PSA: you can actually pick this lens up with a Fuji xh1 and a battery grip for $1700, so the lens only comes in at $700 with a stabilized body. Great for anybody looking to get into the Fuji system!
that 18mm is not wide enough for me! 16mm makes a HUGE difference, IMO! with the 18mm I have to carry a second wide angle lens. With a 16-55mm I only carry ONE lens!
I agree - I had three copies of that crappy kit lens over the years and non of them were very good. It was only when I bought the lovely 16-55 that I truly discovered what a sharp zoom is really like.
The 16-55mm is my favourite lens ever. I had the 18-55mm, which I liked at the time. After a few photos I was hooked. Own most the higher end Fuji lenses and still prefer the sharpness from the 16-55mm. My own opinion of course. As for the stabilisation. I can hand hold it no problem at most shutter speeds without issues. But still agree its reasonably heavy for a Fuji lens. If I wanted stabilisation I’d probably buy the XH1.
16-55 is a bit overpriced for what it is. Sharpness up to corners is great, which is what you should expect for a bigger lens with more glass elements. But the 2.8 doesn't grant you a significant t-stop value and lacking stabilization for a lens this big is kind of huge. Its macro capability is also worse than the 18-55, 15-45, and 16-80. The slight advantage is for x-t4 users, as x-t4's image stabilization interferes with the OIS of other zoom lens and can't be turned off (it'll turn both IOS and OIS off).
@@anonymousl5150if you want to shoot macro buy a macro lens neither of these two lenses are macro. Shot many years without stabilization no troubles the constant F2.8 in my opinion is a better trade off stabilisation.
Great review! I have seen many 16-55 reviews by now, tested the lens briefly myself, and this is the most to the point and efficient review I have seen. Thanks!
I bought this lens a couple of weeks ago and can't recommend it high enough, if you are into such thing. Regarding zoom ring it obviously comes down to each individual copy - on mine the zoom ring turns as smooth as the butter. And regarding the lack of OIS - if I remember correctly, at the time this lens came out, Fuji stated that they tried to put OIS inside this lens, but they couldn't do it without significant increase of bulk on already bulky lens (the barrel of the lens would be wider) or otherwise the IQ would suffer, especially at the widest end...
Without stabilization you have to watch your shutter speed. With Fuji you can nicely set this in auto iso setting. I came from Panasonic spoiled with dual IS. But with my X-T3 I have to say, getting used to it, I don't miss it at all anymore. Even with my 90mm without any IS, shots are just as good as on a tripod. And yes, I've tested that. As for the 16-55, I love it!
This lens will never leave my collection. It’s super sharp, never misses a shot, 2.8 constant aperture is great, the build quality is insane and it produces great sunstars (unlike the other Fuji standard and travel zooms). I like the 18-55 for travel, but if quality really matters, the 16-55 is superior.
For still photography this lens is fantastic. It’s way sharper and the color and contrast are far better than the 18-55. It’s night and day with my XT3 and my 18-55 and 16-55. I can tell the difference without pixel peeping. The lens is not big at all. It’s smaller than all other manufacturers equivalent for Mirrorless and much much smaller than full frame equivalent. Please be honest to people when doing reviews. This lens is a lot better than the 18-55.
I'm with you on this one. The two lenses aren't even in the same class (the red label on the 16-55 is meant to signify that it is a more highly engineered zoom lens).
Having owned this lens since it came out i believe its true what they say about this lens " ITS A BAG OF PRIMES!!. image quality is superb and it matches my prime lenses,i use it as a walkabout lens and use it at all day whilst shooting family events like weddings and on holiday and whilst it has no image stabalisation which isnt a big issue as long as you use the appropriate shutter speed i always get tack sharp images. Weight is a concern especially lugging it around all day but its better than carrying 3 lenses and having to change lenses and having to miss a shot whilst changing lenses! I also love my primes which i use but use my zoom when i carnt move with my feet. Im waiting for more reviews of the new 16-80mm lens to compare it with the 16-55mm so that may be i will end up selling and buying the newer lens especially withs its advantages.
Sony and Fuji are both expensive system when you get to actually buy their lenses. That's why I stopped right at the kit lens and happily continue to use adapted EF mount Sigma 18-35mm. It's quite a bit faster at f/1.8, has less zoom range but image quality is top notch right from wide open and it would be cheaper to buy new too. Only the adapter adds cost but when you have lineup of EF lenses it's definitely worth it. Next I got Samyang lenses and also some Kamlan. Fujifilm doesn't have interesting price point with their lack of stabilization and underdesigned lenses which has to be fixed by software. The Samyang 12mm f/2 is great from f/2, which Fuji doesn't even offer, also and doesn't need any corrections.
@@jan.tichavsky samyang 12mm doesn't need any corrections? I had that lens and tried to resell it but the buyer refused to buy it because of tons of chromatic aberrations. And it's not free of distortion either.
0:47 at last someone from youtubers who knows how to calculate DoV. If only Fujifilm had made it internal zooming. The new Fujifilm 16-50 is internal zooming and seems to be a fantastic lens.
I agree with your comparison. I have the 18-55mm stabilised lens and have many sharp shots at 1/6th sec. amazing. Image quality is top notch even compared with my XF 35mm prime. I can’t see any reason for most to consider the other except those who think f2 is essential compared with a max of f2.8 on the 18-55mm. However, the lack of stabilisation on the f2 lens means faster shutter speeds and/or higher ISO in low light so there is a trade off.
Its simply the best and most vertaile lens from Fuji! Its my main lens and it works like a charm! I am using it for street, portraiture, landscape.. everything! Its perfect!!! I am loving it so much! I wish, the would release an 24-50 2.0 or something! And with the X-T4 there is no more need for a stabilization.
Most of the wide aperture standard zooms lenses for mirrorless cameras make the old Canon EF-S 17-55 F2.8 seem like an absolute bargain. Great review as usual.
Chris, I have been following your reviews for a few years now and always enjoy the balanced way you approach them. Found this review interesting as I have both these lenses, I will need to do some comparisons. Personanly the water resistance was a big draw to me for travel photography. I also do a lot of IR photography and the 16-55mm's ability to stop down past f8 without creating a horrible IR hot spot is an advantage for me over the 18-55mm which cannot really go below an aperture of 5.6 without the tell tale spot in the middle of the image becoming obvious. A bit specialised I know but a factor for me.
Thanks a lot for this video, Christopher. I just love how all of your reviews follow exactly the same workflow, it really makes comparison of the different lenses and their quality a breeze! In one of the latest videos, you mentioned that now you have X-H2 - exactly the camera I want to get, but wondering how Fuji XF 16-55mm f/2.8 R LM WR will perform with 40MP sensor? Thanks again
Thanks for your reviews. It`s lovely to listen to them. They are best mix of duration vs. detail and do give me a good impression of what improvements those Fujiglases might bring to me. Please keep on sharing your experiencs ... especially with Fuji of course :)
2024 and Fuji just announced V2 of the XF16-55f2.8. They included 0.21x magnification in the sales pitch so hopefully close focus is excellent on the new lens.
The xh1 and this lens are made for each other, I very rarely take this lens off mine, the xh1's ibis takes the 16-55 mm to another level, great for photography and steady enough for video,and the larger xh1 body balances the lens beautifully.
Overall, I really love the 16-55mm. But, like you, I really wish it had OIS for that little extra breathing room in the low light scenarios I'm often shooting in.
I found the IQ advantage for this lens apparent in landscape work, especially during midday sun. Maybe it's the coatings, or design, but the dynamic range is retained more in raw files compared to some other lenses in that range.
I used to have a copy of this lens, the sharpness in 35mm wide open is pretty weak, when I shoot something 5m away from me. In 5m is no problem though. But I still give it back because of the weight and large size. My hand felt uncomfortable when it combined with my xt2. Nice review as always, sir👌🏻
I personally like primes. I have the 16mm 1.4, 23mm 1.4, and the56mm 1.2, and I really love the image quality. However, I find myself bringing the X100V out almost exclusively nowadays, and when I need zoom, I leave all the fast primes at home and just use the 16-80. Additionally, the 56 1.2 is pretty difficult to focus on kids and moving objects wide open. So I ended up stopping down to 2.0 or 2.8 anyway. I used to bring the 16mm 1.4 for indoor gatherings, but again, nowadays I almost exclusively bring the X100V, sometimes with the WCL converter if I needed the wide angle. So the primes have become like trophies in the camera box at home. I sometimes wonder if I actually like shooting primes at all! 🤣 This is the reason I might switch to the XT5 + XF16-55 F2.8 given there’s IBIS in that body now. When i needed the zoom, I can probably live with the extra weight. And when I go out and about, the compact X100V is still my first choice. So this might simplify my gear to X100V, and the XT5 + XF16-55, and possibly another tele zoom for the occasional wildlife photography.
I'm not using it for professional job, but I'm so happy when I upgraded from 18-55. The sharpness is significantly improved over the 18-55, the extra 2mm is a big deal too. I don't mind the weight since it's helping me produce some excellent images! To me, it is a perfect traveling kits, I can use it in shower condition thanks to it's weather sealing. But I do hope Fujifilm can come out a version with Optical Stabilization.
Great review. I have the Fuji XF 16-55mm f/2.8 R LM WR and aside from complex distortion at 16mm, I really enjoy it. Question: At 3:21 you mention in-camera corrections - is that something available on the H2S? Aside from menu settings for correcting third-party lenses/adapters, I've never seen anything in the camera's menus regarding distortion correction.
Have you noticed that even with a big heavy lens on a bigger apsc camera, it still produces more shake in video compared to a lighter, smaller, but stabilized 1" camera? You can shoot a slower shutter on the bigger sensor camera but when it comes to video, the smaller camera will look smoother. I think the shake that blurs photos and the shake that makes videos bouncy might be different... This is just a random observation from using an a6000. I could easily get down to 1/4 blur free handheld shots with the big grip but when I switched over to video, man was the shake epilepsy inducing.
Another good review, but this time I don't agree with the comparison with 18-55. The 18-55, while it's indeed much better than ANY kit lenses from other manufactures (such as those crappy 18-55 from Canon/Nikon), it's still a kit lens. The 16-55 is at a totally different level in terms of built quality and sharpness. Maybe compare the two head to head? I've never been satisfied with the result from the 18-55 but 16-55 is my work horse. If I want to travel light, I'd just pop a 23mmf2 on the camera rather than the 18-55 zoom.
The WR, constant aperture, and the extra 2mm on the wide end makes the 16-55 more useful for me. The focus breathing is important for me as well because I am in situations when I need to rapidly zoom while continue shooting. The 18-55 is a very good lens but I guess I'm one of those people that has the need for the 16-55 over the 18-55 in too many situations.
If u compare the two reviews, the sony is sharper in the center on all vocal length and about the same if not a tad better on the corners performance. Its also lighter and smaller. Only downside is price.
To miss Image stabilisation you must be referring more to video then stills? I originally tried the kit 18-55mm lens and I found it a bit soft for stills!! Upgrading to the larger 16-55mm you could see the image quality step up straight away, in fact a mate of mine that does wedding photography was so impressed he soon bought into the Fuji system.
Try the X-H1 with this lens. I did! This lens balances perfectly with the X-H1 and the IBIS on the X-H1 make it better combination than anything in this range and max aperture. I guess it’s just a matter of perspective or should I say camera body?
Yes, Canon 17-55mm is old fashion. I wish they made a newer lens 16 55mm f2.8 for the RF system ..canon is walking backward, not forward not enough lens for apsc...any recommendations I planing to get second camera a fujifilm xs10 or xt30ii or xh1 xt200 which is best ?
Thanks so much for the review I have been considering this one for a while but I have and love the 18-55. Looks like I will skip this one and maybe go for the 56mm f/1.2. Cheers.
@@a2zadi I think it's a bit shaper and it goes wider but I really like my 18-55 I got it with my xt1 a while back and use it a ton. The image stabilization is nice as Christopher pointed out in the review.
Nice review, I have XT30 pair with fuji 16mm 2.8 and 35mm 1.4, looking for a lens that could bring in a go.....16-55 2.8 or 18-55 2.8-4 should i buy....? or just add anothe 50-140 to get all the lens range, i am still considering, what do you think
I actually wanted this lens because i just bought a XH1 but fujifilm is dropping a 16-80mm in 2 weeks weather sealed also for $800 USD not a bad price point glad i waited
Very useful review, cheers. Would it be possible to do a side by side comparison of image quality of this one and 18-55 f2.8-4 across the focal range please?
Hey! The kamlan 28mm or the zonlai 22mm is a better lens. The difference in focal lengths doesn't matter to me but since they are at around the same price i was wondering which one you would recommend.
Dunno about Chris, but when this video came out, the only Fuji body with IBIS was the X-H1. This thing on the X-T4 has certainly changed my mind, and I'd highly recommend it.
Been checking out reviews of the 18-55 for a while now, but your review/comparison did it for me, and I've just bought a new 18-55, and can't wait to see that it'll do. Thanks for your factual and honest reviews. 👍👍👍
I’m really curious about your view on the Fujifilm 18-135mm ! It’s on my wishlist in combination with a x-t3 (or x-t2) as a travel camera, to replace or join my canon m6 with my 18-150mm.
Pieter de Wit I have an XT3 and bought the xf 18-135 specifically for traveling. Went to China 🇨🇳 on February of this year. Out of the 12 days, 9 of them we had near constant rain. I was very happy with the lens image quality and its weather sealing. It’s all about the compromises we make. You know that primes are sharper but we can probably agree that few want to go traveling with lots of lenses. I took the 18-135, the 8-16, and the 16mm F1.4. I only used the 8-16mm in Tianmen Square and the 16 F1.4 on a night time river cruise in Shanghai. All other pictures were taken with the 18-135.
@@christopherfrost Thanks I have a Fuji 50 - 140mm and it's great. Just wanted something for wide dramatic looking portraits, that make models look taller. I watched your video on the Fuji 16mm f/1.4 Looks fantastic and just what I'm looking for. Thanks so much for your videos btw. Oh another question. All these comparison images you use in your videos, do you have a database of them that we can access to compare them ourselves?
Coming from full frame to Fujifilm apsc, I don't even bother with zooms because of the mediocre subject separation. When Fujifilm make a 16-55 f1.8 I'll be interested. Until then, I'll continue to buy only primes.
I hesitated to buy this lens because I got 18 to 55mm Finally I got this lens and I regret it I didn't buy sooner With this lens I did complete wedding and images oh my god awesome
They Caged Non I ended up getting the 23mm f2 and 16-55 loving it!!Thinking of getting the 90mmf2 for portraits but I’m not sure...the 56mmf1.2 will soon be replaced by the 50mmf1 so I’m waiting that out...
Great review Chris, yes I wish it was £200 less with IS, then again it is a pro spec lens - me, I find the 'kit' 18-55 good enough. If I want better I use a number of Fujis brilliant prime lenses. 😎😎😎
Just picked one of these up used. Had an 18-55 up until recently, but wasn’t using it. But then, I got some freelance work where I could really use a general zoom. Very happy with it so far!
@They Caged Non Even when set to f4 it's not constant. I haven't use it in particular, but from my experience with variable aperture lenses, even when you set it to its lowest aperture that's still high (like f4 here), when you are zooming, there is a noticeable brightness jump, because the lens is jumping from f3.2 to f4 for example. That is why variable aperture lenses, in most cases, isnt' really suitable for zooming video work.
@They Caged Non I'm not someone who own the Fuji 18-55 in particular, but I have used variable aperture zoom lenses before (which I guess makes my statement less credible, but anyway). I'm NOT SURE if this is the case with the fuji kit lens, but when you are zooming, you can see sudden brightness drops and increases due to the lens changing aperture mid-zoom range, because it physically has to change the size of the iris when zooming even though it technically stays at f4.
May I ask why you say that the FF equivalent depth of field of this lens is about f/4.5? The Fuji X-system has a crop factor of 1.53 compared to FF, which is only 2% more than 1.5. However, because aperture steps are exponential, f/4.5 represents a 32% larger depth of field than f/4. If you must be exact, the FF equivalent would be f/4.032. I know it seems like a small thing, but when people suddenly face these mysterious added aperture values, which happens surprisingly often on professional photography channels, there becomes a sort of unknown factor in choosing between FF and APS-C or even M4/3. I think this, in addition to the other misconceptions about crop factor, make the steps "down" to crop sensors seem scary to many people who would actually benefit greatly from those systems.
@@christopherfrost I think the general tone of RUclips comment sections, particularly those in the field of photography, might have biased your reading of what I wrote. I have no malice towards you, rather the opposite. I truly appreciate the work you do to remove all the branding nonsense from purchasing decisions. However, given that you have that role, I think you should hold yourself to a higher standard than mentioning a fact that you have not researched. Sure, 30% more depth of field may not seem all that important, and indeed it does not have any significant effect on the quality of an image. However, I think you should recognize the authority your words now have. As I said, I have encountered these things with established channels before, and a general trend is that very few dare to question such mistakes. Instead they think that they were wrong, and suddenly a topic which seemed very clean cut isn't anymore. I get that you encounter a lot of inside dwelling photographers who only care for specs, but I ensure you that I am not one of them. In hinsight I could have made that a lot more clear before spewing out calculations, but I think you should always try to have an open mind to criticism.
@@aceflibble I am well aware that APS-C is not just one standard anymore. Fuji's own dimensions for the X-T3 sensor are 23.5mm x 15.6mm. The full frame standard is 36mm x 24mm. Now we can either do this with the widths or the diagonals, I suggest we do both just for fun. Widths: 36÷23.5 = 1.531914893 Diagonals: √(23,5^2+15,6^2) = 28.20655952 √(36^2+24^2) = 43.26661530 43.26661530÷28.20655952 = 1.533920337 As you can see there are variatons due to slight aspect ratio differences, but both can be rounded to 1.53. Or just 1.5, which was my point. As for your following claims, you mention some factors that are irrelevant to this issue like temperature and focus breathing, as both APS-C and FF lenses are affected by this. You run with my figure of f/4.032. I truly see now that I did not make any effort to explain this previously, but my point here was of course that the equivalent depth of field is just f/4. You do not demonstrate how you arrive at your initial figures, and you make two rounds of quite significant rounding up for no apparent reason, where the error propagates from the first to the second. Sure, you can't buy the exact equivalent of this lens in FF, but I fail to see the relevance of this to a Fuji shooter. You are correct about being pedantic, and again, I see now why I gave that impression, when my goal was actually just to be transparent in my calculations. In the end, you are absolutely right that there are lots of hidden factors here, but that affects both sensor sizes. My point is that when one has not researched all of this, it is weird to just add 30% to a figure, when the rule of thumb that we have all learned really proves to be a lot more accurate. Now Chris could have done some insanely complex maths to arrive at his figure, I was fully open to him showing me the error of my ways, but the fact that he instead chose to poke fun indicates that he did not. This seems like a misconception he had heard somewhere, and was too lazy to look into before saying it. And I understand that, as long as he respects his own authority and makes corrections.
@@aceflibble Ok, I do admit that differing effects on FF and APS-C lenses based on temperature and focus breathing is something I have no special knowledge of. To me, focus breathing seems to be perfectly managable for certain manufacturers and thus comes down to build quality. I might be wrong in this. I also believe you in that you're working with this professionally, though I'm interested in which specific field, and think that is more relevant than how important your employers are. I work at a photography store, and as a photographer. Neither of these automatically make me an expert on sensors and optics, and I'm not, but I manage just fine. I must say that I find logical arguments much more useful to finding a correct answer than belittling remarks. There are three things I would like to point out with what you have said throughout this conversation, in increasing order of importance: 1. You did not have any counterargument to my correction of your crop factor figure, yet you have not admitted to any error. 2. You made two significant steps of rounding up, the first because of the availability of FF lenses, and the second because of the common aperture steps on a lens. My retort adressed both of these, as there are two reasons for calculating equivalence. One is finding out which camera or lens you should get to roughly achieve the same effect as something else. The other is finding out what effect you can expect on your system. In this case I would say the latter is most relevant by far. This is Fuji's top standard zoom, and the people invested in the system might wonder just how much they "lose" because of their sensor. In this case the products on the FF market has no relevance. 3. I believe you are mistaken about your DoF calculations. I arrived at similar results as you when I plotted in 55mm f/2.8 in a very nice calculator on Dofmaster.com. However, I also noticed that in the bottom corner, the value for "Circle of Confusion" also changed between the Canon 5D and Fuji X-pro 1 I had selected. This makes practical sense of course because of the sensor size and resolution difference. But it seriously messes with our more theoretical problem, because it is a more or less arbitrary line. Depth of Field does not behave like a box, more like well, a field. You know this of course. So, I tested using a less sophisticated DoF calculator which did NOT correct for Circle of Confusion, and wouldn't you look at it, f/4 at 82.5mm from a 7.5m distance gives us the EXACT same depth of field as f/2.8 at 55mm from a 5m distance.
I tried two of these when it first came on the market... both de-centered. Then quickly realized that my 18-55 was a much better lens, lighter, with OIS. Looking forward to the Mark II version of the 16-55 though, which may just win me over!
I first saw this lens in person last April when I was at Adorama. It was on sale for 900. I just couldn't afford it at that time since I just got the XT3 kit. When it came on sale recently for 1,000, I had to get it. I've had it for two weeks now. I am very much impressed with it. The extra weight and size doesn't bother me, coming from a Nikon D810 and a 24-70 2.8 lens. The extra weight actually steadies my hand.
Hi man! Thank you for your work. What about trying canon 17-55 f2.8 and other Ef, Ef-s lenses on Fuji camera with AF adapter? Fringer for example. I think it will be interesting to many people.
You cannot have all with fuji. Ois but no wr, wr but no ois, 35 1.4 no wr slow, 35 f2 wr and fast, 90mm f2 wr fast no ois, 80 mm slower 2.8 ois wr,56 1.2 no wr, 50 f2 wr and faster focusing . Fuji chose to not update existing lenses, instead create new ones like the humongous 33 f1 no one wants cause is just an 50 1.4 on full frame, they act to confuse you and make you angry. Why not 56 1.2 wr and fast? Why not 1655 wr and ois? Why not 35 1.4 wr and faster focusing ? Not considering that you can have equivalent 50 /55 1.8 and 85 1.8 for really cheap on full frame, a fraction of the fuji lenses. Bodies?xt3 fast autofocus no ibis, xh1 huge body no fast autofocus Yes ibis. What the actual fuck?
Fujinon xf 16-55mm f2.8 r lm wr A lens of remarkable quality in optical and mechanical terms, excellent brightness but a very big flaw: the rubber of the zoom (ring grip) is worn and detached when using the lens in a non-intensive way and for short periods. Considering the cost of the lens, I expected the best in everything, also because it is sold as a "tropicalized lens" that is resistant to bad weather, dust, etc.; for the replacement it must be sent only to the assistance center in Milan at your expense, the cost of the tire change between 100 and 150 euros. An old zoom lens used for over 20 years on an analog SLR the tires are practically undamaged. BIG DISAPPOINTMENT (video available)
This is the problem with these reviews, the copy the reviewer has doesn't always match up to other owner's - mine had a perfectly smooth zoom ring for example, and the whole lack of OIS thing he keeps banging on about - Nikon's 24-70 originally had no VR, was much bigger and heavier and nobody ever complained. Also, if stabilization is so important you have the option to buy the XH1 instead - so every lens you attach benefits from IBIS. If the 16-55 had OIS it would be bigger and heavier and we'd see people crying about that too
I have both lens, 18 and the 16 for my XT2 and XT3. I usually use the 18-55 for video. The 16mm is a much better lens for sharpness and produces much better results. However if I'm out and about and want a light fun set up and image quality is not priority, then I will use the 18. That's not saying the 18 is a bad lens, it's good, but not on par with the 16mm.
Uhuhu this lens is specifically made for the XH1...😩 i bought one in backmarket but now i lack a zoom which is WR.. the 18-55 is OIS but not WR.. such a bummer..because now i have to sell one of my kidneys for the 16-55 😅
I wouldnt consider the lack of IS a faul... not including the IS made it "more affordable" and the Fuji cameras have IBIS anyway... Btw... planing on doing a review of the sony 16-55 f2.8? would realy love to see one :)
Sample variation is the big issue here.. I've seen 18-55s way better than lower grade 16-55s and vice-versa. The same for focus accuracy.. buying a lens is chance and luck.
Not sure why so many praises this lense as after 35mm the photos is totally garbage, especially at 55mm is impossible to keep sharp photos, I wish I could return it but will be definitely selling it.
PSA: you can actually pick this lens up with a Fuji xh1 and a battery grip for $1700, so the lens only comes in at $700 with a stabilized body. Great for anybody looking to get into the Fuji system!
I WISH I knew that before getting the xt20 two months ago.
@Denny Nguyen which is a full frame lens, so it makes sense
I own this lens now for 3 years and never regretted the upgrade from the 18-55mm
Tell us why! :)
Why do you prefer this over the kit lense?
that 18mm is not wide enough for me! 16mm makes a HUGE difference, IMO! with the 18mm I have to carry a second wide angle lens. With a 16-55mm I only carry ONE lens!
I agree - I had three copies of that crappy kit lens over the years and non of them were very good. It was only when I bought the lovely 16-55 that I truly discovered what a sharp zoom is really like.
@Jeremy Ho ho!
The 16-55mm is my favourite lens ever. I had the 18-55mm, which I liked at the time. After a few photos I was hooked. Own most the higher end Fuji lenses and still prefer the sharpness from the 16-55mm. My own opinion of course. As for the stabilisation. I can hand hold it no problem at most shutter speeds without issues. But still agree its reasonably heavy for a Fuji lens. If I wanted stabilisation I’d probably buy the XH1.
Perfect with XT4.
@@swissheartydogs and with x-h1
16-55 is a bit overpriced for what it is. Sharpness up to corners is great, which is what you should expect for a bigger lens with more glass elements. But the 2.8 doesn't grant you a significant t-stop value and lacking stabilization for a lens this big is kind of huge. Its macro capability is also worse than the 18-55, 15-45, and 16-80. The slight advantage is for x-t4 users, as x-t4's image stabilization interferes with the OIS of other zoom lens and can't be turned off (it'll turn both IOS and OIS off).
@@anonymousl5150if you want to shoot macro buy a macro lens neither of these two lenses are macro. Shot many years without stabilization no troubles the constant F2.8 in my opinion is a better trade off stabilisation.
Great review! I have seen many 16-55 reviews by now, tested the lens briefly myself, and this is the most to the point and efficient review I have seen. Thanks!
I bought this lens a couple of weeks ago and can't recommend it high enough, if you are into such thing.
Regarding zoom ring it obviously comes down to each individual copy - on mine the zoom ring turns as smooth as the butter.
And regarding the lack of OIS - if I remember correctly, at the time this lens came out, Fuji stated that they tried to put OIS inside this lens, but they couldn't do it without significant increase of bulk on already bulky lens (the barrel of the lens would be wider) or otherwise the IQ would suffer, especially at the widest end...
Without stabilization you have to watch your shutter speed. With Fuji you can nicely set this in auto iso setting. I came from Panasonic spoiled with dual IS. But with my X-T3 I have to say, getting used to it, I don't miss it at all anymore. Even with my 90mm without any IS, shots are just as good as on a tripod. And yes, I've tested that. As for the 16-55, I love it!
I had the 18-55mm and wasn't that satisfied so I sold it and got the 16-55mm. For me it renders so much better.
This lens will never leave my collection. It’s super sharp, never misses a shot, 2.8 constant aperture is great, the build quality is insane and it produces great sunstars (unlike the other Fuji standard and travel zooms). I like the 18-55 for travel, but if quality really matters, the 16-55 is superior.
For still photography this lens is fantastic. It’s way sharper and the color and contrast are far better than the 18-55. It’s night and day with my XT3 and my 18-55 and 16-55. I can tell the difference without pixel peeping. The lens is not big at all. It’s smaller than all other manufacturers equivalent for Mirrorless and much much smaller than full frame equivalent. Please be honest to people when doing reviews. This lens is a lot better than the 18-55.
I'm with you on this one. The two lenses aren't even in the same class (the red label on the 16-55 is meant to signify that it is a more highly engineered zoom lens).
It highly depends on the copy of 18-55 you have
Video autofocus is not great in 18-55 with xh2s…😇😇
Having owned this lens since it came out i believe its true what they say about this lens " ITS A BAG OF PRIMES!!. image quality is superb and it matches my prime lenses,i use it as a walkabout lens and use it at all day whilst shooting family events like weddings and on holiday and whilst it has no image stabalisation which isnt a big issue as long as you use the appropriate shutter speed i always get tack sharp images. Weight is a concern especially lugging it around all day but its better than carrying 3 lenses and having to change lenses and having to miss a shot whilst changing lenses! I also love my primes which i use but use my zoom when i carnt move with my feet. Im waiting for more reviews of the new 16-80mm lens to compare it with the 16-55mm so that may be i will end up selling and buying the newer lens especially withs its advantages.
If you think that this lens is expensive, just remember that Sony's APS-C is 1.4k dollars
George Stancl and not even red labeled
They are all too expensive for us poor people. Especially those use to ef canon lenses.
It is overpriced. The price is on par with full frame. Rather pay similar price on full frame system
Sony and Fuji are both expensive system when you get to actually buy their lenses. That's why I stopped right at the kit lens and happily continue to use adapted EF mount Sigma 18-35mm. It's quite a bit faster at f/1.8, has less zoom range but image quality is top notch right from wide open and it would be cheaper to buy new too. Only the adapter adds cost but when you have lineup of EF lenses it's definitely worth it. Next I got Samyang lenses and also some Kamlan. Fujifilm doesn't have interesting price point with their lack of stabilization and underdesigned lenses which has to be fixed by software. The Samyang 12mm f/2 is great from f/2, which Fuji doesn't even offer, also and doesn't need any corrections.
@@jan.tichavsky samyang 12mm doesn't need any corrections? I had that lens and tried to resell it but the buyer refused to buy it because of tons of chromatic aberrations. And it's not free of distortion either.
Can you review the fuji xf 16 f1.4 and compare it to 16f2.8 ?
0:47 at last someone from youtubers who knows how to calculate DoV. If only Fujifilm had made it internal zooming. The new Fujifilm 16-50 is internal zooming and seems to be a fantastic lens.
AH YES so glad to see you’ve done a review of this lens. Hopefully more Fuji reviews to come 🤞🏼
I agree with your comparison. I have the 18-55mm stabilised lens and have many sharp shots at 1/6th sec. amazing. Image quality is top notch even compared with my XF 35mm prime. I can’t see any reason for most to consider the other except those who think f2 is essential compared with a max of f2.8 on the 18-55mm. However, the lack of stabilisation on the f2 lens means faster shutter speeds and/or higher ISO in low light so there is a trade off.
Its simply the best and most vertaile lens from Fuji! Its my main lens and it works like a charm! I am using it for street, portraiture, landscape.. everything! Its perfect!!! I am loving it so much!
I wish, the would release an 24-50 2.0 or something! And with the X-T4 there is no more need for a stabilization.
Just ordered mine for my X-T4
How the lens ? Do you like it, and what about its weather sealing ?
Most of the wide aperture standard zooms lenses for mirrorless cameras make the old Canon EF-S 17-55 F2.8 seem like an absolute bargain. Great review as usual.
Chris, I have been following your reviews for a few years now and always enjoy the balanced way you approach them. Found this review interesting as I have both these lenses, I will need to do some comparisons. Personanly the water resistance was a big draw to me for travel photography. I also do a lot of IR photography and the 16-55mm's ability to stop down past f8 without creating a horrible IR hot spot is an advantage for me over the 18-55mm which cannot really go below an aperture of 5.6 without the tell tale spot in the middle of the image becoming obvious. A bit specialised I know but a factor for me.
Thanks a lot for this video, Christopher. I just love how all of your reviews follow exactly the same workflow, it really makes comparison of the different lenses and their quality a breeze!
In one of the latest videos, you mentioned that now you have X-H2 - exactly the camera I want to get, but wondering how Fuji XF 16-55mm f/2.8 R LM WR will perform with 40MP sensor? Thanks again
Thanks for your reviews. It`s lovely to listen to them. They are best mix of duration vs. detail and do give me a good impression of what improvements those Fujiglases might bring to me. Please keep on sharing your experiencs ... especially with Fuji of course :)
You are my absolute reference for lenses reviews !!
HUGE THANKS, Chris !
Take good care of you. :-))
2024 and Fuji just announced V2 of the XF16-55f2.8.
They included 0.21x magnification in the sales pitch so hopefully close focus is excellent on the new lens.
The xh1 and this lens are made for each other, I very rarely take this lens off mine, the xh1's ibis takes the 16-55 mm to another level, great for photography and steady enough for video,and the larger xh1 body balances the lens beautifully.
Overall, I really love the 16-55mm. But, like you, I really wish it had OIS for that little extra breathing room in the low light scenarios I'm often shooting in.
I found the IQ advantage for this lens apparent in landscape work, especially during midday sun. Maybe it's the coatings, or design, but the dynamic range is retained more in raw files compared to some other lenses in that range.
Thanks. I just bought X-T2 and I'm thinking about 10-24 or 16-55 for landscape
@@celestialemissary4934 The 10-24 is great and worth owning alongside the 16-55 if you can swing it. I just wish it was as good
@@tjkrueger2655 Thanks. I probably will both but for starters I can only get one
Perfect timing!! Im just about to get an XH-1 and possibly this lens! and the X-H1 has IBIS which will help with the lack of stabalisation
I already have purchased this combination...very good combination
I’m using XT3 and I’m jealous of you on using XH1. 😉
I have it on the X H1 and it performs very good. Used it on the X-T1 and T10, too. Rendering is perfect.
Your vids are great. Really informative, precise, to the point.
I used to have a copy of this lens, the sharpness in 35mm wide open is pretty weak, when I shoot something 5m away from me. In 5m is no problem though. But I still give it back because of the weight and large size. My hand felt uncomfortable when it combined with my xt2. Nice review as always, sir👌🏻
I personally like primes. I have the 16mm 1.4, 23mm 1.4, and the56mm 1.2, and I really love the image quality. However, I find myself bringing the X100V out almost exclusively nowadays, and when I need zoom, I leave all the fast primes at home and just use the 16-80. Additionally, the 56 1.2 is pretty difficult to focus on kids and moving objects wide open. So I ended up stopping down to 2.0 or 2.8 anyway. I used to bring the 16mm 1.4 for indoor gatherings, but again, nowadays I almost exclusively bring the X100V, sometimes with the WCL converter if I needed the wide angle. So the primes have become like trophies in the camera box at home. I sometimes wonder if I actually like shooting primes at all! 🤣
This is the reason I might switch to the XT5 + XF16-55 F2.8 given there’s IBIS in that body now. When i needed the zoom, I can probably live with the extra weight. And when I go out and about, the compact X100V is still my first choice. So this might simplify my gear to X100V, and the XT5 + XF16-55, and possibly another tele zoom for the occasional wildlife photography.
Mine is turning very smoothly, much more than the 18-55.
You also have a light zoom resistant
I'm not using it for professional job, but I'm so happy when I upgraded from 18-55. The sharpness is significantly improved over the 18-55, the extra 2mm is a big deal too. I don't mind the weight since it's helping me produce some excellent images! To me, it is a perfect traveling kits, I can use it in shower condition thanks to it's weather sealing. But I do hope Fujifilm can come out a version with Optical Stabilization.
demoncruster just curios as to whether you have bought the new 16-80mm and if so, did you like it?
Great review. I have the Fuji XF 16-55mm f/2.8 R LM WR and aside from complex distortion at 16mm, I really enjoy it. Question: At 3:21 you mention in-camera corrections - is that something available on the H2S? Aside from menu settings for correcting third-party lenses/adapters, I've never seen anything in the camera's menus regarding distortion correction.
Have you noticed that even with a big heavy lens on a bigger apsc camera, it still produces more shake in video compared to a lighter, smaller, but stabilized 1" camera? You can shoot a slower shutter on the bigger sensor camera but when it comes to video, the smaller camera will look smoother. I think the shake that blurs photos and the shake that makes videos bouncy might be different...
This is just a random observation from using an a6000. I could easily get down to 1/4 blur free handheld shots with the big grip but when I switched over to video, man was the shake epilepsy inducing.
If you use a proper tripod and a decent video head all this will go away....
Another good review, but this time I don't agree with the comparison with 18-55. The 18-55, while it's indeed much better than ANY kit lenses from other manufactures (such as those crappy 18-55 from Canon/Nikon), it's still a kit lens. The 16-55 is at a totally different level in terms of built quality and sharpness. Maybe compare the two head to head? I've never been satisfied with the result from the 18-55 but 16-55 is my work horse. If I want to travel light, I'd just pop a 23mmf2 on the camera rather than the 18-55 zoom.
The WR, constant aperture, and the extra 2mm on the wide end makes the 16-55 more useful for me. The focus breathing is important for me as well because I am in situations when I need to rapidly zoom while continue shooting. The 18-55 is a very good lens but I guess I'm one of those people that has the need for the 16-55 over the 18-55 in too many situations.
Excellent review as usual, Chris. I hope you will review the new 16-80mm f4 at some point
With the release of the X-t4 this lenses becomes a solid option. Tempted to get the X-t4 to replace my current X-t30(I own the 56mm f1.2).
coming from the sony f2.8 zoom review that was just posted, I have more respect and appreciation for this lens now
If u compare the two reviews, the sony is sharper in the center on all vocal length and about the same if not a tad better on the corners performance. Its also lighter and smaller. Only downside is price.
To miss Image stabilisation you must be referring more to video then stills? I originally tried the kit 18-55mm lens and I found it a bit soft for stills!! Upgrading to the larger 16-55mm you could see the image quality step up straight away, in fact a mate of mine that does wedding photography was so impressed he soon bought into the Fuji system.
Try the X-H1 with this lens. I did!
This lens balances perfectly with the X-H1 and the IBIS on the X-H1 make it better combination than anything in this range and max aperture.
I guess it’s just a matter of perspective or should I say camera body?
Yes, Canon 17-55mm is old fashion. I wish they made a newer lens 16 55mm f2.8 for the RF system ..canon is walking backward, not forward not enough lens for apsc...any recommendations I planing to get second camera a fujifilm xs10 or xt30ii or xh1 xt200 which is best ?
When you getting your mitts on the mk2 mate. I always enjoy your tests bud!
Thanks so much for the review I have been considering this one for a while but I have and love the 18-55. Looks like I will skip this one and maybe go for the 56mm f/1.2. Cheers.
Is this better than your 18 55 lens?
@@a2zadi I think it's a bit shaper and it goes wider but I really like my 18-55 I got it with my xt1 a while back and use it a ton. The image stabilization is nice as Christopher pointed out in the review.
hello sir, can you review sony 16-55 f2.8 and compare it with this? thankyou
I will review that lens eventually
Nice review, I have XT30 pair with fuji 16mm 2.8 and 35mm 1.4, looking for a lens that could bring in a go.....16-55 2.8 or 18-55 2.8-4 should i buy....? or just add anothe 50-140 to get all the lens range, i am still considering, what do you think
I really do enjoy your views... keep it up, thanks!
I actually wanted this lens because i just bought a XH1 but fujifilm is dropping a 16-80mm in 2 weeks weather sealed also for $800 USD not a bad price point glad i waited
Shamai palp? at the begninning of the video? Did I catch that right? What does it mean?
I'd love to see you review the mark ii version of this lens. :)
Very useful review, cheers. Would it be possible to do a side by side comparison of image quality of this one and 18-55 f2.8-4 across the focal range please?
Great review as per usual!
Hey! The kamlan 28mm or the zonlai 22mm is a better lens. The difference in focal lengths doesn't matter to me but since they are at around the same price i was wondering which one you would recommend.
This lens long predates the XH1
With the Xt4 this lens is pretty much perfect
Makes me realise how forward Samsung was with their 16-50mm F2-2.8 lens, real shame you never tested this beast.
Hi Christopher! I'm curious, when shooting with the 18-55, are you in EFCS or mechanical shutter? Thanks!
I am considering this for xt4 which has 'IS'. Would is change Christopher's mind?
Dunno about Chris, but when this video came out, the only Fuji body with IBIS was the X-H1. This thing on the X-T4 has certainly changed my mind, and I'd highly recommend it.
Do you like the Fujifilm or Sony 16-55mm f2.8 more? (APS-C).
Been checking out reviews of the 18-55 for a while now, but your review/comparison did it for me, and I've just bought a new 18-55, and can't wait to see that it'll do. Thanks for your factual and honest reviews. 👍👍👍
I’m really curious about your view on the Fujifilm 18-135mm ! It’s on my wishlist in combination with a x-t3 (or x-t2) as a travel camera, to replace or join my canon m6 with my 18-150mm.
Pieter de Wit I have an XT3 and bought the xf 18-135 specifically for traveling. Went to China 🇨🇳 on February of this year. Out of the 12 days, 9 of them we had near constant rain. I was very happy with the lens image quality and its weather sealing. It’s all about the compromises we make. You know that primes are sharper but we can probably agree that few want to go traveling with lots of lenses. I took the 18-135, the 8-16, and the 16mm F1.4. I only used the 8-16mm in Tianmen Square and the 16 F1.4 on a night time river cruise in Shanghai. All other pictures were taken with the 18-135.
Christopher, if you use this lens in the XT-4 that has inbody stabiluzation, that problem is solved?
Than you and congrats in the channel 🙏
What's your favourite 16mm for Fuji? I'm really stuck on what to buy, I mainly shoot portraits and flash photography in general.
16mm is not a great option for portrait photography! I would probably try to save up for the Fuji 16mm f/1.4
@@christopherfrost Thanks I have a Fuji 50 - 140mm and it's great. Just wanted something for wide dramatic looking portraits, that make models look taller.
I watched your video on the Fuji 16mm f/1.4 Looks fantastic and just what I'm looking for. Thanks so much for your videos btw. Oh another question. All these comparison images you use in your videos, do you have a database of them that we can access to compare them ourselves?
Coming from full frame to Fujifilm apsc, I don't even bother with zooms because of the mediocre subject separation.
When Fujifilm make a 16-55 f1.8 I'll be interested.
Until then, I'll continue to buy only primes.
Man that will be a big lens. haha.
I hesitated to buy this lens because I got 18 to 55mm
Finally I got this lens and I regret it I didn't buy sooner
With this lens I did complete wedding and images oh my god awesome
Did u Revenew fuji 70-300?
Is there any cheaper equivalent from other manufacturers?
Not on Fuji
Would you get this zoom or the f2 primes in the focal range??
They Caged Non I ended up getting the 23mm f2 and 16-55 loving it!!Thinking of getting the 90mmf2 for portraits but I’m not sure...the 56mmf1.2 will soon be replaced by the 50mmf1 so I’m waiting that out...
Great review Chris, yes I wish it was £200 less with IS, then again it is a pro spec lens - me, I find the 'kit' 18-55 good enough. If I want better I use a number of Fujis brilliant prime lenses. 😎😎😎
How does this lens compare to the Fuji 50mm f2 at the same focal length?
It doesn't
sw40lover thought that’d be the answer lol
It's not bad the 16-55 is amazing but heavy for only being 2.8 not great dof f2 is like just enough
Now that the XT5 is out, this lens has become more enticing than ever.
Just picked one of these up used. Had an 18-55 up until recently, but wasn’t using it. But then, I got some freelance work where I could really use a general zoom. Very happy with it so far!
how is the zoom ring?? Is it smooth? want to usw foe video purposes?
Everyone would be praising this lens if the 18-55 didn't exist. But it does. I would chose the smaller, cheaper one myself.
Momchil Yordanov But for video makers a constant aperture is very helpful.
@@jordanlin4437 , true. So is stabilization.
@They Caged Non Even when set to f4 it's not constant. I haven't use it in particular, but from my experience with variable aperture lenses, even when you set it to its lowest aperture that's still high (like f4 here), when you are zooming, there is a noticeable brightness jump, because the lens is jumping from f3.2 to f4 for example. That is why variable aperture lenses, in most cases, isnt' really suitable for zooming video work.
@@momchilyordanov8190 Yeah. That's why Fuji's 16-80 f4 actually looks quite interesting.
@They Caged Non I'm not someone who own the Fuji 18-55 in particular, but I have used variable aperture zoom lenses before (which I guess makes my statement less credible, but anyway). I'm NOT SURE if this is the case with the fuji kit lens, but when you are zooming, you can see sudden brightness drops and increases due to the lens changing aperture mid-zoom range, because it physically has to change the size of the iris when zooming even though it technically stays at f4.
I stayed with the 18-55,it`s a great little lens.
18-- 55 that comes with XT2 or XT3 in kit lens?
@@a2zadi Yes.
May I ask why you say that the FF equivalent depth of field of this lens is about f/4.5? The Fuji X-system has a crop factor of 1.53 compared to FF, which is only 2% more than 1.5. However, because aperture steps are exponential, f/4.5 represents a 32% larger depth of field than f/4. If you must be exact, the FF equivalent would be f/4.032. I know it seems like a small thing, but when people suddenly face these mysterious added aperture values, which happens surprisingly often on professional photography channels, there becomes a sort of unknown factor in choosing between FF and APS-C or even M4/3. I think this, in addition to the other misconceptions about crop factor, make the steps "down" to crop sensors seem scary to many people who would actually benefit greatly from those systems.
Fussiest comment of the week :-)
@@christopherfrost I think the general tone of RUclips comment sections, particularly those in the field of photography, might have biased your reading of what I wrote. I have no malice towards you, rather the opposite. I truly appreciate the work you do to remove all the branding nonsense from purchasing decisions. However, given that you have that role, I think you should hold yourself to a higher standard than mentioning a fact that you have not researched. Sure, 30% more depth of field may not seem all that important, and indeed it does not have any significant effect on the quality of an image. However, I think you should recognize the authority your words now have. As I said, I have encountered these things with established channels before, and a general trend is that very few dare to question such mistakes. Instead they think that they were wrong, and suddenly a topic which seemed very clean cut isn't anymore. I get that you encounter a lot of inside dwelling photographers who only care for specs, but I ensure you that I am not one of them. In hinsight I could have made that a lot more clear before spewing out calculations, but I think you should always try to have an open mind to criticism.
@@Ohyehah I'm glad you don't have malice towards me :-)
@@aceflibble I am well aware that APS-C is not just one standard anymore. Fuji's own dimensions for the X-T3 sensor are 23.5mm x 15.6mm. The full frame standard is 36mm x 24mm. Now we can either do this with the widths or the diagonals, I suggest we do both just for fun. Widths: 36÷23.5 = 1.531914893
Diagonals: √(23,5^2+15,6^2) = 28.20655952
√(36^2+24^2) =
43.26661530
43.26661530÷28.20655952 = 1.533920337
As you can see there are variatons due to slight aspect ratio differences, but both can be rounded to 1.53. Or just 1.5, which was my point. As for your following claims, you mention some factors that are irrelevant to this issue like temperature and focus breathing, as both APS-C and FF lenses are affected by this. You run with my figure of f/4.032. I truly see now that I did not make any effort to explain this previously, but my point here was of course that the equivalent depth of field is just f/4. You do not demonstrate how you arrive at your initial figures, and you make two rounds of quite significant rounding up for no apparent reason, where the error propagates from the first to the second. Sure, you can't buy the exact equivalent of this lens in FF, but I fail to see the relevance of this to a Fuji shooter. You are correct about being pedantic, and again, I see now why I gave that impression, when my goal was actually just to be transparent in my calculations. In the end, you are absolutely right that there are lots of hidden factors here, but that affects both sensor sizes. My point is that when one has not researched all of this, it is weird to just add 30% to a figure, when the rule of thumb that we have all learned really proves to be a lot more accurate. Now Chris could have done some insanely complex maths to arrive at his figure, I was fully open to him showing me the error of my ways, but the fact that he instead chose to poke fun indicates that he did not. This seems like a misconception he had heard somewhere, and was too lazy to look into before saying it. And I understand that, as long as he respects his own authority and makes corrections.
@@aceflibble Ok, I do admit that differing effects on FF and APS-C lenses based on temperature and focus breathing is something I have no special knowledge of. To me, focus breathing seems to be perfectly managable for certain manufacturers and thus comes down to build quality. I might be wrong in this. I also believe you in that you're working with this professionally, though I'm interested in which specific field, and think that is more relevant than how important your employers are. I work at a photography store, and as a photographer. Neither of these automatically make me an expert on sensors and optics, and I'm not, but I manage just fine. I must say that I find logical arguments much more useful to finding a correct answer than belittling remarks. There are three things I would like to point out with what you have said throughout this conversation, in increasing order of importance: 1. You did not have any counterargument to my correction of your crop factor figure, yet you have not admitted to any error.
2. You made two significant steps of rounding up, the first because of the availability of FF lenses, and the second because of the common aperture steps on a lens. My retort adressed both of these, as there are two reasons for calculating equivalence. One is finding out which camera or lens you should get to roughly achieve the same effect as something else. The other is finding out what effect you can expect on your system. In this case I would say the latter is most relevant by far. This is Fuji's top standard zoom, and the people invested in the system might wonder just how much they "lose" because of their sensor. In this case the products on the FF market has no relevance.
3. I believe you are mistaken about your DoF calculations. I arrived at similar results as you when I plotted in 55mm f/2.8 in a very nice calculator on Dofmaster.com. However, I also noticed that in the bottom corner, the value for "Circle of Confusion" also changed between the Canon 5D and Fuji X-pro 1 I had selected. This makes practical sense of course because of the sensor size and resolution difference. But it seriously messes with our more theoretical problem, because it is a more or less arbitrary line. Depth of Field does not behave like a box, more like well, a field. You know this of course. So, I tested using a less sophisticated DoF calculator which did NOT correct for Circle of Confusion, and wouldn't you look at it, f/4 at 82.5mm from a 7.5m distance gives us the EXACT same depth of field as f/2.8 at 55mm from a 5m distance.
I tried two of these when it first came on the market... both de-centered. Then quickly realized that my 18-55 was a much better lens, lighter, with OIS. Looking forward to the Mark II version of the 16-55 though, which may just win me over!
I first saw this lens in person last April when I was at Adorama. It was on sale for 900. I just couldn't afford it at that time since I just got the XT3 kit. When it came on sale recently for 1,000, I had to get it. I've had it for two weeks now. I am very much impressed with it. The extra weight and size doesn't bother me, coming from a Nikon D810 and a 24-70 2.8 lens. The extra weight actually steadies my hand.
Can you review the Fuji 14mm?
Thanks for the review! :)
Hi man! Thank you for your work. What about trying canon 17-55 f2.8 and other Ef, Ef-s lenses on Fuji camera with AF adapter? Fringer for example. I think it will be interesting to many people.
I don't really own those lenses anymore
@@christopherfrost Thanks for answer )
Does it really have a soft zoom mechanism
This lens is released in 2015, and reviewed in 2019...
In 2024.. I'm still waiting the newer version of this😞
Its like you knew I was looking for this lense and made this for me. 😂😂
You cannot have all with fuji. Ois but no wr, wr but no ois, 35 1.4 no wr slow, 35 f2 wr and fast, 90mm f2 wr fast no ois, 80 mm slower 2.8 ois wr,56 1.2 no wr, 50 f2 wr and faster focusing . Fuji chose to not update existing lenses, instead create new ones like the humongous 33 f1 no one wants cause is just an 50 1.4 on full frame, they act to confuse you and make you angry. Why not 56 1.2 wr and fast? Why not 1655 wr and ois? Why not 35 1.4 wr and faster focusing ? Not considering that you can have equivalent 50 /55 1.8 and 85 1.8 for really cheap on full frame, a fraction of the fuji lenses. Bodies?xt3 fast autofocus no ibis, xh1 huge body no fast autofocus Yes ibis. What the actual fuck?
You're right it's a mess. They need to update and improve their existing lenses
Fujinon xf 16-55mm f2.8 r lm wr
A lens of remarkable quality in optical and mechanical terms, excellent brightness but a very big flaw: the rubber of the zoom (ring grip) is worn and detached when using the lens in a non-intensive way and for short periods. Considering the cost of the lens, I expected the best in everything, also because it is sold as a "tropicalized lens" that is resistant to bad weather, dust, etc.; for the replacement it must be sent only to the assistance center in Milan at your expense, the cost of the tire change between 100 and 150 euros. An old zoom lens used for over 20 years on an analog SLR the tires are practically undamaged.
BIG DISAPPOINTMENT (video available)
Equivalent numbers seem off. Fuji is 1.5 crop factor, so it's 24-82.5 f/4.2 equivalent.
Is it compatible on xa3?
It's compatible on all Fuji X-mount cameras, like I said in the review
This is the problem with these reviews, the copy the reviewer has doesn't always match up to other owner's - mine had a perfectly smooth zoom ring for example, and the whole lack of OIS thing he keeps banging on about - Nikon's 24-70 originally had no VR, was much bigger and heavier and nobody ever complained. Also, if stabilization is so important you have the option to buy the XH1 instead - so every lens you attach benefits from IBIS. If the 16-55 had OIS it would be bigger and heavier and we'd see people crying about that too
I have both lens, 18 and the 16 for my XT2 and XT3. I usually use the 18-55 for video. The 16mm is a much better lens for sharpness and produces much better results. However if I'm out and about and want a light fun set up and image quality is not priority, then I will use the 18. That's not saying the 18 is a bad lens, it's good, but not on par with the 16mm.
my only worry is the lack of weather sealing on the 18-55 :(
FUJİ cameras have IBIS right now and for this reason, there is no need to be negative about lack of image stabilization. X T 5 and new ones have IBIS.
That's correct (this video was made 5 years ago)
@@christopherfrost Still very informative video about this lens.
Uhuhu this lens is specifically made for the XH1...😩 i bought one in backmarket but now i lack a zoom which is WR.. the 18-55 is OIS but not WR.. such a bummer..because now i have to sell one of my kidneys for the 16-55 😅
I wouldnt consider the lack of IS a faul... not including the IS made it "more affordable" and the Fuji cameras have IBIS anyway...
Btw... planing on doing a review of the sony 16-55 f2.8? would realy love to see one :)
The only fuji apsc body is the xh1.
Not my system, but still interesting. I have bought from recommendations here and all good.
Since it doesn’t focus breath, they really should have given it OIS so it could be a fantastic video lens. Too bad!
I hope you can review fuji xf 35mm f2.0 R WR
A review is coming
@@christopherfrost Thank you Chris
“Finally, bokeh” ❤️❤️❤️
Sample variation is the big issue here.. I've seen 18-55s way better than lower grade 16-55s and vice-versa. The same for focus accuracy.. buying a lens is chance and luck.
Not sure why so many praises this lense as after 35mm the photos is totally garbage, especially at 55mm is impossible to keep sharp photos, I wish I could return it but will be definitely selling it.