Fuji 16-50?

Started Apr 26, 2014 | Discussions
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Lmendy Contributing Member • Posts: 684
Fuji 16-50?

I like the 18-55.  I would like to try the 16-50.  There are 3 considerations that make me think the 16-50 might be a better choice (on an XE2 body):

1.  Light weight and easier to shoot one handed.

2.  Wider

3.  I frequently change the aperture on the 18-55 accidently.  I have the 27mm pancake and actually prefer adjusting the aperture with the rear dial on the camera body.

My biggest concern is image quality.  Is the image quality similar between these 2 lenses?

Thanks to all.

 Lmendy's gear list:Lmendy's gear list
Fujifilm X100S Fujifilm X-Pro1 Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 +1 more
Fujifilm X-E2
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
Ed B
Ed B Veteran Member • Posts: 7,597
Re: Fuji 16-50?

Lmendy wrote:

I like the 18-55. I would like to try the 16-50. There are 3 considerations that make me think the 16-50 might be a better choice (on an XE2 body):

1. Light weight and easier to shoot one handed.

2. Wider

3. I frequently change the aperture on the 18-55 accidently. I have the 27mm pancake and actually prefer adjusting the aperture with the rear dial on the camera body.

My biggest concern is image quality. Is the image quality similar between these 2 lenses?

Thanks to all.

No the 16-50 is not as "good" as the 18-55 but that's not to say it's not a pretty good lens and it is about $500.00 cheaper than the 18-55.

It's just my opinion but if the lens is used in good light (outdoors) I doubt that most people would be able to see a big difference in image quality. The 18-55 is better optically but most people won't notice this when their pictures are viewed on a computer screen

In lower light situations the 18-55 has pretty big advantage, especially at the wider angles and the 18-55 will give you better subject isolation (background blur) if that's what you're looking for.

18-55 has a much better build quality but that doesn't really make a lot difference because either lens will be durable a probably last a long time.

I don't own the 16-50 lens but considering the price I'd bet it's a pretty good lens that would be considered as good as most kit lenses.

However, the Fuji 18-55 is rated much, much better than a normal 18-55 kit lens.

Just the same, if you don't like an aperture ring and need 16mm at the wide end the 16-50 seems to be the right lens for you.

John Rausch
John Rausch Regular Member • Posts: 396
Re: Fuji 16-50?
1

I own it and an 18-55. Why? The 16-50 came on an X-M1 kit that I bought to convert for infrared. Anyone would be challenged to separate images from the two lenses. Maybe impossible. I was happily surprised by how good it is.

-- hide signature --

John Rausch

 John Rausch's gear list:John Rausch's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony RX1R II Fujifilm XC 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 OIS +2 more
RhysM Senior Member • Posts: 2,211
Nope
1

Nope, cheap mass consumer produced piece of plastic just to make a bit money for Fuji by enabling them to bundle it with the cheap X cameras in order to fund the R&D of the real X lenses/cameras.

I will get the 16-55 2.8 though. But definitely won't ever be buying an XC lens, it's not what the true X system was/is about.

elfroggio
elfroggio Senior Member • Posts: 2,543
Re: Fuji 16-50?

Lmendy wrote:

My biggest concern is image quality. Is the image quality similar between these 2 lenses?

I use the 16-50 and the image quality is phenomenal. How many unicorns did Fuji had to use in these lenses? I don't know, but I can't see the difference at same focal lens/aperture. Build quality: plastic, plastic, and plastic.

If you are a pixel peeper:

http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/?lens=13522

vs

http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/?lens=13520

-- hide signature --

Thanks
http://www.sritch.com
Street Photography: The Dogs of Vancouver, BC

Ed B
Ed B Veteran Member • Posts: 7,597
Re: Nope

RhysM wrote:

Nope, cheap mass consumer produced piece of plastic just to make a bit money for Fuji by enabling them to bundle it with the cheap X cameras in order to fund the R&D of the real X lenses/cameras.

I will get the 16-55 2.8 though. But definitely won't ever be buying an XC lens, it's not what the true X system was/is about.

I guess there's a lot of truth in what you're saying but that basically describes 99.9% of kit zoom lenses from every manufacturer.

They can't sell a body by itself so they bundle the cheapest zoom possible to get someone started.

Just the same, most of these kit lenses satisfy the majority of consumers and many of them never buy another lens.

I agree the 18-55 is a much better (in every way) lens but I'd also bet the 16-50 is just as good as most other manufacturer's kit lenses.

Kevin Patrick Regular Member • Posts: 172
Re: Nope
3

RhysM wrote:

Nope, cheap mass consumer produced piece of plastic just to make a bit money for Fuji by enabling them to bundle it with the cheap X cameras in order to fund the R&D of the real X lenses/cameras.

I will get the 16-55 2.8 though. But definitely won't ever be buying an XC lens, it's not what the true X system was/is about.

Right.  Because unless you are a camera snob you are not worthy the Fuji X system.  Guess Fuji does not know what the "true" or "real" X system is about either.

vivanchenko Regular Member • Posts: 224
Re: Fuji 16-50?
1

As they say, there are kit lenses and there are kit lenses. 16-50 is one of the letter :-). Speaking seriously, when evaluating 16-50 one must say that it is much better than your average kit lens and one would have a hard time telling a difference, IQ wise, from much costlier Fuji models and in average is on par with most of them. We know exactly where Fuji cuts corners here - metal vs plastic body, everything else is on par with other Fuji lenses.

 vivanchenko's gear list:vivanchenko's gear list
Fujifilm X-M1
RhysM Senior Member • Posts: 2,211
Re: Nope

Kevin Patrick wrote:

RhysM wrote:

Nope, cheap mass consumer produced piece of plastic just to make a bit money for Fuji by enabling them to bundle it with the cheap X cameras in order to fund the R&D of the real X lenses/cameras.

I will get the 16-55 2.8 though. But definitely won't ever be buying an XC lens, it's not what the true X system was/is about.

Right. Because unless you are a camera snob you are not worthy the Fuji X system. Guess Fuji does not know what the "true" or "real" X system is about either.

Not a snob, just appreciate a quality made item. As with all products/manufacturers they have a premium line and a not so premium line. You look at Mercedes, Porsche, Bang & Olufsen, etc they all started as premium brands and later introduced more affordable line to supplement their income.

Of course they know what the X System is about, it's just also a business and needs to diversify to make money.

James Ito Regular Member • Posts: 103
Re: Fuji 16-50?
2

John Rausch wrote:

I own it and an 18-55. Why? The 16-50 came on an X-M1 kit that I bought to convert for infrared. Anyone would be challenged to separate images from the two lenses. Maybe impossible. I was happily surprised by how good it is.

-- hide signature --

John Rausch

I also own both lenses because of purchasing an X-M1 kit. Also surprised at the quality of the output. I would happily recommend the 16-50 if you don't need the faster aperture of the 18-55.

-- hide signature --

James Ito

 James Ito's gear list:James Ito's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Fujifilm X-Pro1 Fujifilm X-M1 Fujifilm X-T1 Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 +22 more
TangoMan Senior Member • Posts: 1,312
Re: Fuji 16-50?
2

Ed B wrote:

Lmendy wrote:

I like the 18-55. I would like to try the 16-50. There are 3 considerations that make me think the 16-50 might be a better choice (on an XE2 body):

1. Light weight and easier to shoot one handed.

2. Wider

3. I frequently change the aperture on the 18-55 accidently. I have the 27mm pancake and actually prefer adjusting the aperture with the rear dial on the camera body.

My biggest concern is image quality. Is the image quality similar between these 2 lenses?

Thanks to all.

No the 16-50 is not as "good" as the 18-55 but (...) I don't own the 16-50 lens

Everyone has an opinion on everything that they don't know first hand.

I've owned that lens for a few weeks and was very surprised by its high quality. To get more image details, you would have needed more pixels on the sensor.

So, for all the reasons the OP mentions, it's the perfect lens for him/her.

I sold it because I love to shoot in low light with wide apertures, but nobody could have blamed its image quality and the new owner loves it.

TangoMan Senior Member • Posts: 1,312
Re: Nope

RhysM wrote:

Nope, cheap mass consumer produced piece of plastic just to make a bit money for Fuji by enabling them to bundle it with the cheap X cameras in order to fund the R&D of the real X lenses/cameras.

I will get the 16-55 2.8 though. But definitely won't ever be buying an XC lens, it's not what the true X system was/is about.

It's a nice and interesting analysis of what should have been, but it's totally off the mark in this case.

TangoMan Senior Member • Posts: 1,312
Re: Nope
4

RhysM wrote:

Kevin Patrick wrote:

RhysM wrote:

Nope, cheap mass consumer produced piece of plastic just to make a bit money for Fuji by enabling them to bundle it with the cheap X cameras in order to fund the R&D of the real X lenses/cameras.

I will get the 16-55 2.8 though. But definitely won't ever be buying an XC lens, it's not what the true X system was/is about.

Right. Because unless you are a camera snob you are not worthy the Fuji X system. Guess Fuji does not know what the "true" or "real" X system is about either.

Not a snob, just appreciate a quality made item. As with all products/manufacturers they have a premium line and a not so premium line. You look at Mercedes, Porsche, Bang & Olufsen, etc they all started as premium brands and later introduced more affordable line to supplement their income.

Of course they know what the X System is about, it's just also a business and needs to diversify to make money.

What you lose with this lens, compared to the XF zoom, is 0.5 to 1 stop of light, some weight, some bulk and some prestige. You don't lose image quality.

RhysM Senior Member • Posts: 2,211
Re: Nope

TangoMan wrote:

RhysM wrote:

Kevin Patrick wrote:

RhysM wrote:

Nope, cheap mass consumer produced piece of plastic just to make a bit money for Fuji by enabling them to bundle it with the cheap X cameras in order to fund the R&D of the real X lenses/cameras.

I will get the 16-55 2.8 though. But definitely won't ever be buying an XC lens, it's not what the true X system was/is about.

Right. Because unless you are a camera snob you are not worthy the Fuji X system. Guess Fuji does not know what the "true" or "real" X system is about either.

Not a snob, just appreciate a quality made item. As with all products/manufacturers they have a premium line and a not so premium line. You look at Mercedes, Porsche, Bang & Olufsen, etc they all started as premium brands and later introduced more affordable line to supplement their income.

Of course they know what the X System is about, it's just also a business and needs to diversify to make money.

What you lose with this lens, compared to the XF zoom, is 0.5 to 1 stop of light, some weight, some bulk and some prestige. You don't lose image quality.

Exactly, that's huge if you shoot in low light. 1 stop is the difference between being able to shoot at ISO 3200 rather than 6400. The bulk and weight I like, it's hardly a heavy lens.

It's like saying the difference between a cheap plastic watch and a metal Rolex is bulk and weight, well yeah, but that's kind of the point of a Rolex it feels like a quality item not a cheap bit of crap.

bs1946
bs1946 Senior Member • Posts: 3,486
Re: Fuji 16-50?

I had the 16-50 with my X-A1 for about a month. It took nice pics for a kit lens but the industrial strength plastic build quality did not instill any confidence that this lens would last. Especially when I put the hood on and you could see plastic grinding against plastic. Even though it's still bundled with the X-M1 and X-A1, Fuji has already removed it from the lens list on their web site. I don't have an 18-55 to compare so I can't comment on that lens.

 bs1946's gear list:bs1946's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 Samyang 21mm F1.4
darngooddesign Senior Member • Posts: 4,691
Re: Fuji 16-50?

The 16-50 when compared to the 18-55 is like the 27mm pancake lens when compared to the 35mm prime. Both the 16-50 and 27mm are smaller and lighter than their bigger brothers, well the zoom is not that much smaller, and they have a smaller maximum aperture. Despite those negatives, they still take nice photos. If low light isn't a big concern for you I'd say go for the 16-50, especially since it is inexpensive used.

 darngooddesign's gear list:darngooddesign's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro1 Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8
darngooddesign Senior Member • Posts: 4,691
Re: Nope

RhysM wrote:

TangoMan wrote:

RhysM wrote:

Kevin Patrick wrote:

RhysM wrote:

Nope, cheap mass consumer produced piece of plastic just to make a bit money for Fuji by enabling them to bundle it with the cheap X cameras in order to fund the R&D of the real X lenses/cameras.

I will get the 16-55 2.8 though. But definitely won't ever be buying an XC lens, it's not what the true X system was/is about.

Right. Because unless you are a camera snob you are not worthy the Fuji X system. Guess Fuji does not know what the "true" or "real" X system is about either.

Not a snob, just appreciate a quality made item. As with all products/manufacturers they have a premium line and a not so premium line. You look at Mercedes, Porsche, Bang & Olufsen, etc they all started as premium brands and later introduced more affordable line to supplement their income.

Of course they know what the X System is about, it's just also a business and needs to diversify to make money.

What you lose with this lens, compared to the XF zoom, is 0.5 to 1 stop of light, some weight, some bulk and some prestige. You don't lose image quality.

Exactly, that's huge if you shoot in low light. 1 stop is the difference between being able to shoot at ISO 3200 rather than 6400. The bulk and weight I like, it's hardly a heavy lens.

The OP has an X-E1, so shooting at 6400 is not really an issue. Its also a lot cheaper than an weather sealed lens. For what it costs used, use it outside in questionable conditions and when it finally fails you aren't out much money.

 darngooddesign's gear list:darngooddesign's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro1 Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8
RobbieV Contributing Member • Posts: 501
Re: Nope

What you lose with this lens, compared to the XF zoom, is 0.5 to 1 stop of light, some weight, some bulk and some prestige. You don't lose image quality.

That sums it up pretty well.  But, you also GAIN 2mm on the wide end, which makes the cheap lens much more useful to me then the 18-55.

-- hide signature --

***************
Robbie
www.flickr.com/photos/rvaughn
www.pixbyrob.com

 RobbieV's gear list:RobbieV's gear list
Canon PowerShot S120 Olympus E-M1 Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 25mm F1.8 Olympus 40-150mm F2.8 Pro
Brad Evans Contributing Member • Posts: 616
Re: Yes, similar image quality

>>> My biggest concern is image quality. Is the image quality similar between these 2 lenses?

I just post the response below to another thread discussing the differences between the X-E2 and X-A1. I think it also applies to your question.

I am now using the 16-50 lens on my X-T1 and it is a delight. Much less weight and the IQ is excellent.  Great for street shooting.

Previous response follows:

...............

Last year, in December, I rented an X-E2 and kit lens for a week so I could get a feeling for what the X system was about. I ended up liking the camera and 18-35 lens a lot. And the EVF was really nice.

In the end, though, because at the time I was shooting a lot of photos through Amtrak train windows, I decided a tilt screen was important for my needs. I ended up purchasing an X-A1. It was much less money, and the slightly wider16-50 lens for me was a bonus.

Due to previous discussions on another forum, I put together a set of photos from both the X-E2 and X-A1, but intentionally did not specify which photos were from the X-E2, and which from the X-A1, and then invited others to see if they could tell.

My point was in the end, it really made little difference with respect to image quality.

Here's the set of photos if you'd like to take a look.

............
Brad
Urban photoblog: http://www.citysnaps.net
.

bowportes Senior Member • Posts: 2,682
Re: Fuji 16-50?

darngooddesign wrote:

The 16-50 when compared to the 18-55 is like the 27mm pancake lens when compared to the 35mm prime. Both the 16-50 and 27mm are smaller and lighter than their bigger brothers, well the zoom is not that much smaller, and they have a smaller maximum aperture. Despite those negatives, they still take nice photos. If low light isn't a big concern for you I'd say go for the 16-50, especially since it is inexpensive used.

I'm not sure Fuji would accept your analysis. Both the 27 and 35 are designated XF lenses, as is the 18-55 zoom. The 16-50 has the lesser XC designation, which for Fuji at least is a different category.

 bowportes's gear list:bowportes's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G5 Fujifilm X-M1 Fujifilm X-T1 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 +9 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads