16-55 vs 16-80: at an impasse

Lens_Goat said:

robert1955 said:

Lens_Goat said:

Pictures shooter said:

The discussed pictures which have been shot by the topic starter look like they have a quite serious issue with focusing accuracy.

I would offer to repeat the test with the electronic shutter and manual focusing.
I would guess the results would be much better.

Click to expand...

I've shot electronic shutter, I've shot mechanical shutter. I've shot on a tripod, I've shot handheld. Cannot escape the blurry backgrounds at 16mm. I could take some landscapes with manual focus, but even if the results were much better, what good would it serve me? I intend to use the autofocus about 99.9% of the time.

Click to expand...

For testing it is useful to exclude as many other factors as possible and make differences between lenss as clear as possible. That is also a reason I asked for wider open shots [again thank you for those]. All of those make differences more obvious and more useful in a discussion. Of course you'd also look at your use case.

That said, I do not think focusing is an issue here. I think we can assume that you were consistent in your technique between the two lenses. Same goes for processing [which is mentioned in other posts]: sauce>goose/gander.

Click to expand...

I just took some indoor shots (pardon the mess). Tripod (obviously), 2-second timer. Electronic Shutter. Firmware 1.02.

16-55 (Autofocus)



16-80 (Autofocus)



16-80 (Manual Focus by Focus Peaking)



I focused on the Zappos logo, left of center. As you can see, manual focus didn't seem to help. Both of the 16-80 images are blurrier than the 16-55 image. I wonder if there's nothing wrong with my 16-80 but it merely looks bad in juxtaposition to the 16-55? Or maybe it is a dud and there's sample variation? It's disappointing since I waited so long for this lens and it handles wonderfully on my XT-3. Fit and finish is top notch, as well. It also performs fairly well around 50mm and it beats The Brick at 80mm

This Tuesday I will be taking an Amtrak down the Hudson River to be with family on Thanksgiving. The train will deposit me in Penn Station and you know what's right down the block from Penn Station...

It seems all but certain that I will hand return this lens to B&H on Tuesday. I've established the 16-55 is my mid-range zoom of choice. In fact, I may be better off with the 18-135 than the 16-80. But, I'm more interesting in focusing on lens that will complement the 16-55 rather than cover much of its range and then some at the expense of lQ. 10-24, 55-200 or their saliva-inducing "Red Badge" counterparts (8-16, 50-140) or a nice prime. If the 10-24 drops down to $750, as it did last January, I may pounce.

But, I'll just be content with the nice lens I've had for the past year. A paid-off lens is about all my budget can handle at this point. It has accompanied me to many summits to preserve many memorable sunsets and sunrises.

Click to expand...

robert1955 said:

Lens_Goat said:

I just took some indoor shots (pardon the mess). Tripod (obviously), 2-second timer. Electronic Shutter. Firmware 1.02.

16-55 (Autofocus)



16-80 (Autofocus)



I focused on the Zappos logo, left of center. As you can see, manual focus didn't seem to help. Both of the 16-80 images are blurrier than the 16-55 image. I wonder if there's nothing wrong with my 16-80 but it merely looks bad in juxtaposition to the 16-55? Or maybe it is a dud and there's sample variation? It's disappointing since I waited so long for this lens and it handles wonderfully on my XT-3. Fit and finish is top notch, as well. It also performs fairly well around 50mm and it beats The Brick at 80mm

Click to expand...

Thanks for all the testing which was good, though it did not get you the outcome you probably hoped for.

Click to expand...

Cobaltum said:

Can you try focusing with the 16-80 on the far edge when taking an image? Landscape or something similar. Does not need to be too far.

In my experience with the Fujifilm 18-55 2.8-4, I had much better edge sharpness at 18mm ( and other focal lengths ) when I was focusing with single point AF on the far edge ( right or left ) at the infinity distances for landscapes. It work also for other images with closer objects.

When focusing with the center AF point or using auto multi point AF, central sharpens was always good, but edges were always lacking.

With my former X-E3 and 18-55 I had another weird solution, already discussed here in the forum, and that was to put the AF-ON on one of the rear buttons and focus only with that button, while focusing was disabled for the shutter button. So AF-ON ( Single AF point ) with rear button + shutter button only for taking an image. Somehow that solution offered much better single point AF accuracy and provided much better and uniform sharpness when focusing on the far edge of the frame.

Same experience with many lenses for my Nikon that exhibit strong field curvatures. When I focus the on the edge of the frame at landscape distances, edge sharpness is much much better while center sharpness remains practically the same. In some cases center gets little bit less sharp but with much better uniformity across the fame.

Don't know if that's the case here but never hurts to try.

Cheers

Click to expand...

basyl1891 said:

Cobaltum said:

Can you try focusing with the 16-80 on the far edge when taking an image? Landscape or something similar. Does not need to be too far.

In my experience with the Fujifilm 18-55 2.8-4, I had much better edge sharpness at 18mm ( and other focal lengths ) when I was focusing with single point AF on the far edge ( right or left ) at the infinity distances for landscapes. It work also for other images with closer objects.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

basyl1891 said:

Also manual focusing (using "zoom", not peaking method) on the frame edge is a good option to try. The idea is to find where the problem is - bad design/assembly or something else, like back focus problem under specific conditions. FYI, I've had 2 confirmed cases of BF issue on mirrorless cameras. One was with Fujifilm 18-55mm, another with Panasonic 14-45mm. So it's not impossible, despite common beliefs.

Click to expand...

CAcreeks said:

basyl1891 said:

Cobaltum said:

Can you try focusing with the 16-80 on the far edge when taking an image? Landscape or something similar. Does not need to be too far.

In my experience with the Fujifilm 18-55 2.8-4, I had much better edge sharpness at 18mm ( and other focal lengths ) when I was focusing with single point AF on the far edge ( right or left ) at the infinity distances for landscapes. It work also for other images with closer objects.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

This is probably due to field curvature, a known problem with the 18-55/2.8-4 lens. Here is what the opticallimits.com site said in their conclusion.

"The Fujinon XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 R LM OIS may be the hottest reason to enter the Fuji system. It is amazingly sharp throughout the zoom and relevant aperture range. That is except for a high amount of field curvature at 18mm which make it necessary to stop down quite a bit in order to have an "infinite" depth-of-field."

The 16-80/4 might have a similar issue.

CAcreeks said:

Also manual focusing (using "zoom", not peaking method) on the frame edge is a good option to try. The idea is to find where the problem is - bad design/assembly or something else, like back focus problem under specific conditions. FYI, I've had 2 confirmed cases of BF issue on mirrorless cameras. One was with Fujifilm 18-55mm, another with Panasonic 14-45mm. So it's not impossible, despite common beliefs.

Click to expand...

Interesting. Good to know.

Click to expand...

Karl said:

Member said:

This is probably due to field curvature, a known problem with the 18-55/2.8-4 lens. Here is what the opticallimits.com site said in their conclusion.

"The Fujinon XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 R LM OIS may be the hottest reason to enter the Fuji system. It is amazingly sharp throughout the zoom and relevant aperture range. That is except for a high amount of field curvature at 18mm which make it necessary to stop down quite a bit in order to have an "infinite" depth-of-field."

The 16-80/4 might have a similar issue.

Click to expand...

That sounds reasonable but I can’t check it anymore because I already send the lens back. Does field curvature have a bigger impact on longer distances because you don’t have this on short distances?

Click to expand...

CAcreeks said:

Karl said:

CAcreeks said:

This is probably due to field curvature, a known problem with the 18-55/2.8-4 lens. Here is what the opticallimits.com site said in their conclusion.

"The Fujinon XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 R LM OIS may be the hottest reason to enter the Fuji system. It is amazingly sharp throughout the zoom and relevant aperture range. That is except for a high amount of field curvature at 18mm which make it necessary to stop down quite a bit in order to have an "infinite" depth-of-field."

The 16-80/4 might have a similar issue.

Click to expand...

That sounds reasonable but I can’t check it anymore because I already send the lens back. Does field curvature have a bigger impact on longer distances because you don’t have this on short distances?

Click to expand...

In most cases I would think focal distance doesn't matter. It's more depth of field that matters. Field curvature might be more if a problem at wide angle; this is true of the 18-55 anyway. Another quote from opticallimits.com:

"While the technical figures are impressive at 18mm, we have to note that the lens suffers from a high amount of field curvature at 18mm - the focus plane "bends" towards the front in the image corners making it necessary to stop down quite a bit get everything into focus. Otherwise the corners will be defocused - thus visually soft."

Click to expand...

Lens_Goat said:

Back when I shot Sony, the allure of Fujifilm's dials and retro-styling was dogged. I had to convert. I told myself I would do so once the 16-80 was released. Needless to say, I caved 11-months before the 16-80 would find its way into my hands.

Last December, I bought my XT-3 with the 16-55 and I have taken many cherished pictures with it. It's a bit hefty for my liking but I have gotten by hiking in the mountains with it. All the while, the specter of the 16-80 has (to a small extent) tempered my enjoyment of the 16-55. Will this marvelous lens prevail in the end or give way to the 16-80?

Once I got the shipping receipt for my 16-80, I figured I would at last get closure. Unfortunately that hasn't exactly been the case. Comparing the 16-80 to the 16-55 has exposed both the strengths and weaknesses of the 16-55.

Contrary to what one YouTuber said, who now has no credibility in my book, the 16-80 is not sharper than the 16-55. At 1:1, the difference in sharpness is salient. Particularly at the wider end of the zoom range. Here are two pictures, taken on a tripod, to prove my point:

16-55:



16-80:



Even stopping down to f/8, the 16-80 fails to catch up. But, do the smeary details at 1:1 really matter in the end? I do like to crop but I don't think anyone will notice most of the time. The images of the 16-80 look clear and detailed at normal viewing angles.

In spite of its inferior sharpness, the 16-80 has many things going for it. It feels perfect on the XT-3. It reveals how bulbous and front-heavy a lens the 16-55 is. The 16-80 also exhibits less barrel distortion than the 16-55. Perhaps the camera is programmed to more aggressively correct the 16-80's distortions. Focus is snappy and OIS seems to work very well.

So, I'm at a loss. Unfortunately -- owning both is not an option I wish to consider. In nearly a year since I've taken to shooting Fuji, these are the only two lenses I've purchased. I rather expend what little discretionary income I have on something different than a 2nd mid-range zoom. Perhaps the 10-24? Perhaps one of the revered primes?

Any advice would be welcome but ultimately I need to make the decision for myself. In a way, I wish the 16-80 were my first Fujifilm lens. It's a damn fine lens and I would not have the frame of reference to see where it is deficient.

Click to expand...

rguil15 said:

Much ado about nothing.

Look at the angle of the tree leaves/branches in these two images. Now look at the shutter speed.

All this talking and nonsense because the WIND WAS BLOWING.

Click to expand...

quintana said:

rguil15 said:

Much ado about nothing.

Look at the angle of the tree leaves/branches in these two images. Now look at the shutter speed.

All this talking and nonsense because the WIND WAS BLOWING.

Click to expand...

It's pretty obvious that the blur isn't caused by the wind or do you think that wind can also cause blur in brick walls and lamp posts as well?

It's also highly unlikely that wind will cause the same amount of blur in each and every branch of the tree.

Click to expand...

quintana said:

rguil15 said:

Much ado about nothing.

Look at the angle of the tree leaves/branches in these two images. Now look at the shutter speed.

All this talking and nonsense because the WIND WAS BLOWING.

Click to expand...

It's pretty obvious that the blur isn't caused by the wind or do you think that wind can also cause blur in brick walls and lamp posts as well?

It's also highly unlikely that wind will cause the same amount of blur in each and every branch of the tree.

Click to expand...

rguil15 said:

No, but I'm pretty sure wind will affect a camera sitting on a tripod, which would affect the entire image.

Click to expand...

GRobsn said:

I agree. I ran a series of tests with the 16-80mm and my 18-55mm. Set up on a tripod outdoors in a protected patio. Target was 10 ft away and both lens were set to 55mm, f/8, manual focus and auto focus. In each case, the 16-80 was much softer and smeared looking. The 18-55 was sharp viewed at 100%. I went the manual focus route because the new firmware was suspect. If the lens can't focus manually, no firmware in the world will help it. The 16-55 was sent back and the 18-55 will remain my travel lens.

Click to expand...

EXPERIOR SD said:

GRobsn said:

I agree. I ran a series of tests with the 16-80mm and my 18-55mm. Set up on a tripod outdoors in a protected patio. Target was 10 ft away and both lens were set to 55mm, f/8, manual focus and auto focus. In each case, the 16-80 was much softer and smeared looking. The 18-55 was sharp viewed at 100%. I went the manual focus route because the new firmware was suspect. If the lens can't focus manually, no firmware in the world will help it. The 16-55 was sent back and the 18-55 will remain my travel lens.

Click to expand...

Agree. I am on my 3rd copy, the smeariness/smudginess gets bad when shooting scenes at a distance >25M. Its nothing to do with shutter shock or firmware it's a design issue. Review by Chris Nicholls/DPreview 2 days back confirms the issue as well. Chris Nicholls calls it a Kit Lens and he's right. I will have to sell off mine as its over the return time limit.

Click to expand...