@@neramp559 If I have to shoot low light without a flash, the wide aperture primes are coming along. But crappy light is still crappy light - there is always a GFX rental!
@@neramp559 If flash is not an option, you bring out the wide aperture primes and hope for the best. But bad light is bad light. But then I'd have an excuse to rent a GFX 😁
I found your channel about a week ago. You are really good at what you do. I really like the range of different types of lenses you try. Helped me a lot.
Great review! I am currently not satisfied with my XF 16-55mm, when the focal length reaches beyond 35mm. It's noticeably soft especially when I shoot in overcast day. I thought it is my lens or my XT-5's issue.
Yes, it sounds like people's experiences are all over the place, which points to some sample variation. This is an area where Fuji has definitely gotten better with recent lens designs.
You are amazing! Please keep the Fuji content coming! I started on x-t2 and now have an x-h2 with this lens and agree with everything you said. The modern Fuji primes make this lens my last choice except for times I absolutely need to be able to zoom
It's funny how different the anecdotal feedback is. Some people tell me that I'm wrong or must have got a bad copy, while others (like yourself) confirm what I'm saying.
great redo but missed the focus during zoom function in video which has improved with the latest firmware. I hope you will redo again the fuji xf 18-120 with a new firmware update on the new bodies
I got the 16-55 when I bought my XT-3 back in December of 2018. For a long time, it was the only lens I owned for the system. While I still have it (and the XT-3), I've moved onto GFX. Still, I'm wistful for the days of traipsing through the woods with this lens, chasing sunrises and sunsets. I was always satisfied with the images I got from it. I remember your initial review when it posted. I can't believe it's been 5 years. Where does the time go?
I wasn't overly impressed with the 50-140 even at 26MP when it came to sharpness, so I think that I'll wait until Fuji does a MK II version of that lens.
@@DustinAbbottTWI That is a very interesting statement, Dustin. I have only heard and seen amazing results from the 50-140mm. Everything I have seen from that lens honestly looks like prime-level sharpness.
@@NickErickson My experience mirrors yours. The 50-140mm is definitely a bit better/more consistent than the 16-55mm, with IMO more consistent/faster AF and image resolution. Definitely doesn't beat the newest lenses/primes, but it is not that far behind at all. Given that LR butchers RAFs, particularly when shooting mid-longer distance subjects, it is also hard to watch reviewers pixel peep - since VERY typically things look smeary/painterly especially in, say, a landscape shot or mid-long distance portraits such as shown here. At a minimum you either need to apply custom sharpening settings, or run "enhanced details" (with a little noise reduction) to see where the lenses really land in terms of max fidelity. OR you just load up the free version of C1 for an image that is closer to reality for Xtrans shooters.
Thank you Dustin. I’m about to purchase a Tamron 17-70 2.8 for my X-H2 and I’m trading my 16-80. I had an XF16-55 previously on my X-H1 and I wasn’t completely won over. How do you think the 17-70 will compare on 40Mp? Thank you.
First, I'm not much for fanboying. If a lens is subpar, it's subpar. I have, however, always been under the impression that the XF16-55 is quite good and seeing this video made me super curios. I recently bought the X-H2 to use with precisely this lens along with the XF50-140. The use-case is landscape photography, so sharpness is a definite concern. I haven't had a chance to use the X-H2 too much yet so haven't really experimented that much with this combination. We've had some nice weather here today so this video inspired me to take the X-H2 + XF16-55 out and do some test shots of random people in the street. My findings? The lens is sharp but cannot rival primes. At 55mm I can see the pores in people's skin at 100%. Not at all like the examples you shown us in the video. Pixel peeping is not a problem. The lens does get sharper when stopping down to f/4, but that's to be expected and it's still perfectly useable at f/2.8 IMO. It did not nail every shot, but the ones that it did were very good I think. I also compared it to the XF56 (old version, I know) and that lens is a little sharper and more contrasty with less fringing. One thing, though, I tried shooting the XF16-55 at 16mm@f/11 and that was unusably unsharp when viewing at 100%. I'm obviously not a lens reviewer and should probably experiment more to arrive at any sort of conclusion. This will still be my go-to for landscapes because I don't want to carry all those primes. If Fuji replaces this at some point, I'll be interested to see the improvements.
Fair enough. What matters most is if you are happy with something. My job is to critically evaluate gear in relation to other market options - yours is to make photos that you love.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Oh, I'm not criticizing your findings here. I was just surprised because I considered this one of the best zoom lenses for the X mount. But... that may no longer be the case. I'll certainly try some more experimentation over the coming days to see how my copy performs.
Have to say my own experience does not mirror your conclusion Dustin. I was always intrigued by the Tamron and your review pushed me over the edge so I picked it up this week and I’m afraid to say it just doesn’t stack up to the 16-55.
If you'll read through the comments, you'll find a variety of anecdotal responses - some agreeing, some disagreeing. I'm not quite sure what to make of that, but you will see my direction comparisons with the Sigma 18-50mm in a variety of tests in an upcoming video.
Thanks for putting some X-Mount lenses to the test with the 40MP sensor. I was planning to get this lens for my X-T5, but either if you got a bad copy or the lens really is falling apart with that sensor, better save up a bit and wait for an updated version from Fuji.
From the comments here, it would seem that people are getting very mixed results - some like mine, a few others with sharp copies. There's clearly some sample variation out there, which is another thing I think that Fuji has improved with recent lenses.
@@DustinAbbottTWI i have tried last weekend tbe 16-55 of a friend in my X-T5 and the results are just incredible sharp, even in portraits, looking the image at 300%. This lens was made in Japan, not in Philippines like the newer ones. Perhaps this origin makes the difference between some copies and others.
Great video! Mi question is: this lens is less sharper resolving 40 mpx than 26 ,px? Is sharper with a 24 mpx sensor? Or is better in the XH2 and X-T5,, but not that much better that it should for a high 40 mpx sensor?
I've had two copies of the 16-55 f2.8, both left me cold on the XH2 and XH2S, the Sigma Art 18-35 f1.8 just destroys it in every way except maybe AF, but the 18-35 on the Fringer adapter is still fast enough for low light basketball and it's not even a contest for low light events.
Thank you. I have this len and combine with my XH2. The image quality is not sharp when taking moving subjects as kids playing even though in good light condition and high shutter speed
thanks for the reviiew Dustin, great stuff. Just wondering if you're using electronic or mechanical shutter on those portraits that are soft? I've had the issue myself, but it almost seems like some kind of slightly mised focus with camera blur on top. It would be interesting to see tests with both the shutter types next to each other to see if that makes any difference
Thanks for letting me know. I've had my suspicions that the electronic shutter is to blame for some of these things, but in your case that cannot be the case.@@DustinAbbottTWI
Hi Dustin, Thank you very much for doing this review! I’m glad someone finally did compare this lens with the XH2 and glad that you are showing the real world problems this lens faces with the new high resolution platform. Hope Fujifilm sees this and will come out with a modern replacement for both the 16-55 2.8 and 50-140 2.8 zooms. I’m personally dying for a new update and am holding out for both lenses. Nearly 10 years is a very long cycle compared to say Sony who replaces lenses every 5 years or so. Thank you Dustin!
I really think Fuji will do that in the near future, as both of these zoom ranges are incredibly important. In the case of the 50-140mm, there still isn't really any competition for it.
I want help since I am a follower but with the translator and sometimes I have my doubts. My question is, can you advise me? I have an XH2 and the Fuji 10-24, 18-55, 55-200 and the 100-400. Tell me what lenses you would recommend, I like the sharpness? Thank you
I have this lens, and I use it on the X-5. My results are totally different from what you have (relating to sharpest), and it is because we are using different RAW Editors. I am using Capture One and DXO PhotoLab 7. Each RAW editor does a pre-sharpen (except for DXO PhotoLab 7. You can set it not to pre-sharpen) to the photo (Lightroom does a pre-sharpen at 40, and Capture does it at 140). I think a better test would have been rendered if it was shot in JPEG. I do not use Lightroom for any of my Fujifilm Cameras (and I have 5 of them: GFX50R, GFX50SII, X-Pro3, X-H2S, and X-T5) because I don't think it renders the Fujifilm Colors and how it processes the Fujifilm RAF files. As always Great video.
I've been told this over the years, and I've tested it again and again...just in case. I have Capture One and have used PhotoLab, but when I do side by side comparisons, the difference is very minimal. I'm looking though JPEG files right now, but frankly I see the same things when I view them at 100% magnification.
@@DustinAbbottTWI On the red badge lenses from Fujifilm (I have 8-16, 16-55, 50-140), and I have not had any issues with the lenses being soft in the middle of the frame). I have 11 Fujifilm Lens. The only ones that experienced real problems with the new 40MP sensor were the 16mm f1.4, 56mm f1.2 (version 1), and 23mm f14. (version 1) and the 35mm f1.4. They were reasonably sharp in the center and seemed to fall off the around the outer frame. So, I've replaced those lenses. But it's subjective. Every photographer's eyes and perception of sharpness are different. I have no reason to doubt your findings, personally I prefer the using the Red Badge Lenses over the newer prime Fujfilm.
@@DustinAbbottTWI They deliver the same reliable performance with my X-T5 and X-H2S, down to the X-Pro3. They are built like tanks, hold up in bad weather conditions, and because they are optically sound at every focal length, it reduces the exposure of my camera sensor by not having to change my lens to get that unexpected shot that just appeared.
What a surprise ! I really thought that this lens will destroy my Sigma 18-50mm by a long run and this lens Fuji was on my list. But now I reconsider and wait for a new version of it. Since I moved from my Nikon d750 last year, the only bad point i recall was the sharpness of the Fujifilm system compare to Nikon. The lack of sharpness on my XT-5 is not normal and I always have to step down my aperture. But at the end it's not really a problem because when I print to make a photbook everything is ok. It is just frustrating to see this lack of sharpness on my 4k monitor. Great video again ! Please make a comparaison side by side with the sigma in a new video. I also got the 10-18mm from Sigma that I bought thanks to you and Christopher Frost videos that helped me to decide.
I'm not sure of your findings - my version of this lens is pin sharp from16-55mm processed with Capture one - I am not getting the issues you are describing. Maybe a bad copy of the lens ?
I've tested with Capture One as well. If you look through the comments, you'll find that there are very mixed feels on this lens. By the way, if it were a bad copy, it was a loaner sent to me by Fuji, so that seems unlikely.
A great review as usual! It's time for Fuji to consider release the Mark 2 of this lens and I'm also looking forward to the Mark 2 of Tamron 17-70mm if Tamron has plan for it.
Hi! What a shame I didn't see this video before because it would have saved me a huge headache and despair. On my last family trip I only took the 16-55 to New York. I took a lot of photos from the Top Of The Rock. I wanted a picture of the Empire State at sunset. Basically all the photos were soft. Before watching the video I was thinking about selling all my Fuji equipment and switching to Sony but you always lose a lot of money with these changes. Maybe a new 16-55 would be the solution but for now I don't see Fuji interested in replacing this lens. I will continue to think about the jump to Sony and if it is worth it. Thank you very much indeed Dustin for your work and your lovely videos!
Dustin, All the Sigma Lenses I've tested make the Fuji XF lenses a hard sell with the price difference. I've tested and purchased both the 23mm F/1.4 DC DN and 56mm F/1.4 DC DN and the purchase price for both was less than just one of the Fuji lenses. Are they as good, probably not, put they are probably 90% there, and I have no complaints for 50% of the price. (i've not tested the 16mm or 30mm, which I know are older designs) I'm looking at what Sigma are releasing for the X mount before Fuji now
Sigma and Fuji have been a good mix, as Sigma often prioritizes high sharpness in their lens designs, which obviously helps when transitioning to this very demanding sensor.
@@DustinAbbottTWI If you have access to them, I'd love to see how the older (as far as sigma designs go) Sigma 16mm F/1.4 DC DN and 30mm F/1.4 DC DN perform on the 40MP XH2
Really appreciate the review of this lens on the 40mp sensor. Given that lightroom still has problems rendering RAF files, it would be useful to cross reference your findings with pixel peeping in, say, Capture One (a free Fuji version is still available, I think). Also I'd use in-camera JPEGs (with NR at -3 or -4 and sharpening at -2 to 0) as a "control", since in-camera processing should at least yield a consistent reference point. Another thing to try is to run "enhance details" in LR - not so much for sharpening/noise reduction, but because it gets the demosaicing right in exchange for a huge file size. But to be clear, typically that does produce results a little superior to capture one. Also this it would be interesting to scale and view the results against your previous testing on the 26mp sensor as well. Overall I think the 16-55 and 50-140 share optical characteristics, but the 50-140 is the better performer overall. I find the 16-55 is not better than my primes (which are the newer ones), but the output is still excellent in good light and frankly I like some of the flaring/lower contrast behavior for people shots. One of your shots looked like a slight focus miss - but then again I've gotten similar results from similar types of shots so idk. Not surprised it might not be holding up to yet higher resolution. New focus chips/motors and slight revised optics (make this thing a f/1.8 or f/2!) would be welcome and I'd buy it immediately. I don't care about OIS or video.
I do own Capture One and have done side by side comparisons, but frankly I don’t see any really improvement, and the color management isn’t nearly as good in Capture One.
@@DustinAbbottTWI For me the differences are often glaringly obvious (but then, I process thousands of RAFs a year on both platforms). But I can agree each program has strengths and weaknesses dealing in general - LRC runs HORRIBLY and C1's AI tools/cataloging are inferior. Based on my experience with the 16-55, the photos of the nice couple like those at 26:13 and 25:40 look like focus misses. The image of the boy @26min is more representative of a "good" shot IMO. You may feel that cross-referencing is a waste of time, but I feel it would improve your reviews all the more - particularly since LR simply just does not produce the best results without some careful attention to sharpening / noise reduction settings - even though I usually can find something acceptable.
Thanks for your review! Your review convinced me that I made the right choice in purchasing the Tamron 17-70 and the compact Sigma 18-50 lenses over the Fuji 16-50. I use the Fuji X-H2. I am hoping that Sigma releases a 50-100mm 2.8 sometimes soon to compliment their 18-50 2.8.
The tamron is great for photos, and at the long end you need to stop down to f4. But for video, its awful. Stops focusing randomly, obvious exposure stepping and distortion correction jumps during zoom, huge defocusing during zoom. Overall if you do a mix of photo/video the fuji is better. For photo only, probably the tamron.
Than what, specifically? It's not sharper than either the 16-55mm or the 18-55mm, so while I haven't retested it on 40MP, I suspect it will look a bit soft there.
Thanks for the interesting review! I had my doubts about this lens in combination with the X-T5 based on other reviews, and opted for the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8, but may be tempted to go for the premium option if Fuji brings out a new version. The older Fuji lenses are a bit of a mixed bag. I have the Fujifilm XF 10-24mm F/4.0 R OIS WR, which would give a similar conclusion as the XF 16-55mm. It barely passes, but I am not a huge wide angle shooter. The 90mm f2 on the other hand remains optically very good, but the focusing shows it's age a little bit, but is certainly good enough for photography.
I had this lens and got rid of it because of the weight and went to the sigma 18-50mm. The video footage with the sigma is no good. The lens stutters when going thru the length of the lens
There is definitely some warping when you zoom in with the Sigma, though I saw the same thing this week when using the Fuji 18-55mm. This is a weakness for Fuji in general. I think it has something to do with the optical corrections.
Thanks for rereview Dustin, i just got used Tamron 17-70 in good condition for $550, and i am already have Tamron 11-20, now i hope Tamron Will realese 70-140 for fuji
I love your videos and take your advice into consideration for many purchases but I have to say I think you have a bad copy of this lens. I have this lens and use it on my X-H2 and am constantly blown away by the sharpness. Even when shooting directly to JPEG. I bought this lens brand new about a 2 months ago so not sure if they fixed something in manufacturing.
That could be possible, though this copy came directly from Fuji Canada. Other people have found the same thing, though (look at the comments), so there is obviously some sample variation.
I do hope Fuji replaces this lens with a newer version. Maybe even something with a longer reach, like 16-65 would be great to get closer to the Tamron 17-70 option.
The 18-50 F2.8 Sigma lens is as good if not better than the Fuji 16-55 mm ! What's more, it is much lighter although being weather sealed and much cheaper !
It isn't fully weather sealed (only a gasket at the lens mount), but I do think it hits a sweet spot for size and value on X-mount. I bought one personally.
I hope the new XF 16-50/2.8-4.8 WR comes out soon - and even without OIS, hopefully being better, then the great XF 18-55/2.8-4 (Made in Japan) version. 🙂
It’s too heavy. Canon’s old 17-55 2.8 IS is still the best standard zoom for a crop sensor camera I’ve ever used. Fuji should look to that. I’ve now got the Sigma 18-50 2.8 now. That’s a much nicer user experience and my wrist isn’t in agony after six hours.
You have a bad copy of this lens, plain and simple. I originally had one that I bought new many years ago on my XT2 and sold it about one year later because I never got sharp results. I was very disappointed with the lens though stayed curious as I why so many people kept raving about it with glowing reviews. Fast forward 6 years and now with my XH2 I recently came across a second hand copy for an unbelievably compelling price. The lens looked optically clean but physically visibly beat up, but for the price I had to give it another try. And so I did and to my shock and disbelief this old and very used lens is clinically sharp edge to edge at any focus distance. It even has some play on the zoom and focusing rings, that's how much use this thing has gotten but it doesn't matter nor in any way hinders the stunning optical performance .. this thing is tack sharp no matter what I throw at it, fully resolves the 40MP sensor and I am more than pleased with it, specially as I paid less than 1/4 of how much they still cost new despite it's cosmetically rough appearance. This is to say that the issue of sample variations is a real thing and now-a-days I much rather go for used lens that I can try before than a new one in the box that is like a Russian roulette. Thanks for the video and if you ever revisit this lens or you know someome with another copy, give it another try.. you might just get positively surprised, or then again, even more disappointed 😊
That could be possible, though this copy came directly from Fuji Canada. Other people have found the same thing, though (look at the comments), so there is obviously some sample variation.
I hate the "bad copy" lens argument. First, it sounds like ungrounded wishful thinking. Second, the issue of bad copies indicates an even bigger quality control problem. Fuji is renowned however to have some of the best quality control and lowest sample variations among its competitors, so we shouldn't make that assumption.
@@EddySawaya8637 I get more pushback from Fuji users than anyone else when I point out optical flaws. I appreciate the loyalty to the brand, but unless you use a number of other platforms as I do, you don't really get a perspective on what is possible at a certain focal length/zoom range.
@@DustinAbbottTWIVery true. When I compare my Z-glass to esp. the older XF lenses I had, the latter are nowhere near the same league. The ‘bad copy’ argument I see a lot on Fuji forums, but I’ve never seen solid evidence that Fuji quality control is that bad. I guess beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder.
As an event photographer this lens has made me a lot of money with Zero complaints from clients.
That's great.
Also in low light event without flash?)
@@neramp559 If I have to shoot low light without a flash, the wide aperture primes are coming along. But crappy light is still crappy light - there is always a GFX rental!
@@neramp559 If flash is not an option, you bring out the wide aperture primes and hope for the best. But bad light is bad light. But then I'd have an excuse to rent a GFX 😁
@@neramp559 use prime? lol
I found your channel about a week ago. You are really good at what you do. I really like the range of different types of lenses you try. Helped me a lot.
Welcome aboard!
Great review! I am currently not satisfied with my XF 16-55mm, when the focal length reaches beyond 35mm. It's noticeably soft especially when I shoot in overcast day. I thought it is my lens or my XT-5's issue.
Yes, it sounds like people's experiences are all over the place, which points to some sample variation. This is an area where Fuji has definitely gotten better with recent lens designs.
You are amazing! Please keep the Fuji content coming! I started on x-t2 and now have an x-h2 with this lens and agree with everything you said. The modern Fuji primes make this lens my last choice except for times I absolutely need to be able to zoom
It's funny how different the anecdotal feedback is. Some people tell me that I'm wrong or must have got a bad copy, while others (like yourself) confirm what I'm saying.
great redo but missed the focus during zoom function in video which has improved with the latest firmware. I hope you will redo again the fuji xf 18-120 with a new firmware update on the new bodies
Frankly I'm still less than impressed, as I still see some warping during zoom with these lenses.
I got the 16-55 when I bought my XT-3 back in December of 2018. For a long time, it was the only lens I owned for the system. While I still have it (and the XT-3), I've moved onto GFX. Still, I'm wistful for the days of traipsing through the woods with this lens, chasing sunrises and sunsets. I was always satisfied with the images I got from it. I remember your initial review when it posted. I can't believe it's been 5 years. Where does the time go?
It is hard to believe that it has been that long. I still feel somewhat new to Fuji, but I've been reviewing the platform for six years now.
Thanks for re do the test with the 40mps sensor , if you can , please make one of the 50-140mm , great job
I wasn't overly impressed with the 50-140 even at 26MP when it came to sharpness, so I think that I'll wait until Fuji does a MK II version of that lens.
@@DustinAbbottTWI That is a very interesting statement, Dustin. I have only heard and seen amazing results from the 50-140mm. Everything I have seen from that lens honestly looks like prime-level sharpness.
@@NickErickson That just wasn't my experience, and there were a number of people who responded to the video who said the same.
@@NickErickson My experience mirrors yours. The 50-140mm is definitely a bit better/more consistent than the 16-55mm, with IMO more consistent/faster AF and image resolution. Definitely doesn't beat the newest lenses/primes, but it is not that far behind at all. Given that LR butchers RAFs, particularly when shooting mid-longer distance subjects, it is also hard to watch reviewers pixel peep - since VERY typically things look smeary/painterly especially in, say, a landscape shot or mid-long distance portraits such as shown here. At a minimum you either need to apply custom sharpening settings, or run "enhanced details" (with a little noise reduction) to see where the lenses really land in terms of max fidelity. OR you just load up the free version of C1 for an image that is closer to reality for Xtrans shooters.
Thank you Dustin. I’m about to purchase a Tamron 17-70 2.8 for my X-H2 and I’m trading my 16-80. I had an XF16-55 previously on my X-H1 and I wasn’t completely won over. How do you think the 17-70 will compare on 40Mp? Thank you.
Sharpness is slightly better on the telephoto end, for sure, and they are roughly similar on the wide end.
Thank you. Appreciated.
First, I'm not much for fanboying. If a lens is subpar, it's subpar. I have, however, always been under the impression that the XF16-55 is quite good and seeing this video made me super curios.
I recently bought the X-H2 to use with precisely this lens along with the XF50-140. The use-case is landscape photography, so sharpness is a definite concern. I haven't had a chance to use the X-H2 too much yet so haven't really experimented that much with this combination. We've had some nice weather here today so this video inspired me to take the X-H2 + XF16-55 out and do some test shots of random people in the street. My findings? The lens is sharp but cannot rival primes. At 55mm I can see the pores in people's skin at 100%. Not at all like the examples you shown us in the video. Pixel peeping is not a problem. The lens does get sharper when stopping down to f/4, but that's to be expected and it's still perfectly useable at f/2.8 IMO. It did not nail every shot, but the ones that it did were very good I think. I also compared it to the XF56 (old version, I know) and that lens is a little sharper and more contrasty with less fringing. One thing, though, I tried shooting the XF16-55 at 16mm@f/11 and that was unusably unsharp when viewing at 100%.
I'm obviously not a lens reviewer and should probably experiment more to arrive at any sort of conclusion. This will still be my go-to for landscapes because I don't want to carry all those primes. If Fuji replaces this at some point, I'll be interested to see the improvements.
Fair enough. What matters most is if you are happy with something. My job is to critically evaluate gear in relation to other market options - yours is to make photos that you love.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Oh, I'm not criticizing your findings here. I was just surprised because I considered this one of the best zoom lenses for the X mount. But... that may no longer be the case. I'll certainly try some more experimentation over the coming days to see how my copy performs.
Have to say my own experience does not mirror your conclusion Dustin. I was always intrigued by the Tamron and your review pushed me over the edge so I picked it up this week and I’m afraid to say it just doesn’t stack up to the 16-55.
If you'll read through the comments, you'll find a variety of anecdotal responses - some agreeing, some disagreeing. I'm not quite sure what to make of that, but you will see my direction comparisons with the Sigma 18-50mm in a variety of tests in an upcoming video.
Thanks for putting some X-Mount lenses to the test with the 40MP sensor. I was planning to get this lens for my X-T5, but either if you got a bad copy or the lens really is falling apart with that sensor, better save up a bit and wait for an updated version from Fuji.
From the comments here, it would seem that people are getting very mixed results - some like mine, a few others with sharp copies. There's clearly some sample variation out there, which is another thing I think that Fuji has improved with recent lenses.
@@DustinAbbottTWI i have tried last weekend tbe 16-55 of a friend in my X-T5 and the results are just incredible sharp, even in portraits, looking the image at 300%. This lens was made in Japan, not in Philippines like the newer ones. Perhaps this origin makes the difference between some copies and others.
Great video! Mi question is: this lens is less sharper resolving 40 mpx than 26 ,px? Is sharper with a 24 mpx sensor? Or is better in the XH2 and X-T5,, but not that much better that it should for a high 40 mpx sensor?
Yes, it will look better on 24 and 26MP sensors than what you'll see here.
I've had two copies of the 16-55 f2.8, both left me cold on the XH2 and XH2S, the Sigma Art 18-35 f1.8 just destroys it in every way except maybe AF, but the 18-35 on the Fringer adapter is still fast enough for low light basketball and it's not even a contest for low light events.
There's obviously a pretty broad range of feeling on this lens - just read through these comments!
Thank you. I have this len and combine with my XH2. The image quality is not sharp when taking moving subjects as kids playing even though in good light condition and high shutter speed
Autofocus may not be quite keeping up.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thank you, mr Dustin
thanks for the reviiew Dustin, great stuff. Just wondering if you're using electronic or mechanical shutter on those portraits that are soft? I've had the issue myself, but it almost seems like some kind of slightly mised focus with camera blur on top. It would be interesting to see tests with both the shutter types next to each other to see if that makes any difference
I've got the auto setting on, so these are slow enough shutter speeds that they would all be mechanical shutter.
Thanks for letting me know. I've had my suspicions that the electronic shutter is to blame for some of these things, but in your case that cannot be the case.@@DustinAbbottTWI
I was thinking of the 16-55 for my X-S10. This video made me doubt ! Should I wait for an update from Fuji ? Should I grab the Sigma 18-50 anyway ?
They are releasing a new 16-50mm, but it is variable aperture. I haven't tested it yet. I like the Sigma fine, myself.
Hi Dustin,
Thank you very much for doing this review! I’m glad someone finally did compare this lens with the XH2 and glad that you are showing the real world problems this lens faces with the new high resolution platform. Hope Fujifilm sees this and will come out with a modern replacement for both the 16-55 2.8 and 50-140 2.8 zooms. I’m personally dying for a new update and am holding out for both lenses. Nearly 10 years is a very long cycle compared to say Sony who replaces lenses every 5 years or so.
Thank you Dustin!
I really think Fuji will do that in the near future, as both of these zoom ranges are incredibly important. In the case of the 50-140mm, there still isn't really any competition for it.
I want help since I am a follower but with the translator and sometimes I have my doubts.
My question is, can you advise me? I have an XH2 and the Fuji 10-24, 18-55, 55-200 and the 100-400. Tell me what lenses you would recommend, I like the sharpness?
Thank you
The 18mm, 23mm, and 35mm F1.4 WR lenses are very good. The 56mm F1.2 WR is also great.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Muchas gracias
I have this lens, and I use it on the X-5. My results are totally different from what you have (relating to sharpest), and it is because we are using different RAW Editors. I am using Capture One and DXO PhotoLab 7. Each RAW editor does a pre-sharpen (except for DXO PhotoLab 7. You can set it not to pre-sharpen) to the photo (Lightroom does a pre-sharpen at 40, and Capture does it at 140). I think a better test would have been rendered if it was shot in JPEG. I do not use Lightroom for any of my Fujifilm Cameras (and I have 5 of them: GFX50R, GFX50SII, X-Pro3, X-H2S, and X-T5) because I don't think it renders the Fujifilm Colors and how it processes the Fujifilm RAF files. As always Great video.
I've been told this over the years, and I've tested it again and again...just in case. I have Capture One and have used PhotoLab, but when I do side by side comparisons, the difference is very minimal. I'm looking though JPEG files right now, but frankly I see the same things when I view them at 100% magnification.
@@DustinAbbottTWI On the red badge lenses from Fujifilm (I have 8-16, 16-55, 50-140), and I have not had any issues with the lenses being soft in the middle of the frame). I have 11 Fujifilm Lens. The only ones that experienced real problems with the new 40MP sensor were the 16mm f1.4, 56mm f1.2 (version 1), and 23mm f14. (version 1) and the 35mm f1.4. They were reasonably sharp in the center and seemed to fall off the around the outer frame. So, I've replaced those lenses. But it's subjective. Every photographer's eyes and perception of sharpness are different. I have no reason to doubt your findings, personally I prefer the using the Red Badge Lenses over the newer prime Fujfilm.
And what is your reasons for preferring the Red Badge lenses? I actually prefer the new ones, myself.
@@DustinAbbottTWI They deliver the same reliable performance with my X-T5 and X-H2S, down to the X-Pro3. They are built like tanks, hold up in bad weather conditions, and because they are optically sound at every focal length, it reduces the exposure of my camera sensor by not having to change my lens to get that unexpected shot that just appeared.
What a surprise ! I really thought that this lens will destroy my Sigma 18-50mm by a long run and this lens Fuji was on my list.
But now I reconsider and wait for a new version of it.
Since I moved from my Nikon d750 last year, the only bad point i recall was the sharpness of the Fujifilm system compare to Nikon.
The lack of sharpness on my XT-5 is not normal and I always have to step down my aperture.
But at the end it's not really a problem because when I print to make a photbook everything is ok.
It is just frustrating to see this lack of sharpness on my 4k monitor.
Great video again ! Please make a comparaison side by side with the sigma in a new video. I also got the 10-18mm from Sigma that I bought thanks to you and Christopher Frost videos that helped me to decide.
This Fuji sensor is a really, really demanding one. Only the sharpest of lenses look good at a pixel level.
When will this release?
The new version? It is probably about a month away.
I am new to Fuji too, it’s taking awhile to warm up to the zt5
I personally like the X-H2 better than the X-T5, which is why I went with that.
I'm not sure of your findings - my version of this lens is pin sharp from16-55mm processed with Capture one - I am not getting the issues you are describing. Maybe a bad copy of the lens ?
I've tested with Capture One as well. If you look through the comments, you'll find that there are very mixed feels on this lens. By the way, if it were a bad copy, it was a loaner sent to me by Fuji, so that seems unlikely.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I buy lenses direct from Fuji - and sometimes I have to send them back.....just a thought.
A great review as usual! It's time for Fuji to consider release the Mark 2 of this lens and I'm also looking forward to the Mark 2 of Tamron 17-70mm if Tamron has plan for it.
I certainly think we will see a lens like that fairly soon. This focal length is too important to do otherwise.
Great review!
Glad you enjoyed it
Hi!
What a shame I didn't see this video before because it would have saved me a huge headache and despair. On my last family trip I only took the 16-55 to New York. I took a lot of photos from the Top Of The Rock. I wanted a picture of the Empire State at sunset. Basically all the photos were soft.
Before watching the video I was thinking about selling all my Fuji equipment and switching to Sony but you always lose a lot of money with these changes. Maybe a new 16-55 would be the solution but for now I don't see Fuji interested in replacing this lens.
I will continue to think about the jump to Sony and if it is worth it.
Thank you very much indeed Dustin for your work and your lovely videos!
That's very disappointing, particularly when shooting in a situation where you might not have an opportunity to repeat the photos.
@@DustinAbbottTWII’m totally agree with you. Cheers
Dustin, All the Sigma Lenses I've tested make the Fuji XF lenses a hard sell with the price difference.
I've tested and purchased both the 23mm F/1.4 DC DN and 56mm F/1.4 DC DN and the purchase price for both was less than just one of the Fuji lenses.
Are they as good, probably not, put they are probably 90% there, and I have no complaints for 50% of the price. (i've not tested the 16mm or 30mm, which I know are older designs)
I'm looking at what Sigma are releasing for the X mount before Fuji now
Sigma and Fuji have been a good mix, as Sigma often prioritizes high sharpness in their lens designs, which obviously helps when transitioning to this very demanding sensor.
@@DustinAbbottTWI If you have access to them, I'd love to see how the older (as far as sigma designs go) Sigma 16mm F/1.4 DC DN and 30mm F/1.4 DC DN perform on the 40MP XH2
I don't have them at the moment, but I do hope to put my hands on them (along with the 56mm) in the future.
@@DustinAbbottTWI The 56mm I use everyday (that and the 23mm).
I'll look forward to your reviews when you get the chance
Really appreciate the review of this lens on the 40mp sensor. Given that lightroom still has problems rendering RAF files, it would be useful to cross reference your findings with pixel peeping in, say, Capture One (a free Fuji version is still available, I think). Also I'd use in-camera JPEGs (with NR at -3 or -4 and sharpening at -2 to 0) as a "control", since in-camera processing should at least yield a consistent reference point. Another thing to try is to run "enhance details" in LR - not so much for sharpening/noise reduction, but because it gets the demosaicing right in exchange for a huge file size. But to be clear, typically that does produce results a little superior to capture one. Also this it would be interesting to scale and view the results against your previous testing on the 26mp sensor as well.
Overall I think the 16-55 and 50-140 share optical characteristics, but the 50-140 is the better performer overall. I find the 16-55 is not better than my primes (which are the newer ones), but the output is still excellent in good light and frankly I like some of the flaring/lower contrast behavior for people shots. One of your shots looked like a slight focus miss - but then again I've gotten similar results from similar types of shots so idk. Not surprised it might not be holding up to yet higher resolution. New focus chips/motors and slight revised optics (make this thing a f/1.8 or f/2!) would be welcome and I'd buy it immediately. I don't care about OIS or video.
I do own Capture One and have done side by side comparisons, but frankly I don’t see any really improvement, and the color management isn’t nearly as good in Capture One.
@@DustinAbbottTWI For me the differences are often glaringly obvious (but then, I process thousands of RAFs a year on both platforms). But I can agree each program has strengths and weaknesses dealing in general - LRC runs HORRIBLY and C1's AI tools/cataloging are inferior. Based on my experience with the 16-55, the photos of the nice couple like those at 26:13 and 25:40 look like focus misses. The image of the boy @26min is more representative of a "good" shot IMO.
You may feel that cross-referencing is a waste of time, but I feel it would improve your reviews all the more - particularly since LR simply just does not produce the best results without some careful attention to sharpening / noise reduction settings - even though I usually can find something acceptable.
Dustin thx for revisiting the lens. Do you have the chance to review the 16-50 kit lens as well? 😅
I'm doing some of the new GF stuff first, and then I'll cover that lens.
@@DustinAbbottTWI oh great! Cannot wait 😏 Looking forward to your next reviews!
Thanks for your review! Your review convinced me that I made the right choice in purchasing the Tamron 17-70 and the compact Sigma 18-50 lenses over the Fuji 16-50. I use the Fuji X-H2. I am hoping that Sigma releases a 50-100mm 2.8 sometimes soon to compliment their 18-50 2.8.
That would definitely be nice.
I think Sigma will do a 50-135 or 50-150 f/2.8. That will complete the standard range trifecta of lenses covering 15-200mm f/2.8 FF equivalent
@@NickErickson This would be excellent!
@@NickErickson I would be shocked if they didn't.
The tamron is great for photos, and at the long end you need to stop down to f4. But for video, its awful. Stops focusing randomly, obvious exposure stepping and distortion correction jumps during zoom, huge defocusing during zoom. Overall if you do a mix of photo/video the fuji is better. For photo only, probably the tamron.
Would the 16-80 be noticeably worse on 40MP?
Than what, specifically? It's not sharper than either the 16-55mm or the 18-55mm, so while I haven't retested it on 40MP, I suspect it will look a bit soft there.
Wow that’s something else we have in common we vacation on Myrtle Beach several times. ( God,family,cameras ) 😊
Myrtle Beach is a nice visit, for sure.
Thanks for the interesting review! I had my doubts about this lens in combination with the X-T5 based on other reviews, and opted for the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8, but may be tempted to go for the premium option if Fuji brings out a new version.
The older Fuji lenses are a bit of a mixed bag. I have the Fujifilm XF 10-24mm F/4.0 R OIS WR, which would give a similar conclusion as the XF 16-55mm. It barely passes, but I am not a huge wide angle shooter. The 90mm f2 on the other hand remains optically very good, but the focusing shows it's age a little bit, but is certainly good enough for photography.
Sigma is good, but 18mm is not wide enough and 50mm is also not enough for me. So I am also waiting for Fuji to bring out a new version.
@@karlhabsburg3480For the price of the Sigma you could add the excellent Viltrox 13mm f1.4 and still be under the budget for the Fuji zoom.
I think that's a smart move. See what the new version brings.
I had this lens and got rid of it because of the weight and went to the sigma 18-50mm. The video footage with the sigma is no good. The lens stutters when going thru the length of the lens
There is definitely some warping when you zoom in with the Sigma, though I saw the same thing this week when using the Fuji 18-55mm. This is a weakness for Fuji in general. I think it has something to do with the optical corrections.
Thanks for rereview Dustin, i just got used Tamron 17-70 in good condition for $550, and i am already have Tamron 11-20, now i hope Tamron Will realese 70-140 for fuji
That would be great!
I love your videos and take your advice into consideration for many purchases but I have to say I think you have a bad copy of this lens. I have this lens and use it on my X-H2 and am constantly blown away by the sharpness. Even when shooting directly to JPEG. I bought this lens brand new about a 2 months ago so not sure if they fixed something in manufacturing.
That could be possible, though this copy came directly from Fuji Canada. Other people have found the same thing, though (look at the comments), so there is obviously some sample variation.
I do hope Fuji replaces this lens with a newer version. Maybe even something with a longer reach, like 16-65 would be great to get closer to the Tamron 17-70 option.
I'd actually like to see them go for smaller with it and keep the same zoom range, but yes, it definitely needs an update.
thank you very much
You are welcome
The 18-50 F2.8 Sigma lens is as good if not better than the Fuji 16-55 mm ! What's more, it is much lighter although being weather sealed and much cheaper !
It isn't fully weather sealed (only a gasket at the lens mount), but I do think it hits a sweet spot for size and value on X-mount. I bought one personally.
I hope the new XF 16-50/2.8-4.8 WR comes out soon - and even without OIS, hopefully being better, then the great XF 18-55/2.8-4 (Made in Japan) version. 🙂
I'm hopeful there will be some improvements.
It’s too heavy. Canon’s old 17-55 2.8 IS is still the best standard zoom for a crop sensor camera I’ve ever used. Fuji should look to that. I’ve now got the Sigma 18-50 2.8 now. That’s a much nicer user experience and my wrist isn’t in agony after six hours.
I'm a fan of the compact Sigma as well.
No longer the bag of primes on the new sensor.
I'm afraid not.
Rumor has it that Fujinon XF 16-55mm f/2.8 MKII will be announced in 2024.
You have a bad copy of this lens, plain and simple. I originally had one that I bought new many years ago on my XT2 and sold it about one year later because I never got sharp results. I was very disappointed with the lens though stayed curious as I why so many people kept raving about it with glowing reviews. Fast forward 6 years and now with my XH2 I recently came across a second hand copy for an unbelievably compelling price. The lens looked optically clean but physically visibly beat up, but for the price I had to give it another try. And so I did and to my shock and disbelief this old and very used lens is clinically sharp edge to edge at any focus distance. It even has some play on the zoom and focusing rings, that's how much use this thing has gotten but it doesn't matter nor in any way hinders the stunning optical performance .. this thing is tack sharp no matter what I throw at it, fully resolves the 40MP sensor and I am more than pleased with it, specially as I paid less than 1/4 of how much they still cost new despite it's cosmetically rough appearance. This is to say that the issue of sample variations is a real thing and now-a-days I much rather go for used lens that I can try before than a new one in the box that is like a Russian roulette. Thanks for the video and if you ever revisit this lens or you know someome with another copy, give it another try.. you might just get positively surprised, or then again, even more disappointed 😊
That could be possible, though this copy came directly from Fuji Canada. Other people have found the same thing, though (look at the comments), so there is obviously some sample variation.
I hate the "bad copy" lens argument. First, it sounds like ungrounded wishful thinking. Second, the issue of bad copies indicates an even bigger quality control problem. Fuji is renowned however to have some of the best quality control and lowest sample variations among its competitors, so we shouldn't make that assumption.
@@EddySawaya8637 I get more pushback from Fuji users than anyone else when I point out optical flaws. I appreciate the loyalty to the brand, but unless you use a number of other platforms as I do, you don't really get a perspective on what is possible at a certain focal length/zoom range.
@@DustinAbbottTWIVery true. When I compare my Z-glass to esp. the older XF lenses I had, the latter are nowhere near the same league. The ‘bad copy’ argument I see a lot on Fuji forums, but I’ve never seen solid evidence that Fuji quality control is that bad. I guess beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder.
Just sharpen it up in post!