Fuji 16-50?

Started 5 months ago | Discussions
Lmendy
Regular MemberPosts: 462Gear list
Like?
Fuji 16-50?
5 months ago

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 X-S1 Fujifilm X-E2
Fujifilm X-E2
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
Ed B
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,000
Like?
Re: Fuji 16-50?
In reply to Lmendy, 5 months ago

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.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
John Rausch
Regular MemberPosts: 317Gear list
Like?
Re: Fuji 16-50?
In reply to Lmendy, 5 months ago

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 RX1 Fujifilm XC 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 OIS Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5 +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
RhysM
Senior MemberPosts: 1,661
Like?
Nope
In reply to Lmendy, 5 months ago

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.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
elfroggio
Senior MemberPosts: 1,812
Like?
Re: Fuji 16-50?
In reply to Lmendy, 5 months ago

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

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ed B
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,000
Like?
Re: Nope
In reply to RhysM, 5 months ago

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.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Kevin Patrick
Regular MemberPosts: 172Gear list
Like?
Re: Nope
In reply to RhysM, 5 months ago

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.

 Kevin Patrick's gear list:Kevin Patrick's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-A1 Fujifilm X-T1 Nikon D700 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R +16 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
vivanchenko
Regular MemberPosts: 216Gear list
Like?
Re: Fuji 16-50?
In reply to Lmendy, 5 months ago

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
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
RhysM
Senior MemberPosts: 1,661
Like?
Re: Nope
In reply to Kevin Patrick, 4 months ago

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.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
James Ito
Forum MemberPosts: 93Gear list
Like?
Re: Fuji 16-50?
In reply to John Rausch, 4 months ago

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
Fujifilm X-Pro1 Canon EOS 7D Fujifilm X-M1 Fujifilm X-T1 Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM +22 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
TangoMan
Senior MemberPosts: 1,200Gear list
Like?
Re: Fuji 16-50?
In reply to Ed B, 4 months ago

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.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
TangoMan
Senior MemberPosts: 1,200Gear list
Like?
Re: Nope
In reply to RhysM, 4 months ago

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.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
TangoMan
Senior MemberPosts: 1,200Gear list
Like?
Re: Nope
In reply to RhysM, 4 months ago

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.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
RhysM
Senior MemberPosts: 1,661
Like?
Re: Nope
In reply to TangoMan, 4 months ago

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.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bs1946
Regular MemberPosts: 400Gear list
Like?
Re: Fuji 16-50?
In reply to Lmendy, 4 months ago

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
Olympus Tough TG-3 Olympus OM-D E-M10 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12mm 1:2 Sigma 60mm F2.8 DN Sigma 30mm F2.8 DN +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
darngooddesign
Senior MemberPosts: 1,326Gear list
Like?
Re: Fuji 16-50?
In reply to Lmendy, 4 months ago

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
Canon PowerShot S90 Canon PowerShot S100 Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
darngooddesign
Senior MemberPosts: 1,326Gear list
Like?
Re: Nope
In reply to RhysM, 4 months ago

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
Canon PowerShot S90 Canon PowerShot S100 Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
RobbieV
Regular MemberPosts: 465Gear list
Like?
Re: Nope
In reply to TangoMan, 4 months ago

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
Fujifilm X-T1 Canon EOS 70D Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Brad Evans
Contributing MemberPosts: 556Gear list
Like?
Re: Yes, similar image quality
In reply to Lmendy, 4 months ago

>>> 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
.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bowportes
Senior MemberPosts: 1,465Gear list
Like?
Re: Fuji 16-50?
In reply to darngooddesign, 4 months ago

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
Fujifilm X-M1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G5 Fujifilm X-T1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8 Panasonic Lumix G X Vario PZ 14-42mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads