Does my 16-55 have an issue?

I have had the 16-55 (bought it new) for about a year. Prior to that purchase I had used an 18-55 that came with my first Fuji body, an X-T10.

I've never felt that my 16-55 never lived up to my (perhaps unrealistic) expectations. It's not that I haven't taken some great images, but there didn't seem to be a dramatic difference in image quality between my 16-55 and 18-55.

I recently decided to fabricate a lens testing chart based on USAF 1951 images so that I could do side by side comparisons. This was a first for me and found it to be a very demanding process in terms of the precision required. I'm hoping that the two images I post here will allow forum members to give some feedback. Although I repeated the tests multiple times with both lenses over all of the traditional focal lengths (i.e. 16,18,23,35 and 55) and apertures (2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11,16), I'm only posting two images because they show the areas of my concerns and I don't want to abuse the the time of those who are willing to do a little pixel-peeping.

Let me add that, in general, I learned that my 16-55 is sharper across the frame on the wide end (18, 23) but not necessarily so on the mid to long end (35,55) than my 18-55. The latter is what surprised me and thus the reason for this post.

By the way, all images were taken indoors on a tripod mounted X-T3 with a Godox flash. OIS was turned off on the 18-55.

The following image was taken with my 16-55 at 55mm, f/4, ISO160.




Notice the softness on the left side, especially the lower left corner. Also, the upper corners show noticeable distortion.

The following image was taken with my 18-55 at 55mm, F4, ISO 160.




Although the center seems softer, all sides and corners appear sharper to me, especially the left side and lower left corner. Overall sharpness appears more consistent across the frame.

Stopping down brings the lenses closer in image quality, essentially identical at f/8. Behavior is similar at 35mm.

If the consensus is that the 16-55 should be better than this, then I'd likely sell it and try another new one, only being sure to test lens performance while still in the return period.

Many thanks in advance for those who take the time to give feedback!



Marcus

Can look at the details only later, but as far as I can see, you did an excellent job in alignment of your setup!

I do very similar tests at the time with my lenses, I was a bit shocked to discover a decentration 15 months after purchase. There are two current threads by me. In the meanwhile, I've come to the conclusion that an exact image frame on the chart is key for proper alignment. If all the 90° angles are correct which takes a lot of time, the alignment is perfect.

Keep going!

allemania said:

I have had the 16-55 (bought it new) for about a year. Prior to that purchase I had used an 18-55 that came with my first Fuji body, an X-T10.

I've never felt that my 16-55 never lived up to my (perhaps unrealistic) expectations. It's not that I haven't taken some great images, but there didn't seem to be a dramatic difference in image quality between my 16-55 and 18-55.

I recently decided to fabricate a lens testing chart based on USAF 1951 images so that I could do side by side comparisons. This was a first for me and found it to be a very demanding process in terms of the precision required. I'm hoping that the two images I post here will allow forum members to give some feedback. Although I repeated the tests multiple times with both lenses over all of the traditional focal lengths (i.e. 16,18,23,35 and 55) and apertures (2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11,16), I'm only posting two images because they show the areas of my concerns and I don't want to abuse the the time of those who are willing to do a little pixel-peeping.

Let me add that, in general, I learned that my 16-55 is sharper across the frame on the wide end (18, 23) but not necessarily so on the mid to long end (35,55) than my 18-55. The latter is what surprised me and thus the reason for this post.

By the way, all images were taken indoors on a tripod mounted X-T3 with a Godox flash. OIS was turned off on the 18-55.

The following image was taken with my 16-55 at 55mm, f/4, ISO160.


Notice the softness on the left side, especially the lower left corner. Also, the upper corners show noticeable distortion.

The following image was taken with my 18-55 at 55mm, F4, ISO 160.


Although the center seems softer, all sides and corners appear sharper to me, especially the left side and lower left corner. Overall sharpness appears more consistent across the frame.

Stopping down brings the lenses closer in image quality, essentially identical at f/8. Behavior is similar at 35mm.

If the consensus is that the 16-55 should be better than this, then I'd likely sell it and try another new one, only being sure to test lens performance while still in the return period.

Many thanks in advance for those who take the time to give feedback!

Marcus

Click to expand...

Hi, after pixel peeping the 2 images, I wouldn't be happy with the 16 55, the 18 55 is sharper across the whole frame, the difference in the lower left corner is just a bit more obvious. I would expect the 16 55 to at least match the 18 55 optically, and I'm not seeing that. my 5 cents

--
Jostian

Rightsaidfred said:

Can look at the details only later, but as far as I can see, you did an excellent job in alignment of your setup!

I do very similar tests at the time with my lenses, I was a bit shocked to discover a decentration 15 months after purchase. There are two current threads by me. In the meanwhile, I've come to the conclusion that an exact image frame on the chart is key for proper alignment. If all the 90° angles are correct which takes a lot of time, the alignment is perfect.

Keep going!

Click to expand...

I sold it and kept the 18-55, i was never that happy with my 16-55 which exhibited a lot of astigmatism-like smearing on the edges, it never looked as good as some of the sample images I saw. My 18-55 was better than the 16-55 from 18mm through to around 40mm where it was then equal in sharpness. The only time my 16-55 was better than my 18-55 was about 40mm to 55mm.

If you look at the 55mm (green) results in the edge resolution charts, you find that indeed this is the weak spot of the 16-55mm.

There is always some sample variation, but pixel peeping your image I see no cause for alarm. I recently posted some testing with mine as well, you can have a look at that for comparison if you like.

In my experience, tests such as https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/20...ntered-lens-an-old-technique-gets-a-makeover/ are better to judge centering because they are less prone to user error. So if you are afraid that your lens could be decentered, you should try it.

If you don't own such a chart, download a file and print yourself (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ImageTestStarJMW.pdf). On a genuine chart, the circle is like 20cm in diameter, so you can crop and print A4 on a good paper (and leave room arround the sheet when making the picture). This process is much less demanding as far as precision is concerned : alignment is not critical, and the test requires a defocus so focus is not critical as well.

All you need to watch is the small circle in the center. If blur it not perfectly even, then return the lens without question.


Bottom left is totally decentered. Bottom right is supernice (absolutely no shift in the blur pattern). Others are probably good even if top left is questionable (small shift of the black circle towards top-right direction).





Some use this technique directly with a PDF chart displayed on screen (https://yukosteel.wordpress.com/2018/06/30/bad-lens-or-optical-alignment-issue/). In that case, the whole test is a matter of seconds : why not trying ?
















Very bad lens sample : you can clearly see the blur shift (or dark point shift) at different focus distances.

You have a bad copy of the 16-55 I’m afraid. I couldn’t he happier with mine, is as sharp as my primes from about 20mm right up to 55mm even at f2.8-f4. It excels between f5.6-f11. I can’t say how it compares to the 16mmf1.4 though

Rightsaidfred said:

Can look at the details only later, but as far as I can see, you did an excellent job in alignment of your setup!

I do very similar tests at the time with my lenses, I was a bit shocked to discover a decentration 15 months after purchase. There are two current threads by me. In the meanwhile, I've come to the conclusion that an exact image frame on the chart is key for proper alignment. If all the 90° angles are correct which takes a lot of time, the alignment is perfect.

Keep going!

Click to expand...

Thank you!

Indeed, alignment was definitely a challenge. I never got it "perfect" but eventually hoped that the alignment I achieved was sufficient for the purposes of this comparison.

Interestingly, it was more challenging to align the chart for the 16-55 than the 18-55. Also, you may notice that the 16-55 image has a noticeable curve downward in the center of the top horizontal edge. I tried to compensate for this but never succeeded. The 18-55 didn't have this issue. This was another of my concerns with the 16-55. Perhaps it's the nature of its design rather than a malady.

Jostian said:

Hi, after pixel peeping the 2 images, I wouldn't be happy with the 16 55, the 18 55 is sharper across the whole frame, the difference in the lower left corner is just a bit more obvious. I would expect the 16 55 to at least match the 18 55 optically, and I'm not seeing that. my 5 cents

Click to expand...

This was the crux of my thinking - that the 16-55 should at least match or best the 18-55 optically.

I also realize that it's a wider and faster lens, and those are tangible benefits. This has been a good learning experience in terms of understanding (or beginning to understand) lens characteristics!

BigG30 said:

Rightsaidfred said:

Can look at the details only later, but as far as I can see, you did an excellent job in alignment of your setup!

I do very similar tests at the time with my lenses, I was a bit shocked to discover a decentration 15 months after purchase. There are two current threads by me. In the meanwhile, I've come to the conclusion that an exact image frame on the chart is key for proper alignment. If all the 90° angles are correct which takes a lot of time, the alignment is perfect.

Keep going!

Click to expand...

I sold it and kept the 18-55, i was never that happy with my 16-55 which exhibited a lot of astigmatism-like smearing on the edges, it never looked as good as some of the sample images I saw. My 18-55 was better than the 16-55 from 18mm through to around 40mm where it was then equal in sharpness. The only time my 16-55 was better than my 18-55 was about 40mm to 55mm.

Click to expand...

That interesting to note, since my 16-55 and and 18-55 are exactly the opposite - my 16-55 is sharper on the wide end, 18-55 being equal/sharper on the long end.

norjens said:

https://www.lenstip.com/383.4-Lens_...XF_18-55_mm_f_2.8-4_OIS_Image_resolution.html

https://www.lenstip.com/433.4-Lens_..._16-55_mm_f_2.8_R_LM_WR_Image_resolution.html

If you look at the 55mm (green) results in the edge resolution charts, you find that indeed this is the weak spot of the 16-55mm.

There is always some sample variation, but pixel peeping your image I see no cause for alarm. I recently posted some testing with mine as well, you can have a look at that for comparison if you like.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the links. I had briefly perused them prior to performing my test, and based on what I read and saw in the charts, I had expected the 16-55 to best the 18-55, especially on the edges, at all focal lengths. Perhaps I need to take another look at their results.

I looked at the images in your tests, as well. Of course I cant make a direct comparison, but to my eye your 16-55 at 2.8 is very consistent at the perimeter of the frame. Also, the image I posted is at f/4 and it probably comes as no surprise that things worsen at f/2.8. I think I would be happy with your copy of the 16-55.

Many thanks for the links and tips on additional testing methods. I'll definitely look into them. It's appealing that they may be less time consuming

allemania said:

BigG30 said:

Rightsaidfred said:

Can look at the details only later, but as far as I can see, you did an excellent job in alignment of your setup!

I do very similar tests at the time with my lenses, I was a bit shocked to discover a decentration 15 months after purchase. There are two current threads by me. In the meanwhile, I've come to the conclusion that an exact image frame on the chart is key for proper alignment. If all the 90° angles are correct which takes a lot of time, the alignment is perfect.

Keep going!

Click to expand...

I sold it and kept the 18-55, i was never that happy with my 16-55 which exhibited a lot of astigmatism-like smearing on the edges, it never looked as good as some of the sample images I saw. My 18-55 was better than the 16-55 from 18mm through to around 40mm where it was then equal in sharpness. The only time my 16-55 was better than my 18-55 was about 40mm to 55mm.

Click to expand...

That interesting to note, since my 16-55 and and 18-55 are exactly the opposite - my 16-55 is sharper on the wide end, 18-55 being equal/sharper on the long end.

Click to expand...

Yeah that's a weird one, I can only sum it up that I had a very good copy of the 18-55 and a below average copy of the 16-55.

BigG30 said:

allemania said:

BigG30 said:

Rightsaidfred said:

Can look at the details only later, but as far as I can see, you did an excellent job in alignment of your setup!

I do very similar tests at the time with my lenses, I was a bit shocked to discover a decentration 15 months after purchase. There are two current threads by me. In the meanwhile, I've come to the conclusion that an exact image frame on the chart is key for proper alignment. If all the 90° angles are correct which takes a lot of time, the alignment is perfect.

Keep going!

Click to expand...

I sold it and kept the 18-55, i was never that happy with my 16-55 which exhibited a lot of astigmatism-like smearing on the edges, it never looked as good as some of the sample images I saw. My 18-55 was better than the 16-55 from 18mm through to around 40mm where it was then equal in sharpness. The only time my 16-55 was better than my 18-55 was about 40mm to 55mm.

Click to expand...

That interesting to note, since my 16-55 and and 18-55 are exactly the opposite - my 16-55 is sharper on the wide end, 18-55 being equal/sharper on the long end.

Click to expand...

Yeah that's a weird one, I can only sum it up that I had a very good copy of the 18-55 and a below average copy of the 16-55.

Click to expand...

I think I'm in a similar situation. It's been an eye-opening experience, which underscores why there are so many strong opinions regarding the the 18-55 vs the 16-55 and whether the 16-55 is worth the steeper price tag.

Since performing these tests is relatively easy once you've gained some experience, I'll definitely being checking all my future purchases when I receive them. One can put their mind at ease and go enjoy shooting

Rember, samples vary. Sometimes more than between models! I have the same chart - and have done tests with it - along with the ISO 12233 charts

1- You have an excellent 18-55. Keep it! It is a winner!

2- Nothing wrong with your 16-55. It's a little sharper in the corners, but it should be.

Your test is an example of the discipline needed for such tests. Take a bow! Me, I would be strongly tempted to keep, and use, the 18-55. Why? Lighter, OS, and just as good - maybe. What does it look like wide open - or do you care?

--
Steve Bingham

Steve Bingham said:

Rember, samples vary. Sometimes more than between models! I have the same chart - and have done tests with it - along with the ISO 12233 charts

1- You have an excellent 18-55. Keep it! It is a winner!

2- Nothing wrong with your 16-55. It's a little sharper in the corners, but it should be.

Your test is an example of the discipline needed for such tests. Take a bow! Me, I would be strongly tempted to keep, and use, the 18-55. Why? Lighter, OS, and just as good - maybe. What does it look like wide open - or do you care?

Click to expand...

Bow taken! Thanks for the props. I've discovered that I quite enjoy the precision required to test a lens.

Will definitely be keeping the 18-55 for all the reasons you mentioned. It suffers a little wide open on the wide end but I've found I don't shoot wide open much....so I guess I don't care that much after all!

On a side note, would love to get my hands on an ISO 12233 chart. Wow, are they pricey, especially larger versions. I saw that you can get free PDF's and print your own, but those I've found, such as this one http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/~westin/misc/res-chart.html, say they're intended to be printed at approximately 9" x 16". Is this large enough to be effective and get proper results?

Would love to hear your thought on this if you read this.

Marcus

Mine are printed with an Epson 9880 (24" width). Enlarged with Photoshop. Been using them for many years. I have 3. Get the pdf version and go large. Keep up the good work.

Steve Bingham said:

Mine are printed with an Epson 9880 (24" width). Enlarged with Photoshop. Been using them for many years. I have 3. Get the pdf version and go large. Keep up the good work.

Click to expand...

Thanks f,or the info. I'll go with the pdf file and see how large I can print while maintaining adequate sharpness.