's f4.8 versus f4 on the original one.
0.5 stop darker = worse, get good dude
@@yellow-pill f4 lets in less light than f4.8, what are you talking about?
@@Wordsalad69420 so we're just gonna ignore that it has internal zooming, that it's lighter, has weather resistance, that 16mm is more interesting wide angle than 18mm, that 16-50 has better image quality in many aspects (especially for the new 40mp sensor) and 18-55 had quality control all over the place with many soft copies. But it's darker by f0.8 on one end, what's why it's worse, right? Because you lose like a few minutes ability to shoot in the sunset or what? Or your bokeh balls become smaller by 2%? Fujifilm made sure we have a better overall lens and experience with it, and if you care about f0.8 difference you're just wrong
@@yellow-pill Well when you put it that way lol. Maybe I should have spent more than 30 seconds looking into this lens.
Dude this lense looks bad even for marketing purposes
very thorough and pro review, man, thanks a lot!
Thanks for watching
The 18-55 is blowing it out the water.. They are giving you a cheaper lens. It is not made as strong as the 18 and 55 because it got less metal and more plastic in it. This is why the 16-55 is lighter. And then I do not have image stability. FUJIFILM is trying to go the cheaper route… and this idiot is talking about the 18-55 is very soft. He’s a liar. he would do anything to help Stay on his channel by reviewing these lenses
Did you look at the test photos at 55mm? Cmon you’re lying to yourself if you saying those corners were sharp.
My 18-55 doesn't have much field curvature, bit surprised here. I also think that new lens despite being a tad sharper is actually cheaper and completely overprice. Because of inflation the quality in general among all brands is going down unfortunatly.
@@Kliffotit’s not overpriced moron. you only should buy this lens in the kit with the T5 and T50… it’s 300 bucks cheaper when bought with the body.. if you already have a body this makes no sense to get it as a standalone. also a new lens doesn’t mean everyone should get this.. it’s new for specific people..
Excellent review of both camera and lens
Agreed! Very comprehensive, cheers.
I am first comment🙋🏻♂️
Thank you no. 1 :D
Third!
I agree with your discoveries about the 18-55's field curvature. I didn't get why many people praised that lens as sharp because it is not. cheers, great review
thanks for watching Luis :)
Depends. If you shoot brick walls for a living, you might notice the field curvature. For most normal purposes, the 18-55 is amazingly sharp. It was razor sharp on the first generation sensors, kept up really well on the 24-26mp sensors, and even today on extremely demanding 40mp sensors you have to zoom to 200% to see any real difference in sharpness. It completely deserves its status as best kit lens ever.
@@mdvp123 Sorry but I disagree, and I do not shoot brick walls for a living. Field curvature is also important when focusing and recomposing, though. I have a copy of it for video on my X-T3 but for pictures any Nikon kit lens, the 18-105 for example is sharper and with less field curvature. I guess if you believe it can keep up with the 40mp sensors, your image quality standards are lower than mine, for sure. Cheers.
The corner is brurry, indeed.
The extra width is so useful.
I 100% agree!
Well done review! 👏
Thank you very much
New King? Its good but its very far for be King. Sigma has the 18-50 2.8 all the range and very crisp and sharp glass.
No it's a bad lens especially the edges and it's sold at an exaggerated price especially in Europe with taxes. Fujifilm must make zoom lenses without compromises and a revision of the 16/55 F2.8
If he is not able to do it, he must have the courage to have the lenses made by Sigma. The new 24 70 Art Mark 2 is fantastic, sharp in the center and also at the edges.
Old 18-55 is a trash but ... looks sharper than new 16-50 or ... i'm blind.
I noticed the 18-55 was sharper in the corners at the wide end, and also had more contrast in all the shots. The blacks were blacker, and the colors were more punchy.
@@paulthomas8986 for me this new lens is unusable. Fuji engineers should be ashamed of themselves. Their hi-tech development is far behind other brands. And these prices... Its a comedy.
Why the old 18-55 is a trash? I just received mine on a kit yesterday and a haven’t tried yet