18-55 F2.8-4 LM OIS VS the F2 primes - yes been done to death b4

EOS GUY · Aug 21, 2020

But I want to chip in anyway here is an edited PM I sent to a fellow DPR member regarding my keeping the 18-55 or not

First posts, me wanting to believe the zoom would hold up against the 23mm at 23mm. I'm talking to fellow member about me using the lens on my X-T2 to take photos of famous landmarks in London to do B&W and try to get on restaurant walls etc

Member said:
Aug 21, 2020 at 17:36 UTC

Colour same. Sharpness same. Both same good lack of distortion.

Just at print size and 100% the prime does have that tiny edge of clearness and micro contrast 3d pop that the zooms never have. But its only in tiny details nobody sane would be looking at or for...

Aug 21, 2020 at 17:00 UTC

Most people would see no difference or not feel anything about the difference

Aug 21, 2020 at 16:42 UTC

Just did best technique side by side comparison zoom and 23 f2.

At screen size nada in it at all

At print size a tiny bit in favour of the prime

At 100% the prime quality shows but yeah I think I'll keep the 18-55 for non sp...

Next I look closer again -

Member said:
Aug 21, 2020 at 21:08 UTC

For landscape there's a huge difference. Did side by sides again.

Prime holds up way more out at the edges, zoom becomes mush

Zoom resembles unsharpened prime shot with sharpening to zoom shot but never in actual corners, only 'towards' the corners but not fully

For buildings the difference is less.....

For the shots I'm panning of cathedrals, palaces, bridges etc, it won't make too much difference but I'll be sure to shoot a little wider to crop out the corners.

Still considering replicating the range with the 16mm f2.8 and the 35mm f2.... no 55mm but meh who cares lol

I'll see how the shots with the 18-55 come out first (if doesn't rain or boring sky etc) with a crop of the edges I reckon it'll be good as the centre is and towards the edges is good

Yeah for SP I don't care but for other types I do. For SP I hare zooms but it's mostly for the way primes make me shoot, function over IQ.

And finally

Member said:
I was wrong. It's more than 'towards the edges' it's like 50% of the frame outside of the centre, massive difference.

Even in the centre if the centre is not flat and has several objects projecting through from front to back of frame (near to far from viewer) like a tree or row of houses, the separation is cleaner and more pronounced with the prime, way more

Shows why people use primes or pro zooms.....

This lens will do as I'll shoot not for detail but for picture postcard look and nice B&W

But for my non SP future photography either I need to to choose the brick (price = ouch) for non SP or get a 3 prime kit. 16 f.2.8, 23 f2 (already have),and the 35 f2 ..

FWIW having had two copies of this lens, I got a good copy. It is not BAD. It is as good as say a Nikon 18-55 VR II and is a stop faster and better build.

But it ain't prime time and I do feel it;s reputation here is overrated.

To sum up - good little lens for walkabout or abstracts or street or doc or travel photos - but for anything you want to be top notch IQ - no.

Not saying it cannot be done and I;ve sen some great shots with it on this forum, but a prime will blow it away.

Makes me appreciate my 23mm F2 in a whole new way

EOS GUY · Aug 21, 2020

Hmmm just read some 16mm f2.8 reviews.....

Not buying that.

Brick it might be then as price of 16mm f1.4...... ouch

EOS GUY · Aug 21, 2020

And just for fun, posted an hour later....

EOS GUY said:
Just now

hmm reviews of 16 f2,8 are bad as are the photos.

16mm f1.4 and 14mm f2.8 are both ace....

But for price you can get the brick which is also excellent

Lol how did I get here again

AAAAHHHH

then

EOS GUY said:
Lol there are only 3 used bricks on all of ebay UK. CEX is out of stock as are most of my fave GM sites...

Guess there's a reason for that

Now to convince myself I don't need it by smashing it out of the ballpark with the 18-55 tomorrow

Portion Control · Aug 21, 2020

I found multiple copies of 18-55 to be no better than old canon 18-55 in terms of sharpness and centering quality. Faster aperture and better edge definition (not exactly sharpness, but just a less ‘DSLR’ look to the edges that I can only assume is the result of mirrorless lens design) are nice but don’t take it out of “cheap“ kit lens territory. And centering problems make it pretty much useless for landscapes, although I have seen results that defy that from better-assembled copies not in my possession.

The 23/2 in my experience also suffered from centering defects. Third time was a charm for that model, though, and was definitely in a different class from the zoom. The first 35/2 I tried was fantastic, sharp with no asymmetrical smearing on any side. Same for the 50/2. Same for the 14/2.8 and perhaps unlikely but also the 16-80/4.
My brief ownership of a brand new 16-55/2.8 showed that mine was nowhere near the equivalent primes and additionally suffered from such a right-side-blur at mid to far focus distances as to be totally unreasonable for landscape - worse than the 18-55. This performance deficit is not borne out in the majority of 16-55’s though.

The moral of my story? You can probably be happy with a better than average copy of the 18-55, but don’t count on getting one. Go for primes if you want to do landscapes with Fuji, or make sure you can return or exchange no questions asked if your preferred solution is a constant aperture zoom.

EOS GUY · Aug 21, 2020

I just compared my old NIKON 18-55 3.5-5.6 VR II (the best dx kit lens IME / IMO sharper across frame than later AF-P versions and previous versions) with my old d5300 to the xf 18-55 f2.8-f4 with X-T2

I'd say they're equal, some of the Nikon shots are better in the corners, some are a slight tiny bit worse, but I have more photos from it so I'd call it a draw.

You mentioned Canon kit lenses, I'd likely disagree politely there, I once was so angry by how bad the IQ was on the EF-S 18-55mm IS III - I threw it at a wall and smashed it to pieces.

I hear the STM versions were a large improvement.

the Fuji 18-55?

A kit lens with average kit lens IQ, a stop faster than most.

That's literally it.

Of course it's what's behind the camera that ultimately matters but objectively, yeah it's a kit lens with kit lens IQ no less, but no more.

My 23mm F2 is peachy. Only the 'very extremes' of the extreme corners are not perfect on very detailed foliage landscapes but that's literally it.

Yeah the brick is big and pricey.

I might think about the 16mm f1.4 OR the 14mm f2.8 - both review well and I've seen the latter on clearance for £299 last week

--
My Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/photonicstreetdreams/
The earth laughs in flowers.
-Ralph Waldo Emmerson
Above all else, peacefulness, love and harmony.
- Noel Shoestring

Heinz · Aug 21, 2020

that there is more in a lens than sharpness. The XF18-55 is able to produce stunning images. It has very low ca and decent bokeh for a zoom lens. Sharpness at the wide end is excellent. The overall rendering is very nice and the built is a complete other league than the canon 18-55. my last 18-55 made in Japan i bought for 280 Euros brand new. Imo there is no better value out there.

EOS GUY · Aug 21, 2020

Heinz said:
that there is more in a lens than sharpness.

I know and I wrote that in my last post...?

Member said:
The XF18-55 is able to produce stunning images.

Of course, so can my old LX100

Member said:
It has very low ca and decent bokeh for a zoom lens.

True

Member said:
Sharpness at the wide end is excellent.

In the centre but not outside the centre

Member said:
The overall rendering is very nice

Subjective, it is nice but not as nice as the primes,

Member said:
and the built is a complete other league than the canon 18-55.

True but heavier and my Nikon kit lens got bashed about a lot and rained on but never fell apart or stopped working. Though the Fuji has an aperture ring and better AF IMO

Member said:
my last 18-55 made in Japan i bought for 280 Euros brand new. Imo there is no better value out there.

I'd disagree with that, but it all depends on what you want to shoot.

For street, portriats, doc, travel, social, it;s great

For critical prints of architecture or landscape?

No as it's mushy outside the centre even stopped down

It is what it is I'm not bashing it but it is over hyped.

And hey if the photo is good enough who's lookin at the corners anyhow.

See I get that. I know that.

But OBJECTIVELY it does not have great IQ. Just objectively

Rod McD · Aug 21, 2020

Hi,

As soon as I see reviews with "blows away" (or just as frequently elsewhere "wipes the floor with") without any controlled side by side images, without reference to the apertures under discussion, claiming objective differences without any objective measure of the difference, I have to say that I become a bit cautious.

I bought the 18-55 with my XT1, and then bought the 16/1.4, 18, 23/1.4 and 351.4 and 60mm because they were available first. I then slowly bought the 16/2.8 and the three f2's because I prefer small and light lenses for hiking. So I've compared the equivalent FLs and the zoom side by side. My take on it is that comparisons are rarely as simple as they seem.

Firstly, the usual caveat - you can only compare the samples you own. All lenses vary in QC, though zooms tend to vary more. What may be true of your samples or mine may not be true for others.

Secondly the sweeping statement that the zoom is never going to beat primes is simply not true all of the time. You have to qualify the discussion to which models, which apertures and whether we're talking centre or cross-frame IQ. If you want an example where a prime is out-resolved by the 18-55, look no further than the 18/2. And there are many metrics other than resolution that might be compared too.

Just to elaborate on that example, there is a broad consensus in the forum that the 18/2 has issues in the outer image area. Mine was consistent with that view. It was sharper than my 18-55 at f2.8, about the same at f4, but got no better stopping down further where the zoom continued to improve and left it behind at smaller apertures (f5.6-8-11). My main interest is landscape and nature, so cross-frame sharpness is important to me. I sold the 18mm and still have the zoom.

I'd agree that the differences are there. The primes are sharper, and sharper across the frame, than than my 18-55, but the differences range from incremental to small - I wouldn't say they "blow it away". I try to think about the difference in terms of how large I would have to print to see it on print paper (which only resolves a handful of lines per mm). It would be quite large.

And then there are many other use-case things that impact on resolution......

Whether one is hand-holding - there is little point banging on about fine degrees of test results obtained from an optical bench or a tripod if you're hand-holding at anything other than very high shutter speeds. And raising the ISO isn't the answer - as good as modern high ISOs are, modern low ISOs are better.
Whether one has OIS/IBIS. I have some excellent primes, but with my XT1, my 18-55 or 55-200 with OIS can get a good image when the light has fallen far enough to render my primes useless without a tripod.
Whether one has the ideal FL at hand or is forced to crop an image from a shorter prime - if your longest prime is too short, the resolution of a zoom set to the right FL easily out-resolves a crop. You can't always zoom with your feet - shots from theatre seats, cliff tops, boats and planes are good examples.

There are probably more. Better to see primes and zooms as different tools and use them to their strengths. I use both and wouldn't be without either.

Regards, Rod

EOS GUY · Aug 22, 2020

I agree with what you said.

But as you said the primes are ultimately better.

How much better is what is important to each individual.

To me the difference would be enough for landscape.

For landmarks I have a blue sky today with nice little clouds that are not pure white and are tinged with bits of grey si perfect conditions really.

I'll post full size unedited jpegs here later

My plan is to do so well using my skill I can talk myself out of the expenditure of the brick or adding the 16mm f1.4 or 14mm f2.8 and the 35mm f2. Trust me I got my 18-55mm for free buy buying a clearance xt20 kit for 299 and just sold the body for 310 so for me I REALLY want to prove to myself that I don't need to spend anymore money

--
My Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/photonicstreetdreams/
The earth laughs in flowers.
-Ralph Waldo Emmerson
Above all else, peacefulness, love and harmony.
- Noel Shoestring

Makingtrax · Aug 22, 2020

Rod McD said:
Hi,

As soon as I see reviews with "blows away" (or just as frequently elsewhere "wipes the floor with") without any controlled side by side images, without reference to the apertures under discussion, claiming objective differences without any objective measure of the difference, I have to say that I become a bit cautious.

I bought the 18-55 with my XT1, and then bought the 16/1.4, 18, 23/1.4 and 351.4 and 60mm because they were available first. I then slowly bought the 16/2.8 and the three f2's because I prefer small and light lenses for hiking. So I've compared the equivalent FLs and the zoom side by side. My take on it is that comparisons are rarely as simple as they seem.

Firstly, the usual caveat - you can only compare the samples you own. All lenses vary in QC, though zooms tend to vary more. What may be true of your samples or mine may not be true for others.

Secondly the sweeping statement that the zoom is never going to beat primes is simply not true all of the time. You have to qualify the discussion to which models, which apertures and whether we're talking centre or cross-frame IQ. If you want an example where a prime is out-resolved by the 18-55, look no further than the 18/2. And there are many metrics other than resolution that might be compared too.

Just to elaborate on that example, there is a broad consensus in the forum that the 18/2 has issues in the outer image area. Mine was consistent with that view. It was sharper than my 18-55 at f2.8, about the same at f4, but got no better stopping down further where the zoom continued to improve and left it behind at smaller apertures (f5.6-8-11). My main interest is landscape and nature, so cross-frame sharpness is important to me. I sold the 18mm and still have the zoom.

I'd agree that the differences are there. The primes are sharper, and sharper across the frame, than than my 18-55, but the differences range from incremental to small - I wouldn't say they "blow it away". I try to think about the difference in terms of how large I would have to print to see it on print paper (which only resolves a handful of lines per mm). It would be quite large.

And then there are many other use-case things that impact on resolution......

Whether one is hand-holding - there is little point banging on about fine degrees of test results obtained from an optical bench or a tripod if you're hand-holding at anything other than very high shutter speeds. And raising the ISO isn't the answer - as good as modern high ISOs are, modern low ISOs are better.

Whether one has OIS/IBIS. I have some excellent primes, but with my XT1, my 18-55 or 55-200 with OIS can get a good image when the light has fallen far enough to render my primes useless without a tripod.

Whether one has the ideal FL at hand or is forced to crop an image from a shorter prime - if your longest prime is too short, the resolution of a zoom set to the right FL easily out-resolves a crop. You can't always zoom with your feet - shots from theatre seats, cliff tops, boats and planes are good examples.

There are probably more. Better to see primes and zooms as different tools and use them to their strengths. I use both and wouldn't be without either.

Regards, Rod

Since switching to Fuji from Canon L glass, I only shoot primes up to 56mm which I've been pleased with. But have been considering the kit lens recently for convenience and the reasons you outlined, but reluctant to pull the trigger due to some strong criticisms. But reading a balanced and logical post like this has made me rethink.

Heinz · Aug 22, 2020

At 18mm the 18-55 is razor sharp already at 2.8 in the centre and stopped down to 5.6 all the way to the very corners. You can also see this on various mtf charts. A friend made some of his best shots on faroe island with it and produced HUGE prints. Nothing mushy at all. But in fact it seems that there are quite a lot poor copys of this lens around and there are AF issues. On my X-T20 AF wasn't very consistent especially at the wide end. For critical shots i use backbutton or even manual focus. This has gotten much better with the X-T3 however.

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

Bobo Hodls · Aug 22, 2020

Every lens has their own character when examined hypercritically. Differences can be very subtle depending on subject distance and elements in a composition content, but still, no two lenses are exactly alike. This is before copy variation even comes into question (that's another matter).

Comparing lens output qualities can be an all consuming hobby in itself.

--
"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't."
------ Chief Dan George, Little Big Man
@ bobtullis.com & flickr.com/photos/bobtullis
.
My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration.

tdwesbo · Aug 22, 2020

Agreed. All this concern about sharpness when ultimate sharpness is so rarely critical to the images posted here

Street_Photography · Aug 22, 2020

Heinz said:
At 18mm the 18-55 is razor sharp already at 2.8 in the centre and stopped down to 5.6 all the way to the very corners. You can also see this on various mtf charts. A friend made some of his best shots on faroe island with it and produced HUGE prints. Nothing mushy at all. But in fact it seems that there are quite a lot poor copys of this lens around and there are AF issues. On my X-T20 AF wasn't very consistent especially at the wide end. For critical shots i use backbutton or even manual focus. This has gotten much better with the X-T3 however.

I must had a bad copy as mine was about even with the 16-50 and my 15-45mm at the wide end was far sharper.

I agree with others that have said its not as good at longer FLs I know if a shot was taken with a zoom or 50mm f2, but often have to check when wide.

Street_Photography · Aug 22, 2020

tdwesbo said:
Agreed. All this concern about sharpness when ultimate sharpness is so rarely critical to the images posted here

Yeah, can usually make up for it in post and I certainly don't prioritise sharpness for black and white photos.

EOS GUY · Aug 22, 2020

Wow emotional responses to facts of reality.

A. The kit zoom is not as good for micro contrast and whole frame acuity compared to fujifilm primes.

I mean it is to be expected if it were as good why make the primes? The kit lens is only slightly larger and cost the same as one prime. We could just use it as 3 primes! But fujifilm know what they are doing. They and most people naturally expect the primes to have better overall objective image quality

B. The 18-55 is as good as a Nikon dx 18-55 VR ii

Except it is a stop faster and does have nicer bokeh. If it matters to anyone it is better built.

I cannot see why these statements are objectionable.

The lens is what it is and isn't what it isn't

I been shooting with it all day.

Been fun but I still don't like zooms I dont like the way they speed me up.

I like primes as they slow me down

See what the picture's look like tonight

Typically English mixedclight turning every five seconds all day super cloudy and poor light. Then ultra light but for 5 seconds then gone only for a massive bright white cloud to appear behind your subject.... then five seconds of good light but in the wrong direction... then datk cloud for half an hour..... then ten seconds of good light on your subject...

Then go for a coffee judging by looking at sun direction and speed and direction of cloud movement and knowing its going to be poor light for half an hour but LO as soon as you coffee is bought to the table 4 minutes later- you just missed some excellent light as a freak wind appeared and blew the clouds away... so you down the coffee and step back out and well you know what comes next lol....... this weather

FWIW I'm in the fuji slow AF thread saying it's not slow

--
My Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/photonicstreetdreams/
The earth laughs in flowers.
-Ralph Waldo Emmerson
Above all else, peacefulness, love and harmony.
- Noel Shoestring

Foxjet · Aug 22, 2020

EOS GUY said:
Heinz said:

that there is more in a lens than sharpness.

Click to expand...

I know and I wrote that in my last post...?

EOS GUY said:

The XF18-55 is able to produce stunning images.

Click to expand...

Of course, so can my old LX100

EOS GUY said:

It has very low ca and decent bokeh for a zoom lens.

Click to expand...

True

EOS GUY said:

Sharpness at the wide end is excellent.

Click to expand...

In the centre but not outside the centre

EOS GUY said:

The overall rendering is very nice

Click to expand...

Subjective, it is nice but not as nice as the primes,

EOS GUY said:

and the built is a complete other league than the canon 18-55.

Click to expand...

True but heavier and my Nikon kit lens got bashed about a lot and rained on but never fell apart or stopped working. Though the Fuji has an aperture ring and better AF IMO

EOS GUY said:

my last 18-55 made in Japan i bought for 280 Euros brand new. Imo there is no better value out there.

Click to expand...

I'd disagree with that, but it all depends on what you want to shoot.

For street, portriats, doc, travel, social, it;s great

For critical prints of architecture or landscape?

Too bad you did not look at Heinz's landscape photos on the Flickr link provided:

http://flickr.com/photos/55025133@N02

There are lots of photographers making fabulous landscapes as well. Same old story, blaming the tools for poor results. Instead of obsessing about sharpness put some energy into composition and lighting?

EOS GUY said:
No as it's mushy outside the centre even stopped down

It is what it is I'm not bashing it but it is over hyped.

And hey if the photo is good enough who's lookin at the corners anyhow.

See I get that. I know that.

But OBJECTIVELY it does not have great IQ. Just objectively

Foxjet · Aug 22, 2020

Heinz said:
At 18mm the 18-55 is razor sharp already at 2.8 in the centre and stopped down to 5.6 all the way to the very corners. You can also see this on various mtf charts. A friend made some of his best shots on faroe island with it and produced HUGE prints. Nothing mushy at all. But in fact it seems that there are quite a lot poor copys of this lens around and there are AF issues. On my X-T20 AF wasn't very consistent especially at the wide end. For critical shots i use backbutton or even manual focus. This has gotten much better with the X-T3 however.

Heinz, I looked at your recent landscapes with the 18-55 and am very impressed. You are an artist and thanks for the link. Heinz Link

--
Richard
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ritchbledsoe

Foxjet · Aug 22, 2020

Foxjet said:
EOS GUY said:

Heinz said:

that there is more in a lens than sharpness.

Click to expand...

I know and I wrote that in my last post...?

Foxjet said:

The XF18-55 is able to produce stunning images.

Click to expand...

Of course, so can my old LX100

Foxjet said:

It has very low ca and decent bokeh for a zoom lens.

Click to expand...

True

Foxjet said:

Sharpness at the wide end is excellent.

Click to expand...

In the centre but not outside the centre

Foxjet said:

The overall rendering is very nice

Click to expand...

Subjective, it is nice but not as nice as the primes,

Foxjet said:

and the built is a complete other league than the canon 18-55.

Click to expand...

True but heavier and my Nikon kit lens got bashed about a lot and rained on but never fell apart or stopped working. Though the Fuji has an aperture ring and better AF IMO

Foxjet said:

my last 18-55 made in Japan i bought for 280 Euros brand new. Imo there is no better value out there.

Click to expand...

I'd disagree with that, but it all depends on what you want to shoot.

For street, portriats, doc, travel, social, it;s great

For critical prints of architecture or landscape?

Click to expand...

Too bad you did not look at Heinz's landscape photos on the Flickr link provided:

http://flickr.com/photos/55025133@N02

There are lots of photographers making fabulous landscapes as well. Same old story, blaming the tools for poor results. Instead of obsessing about sharpness put some energy into composition and lighting?

Whoops, bad link, sorry about that try this one:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/55025133@N02/with/49158958308/

Foxjet said:
Foxjet said:

No as it's mushy outside the centre even stopped down

It is what it is I'm not bashing it but it is over hyped.

And hey if the photo is good enough who's lookin at the corners anyhow.

See I get that. I know that.

But OBJECTIVELY it does not have great IQ. Just objectively

Click to expand...

Jerry-astro · Aug 22, 2020

EOS GUY said:
Wow emotional responses to facts of reality.

A. The kit zoom is not as good for micro contrast and whole frame acuity compared to fujifilm primes.

I mean it is to be expected if it were as good why make the primes? The kit lens is only slightly larger and cost the same as one prime. We could just use it as 3 primes! But fujifilm know what they are doing. They and most people naturally expect the primes to have better overall objective image quality

B. The 18-55 is as good as a Nikon dx 18-55 VR ii

Except it is a stop faster and does have nicer bokeh. If it matters to anyone it is better built.

I cannot see why these statements are objectionable.

The lens is what it is and isn't what it isn't

I been shooting with it all day.

Been fun but I still don't like zooms I dont like the way they speed me up.

I like primes as they slow me down

See what the picture's look like tonight

Typically English mixedclight turning every five seconds all day super cloudy and poor light. Then ultra light but for 5 seconds then gone only for a massive bright white cloud to appear behind your subject.... then five seconds of good light but in the wrong direction... then datk cloud for half an hour..... then ten seconds of good light on your subject...

Then go for a coffee judging by looking at sun direction and speed and direction of cloud movement and knowing its going to be poor light for half an hour but LO as soon as you coffee is bought to the table 4 minutes later- you just missed some excellent light as a freak wind appeared and blew the clouds away... so you down the coffee and step back out and well you know what comes next lol....... this weather

FWIW I'm in the fuji slow AF thread saying it's not slow

What exactly did you expect, given the tone of your "review?" I think you offered a decent analysis, but you couch it in so many absolutes along with a bit of hyperbole. The natural reaction you get from from many people might be pushback and disagreement. Also, TBH, suggesting that your post represents "reality" comes across as a bit arrogant, as I see it.

I'm not challenging most of your observations, as I decided to replace my 18-55 with the 16-55 quite a few years back, and have zero regrets about that decision. But, if your hope is to document your own experience with these lenses and influence others, you might consider doing so with a bit more humility and perhaps some samples to back your assertions. If I were a newbie reading this and trying to make a decision on what lenses to buy, I'd frankly probably ignore the post -- and that would be a shame since I think your observations are probably pretty accurate.

I don't typically comment here on posting style, but I found it hard to ignore in your post, I'm afraid.

--
Jerry-Astro
Fujifilm X Forum Co-Mod

18-55 F2.8-4 LM OIS VS the F2 primes - yes been done to death b4

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Heinz

Guest

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Heinz

Guest

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Street_Photography

Guest

Street_Photography

Guest

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts