Unfair bashing of the Fuji 16-80mm?

David Garth · Dec 23, 2019

Ever since I’ve been testing and shooting with my new Fuji 16-80, I’ve been perplexed by the harsh criticism of a lens I’ve found to be really very good, especially for a 5:1 zoom. The Internet echo chamber seems to grossly be exaggerating the negatives, especially from those who have never actually used the lens.

The new Lenstip.com review just posted gives some objective, numerical results that make me question even more. (Lenstip’s results are totally consistent with my tests and earlier review.)

Compared to the widely—and deservedly—praised Fuji 10-24, the 16-80 in the 16-17mm range beats it handily in the center (72-68) and comes very close at the edge (51-52]. In the 24-30mm range, the 16-80 beats it 69-58 in the center and 62-44 at the edge.

The 16-80 beats the Fuji 18-55 at each focal length tested in both the center and edge, and that’s comparing a 3:1 zoom to a 5:1 zoom. It also tested better than the prime 35mm f1.4, 69-66 in the center and 58-45 on the edge, and was even closely comparable to the 50mm f2.

Is it perfect? No, it’s quite weak at 80mm on the edges. (But my testing indicates it’s somewhat better at 60 and 70mm.) Are there some bad copies out there? Absolutely. But, unfortunately, sample-to-sample variations seem to be the norm, especially for zoom lenses today. Is it expensive? Yes.

Factoring in the suburb build quality, weather resistance, manageable size and weight, great range and extraordinary image stabilization, I think this lens has gotten a very undeserved bad rap.

—David Garth

Truman Prevatt · Dec 23, 2019

David Garth said:
Ever since I’ve been testing and shooting with my new Fuji 16-80, I’ve been perplexed by the harsh criticism of a lens I’ve found to be really very good, especially for a 5:1 zoom. The Internet echo chamber seems to grossly be exaggerating the negatives, especially from those who have never actually used the lens.

David,

I think you hit it on the head. Whining is the bread and butter of the Internet echo chamber. Most of the time perfection is exacted for a buck 98 in a lens that zooms from 16 to 500 and weights just 3 oz with no consideration of what is possible and what is not.

Very few lenses are flat field. Flat field lenses are expensive and big. Field curvature is one of the prime issues that leads to soft corners. It is difficult enough to produce a flat field lens at one focal length - much less a 5X zoom. On the other hand compositional rules of thumb, e.g., rule of thirds, don't have you putting important compositional elements in the corners.

A 5X zoom that cost less than a 1000 bucks is not going to be perfect. I won't be small either. But the obsession with corner to corner sharpness in such a lens - is what it is a psychological disorder. :-D

I am sure this is a fine lens. For someone wanting a well built 5X zoom - it would make a great option. Is it going to compete with a 16-80 fully flat field lens with sharpness corner to corner at all focal lengths. No, however it won't cost 10 K and weight 5 pounds either.

If this lens is good enough for your purposes and it sounds as it is - have fun with it and don't worry about the self eating watermelon known as Internet forums.

nostatic · Dec 23, 2019

The beauty of the internet is that everyone gets to post their opinion. The horror of the internet is that everyone gets to post their opinion. :-D

I am a new-to-Fuji shooter and posted in one of the other threads. To paraphrase, I agree with the concluding remarks of the DPR video - it is a great lens for hybrid shooting. Considering the cost ($500 in the X-T3 kit) and features (5x, OIS, constant f4, WR, reasonable size/weight), it is a pretty good compromise lens for real world, everyday shooting of stills and video.

There certainly are lenses that are "better" but horses for courses. It isn't a prime, it isn't particularly big/heavy (balances well on the X-T3) and it isn't $1K+. Works for me, may not work for you, and to quote Stuart Smalley, "that's...ok."

SpeedyNeo · Dec 23, 2019

From what I've read, there were 3 types of issues with this lens:

1. The shutter shock problem (improved/solved with FW update)

2. Stuttering focus during video recording (partially improved with FW update, see pal2tech YouTube)

3. Softness at edges particularly at the long end (acceptable imo for its size and price categories)

So it seems Fuji has rushed this lens to the market without proper testing, but now things have been sorted out.

Although I shoot mainly prime, I am considering purchasing one for travel.

Thanks for sharing your experience.

--
Fujifilm X-T3 | Fujifilm X-E3 | XF16mmF1.4 | XF35mmF1.4 | XF90mmF2 | XF18-55mmF2.8-4 | Fujifilm FinePix XP140

Heinz · Dec 23, 2019

I'm not sure if the resolution charts are comparable, since the 10-24 and 18-55 reviews are made with the X-E1 ind the 16-80 with the X-T2. They also changed their measurement system some time ago.

--
Heinz
http://flickr.com/photos/55025133@N02
http://500px.com/hejakma

Inpuressa · Dec 23, 2019

I'm still interested in this lens too. It will one day replace my trusty 18-55. But not in a rush at this point, maybe wait for a rebate to chime in. It does though, cover a good range when combined with the 55-200mm. The overlap is good considering the bread crusts of the focal ranges(70mm would be the crossover point if you consider IQ) These two will be the perfect duo for travel imo.

JohnS59 · Dec 23, 2019

Heinz said:
I'm not sure if the resolution charts are comparable, since the 10-24 and 18-55 reviews are made with the X-E1 ind the 16-80 with the X-T2. They also changed their measurement system some time ago.

That's indeed an important point. Lenstip doesn't test lenses at all but the combination of a particular camera and a lens, a system: MTF (system)=MTF (camera)*MTF(lens). If you change the camera the results are no longer comparable. Even if the have the same sensor. But, I read somewhere on their site that the differences is only a few line pairs or so. The did run some test with a lens on both camera's. But are those the same copies of the lens? I am not so sure.

John

dual12 · Dec 23, 2019

"But, I read somewhere on their site that the differences is only a few line pairs or so."

I read the same thing, but I'd have to run the tests myself to believe it. That claim seems amazingly convenient.

JohnS59 · Dec 23, 2019

David Garth said:
Ever since I’ve been testing and shooting with my new Fuji 16-80, I’ve been perplexed by the harsh criticism of a lens I’ve found to be really very good, especially for a 5:1 zoom. The Internet echo chamber seems to grossly be exaggerating the negatives, especially from those who have never actually used the lens.

The new Lenstip.com review just posted gives some objective, numerical results that make me question even more. (Lenstip’s results are totally consistent with my tests and earlier review.)

Compared to the widely—and deservedly—praised Fuji 10-24, the 16-80 in the 16-17mm range beats it handily in the center (72-68) and comes very close at the edge (51-52]. In the 24-30mm range, the 16-80 beats it 69-58 in the center and 62-44 at the edge.

The 16-80 beats the Fuji 18-55 at each focal length tested in both the center and edge, and that’s comparing a 3:1 zoom to a 5:1 zoom. It also tested better than the prime 35mm f1.4, 69-66 in the center and 58-45 on the edge, and was even closely comparable to the 50mm f2.

Is it perfect? No, it’s quite weak at 80mm on the edges. (But my testing indicates it’s somewhat better at 60 and 70mm.) Are there some bad copies out there? Absolutely. But, unfortunately, sample-to-sample variations seem to be the norm, especially for zoom lenses today. Is it expensive? Yes.

Factoring in the suburb build quality, weather resistance, manageable size and weight, great range and extraordinary image stabilization, I think this lens has gotten a very undeserved bad rap.

—David Garth

To me your analysis makes sense. It's indeed a 5x zoom, for a not so small sensor as the APS-C, that's no easy task. Every lens is a compromise. It's not the best for landscape at 80mm I guess, but otherwise? If I understood it well, the hugh shutter shock problem is something of the past thanks to a firmware upgrade. That was the main problem I think.

BTW, don't look too much at those lenstip diagrams because they are not comparable. See other posts in this thread.

CAcreeks · Dec 23, 2019

David Garth said:
Ever since I’ve been testing and shooting with my new Fuji 16-80, I’ve been perplexed by the harsh criticism of a lens I’ve found to be really very good, especially for a 5:1 zoom. The Internet echo chamber seems to grossly be exaggerating the negatives, especially from those who have never actually used the lens.

Maybe these folks just want to drive the price down.

David Garth said:
The new Lenstip.com review just posted gives some objective, numerical results that make me question even more. (Lenstip’s results are totally consistent with my tests and earlier review.)

Yes, the Lenstip review gives me confidence to buy the lens.

David Garth said:
Compared to the widely—and deservedly—praised Fuji 10-24, the 16-80 in the 16-17mm range beats it handily in the center (72-68) and comes very close at the edge (51-52]. In the 24-30mm range, the 16-80 beats it 69-58 in the center and 62-44 at the edge.

Were you comparing the 16-80/4 with a different lens than the 10-24 in the 24-30mm range, and if so what lens? Thanks.

On Lenstip, the 15-45 and 16-80/4 were tested with the same body and thus comparable.

David Garth · Dec 23, 2019

No, I was comparing the Lenstip results at 24mm on the 10-24 and 30mm on the 16-80.

I know that comparing the various Lenstip results isn’t perfect. I tried to find other sites to compare and I couldn’t find any better ones. Christopher Frost in his nicely done YouTube tests uses words like “just good” and “just OK” and “good” without numerical references for results that look identical to me

georgehudetz · Dec 23, 2019

David Garth said:
No, I was comparing the Lenstip results at 24mm on the 10-24 and 30mm on the 16-80.

I know that comparing the various Lenstip results isn’t perfect. I tried to find other sites to compare and I couldn’t find any better ones. Christopher Frost in his nicely done YouTube tests uses words like “just good” and “just OK” and “good” without numerical references for results that look identical to me

Aside from the differences in sensor output, you are comparing the 10-24 at it's worse resolution, and the 16-80 at perhaps it's best. Beating the 10-24 @ 24mm isn't much to write home about.

As for your echo-chamber comments, there have been PLENTY of examples posted on this forum - even before the Lenstip test - that illustrates the strengths and weaknesses of this lens. At this point, I don't need to buy one to know what I am going to get (apart from copy variation, of course). Nor do I need to purchase one in order for my opinion/choice to have meaning in a public forum. Fuji needs to know what we think.

Some of us had high expectations for this lens - other manufacturers have made exceptional "travel" zooms - but Fuji chose to deliver a different performance/price point ratio. That's fine, but it doesn't make those who are disappointed wrong.

For those who like it - bravo! It's a lot of connivence and performance in a nice package, and will not prevent anyone from creating beautiful images. If I were starting out in Fuji-land and buying a new X-T3 with a kit lens, I'd choose the 16-80 over the 18-55. But given where I am now, I was hoping for something lighter than the 16-55 that delivered similar IQ. That's not going to happen at this price-point, however. So be it. I'll still wish for my red-badge 16-55 F4, but I know that's never going to happen.

Ken Stevens · Dec 23, 2019

David, I agree with you 100%. I will say that the release of this lens was completely bizarre not to mention the shuttersohock issue. Really the only pre-release review of note was by the angry photog who, if I recall correctly, said this lens was on par with the 16-55. I guess I could go on about the Nikon 16-80 and its cost vs performance, but whatever.

Myki21 · Dec 23, 2019

I think some of the criticisms revolves around the current pricing of the lens. At least in my country with the current sales period and cashback promotion, the 16-55mm can be had for around $800 USD, while the 16-80mm costs ~$960 USD. I think by this time next year when the 16-80mm is eligible for sales and cashback, the value proposition will be a lot higher and will make a lot more sense for potential buyers.

KaanG · Dec 23, 2019

georgehudetz said:
David Garth said:

No, I was comparing the Lenstip results at 24mm on the 10-24 and 30mm on the 16-80.

I know that comparing the various Lenstip results isn’t perfect. I tried to find other sites to compare and I couldn’t find any better ones. Christopher Frost in his nicely done YouTube tests uses words like “just good” and “just OK” and “good” without numerical references for results that look identical to me

Click to expand...

Aside from the differences in sensor output, you are comparing the 10-24 at it's worse resolution, and the 16-80 at perhaps it's best. Beating the 10-24 @ 24mm isn't much to write home about.

As for your echo-chamber comments, there have been PLENTY of examples posted on this forum - even before the Lenstip test - that illustrates the strengths and weaknesses of this lens. At this point, I don't need to buy one to know what I am going to get (apart from copy variation, of course). Nor do I need to purchase one in order for my opinion/choice to have meaning in a public forum. Fuji needs to know what we think.

Some of us had high expectations for this lens - other manufacturers have made exceptional "travel" zooms - but Fuji chose to deliver a different performance/price point ratio. That's fine, but it doesn't make those who are disappointed wrong.

For those who like it - bravo! It's a lot of connivence and performance in a nice package, and will not prevent anyone from creating beautiful images. If I were starting out in Fuji-land and buying a new X-T3 with a kit lens, I'd choose the 16-80 over the 18-55. But given where I am now, I was hoping for something lighter than the 16-55 that delivered similar IQ. That's not going to happen at this price-point, however. So be it. I'll still wish for my red-badge 16-55 F4, but I know that's never going to happen.

Finally, a practical comment who goes out and actually shoots images instead of spending hours comparing lab test results.

Nobody is expecting ground breaking image quality from a zoom lens. But when a company comes up with a new lens after years of producing a very practical (18-55) and a very high quality output (16-55) lens, one would have expectations.

Small improvements here and there are nice, yes the marked aperture ring, better OIS are all welcome, but the lens still doesn't top up anything that is offered by fuji or other manufacturers.

Is it a good lens ? Yes. How about the available options ? They were also good. So, this is unfortunately a lost opportunity for us. Now Fuji will not release a new zoom lens for the next 2-3 years at least.

Anyway, let the influencers make money while the pixel peepers fight a war against eachother. In the meantime, I will keep shooting with my trusted and reliable 18-55. If it breaks or I loose it than I will consider my options

Yannis1976 · Dec 24, 2019

And personally I got fed up of defending the lens. I will just post my images with it and let anyone make his own opinion. Personally I am very happy with it as it can do almost everything with good performance.

tokumeino · Dec 24, 2019

Yannis1976 said:
And personally I got fed up of defending the lens. I will just post my images with it and let anyone make his own opinion. Personally I am very happy with it as it can do almost everything with good performance.

I agree with your agreement.

Despite MTF curves beeing known for months and showing that the lens doesn't perform very well on corners at 80mm, people seem to continue to expect a 16-55, just longer, with OIS, cheaper and with a better magnification, in a smaller package. Such assumptions are just not reasonable.

If you don't consider this lens as a red badge (it is not, BTW), then it performs admirably. Beeing superior to the 18-55 in every department at any FL they share, and then adding very good WA up to 16mm and very good tele up to 65-70mm, and then only lowering corner sharpness, that's a great achievment and it makes the 16-80 a great lens, not to mention the good magnification and the incredibly valuable OIS on any Fuji camera except the XH1.

My most impressive lens ever is the Panasonic 14-140 (incredible 10x zoom). It was not a "Pro" Olympus lens but at that time I'd have droped the highly praised 12-40 instantly to keep the 14-140. The 14-140 keeps its crown, but the 16-80 is not so far behind. It is a great lens. In my gear list (https://www.dpreview.com/members/5636131559/gearlist), it is the second best rated lens.

And as you, I'll continue posting pictures from time to time and let people make their mind.

KaanG · Dec 24, 2019

tokumeino said:
Beeing superior to the 18-55 in every department at any FL they share, and then adding very good WA up to 16mm and very good tele up to 65-70mm, and then only lowering corner sharpness, that's a great achievment and it makes the 16-80 a great lens, not to mention the good magnification and the incredibly valuable OIS on any Fuji camera except the XH1.

I would like to see some examples to back this up. The 18-55 is not far behind from the 16-55. So calling this new 16-80 superior in very department puts it next to the 16-55. The examples that I see are no different between the kit and the 16-80. In a blind test scenario, I wouldn't expect people to tell the difference

tokumeino said:
My most impressive lens ever is the Panasonic 14-140 (incredible 10x zoom). It was not a "Pro" Olympus lens but at that time I'd have droped the highly praised 12-40 instantly to keep the 14-140. The 14-140 keeps its crown, but the 16-80 is not so far behind. It is a great lens. In my gear list (https://www.dpreview.com/members/5636131559/gearlist), it is the second best rated lens.

Yes, from what I see, the examples that come out of this lens is from very good to great. I was planning to get one to be used with a second m43 body, but than I got back to the fuij system. In daytime, again from the examples, I can't call the fuji better than this m43 lens

tokumeino said:
And as you, I'll continue posting pictures from time to time and let people make their mind.

Sure, go ahead.

A picture is worth a thousand words

colombiano · Dec 24, 2019

David Garth said:
It also tested better than the prime 35mm f1.4,

Please show us how 16-80 is better than 35 1.4. I seriously doubt it.

DocetLector · Dec 24, 2019

Both lenses are bitingly sharp: look at the eyelashes at 100% and if there wouldn`t be any EXIF it would be very hard to see any difference.

Except DOF of course, here wins the 35mm at 1.4

But on the other hand there is a very versatile zoom with much better AF and very good OIS and a 5x zoom range.

X-T2 + 35/1.4

X-T2 + 16-80

I have both lenses and I am very happy with both of them

Unfair bashing of the Fuji 16-80mm?

Leading Member

Community Leader

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Heinz

Guest

Well-known member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Leading Member

Leading Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts