I bought that lens about 6 months ago after watching lots of reviews, i love its versatility and im also happy with the image quality produced with the lens, if course im not "pixel peeping" ,, i have quite a few primes to use if in after the best IQ , overall im happy with the 16-80
Nice review thank you. One point I cannot help but make. Traditionally portraiture is shot within the range of f/4 to f/8 especially in the studio with controlled lighting. Only really these days a fad for overly shallow DOF has become a thing. But to be honest it often looks a bit amateurish. Of course times change and Instagram might be different to professional headshot portraiture. For full body shots a wider aperture might sometimes be used but in general an f/4 lens that goes to 80mm is more than adequate for portraiture also. So in short this lens is even more versatile than one might realize at first instance.
Thanks very much! Honestly with portrait photography im very inexperienced as it’s something I’m not so much interested in, but thank you for your insight! And yes I agree, the change has probably come from the love of bokeh on instagram 😅
I remember seeing a video where a pro photographer pointed out how he and all his pro friends used this unglamorous f4 zooms for just about everything, and to him it seemed like these crazy f1.2 was used mostly by enthusiasts. That said, I don't think there's anything wrong with enthusiasts wanting that bokeh. I borrowed a friends Viltrox 27mm f1.2 the other day and it was a lot of fun, though, as you point out: the wide open aperture is primarily relevant for when the subject is further away.
@@torb-no Definitely nothing wrong with it and I do sometimes enjoy playing around with copious amounts of bokeh myself when just having fun. Also photographic styles change with the times.
Beautiful photos! Regarding knowing if you need more range based on where you zoom: taking the tendency to zoom all the way in as a sign that you need more tele is something you should be careful about. A lot of photographers (esp. amatours) have a tendency so use the zoom at it's extreme ends (wide and tele), but that doesn't have to mean you'd need more. Personally I often shot the XF 18-55mm at 55mm a lot of the time, but I highly doubt I'd actually need more than 50mm range wise. That said, I'm still interested in this lens myself, having OIS (I have no bodies with IBIS) and a marked aperture ring just seems so nice. For me it seems like the perfect all-in-one landscape lens and if I ever get properly into landscape photography I could see myself picking this up. That said, I won't do so unless I am completely sure I actually do need it. Currently I'm doing more event photography and portraits anyway.
Thanks for the comment, I agree often you don’t need more than the maximum focal length. I made it a habit of composing a shot through zooming all the way in and then slowly zooming out to see what I would like to include in my shot. I use this lens as well as the 70-300 for my landscape photography. I seldom need any wider focal length, but I realised the 70-300 is on my camera quite a lot, especially when shooting woodland.
I have used that lens on several professional fashion shoots in studio and it has really been excellent even though I have a huge arsenal of lenses. It’s very convenient.
Well while fashion isn't what I shoot at all, mostly only landscape and travel, it's good to know, that this lens is even capable of this. In fashion you're not really working with a shallow depth of field right?
I have the 18-55mm but I plan on selling it -- actually for an unusual reason. That 18-55 came with my x-s10. I don't use that camera body anymore since I have the x-t5, but I don't feel like selling it without its paired lens. Maybe I'm rationalizing buying the 16-80mm, but that's my thought process :D
Haha maybe a bit, but the 16-80 comes I’ll clutch with the xt5 as both have WR and the 18-55 doesn’t. If that’s something you need it’s a very good fit
I bought that lens and loved using it but hated the image quality for landscape images and ended up returned it. The 18-55 will suffice until I find a better replacement… considering the Tamron 17-80 f2.8
Oh, I've never heard that before. What was the problem you had with the quality? General sharpness or something more specific? And did you or do you print your work? I'm actually more than happy with the sharpness of my lens, maybe it's a problem with your lens specifically ?
Nice video Lukas! I need your opinion on this. I have the Tamron 17-70f2.8 and i am thinking to replace it with the 16-80 fuji from this video. You would ask why,because its the same lens almost but i think the fuji glass is superior and also the size is smaller enough in comparison. What do you think? Thank you!
@@oxideburnedbrain1969 thanks you! The 16-80 has nice quality, but I wouldn’t be sure if it is that much better than the 17-70, especially because you would probably lose quite some money trading it. If you can rent a 16-80 for cheap for a couple of days, you could make your own picture :-)
I've only heard good things about the 18-120 mm aswell, I would miss out on the 2mm in focal length on the wife side though and I think that's sometime even more significant than the 40mm on the long end
@@lukasbenjamin_ yes definitely..all situation dependent in the end..i used the 18-120 a cple of days ago for concert video work on the S10 and it's one hell of a video beast..worth every penny to be honest.
@@Ivanophilia may i ask you what you think about the 18-120 only for stills? I know it's made mainly for video,( wich i don't do) and have heard that it's not paring so well with the 40 MP of X-T5.
I had it but found it was pretty poor wide open , anywhere near the long end. Sold it and bought the 16-55 f2.8, and the image quality is so much better.
Might be a bit different from lens to lens, I'm very happy with the image quality. But yea, the 16-55 will probably blow it away image quality, but also price wise. 😅🙌
![Eminem - Somebody Save Me (feat. Jelly Roll) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Vwa0HenQMi4/mqdefault.jpg)
I bought that lens about 6 months ago after watching lots of reviews, i love its versatility and im also happy with the image quality produced with the lens, if course im not "pixel peeping" ,, i have quite a few primes to use if in after the best IQ , overall im happy with the 16-80
Awesome! It’s a great versatile piece of kit.
The images you have shown in Fujifilm are beautiful.
Thank you very much! I appreciate it!
Great video. I liked your comments at the end about gear acquisition syndrome. Thanks
Thanks for watching!
Nice review thank you. One point I cannot help but make. Traditionally portraiture is shot within the range of f/4 to f/8 especially in the studio with controlled lighting. Only really these days a fad for overly shallow DOF has become a thing. But to be honest it often looks a bit amateurish. Of course times change and Instagram might be different to professional headshot portraiture. For full body shots a wider aperture might sometimes be used but in general an f/4 lens that goes to 80mm is more than adequate for portraiture also. So in short this lens is even more versatile than one might realize at first instance.
Thanks very much! Honestly with portrait photography im very inexperienced as it’s something I’m not so much interested in, but thank you for your insight! And yes I agree, the change has probably come from the love of bokeh on instagram 😅
I remember seeing a video where a pro photographer pointed out how he and all his pro friends used this unglamorous f4 zooms for just about everything, and to him it seemed like these crazy f1.2 was used mostly by enthusiasts.
That said, I don't think there's anything wrong with enthusiasts wanting that bokeh. I borrowed a friends Viltrox 27mm f1.2 the other day and it was a lot of fun, though, as you point out: the wide open aperture is primarily relevant for when the subject is further away.
@@torb-no Definitely nothing wrong with it and I do sometimes enjoy playing around with copious amounts of bokeh myself when just having fun. Also photographic styles change with the times.
Beautiful photos!
Regarding knowing if you need more range based on where you zoom: taking the tendency to zoom all the way in as a sign that you need more tele is something you should be careful about. A lot of photographers (esp. amatours) have a tendency so use the zoom at it's extreme ends (wide and tele), but that doesn't have to mean you'd need more.
Personally I often shot the XF 18-55mm at 55mm a lot of the time, but I highly doubt I'd actually need more than 50mm range wise.
That said, I'm still interested in this lens myself, having OIS (I have no bodies with IBIS) and a marked aperture ring just seems so nice. For me it seems like the perfect all-in-one landscape lens and if I ever get properly into landscape photography I could see myself picking this up. That said, I won't do so unless I am completely sure I actually do need it. Currently I'm doing more event photography and portraits anyway.
Thanks for the comment, I agree often you don’t need more than the maximum focal length. I made it a habit of composing a shot through zooming all the way in and then slowly zooming out to see what I would like to include in my shot. I use this lens as well as the 70-300 for my landscape photography. I seldom need any wider focal length, but I realised the 70-300 is on my camera quite a lot, especially when shooting woodland.
I have used that lens on several professional fashion shoots in studio and it has really been excellent even though I have a huge arsenal of lenses. It’s very convenient.
Well while fashion isn't what I shoot at all, mostly only landscape and travel, it's good to know, that this lens is even capable of this. In fashion you're not really working with a shallow depth of field right?
I have the 18-55mm but I plan on selling it -- actually for an unusual reason. That 18-55 came with my x-s10. I don't use that camera body anymore since I have the x-t5, but I don't feel like selling it without its paired lens.
Maybe I'm rationalizing buying the 16-80mm, but that's my thought process :D
Haha maybe a bit, but the 16-80 comes I’ll clutch with the xt5 as both have WR and the 18-55 doesn’t. If that’s something you need it’s a very good fit
I bought that lens and loved using it but hated the image quality for landscape images and ended up returned it. The 18-55 will suffice until I find a better replacement… considering the Tamron 17-80 f2.8
Oh, I've never heard that before. What was the problem you had with the quality? General sharpness or something more specific? And did you or do you print your work? I'm actually more than happy with the sharpness of my lens, maybe it's a problem with your lens specifically ?
Oh and what do you think of the 18-55 in comparison?
great review
Thanks a lot!
Algo Push!
Nice video Lukas! I need your opinion on this. I have the Tamron 17-70f2.8 and i am thinking to replace it with the 16-80 fuji from this video. You would ask why,because its the same lens almost but i think the fuji glass is superior and also the size is smaller enough in comparison. What do you think? Thank you!
@@oxideburnedbrain1969 thanks you! The 16-80 has nice quality, but I wouldn’t be sure if it is that much better than the 17-70, especially because you would probably lose quite some money trading it. If you can rent a 16-80 for cheap for a couple of days, you could make your own picture :-)
@@lukasbenjamin_ I will try to find out if i can rent one :) Thanks a lot for the quick response :D
@@oxideburnedbrain1969 anytime :-)
Hello I want to know Len has focus noise ? I'll use with video project
Just tested it to be sure, no, there’s no noise whatsoever
a great lens but the 18-120 is even greater minus the OIS
I've only heard good things about the 18-120 mm aswell, I would miss out on the 2mm in focal length on the wife side though and I think that's sometime even more significant than the 40mm on the long end
@@lukasbenjamin_ yes definitely..all situation dependent in the end..i used the 18-120 a cple of days ago for concert video work on the S10 and it's one hell of a video beast..worth every penny to be honest.
@@Ivanophilia may i ask you what you think about the 18-120 only for stills? I know it's made mainly for video,( wich i don't do) and have heard that it's not paring so well with the 40 MP of X-T5.
How does everyone know what I need?
How is this for producing videos with bokeh?
Its alright, but it is still f/4, I mostly use my 23mm f2 from Fujifilm for video.
I had it but found it was pretty poor wide open , anywhere near the long end. Sold it and bought the 16-55 f2.8, and the image quality is so much better.
Might be a bit different from lens to lens, I'm very happy with the image quality. But yea, the 16-55 will probably blow it away image quality, but also price wise. 😅🙌