I'm sure it will. 450€ worst case.
Last edited:
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
16-55 vs 16-80: at an impasse
- Thread starter Lens_Goat
- Start date
My findings are consistent with yours, including at large focusing distances. Many samples all along this thread : https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63361868
DocetLector
Leading Member
Ha, ha - it looks like we are the only ones having a good copy of this lens !
Lucky we are ...
Lucky we are ...
S
sdias
Guest
S Dias | Flickr
www.flickr.com
I shot these near my house for a forum member XT3/16-80(EFCS) also with my D500/ Tamron. Apologies, I meant at the wide end as this where I use this lens for adventure/trekking. The close up image at 10M looks ok but the distant images across the harbour are not crisp to my liking. I shoot handheld, jpeg sooc and view images on a 75"8k TV.
Yes, I agree with the previous post the 16-80 is slightly better than the 18-55. I don't use my 18-55. The retail price for a 18-55 in a Fujifilm retail store is AUD$470 and can be bought for $AUD400 before cash back. The XF 16-80 is 1200. Still not sold as a kit here.
This lens maybe good but simply does not meet my expectations at the price I paid. I am ok with the 10-24mm and like the 50-140mm
Is your concern about center or corner sharpness ? I didn't watch closely but in all honesty, I doubt that these pictures are suitable to judge corner sharpness because corners are likely to be OOF anyway, unless you focus very carefully (and typically not on the other side of the harbour).
S
sdias
Guest
Thanks. Around the edges/across the frame at the wide end, all these were at F8, no difference stopped down. Centre is ok. I am not concerned as I have other camera/lens that will give better results. I was curious why Chris Nicholls/ DPreview on YouTube highlighted an issue with this lens for landscape and architecture. Just that I agree with him.
Last edited:
rwbaron
Forum Pro
I agree with others who've posted about the 16-80 detail and sharpness. IMO it's abysmal compared to the 16-55 in your examples and I would without doubt swap it for another lens to be certain it's not defective. If another lens performs as poorly then I'd rethink my strategy.
I know a one lens solution is enticing but it's also a big compromise depending on how and what you shoot. For me 80mm is too short so I'd want more FL on the long end and I'd carry the 16-55 and also the very good 55-200 which is a bargain of a tele zoom and opens up another whole range of photographic opportunities but that's just me and I appreciate that YMMV.
Bob
I know a one lens solution is enticing but it's also a big compromise depending on how and what you shoot. For me 80mm is too short so I'd want more FL on the long end and I'd carry the 16-55 and also the very good 55-200 which is a bargain of a tele zoom and opens up another whole range of photographic opportunities but that's just me and I appreciate that YMMV.
Bob
S
sdias
Guest
Bob, Thanks. This is my third copy, early November Fuji Australia swapped my second copy with a new a new one from a very recent batch as it already had the latest FW preinstalled. They did bench test and confirm that the new one is to spec.
I do have the 10-24mm but got dust in the lens in a recent trek in the Himalayas. I also have the 50-140mm which I have no reservation in calling it a stellar lens. The 50-140 / XT3 has excellent sharpness across the frame and I use it as my second camera on Safari. I did have the 55-200 with my X-E2S which I sold last year as it was not WR. Your comment on using a tele zoom specially when hiking in the mountains is correct and appreciated. At this point I will use my D750 and Z7 with a Tamron 17-35mm 2.8-4 and early in the new year get a Nikon Z 14-30mm F2.8.
JayNGu
Well-known member
If I had the 16-55 I wouldn't even look at the 16-80. I would take the better optics and faster apperture over the OIS. Sell the 16-80 and depending on what you like to shoot, pick up a telephoto or wide angle prime like the 14mm,
Best Regards,
Jason
Best Regards,
Jason
Well when I returned to Fuji recently I bought a very fairly priced XF 16-55/2.8 but it was just bigger and heavier than I really wanted for my X-T3 which I bought primarily for travel.
Enter the XF 16-80/4 IS. On paper it was what I wanted since I've had very good experience in the past with full frame 24-105mm f/4 from Sony and Canon. I gave Fuji the benefit of the doubt and thought their version would be exactly what I wanted. So I bought it and still have it.
Haven't done a lot of head to head testing but if the 16-80 doesn't work out (had mine too long to return now) what will it be worth on the used forums? Especially with the reputation it appears to be getting. Not being a pixel peeper shooter I would not want to pretend to any buyer that I know its sharp. It may be as good as any copy but I am not the expert that could make such a statement.
Jerry-astro
Forum Pro
Pretty easy to check for yourself. This is one of my personal favorite places to sell used gear with perhaps a bit less risk than you might have on EBay or some other buy/sell sites. It tends to cater more to photographers specifically:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/10
Note that there is a fairly nominal cost associated with joining the forum in order to sell an item, but I’ve found it to be one of the best sites around to do so (note that I have no personal association with the site... just some decent luck in selling used gear in the past). There’s also a similar forum right here on DPR I believe.
fwiw seems to me this lens is exactly what it was designed to be - a compromise. If you watch the DPR video, at the end they note that it is a very good "hybrid" lens that will cover both stills and video with good - not perfect - results. I'm new to Fuji, just getting the X-T3 with this lens as the "kit" for my personal shooting, having shot Sony, Canon, Nikon, and Pentax both for fun and part of my day job. I've got an A7iii in the lab that is mostly for video, and a 6D tucked away for when I need wide (16-35 f2.8). Truth be told I still have fond memories of shooting the Pentax K10D, mostly because of the FA ltd primes. The 77mm was spectacular for me. The body...not so much.
I'm still working through the X-T3, but so far the 16-80 is living up to my expectations. And those expectations were fairly realistic having shot a variety of zooms over the years. If you want 2.8, then buy 2.8. If you want better bokeh or sharpness, shoot a prime. If you want to get workable stills and video (especially handheld) without having to swap lenses, then the 16-80 fits the bill, especially at $500 (when purchased as a kit). As always, ymmv.
I'm still working through the X-T3, but so far the 16-80 is living up to my expectations. And those expectations were fairly realistic having shot a variety of zooms over the years. If you want 2.8, then buy 2.8. If you want better bokeh or sharpness, shoot a prime. If you want to get workable stills and video (especially handheld) without having to swap lenses, then the 16-80 fits the bill, especially at $500 (when purchased as a kit). As always, ymmv.
Patographer
Leading Member
That should be its price.
Jerry,
Long time Fred Miranda member and I have feedback on 123 buy/sell transactions there so I agree its the right place to sell things. For fuji have always had good like with https://www.fujix-forum.com/ as well. About 1/3 of my gear I have bought there with very good luck.
The key thing I found with lenses that may have a "questionable" performance or performance that maybe very copy dependent is there are typically a lot of questions by users on how does the version your selling perform. Even if I'm happy with it I find it hard to speak like an expert when it comes to lens performance.
Right now I have no plans to sell the XF 16-80 but you never know. Thanks
That would have been great. I paid the $800 but for my X-T3, which I bought through Greentoe before it went on sale was only $1100. So overall, that "kit", was fairly priced.
If I wanted a mid range zoom - which I don't but if I did - it would be a no brainer. The 16-55 f2.8 would win hands down. First it is a high quality optically corrected lens. That's why is is so big and so heavy and expensive. Second the 16-55 is a stop faster.
There have been many tires to build the 5X standard zoom. But the 24-120 lens has never stood up well to the classic 24-70 on FF. Just look at the examples of disappointment in the 5X normal zoom vs. the 3X normal zoom over time.
The 16-80 is what it is - a design compromise factoring in size, weight, cost and zoom range and this probably is not much different than the issues with the 5X normal zoom that have been observed in other brands.
Wishing and hoping for a 5X normal zoom at a lower price point and the same quality as a 3X normal zoom - well one might as well believe in other fairy tails like the Easter Bunny and Santa Clause.
That would have been great. I paid the $800 but for my X-T3, which I bought through Greentoe before it went on sale was only $1100. So overall, that "kit", was fairly priced.
Last edited:
Looking at the tree on the left - there is not a single part of that canopy pointing to the left. All the thin branches are pointing to the right. There is a breeze so this tree is useless for your purposes. Looking at the bench and light post in the lope there is a minor difference but it is unlikely that it would be noticed in a reasonable sized print or on a monitor at a normal viewing distance. Also neither image is nothing to write home about in the lope.
Sure pixel peaking - the 16-80 is not as sharp but the 16-55 doesn't look all that good in the lope either. For me if I wanted a normal range zoom (which I don't) there would be no question - the 16-55. It is a little better IQ and it is faster. Faster would probably swing it since I primarily print. On the other hand if you are shooting on a camera without IBIS, that difference could disappear as the 16-80 has OIS. On the H1 - OIS doesn't matter.
So what are your requirements? What is important to you? Are you going to use this lens where image stabilization could be important. That's a plus in the 16-80 box unless you are using it on the H1. Are you a pixel peeler? If so you probably want to go with the 16-55, if not then it is probably a wash and OIS might help. Do you need the extra stop of light. On the Other hand OIS could make up for that in many cases unless a little less DOF is important.
So it is a choice. What are your priorities, weight, size, OIS, extra stop, normal viewing or pixel peaking. If you can't keep both, then weight your priorities and make a choice.
Sure pixel peaking - the 16-80 is not as sharp but the 16-55 doesn't look all that good in the lope either. For me if I wanted a normal range zoom (which I don't) there would be no question - the 16-55. It is a little better IQ and it is faster. Faster would probably swing it since I primarily print. On the other hand if you are shooting on a camera without IBIS, that difference could disappear as the 16-80 has OIS. On the H1 - OIS doesn't matter.
So what are your requirements? What is important to you? Are you going to use this lens where image stabilization could be important. That's a plus in the 16-80 box unless you are using it on the H1. Are you a pixel peeler? If so you probably want to go with the 16-55, if not then it is probably a wash and OIS might help. Do you need the extra stop of light. On the Other hand OIS could make up for that in many cases unless a little less DOF is important.
So it is a choice. What are your priorities, weight, size, OIS, extra stop, normal viewing or pixel peaking. If you can't keep both, then weight your priorities and make a choice.
DocetLector
Leading Member
The 16-55 is not optically corrected at all!
At 16 mm there is a barrel distortion of 5,6 % and at 55 still a pincushion distortion of 2,4 % according to OpticalLimits.
To me it is a miracle how Fuji managed to get such a good performance out of this lens.
At 16 mm there is a barrel distortion of 5,6 % and at 55 still a pincushion distortion of 2,4 % according to OpticalLimits.
To me it is a miracle how Fuji managed to get such a good performance out of this lens.
JayNGu
Well-known member
I'm not sure what the 16-80 is worth on the 2nd hand market...I guess it's new and I don't tend to watch the 2nd hand prices until I'm interested in a lens.
In all honesty, I'm interested in the 16-55, but it's not something I really need or even want at the moment. If I was looking for a light travel zoom, I would stick with the 18-55 instead of the 16-80 and pair it with a wide angle prime like the 14mm, or one of the 16mm lenses. The 18-55 has always had great reviews and can be picked up dirt cheap 2nd hand. The caveat is that there are some people on this forum who don't think it's that sharp. I feel my copy is in agreement with the reviews, and I've always been impressed with its performance, including sharpness. Extremely fast focusing on my new little XT-30 as well! Fantastic travel lens.
Best Regards,
Jason
In all honesty, I'm interested in the 16-55, but it's not something I really need or even want at the moment. If I was looking for a light travel zoom, I would stick with the 18-55 instead of the 16-80 and pair it with a wide angle prime like the 14mm, or one of the 16mm lenses. The 18-55 has always had great reviews and can be picked up dirt cheap 2nd hand. The caveat is that there are some people on this forum who don't think it's that sharp. I feel my copy is in agreement with the reviews, and I've always been impressed with its performance, including sharpness. Extremely fast focusing on my new little XT-30 as well! Fantastic travel lens.
Best Regards,
Jason
Similar threads
- Question
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum