I really like seeing legacy lens reviews on the new 40mp Fuji sensor. It’s really helpful when deciding which ones to own/keep. Thanks for putting this one together. Cheers!
Great review as always. This was my exact observation too. I used to be pretty happy with the image quality of this lens on my X-T20 and X-S10, but after trying it on the X-T5 it really started to show its age. I have since purchased the Sigma 18-50 and the difference in resolution and contrast was quite noticeable. The AF also performs better on the Sigma lens.
Exactly. I think that is why many people get their backs up when you criticize this lens. They remember it being very good, but on a lower resolution camera. Many people don't realize how much more pressure a high resolution camera puts on the performance of a lens.
It’s weird some say that older lenses will “benefit” from the 40mp sensor but I often hear comments like this where people say the older lenses suffer on the newer sensor. So which is it?
@@stefan33uk On a per pixel level, yes, the older lenses will not look as good on a 40MP sensor as it does on a 26MP, 24MP, or 16MP sensor from older Fuji cameras. However, when stopped down, even the older lens will see some benefits in resolution on the new 40MP sensor in the center of the frame as it is still capable of out resolving the older, lower MP sensors. But the 18-55 lags behind newer lens designs such as the Sigma 18-50 and the new Fuji 16-50 on 40MP sensors. This difference will be less noticeable on older, lower MP sensors. Alternatively, if you downsample all images to a common lowest denominator (such as 16MP), you will be hard pressed to find any meaningful differences.
Awesome video. I'm shocked at how much sigma 18-50 advanced optical design over the 18-55. I was wondering if you would consider a re-review of another 16-55 sample, it seems the one featured in your other "still worthy video" was misaligned or under serviced.
Hi Yannick, there are plenty of other people who have confirmed something similar to me with their copy of the 16-55mm. I don't really have control over what copy I get...as it was sent to me by Fujifilm Canada.
Kudos to another review with your clear and objective summary. Appreciate your review deep dive approach that covers mid aperture performance which are more relevant for landscapes I found most value; as many other reviews focus primarily mostly on wide open. Thank you.
Excellent lecture. But I like to add few things about making the 18/55 lens working with the xt5 40mp. I’m using f8 all the time which is the center of the optics and I’m alternating the iso when it needs.After at the editing I use a little extra contrast and one stop sharpening…
Thank you, this video is right on time! I have this lens, and in several days I'll receive my new XT5 with 16 -80 mm f4 lens. The question is - is it worth to keep 16 - 80 mm f4 with XT5 40 mp sensor or sell it and get something else? There many mixed reviews on this lens, and little with new 40mp sensor
You have a perfect opportunity to compare them side by side. I didn't do them side by side, but when I reviewed them both (on 26MP) I felt like the 16-80mm was as good optically.
If I had it to do over I would have probably opted to skip buying a kit lens entirely and just purchase a good used 16-55. But if I had to choose a kit lens, I'd have chosen the 16-80 f/4 over the 18-55 'kit' lens. I usually shoot the 18-55 at about f/4-f/5.6, but the updated AF chips, OIS performance, and focal range of the 16-80 make it a better travel/one and done lens, IMO, even though it is larger. Don't get too hung up on the reviews, in the "real world" photos always have in-focus and out-of-focus elements that mean that "borders and corners" are soft just like they probably should be. I own the 16-55 and can tell you - I wouldn't choose it for "more detail" - all my Fuji lenses, even the 18-55, have produced very sharp and satisfying results. You choose the 16-55 for AF performance and fixed f/2.8. The higher hit rate yields more candidates, typically, especially in more challenging lighting. But you literally pay for it plus have to tolerate the fact that it is fairly large and heavy comparatively speaking.
Great video! I have an x-t5, and i want to buy the 16-55 2.8. But some people are saying im internet that they are having bad experiences with the 16-55 2.8 and the new sensor, because this lense cannot resolve well the 40 mpx? What is your experience? Do you see any difference in sharpness and overall image quality between your H2-S (26 mpx) and your X-T5 (40 mpx)? Thanks!
I've actually done a video on the 16-55 and the 40MP sensor. I would recommend you check that out. The short answer is yes - these older Fuji lenses just don't hold up as well on the X-T5 or X-H2.
Thanks a lot for the thorough review, Dustin. Now that I’m shooting with an XT5 through an 18mm f/1.4, some of these older lenses are not so hot anymore…. Shooting more with primes now. I might pick up the Sigma 18-50 one day, though, for travel; that seems a decent lens.
That's true, though in my mind I was thinking those at least starting at F2.8. You can also point to the 18-120mm F4 PZ if you are broadening to F4 lenses. I didn't specifically mention F2.8 as my criteria, though, so your comment is fair.
* Fuji have announced 'development' of the 16-50, so probably more than just a rumour. Something about the 18-55 worth considering is field curvature (particularly with things like test charts) Optical Limits original review specifically notes this. This was somewhat inadvertently 'proved' by Chris and Jordan (DPR) with their comparison with the Sigma 18-50. They were surprised by how well the Fuji lens held up to the Sigma - but they did their corner tests, focused on the corner. I have used a number of Canon lenses and, over time, with frustration and extensive testing, noted field curvature to be a big consideration to get the best out of my lenses. For myself, shooting landscapes, I found pushing the focal plane closer to infinity greatly improved lens performance. Case in point: RF 24-105/4. I have found that with mid-foreground objects (7-8m / 25ft) I get better results focusing at infinity than on the actual subject!
I did test focusing in the corners as well, and you can see a number of real world comparisons in this review as well where field curvature should not be an issue.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks Dustin. I'm not always sure whether reviewers focus in the corner, or center and check corners. How all this plays out in the real world, and for different photo genres varies of course. I don't actually ever focus in the corners, but knowing how my lenses behave with field curvature (and focus plane distance) has really improved the results I get - well, when pixel peeping, but I'm a firm believer the better the file, the better my capability to print big.
Nice and thorough review. WELL! I have definitely got the WORST copy of the Fuji 18-55. Unusable at 18mm from 2.8 to 3.5 and still bad at f/4 then about after a year I got "Turn camera off and on again" I updated the firmware on the camera (X-S 10) and the lens but that made no difference. Eventually the lens started making some weird noise and then died. My old Canon EFs 10-18 mm was WAY sharper using the Fringer adapter, especially in the corners. I now have the Sigma 18-50 on order. For the costs and performance of the third party lenses I will no longer be using Fuji's expensive and slow focusing lenses and if Canon ever open the doors to third party manufactures that's when I jump ship!
The only thing I hate about this lens is the AF-slower/more inconsistent than any other Fuji lens I own, and almost unusable indoors when the lights go down. I’m not saying it doesn’t work, mind you, just that the hit rate has been pretty low for me when shooting dynamic subjects (particularly vs. newer lenses). Other than that, I love the sort of “muted” rendering, it is easy to add color/contrast if the image really needs it, and it has produced some shockingly stunning images for me-every bit as detailed and colorful as I would want particularly for portraits. Good lighting and a good focus lock is a lot more critical with this lens than ultimate resolution, IMO. I just wouldn’t pay more than, say, $350 for it. If Fuji just re-released this with superior AF and some sort of optical update, I’d take it everywhere. The 16-50 is for me a hardcore bummer, especially since it got even slower. But we’ll see how it performs soon enough, and it is expected to have internal zoom, which is a nice change.
I have 4 copies of the 18-55 f2.8-4 on 26 MP and while they are good at shorter distances, they are all terrible when focused towards infinity. With extreme sample variation and variation within the image area. 2 out of my 4 copies are absolutely inacceptable for landscapes on the 26 MP sensor.
Dear Dustin, I love your videos for the rigor of your tests, but I'm starting to think there is something not working in your protocols. After watching the video in which you claim that the 16-55 2.8 handles 40 MP much worse than the 26 and 24 MP of the previous sensors, I bought that lens to check it out. On my X-T5, it is absolutely better than on my X-T2. I have asked in several user forums that have the X-T5 and professionals who use the X-T5 or the X-H2, and 100% of them tell me the same thing: the 16-55 2.8 is even sharper with the 40 MP sensor. ---
If you look through the comments here, there's a huge range of anecdotal feedback. Either there is a sample variation, or people's rigors of testing vary a lot. I can only report on what I see.
I never found this lens to be exceptional in any way. I think it's the most over rated lens in history. The 16-55 is vastly better. That said it was fine on my X-T1 but my X-T3 really showed the weaknesses.
@@PippetWhippet They sell in the UK all day long second hand for around £250 for one in good condition. Mine came with my X-T1 so I didn't pay a premium for it. I'd be surprised if you can get one for $100. As for it being a kit lens, yes it is. It's a good kit lens but it's not a professional lens by any means.
Have you tried the 16-80 f4 on the 40mp? I'm am between that and the sigma 18-50 for my XT5. I am a hiking quide, so the use case would be hiking photos, such as landscape, wild mushrooms and plants as well as portraits of clients on the trail.
I haven't on 40MP, though when I reviewed it on 26MP I preferred it to the 18-55mm for the simple reason that I felt it had just as good of image quality and a much more useful zoom range. It's probably not going to look amazing on 40MP, but acceptably good.
Had 2 of them and they've both been great optically but my god don't shine a torch in them....both mine were absolutely full of dust. Same with my 55-200 and 10-24....all full of dust. I have well used 50 year old primes in better shape. Not sure how normal this is but I'm really disappointed, especially with the hit on resale value.
I never liked it, but learned to live with it. Got it with X-T20 but to me it was always soft and just average. Fuji owners raged every time I mentioned this, as usual.
It's all fun talks until you start cropping. No kidding, even when looking at images in general the flat non-3dpop low contrast is a dead giveaway of the lens' old age.
@@BojanBojovic Viltrox 27 is my general use lens and this lens, in my opinion, made a revolution for aps c, narrowing a gap between full frame and crop sensor more than ever. But… xf 18-55 is a poetry 😀 I use it for landscape along with sigma 10-18 and xf 70-300. I print A3+ and not only xf 18-55 is not less sharp from 0.5 m distance, but it’s color rendition is the most beautiful of all three in my opinion.
How can a lens be well made if it has an aperture ring with zero markings, and is more of an aperture scroll - like the scrolling wheel on my mouse. Its not a well built lens, and its not an aperture ring. Its a Faux-aperture ring, or an aperture scroll. Its not a manual focus ring when its pulsing. Its a faux-focus ring. Its a badly designed and badly implemented so called Retro styled lens that lacks the proper functionality of a lenses with actual aperture rings and manual focus ring. Why do so many reviewers let Fuji get away with making rubbish products. I've been in the Fuji system myself, and next to my Pentax gear Fuji was very very substandard in many ways. Its ludicrous stuff like aperture rings with no aperture lock, and then they call it a retro styled camera, and its not operating at all like a vintage lenses or cameras. Its the worst marketing ploy ever.
I think this is a bit of an overstatement, but at the same time I don't disagree with some of your basic premises. I've been frustrated by their refusal to add more features (ability to declick an aperture, a function button, etc...) to their lenses when competing companies have.
I really like seeing legacy lens reviews on the new 40mp Fuji sensor. It’s really helpful when deciding which ones to own/keep. Thanks for putting this one together. Cheers!
My pleasure.
Great review as always. This was my exact observation too. I used to be pretty happy with the image quality of this lens on my X-T20 and X-S10, but after trying it on the X-T5 it really started to show its age. I have since purchased the Sigma 18-50 and the difference in resolution and contrast was quite noticeable. The AF also performs better on the Sigma lens.
Exactly. I think that is why many people get their backs up when you criticize this lens. They remember it being very good, but on a lower resolution camera. Many people don't realize how much more pressure a high resolution camera puts on the performance of a lens.
It’s weird some say that older lenses will “benefit” from the 40mp sensor but I often hear comments like this where people say the older lenses suffer on the newer sensor. So which is it?
@@stefan33uk On a per pixel level, yes, the older lenses will not look as good on a 40MP sensor as it does on a 26MP, 24MP, or 16MP sensor from older Fuji cameras. However, when stopped down, even the older lens will see some benefits in resolution on the new 40MP sensor in the center of the frame as it is still capable of out resolving the older, lower MP sensors. But the 18-55 lags behind newer lens designs such as the Sigma 18-50 and the new Fuji 16-50 on 40MP sensors. This difference will be less noticeable on older, lower MP sensors. Alternatively, if you downsample all images to a common lowest denominator (such as 16MP), you will be hard pressed to find any meaningful differences.
@@stefan33uk In this case it is absolutely that they suffer. All of their optical weaknesses are really magnified on this sensor.
Awesome video. I'm shocked at how much sigma 18-50 advanced optical design over the 18-55.
I was wondering if you would consider a re-review of another 16-55 sample, it seems the one featured in your other "still worthy video" was misaligned or under serviced.
Hi Yannick, there are plenty of other people who have confirmed something similar to me with their copy of the 16-55mm. I don't really have control over what copy I get...as it was sent to me by Fujifilm Canada.
Had a lot of fun with this and the XE-1 a few years ago.
At that resolution point, this lens would do great.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Totally. It was quite a slow experience but that's not always a bad thing as we know.
Perfect timing. I'm about to move to 40mp with this lens. I really do need the 17-70 it seems
Either the 17-70 or the 18-50 from Sigma are the best options at the moment.
Kudos to another review with your clear and objective summary. Appreciate your review deep dive approach that covers mid aperture performance which are more relevant for landscapes I found most value; as many other reviews focus primarily mostly on wide open. Thank you.
My pleasure. I like to think I offer something different than most reviewers on RUclips.
Excellent lecture. But I like to add few things about making the 18/55 lens working with the xt5 40mp. I’m using f8 all the time which is the center of the optics and I’m alternating the iso when it needs.After at the editing I use a little extra contrast and one stop sharpening…
Shooting at F8 all the time isn’t necessarily practical
Thank you, this video is right on time! I have this lens, and in several days I'll receive my new XT5 with 16 -80 mm f4 lens. The question is - is it worth to keep 16 - 80 mm f4 with XT5 40 mp sensor or sell it and get something else? There many mixed reviews on this lens, and little with new 40mp sensor
You have a perfect opportunity to compare them side by side. I didn't do them side by side, but when I reviewed them both (on 26MP) I felt like the 16-80mm was as good optically.
If I had it to do over I would have probably opted to skip buying a kit lens entirely and just purchase a good used 16-55. But if I had to choose a kit lens, I'd have chosen the 16-80 f/4 over the 18-55 'kit' lens. I usually shoot the 18-55 at about f/4-f/5.6, but the updated AF chips, OIS performance, and focal range of the 16-80 make it a better travel/one and done lens, IMO, even though it is larger. Don't get too hung up on the reviews, in the "real world" photos always have in-focus and out-of-focus elements that mean that "borders and corners" are soft just like they probably should be. I own the 16-55 and can tell you - I wouldn't choose it for "more detail" - all my Fuji lenses, even the 18-55, have produced very sharp and satisfying results. You choose the 16-55 for AF performance and fixed f/2.8. The higher hit rate yields more candidates, typically, especially in more challenging lighting. But you literally pay for it plus have to tolerate the fact that it is fairly large and heavy comparatively speaking.
my fujifilm xt5 and 18-55 is a really good combo, really accurate pictures😊
I'm glad you are enjoying the combo.
Great video! I have an x-t5, and i want to buy the 16-55 2.8. But some people are saying im internet that they are having bad experiences with the 16-55 2.8 and the new sensor, because this lense cannot resolve well the 40 mpx? What is your experience? Do you see any difference in sharpness and overall image quality between your H2-S (26 mpx) and your X-T5 (40 mpx)? Thanks!
I've actually done a video on the 16-55 and the 40MP sensor. I would recommend you check that out. The short answer is yes - these older Fuji lenses just don't hold up as well on the X-T5 or X-H2.
I bet the 15-45 does better than this, at least in terms of resolution, I am also curious to know what sensor will fuji use in the upcoming x-t50.....
I haven't reviewed that lens, so I don't know for sure.
Always enjoyed what I got out of it on XT2 and Xt20. Hadn’t tried on Xt5 yet so thanks for review
The overall "look" of the images would be the same, but they won't look as sharp at a pixel level...because there are so many more pixels!
Thanks a lot for the thorough review, Dustin. Now that I’m shooting with an XT5 through an 18mm f/1.4, some of these older lenses are not so hot anymore…. Shooting more with primes now. I might pick up the Sigma 18-50 one day, though, for travel; that seems a decent lens.
The 40MP sensor is a wrecking ball on these older lenses.
Like that Philippine Peso....😁 Still my go to lens most of time especially when traveling.
Lenses like this are really useful for travel.
3:09 There are 2 other standard zooms in Fuji's lineup: the XF16-80mmF4 R OIS WR and the XC15-45mmF3.5-5.6 OIS PZ.
That's true, though in my mind I was thinking those at least starting at F2.8. You can also point to the 18-120mm F4 PZ if you are broadening to F4 lenses. I didn't specifically mention F2.8 as my criteria, though, so your comment is fair.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Well, I didn't include that one because it's more of a superzoom than a standard lens (28-180 mm), like the old 18-135 mm.
* Fuji have announced 'development' of the 16-50, so probably more than just a rumour.
Something about the 18-55 worth considering is field curvature (particularly with things like test charts) Optical Limits original review specifically notes this. This was somewhat inadvertently 'proved' by Chris and Jordan (DPR) with their comparison with the Sigma 18-50. They were surprised by how well the Fuji lens held up to the Sigma - but they did their corner tests, focused on the corner.
I have used a number of Canon lenses and, over time, with frustration and extensive testing, noted field curvature to be a big consideration to get the best out of my lenses. For myself, shooting landscapes, I found pushing the focal plane closer to infinity greatly improved lens performance.
Case in point: RF 24-105/4. I have found that with mid-foreground objects (7-8m / 25ft) I get better results focusing at infinity than on the actual subject!
I did test focusing in the corners as well, and you can see a number of real world comparisons in this review as well where field curvature should not be an issue.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks Dustin.
I'm not always sure whether reviewers focus in the corner, or center and check corners.
How all this plays out in the real world, and for different photo genres varies of course. I don't actually ever focus in the corners, but knowing how my lenses behave with field curvature (and focus plane distance) has really improved the results I get - well, when pixel peeping, but I'm a firm believer the better the file, the better my capability to print big.
Nice and thorough review. WELL! I have definitely got the WORST copy of the Fuji 18-55. Unusable at 18mm from 2.8 to 3.5 and still bad at f/4 then about after a year I got "Turn camera off and on again" I updated the firmware on the camera (X-S 10) and the lens but that made no difference. Eventually the lens started making some weird noise and then died. My old Canon EFs 10-18 mm was WAY sharper using the Fringer adapter, especially in the corners. I now have the Sigma 18-50 on order. For the costs and performance of the third party lenses I will no longer be using Fuji's expensive and slow focusing lenses and if Canon ever open the doors to third party manufactures that's when I jump ship!
That's unfortunate.
The only thing I hate about this lens is the AF-slower/more inconsistent than any other Fuji lens I own, and almost unusable indoors when the lights go down. I’m not saying it doesn’t work, mind you, just that the hit rate has been pretty low for me when shooting dynamic subjects (particularly vs. newer lenses). Other than that, I love the sort of “muted” rendering, it is easy to add color/contrast if the image really needs it, and it has produced some shockingly stunning images for me-every bit as detailed and colorful as I would want particularly for portraits. Good lighting and a good focus lock is a lot more critical with this lens than ultimate resolution, IMO. I just wouldn’t pay more than, say, $350 for it. If Fuji just re-released this with superior AF and some sort of optical update, I’d take it everywhere. The 16-50 is for me a hardcore bummer, especially since it got even slower. But we’ll see how it performs soon enough, and it is expected to have internal zoom, which is a nice change.
I definitely think some of the tech in the lens is showing its age. And yes, I agree to being somewhat disappointed that the 16-50mm is slower still.
Dustin.
Maybe do a AF video with the X-T5 3.01 firmware update?
I don't actually own an X-T5. I own the X-H2.
The xf16-80/f4 is also a good option.
Yes, though in this particularly comparison I was looking at the F2.8 options.
I have 4 copies of the 18-55 f2.8-4 on 26 MP and while they are good at shorter distances, they are all terrible when focused towards infinity. With extreme sample variation and variation within the image area. 2 out of my 4 copies are absolutely inacceptable for landscapes on the 26 MP sensor.
That's crazy.
Dear Dustin,
I love your videos for the rigor of your tests, but I'm starting to think there is something not working in your protocols. After watching the video in which you claim that the 16-55 2.8 handles 40 MP much worse than the 26 and 24 MP of the previous sensors, I bought that lens to check it out. On my X-T5, it is absolutely better than on my X-T2. I have asked in several user forums that have the X-T5 and professionals who use the X-T5 or the X-H2, and 100% of them tell me the same thing: the 16-55 2.8 is even sharper with the 40 MP sensor.
---
If you look through the comments here, there's a huge range of anecdotal feedback. Either there is a sample variation, or people's rigors of testing vary a lot. I can only report on what I see.
I never found this lens to be exceptional in any way. I think it's the most over rated lens in history.
The 16-55 is vastly better. That said it was fine on my X-T1 but my X-T3 really showed the weaknesses.
It’s because as a kit lens, it sold for $100. Anyone paying full price for it would find it overrated, but for $100 it’s incredible.
I'm not sure where you get the $100 price tag from - it run $400 in kit.
@@PippetWhippet They sell in the UK all day long second hand for around £250 for one in good condition. Mine came with my X-T1 so I didn't pay a premium for it.
I'd be surprised if you can get one for $100.
As for it being a kit lens, yes it is. It's a good kit lens but it's not a professional lens by any means.
In indonesia you can buy it for around $205 in whitebox
Have you tried the 16-80 f4 on the 40mp? I'm am between that and the sigma 18-50 for my XT5. I am a hiking quide, so the use case would be hiking photos, such as landscape, wild mushrooms and plants as well as portraits of clients on the trail.
I haven't on 40MP, though when I reviewed it on 26MP I preferred it to the 18-55mm for the simple reason that I felt it had just as good of image quality and a much more useful zoom range. It's probably not going to look amazing on 40MP, but acceptably good.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks for your reply. I have subscribed to the channel. I really enjoyed your review.
Had 2 of them and they've both been great optically but my god don't shine a torch in them....both mine were absolutely full of dust. Same with my 55-200 and 10-24....all full of dust. I have well used 50 year old primes in better shape. Not sure how normal this is but I'm really disappointed, especially with the hit on resale value.
That is definitely one area where not having weather sealing is a factor.
I never liked it, but learned to live with it. Got it with X-T20 but to me it was always soft and just average.
Fuji owners raged every time I mentioned this, as usual.
I agree 100%, I could never understand why people rave about this frankly average-at-best kit lens.
This lens definitely has some VERY staunch defenders.
One of the best Fuji lenses ever made! Photography is not pixel peeping.
Agree, photography is on the opposite end of pixel peeping.
As for being the best Fuji lens, this is nonsense.
It's all fun talks until you start cropping. No kidding, even when looking at images in general the flat non-3dpop low contrast is a dead giveaway of the lens' old age.
@@BojanBojovic Agreed, I made mistake. It is second best. Only one better is 35 1.4!
@@MisAnkic The best Fuji lens is actually the Viltrox 27mm f1.2. 😁
@@BojanBojovic Viltrox 27 is my general use lens and this lens, in my opinion, made a revolution for aps c, narrowing a gap between full frame and crop sensor more than ever. But… xf 18-55 is a poetry 😀 I use it for landscape along with sigma 10-18 and xf 70-300. I print A3+ and not only xf 18-55 is not less sharp from 0.5 m distance, but it’s color rendition is the most beautiful of all three in my opinion.
How can a lens be well made if it has an aperture ring with zero markings, and is more of an aperture scroll - like the scrolling wheel on my mouse.
Its not a well built lens, and its not an aperture ring. Its a Faux-aperture ring, or an aperture scroll.
Its not a manual focus ring when its pulsing. Its a faux-focus ring.
Its a badly designed and badly implemented so called Retro styled lens that lacks the proper functionality of a lenses with actual aperture rings and manual focus ring.
Why do so many reviewers let Fuji get away with making rubbish products. I've been in the Fuji system myself, and next to my Pentax gear Fuji was very very substandard in many ways. Its ludicrous stuff like aperture rings with no aperture lock, and then they call it a retro styled camera, and its not operating at all like a vintage lenses or cameras. Its the worst marketing ploy ever.
I think this is a bit of an overstatement, but at the same time I don't disagree with some of your basic premises. I've been frustrated by their refusal to add more features (ability to declick an aperture, a function button, etc...) to their lenses when competing companies have.
I've had the 18-55 for 5 years and it's probably been on my X-T3 5 times. I hate it, probably the most boring flat uninspiring lens I've ever used.
You must have a crap copy 😮
Two of us now.
That's rather harsh, but you are also not the first to say that.