16-50 vs 18-55

Hi Folks, I would like to ask the experienced members here how much better is the 18-55 over the 16-50 in terms of sharpness. I mostly shoot landscape and have been wondering if the upgrade would be worth it. The 16-50 seems to be quite good. Thanks.

It has 90% the IQ of the 18-55. The only downside to that lens the lack of an aperture ring and it is a stop slower. If those things don't bother you, its a great lens.

--
www.darngoodphotos.com

My understanding is the 18~55 is sharper into the corners and that would benefit landscape work, but I have not used the 16~50 and don't know if there is a noticeable difference stopped down.

I had a 16-50mm XC which I tested side by side with my 18-55 XF. At common apertures, while the general IQ of the XF lens is better you would only see it at 100% image size. I was slightly disappointed at the small amount of distortion at widest angle setting although easily fixable in post and perhaps not a worry for landscapes. This, along with the slower aperture and general build quality was enough for me to let the XC go. I describe it as an ideal walkabout lens for someone who usually shoots fast primes.

I too had both for a time and tested them side by side (along with my 18-135 and 10-24 plus some primes). At all apertures and anywhere in the zoom range in the CENTER of the frame there was little discernible difference between them. At 100% and squinting hard at the screen sometimes I thought I could tell some difference sometime not. For me and my uses (general walkabout but with a preference for landscapes) they were functionally equivalent in terms of general IQ in the CENTER.

At the extreme CORNERS at pixel level the 18-55 was better at the wide end until f8 or f11. By then diffraction set in and the two were more or less equal in the corners. But when I say better, I mean only marginally better. It's still a zoom (and at 18mm in the corners I thought the 10-24, which I also tested side by side, was actually slightly better). On the long end in the corners I could never tell the difference.

At f11 and f16 no matter the zoom range diffraction made the images equal. That might matter for landscapes if you're shooting at small apertures.

For me and my purposes, I was underwhelmed at the advantages of the 18-55. I sold it and kept my 16-50--it weighs less, is slightly smaller, and I actually prefer the slightly wider angle of view on the wide end.

Aside: the 18-135 was also functionally identical in the center to both. At 18mm it suffered more in the corners than either lens, but actually was better at around 55mm.

When testing both lenses against the 10-24, X100T (with WCL and without), 23 1.4 and 56 1.2, BOTH zoooms suffer at the corners--noticeably. The primes (including WCL on X100T) are much, much better in the corners. Even so, in the center of the frame the zooms held up fairly well. So, for me, if I want absolutely best quality across the frame, I'm using primes not zooms. That's no surprise. But that means that any zoom is a compromise. Also, if I want fast apertures I'm using primes, not zooms.

So, for me, if I'm taking a zoom and not a set of primes I'm already willing to compromise on corners and speed (and I emphasize that the zooms are not THAT much different in the corners from one another), so I might as well take the lighter one. This is especially true if I'm gong to be stopping down anyway to f8 or f11 for landscapes. Other uses and desires may of course suggest different choices.

Thanks everyone for taking the time to reply, your responses are very much appreciated. The 18-55 from what you say does not give me enough to justify an upgrade. So I think I will hold on to the 16-50 and keep saving for a while longer and hopefully buy the 10-24 as that will give me a greater difference in focal length as well.

Thanks again,

David.

Lumix5 said:

Thanks everyone for taking the time to reply, your responses are very much appreciated. The 18-55 from what you say does not give me enough to justify an upgrade. So I think I will hold on to the 16-50 and keep saving for a while longer and hopefully buy the 10-24 as that will give me a greater difference in focal length as well.

Thanks again,

David.

Click to expand...

Seems wise. My own experience is of one 18-55 which doesn't seem a spectacularly good example and several 16-50's (since they frequently come in low-price kits with bodies) - two originals which seem at least as good as my 18-55, one mark II which is similar, and one outstandingly good 16-50 II which outperforms the lot of them, and is sharp right into the corners. As you will know, the 16-50s are quite overtly plastic in their construction and lack an aperture ring, but I personally quite appreciate their lighter weight, especially when used on a smaller/lighter body.