JoshuaR
Leading Member
I've been agonizing over the Fuji mid-range zooms for a while—especially the 18-55, 16-80, and 16-55. I mainly use primes but have been looking for a single-lens solution for times when I don't want to change lenses (e.g., inclement weather, long hikes, the beach). I mainly take candid pictures of my family life, so no dedicated landscape, product, or street. I've been wanting a zoom that can work for my everyday photography—especially for photos of people.
I started by trying out the 16-80. But I couldn't shake the feeling that I might prefer the 18-55 or 16-55. So I bought used copies of all three and have been using them intensively for a couple of weeks, with the goal of choosing one and selling the others. Often, I’ve gone out with all three, switching between them frequently, taking comparable (though not identical) shots of the same basic scenes. When I get home, I import all the pictures, select my favorites, and only then look at which lens took what.
Here's what I've found so far. (Spoiler alert: turns out it's mostly what I knew before my little experiment.)
The 18-55. I don't think online reviews prepared me for how small and light this lens is. It's almost miraculously compact. It's a joy to handle, is well-stabilized, and has a useful range. I think I got a nice copy, made in Japan; sharpness is very good at pretty much all FLs. A lack of WR somewhat undermines its ability to be a one-lens solution. But the biggest drawback, for me, is a certain flatness to the images. They are sharp, but seem to lack a little 3-D detail—almost as though I’ve taken a photograph of a photograph. Here’s one of my favorite 18-55 shots.
The 16-80. I've owned two copies; the first was a little soft at 16, but my current copy is quite sharp throughout the range. I love the way the lens feels to use, and it’s not too big. The images have decent-to-good detail and color, especially in the center. In good light, they are a little more textured and three-dimensional than what I get from the 18-55. Overall, because of the range, the IQ, and the WR, I prefer this lens to the 18-55—it seems to offer more without a burdensome increase in heft. Going through my images without looking at EXIF, I could usually pick out pictures made with the 18-55, but often had trouble distinguishing between pictures taken by the 16-55 and 16-80—a credit to the 16-80. Here’s a 16-80 photo I liked; like a lot of the pictures I got from this lens, it's vivid, but somehow has a slightly texture-less quality.
The 16-55. This definitely has the best IQ—to me, it’s pretty obvious and visible without pixel-peeping, especially for photos taken in challenging light. The quality is partly about sharpness, but also has to do with colors and textures. Images are just more detailed and 3-D. The faster aperture makes a meaningful difference for portraits, which can be prime-like in their vividness; there are differences in landscapes, too, especially at the corners (although the 16-80 is probably good enough for my relatively undemanding use). Some of the biggest IQ benefits happened indoors, where the extra stop of light was useful. I see why event photographers like this lens! It's definitely big and heavy, but I found that I was able to get over it. Here’s a photo I liked—it seems to have some of the almost metallic rendering that I now associate with the 16-55.
In the end.... I’ll be selling the 18-55. I like its small size, but I don’t love the IQ. The 16-80 and the 16-55 are harder to decide between. I suspect that, if I were buying a zoom for hiking, landscapes, and the outdoors, I’d gravitate more definitively towards the 16-80 for its weight, size, and OIS. (I don’t have IBIS.) I ended up certain that the 16-80 is a very good lens—especially at its current price of $599! But I mainly take pictures of people, and so OIS isn’t so helpful. For photographing family, the 16-55’s extra stop of light is attractive. Experimenting with these zooms has clarified how much I value fast apertures in my everyday photography; I take a lot of photos indoors and often want background separation. In terms of light, even the 16-55 feels like a slow lens to me.
Oddly, having all three lenses has also made me question whether I even need a midrange zoom. It doesn’t seem to me that I got more “keepers” by using one. Maybe I would've felt differently if I'd been traveling or going to more unfamiliar places—but, when I travel, I tend to keep my kit as small as possible. I may well keep the 16-55—it's the lens I liked the most—but I could also see selling all three lenses, recouping my costs, and returning to only primes. Possibly I should just stick to certain normal focal lengths—23, 27, 35—when I want to avoid lens changes. It could be that my "single lens solution" for "inclement weather, long hikes, the beach" is . . . the X100V.
I wonder if anyone else has tried all three of these zooms at once or separately, and what conclusions you've come to.
I started by trying out the 16-80. But I couldn't shake the feeling that I might prefer the 18-55 or 16-55. So I bought used copies of all three and have been using them intensively for a couple of weeks, with the goal of choosing one and selling the others. Often, I’ve gone out with all three, switching between them frequently, taking comparable (though not identical) shots of the same basic scenes. When I get home, I import all the pictures, select my favorites, and only then look at which lens took what.
Here's what I've found so far. (Spoiler alert: turns out it's mostly what I knew before my little experiment.)
The 18-55. I don't think online reviews prepared me for how small and light this lens is. It's almost miraculously compact. It's a joy to handle, is well-stabilized, and has a useful range. I think I got a nice copy, made in Japan; sharpness is very good at pretty much all FLs. A lack of WR somewhat undermines its ability to be a one-lens solution. But the biggest drawback, for me, is a certain flatness to the images. They are sharp, but seem to lack a little 3-D detail—almost as though I’ve taken a photograph of a photograph. Here’s one of my favorite 18-55 shots.
The 16-80. I've owned two copies; the first was a little soft at 16, but my current copy is quite sharp throughout the range. I love the way the lens feels to use, and it’s not too big. The images have decent-to-good detail and color, especially in the center. In good light, they are a little more textured and three-dimensional than what I get from the 18-55. Overall, because of the range, the IQ, and the WR, I prefer this lens to the 18-55—it seems to offer more without a burdensome increase in heft. Going through my images without looking at EXIF, I could usually pick out pictures made with the 18-55, but often had trouble distinguishing between pictures taken by the 16-55 and 16-80—a credit to the 16-80. Here’s a 16-80 photo I liked; like a lot of the pictures I got from this lens, it's vivid, but somehow has a slightly texture-less quality.
The 16-55. This definitely has the best IQ—to me, it’s pretty obvious and visible without pixel-peeping, especially for photos taken in challenging light. The quality is partly about sharpness, but also has to do with colors and textures. Images are just more detailed and 3-D. The faster aperture makes a meaningful difference for portraits, which can be prime-like in their vividness; there are differences in landscapes, too, especially at the corners (although the 16-80 is probably good enough for my relatively undemanding use). Some of the biggest IQ benefits happened indoors, where the extra stop of light was useful. I see why event photographers like this lens! It's definitely big and heavy, but I found that I was able to get over it. Here’s a photo I liked—it seems to have some of the almost metallic rendering that I now associate with the 16-55.
In the end.... I’ll be selling the 18-55. I like its small size, but I don’t love the IQ. The 16-80 and the 16-55 are harder to decide between. I suspect that, if I were buying a zoom for hiking, landscapes, and the outdoors, I’d gravitate more definitively towards the 16-80 for its weight, size, and OIS. (I don’t have IBIS.) I ended up certain that the 16-80 is a very good lens—especially at its current price of $599! But I mainly take pictures of people, and so OIS isn’t so helpful. For photographing family, the 16-55’s extra stop of light is attractive. Experimenting with these zooms has clarified how much I value fast apertures in my everyday photography; I take a lot of photos indoors and often want background separation. In terms of light, even the 16-55 feels like a slow lens to me.
Oddly, having all three lenses has also made me question whether I even need a midrange zoom. It doesn’t seem to me that I got more “keepers” by using one. Maybe I would've felt differently if I'd been traveling or going to more unfamiliar places—but, when I travel, I tend to keep my kit as small as possible. I may well keep the 16-55—it's the lens I liked the most—but I could also see selling all three lenses, recouping my costs, and returning to only primes. Possibly I should just stick to certain normal focal lengths—23, 27, 35—when I want to avoid lens changes. It could be that my "single lens solution" for "inclement weather, long hikes, the beach" is . . . the X100V.
I wonder if anyone else has tried all three of these zooms at once or separately, and what conclusions you've come to.
Last edited:
