16-80 f4 lens quality for Landscapes

biza43 said:

thxbb12 said:

Doppler9000 said:

JeffWorsnop said:

Doppler9000 said:

JeffWorsnop said:

Hello

I am looking to ditch the M4/3 system. I have Oly EM 5 with good quality 12-40 f2.8 and Pana 35-100 f2.8 lenses. Replacing with X t30 or 20 plus 16-80 lens looks a good option. But the 16-80 gets poor reviews for sharpness in numerous tests and reviews. The tests seem to use shots a short distance from the camera. I know it is a challenge to get top quality from a 5 times zoom but can anyone comment on the quality of the 16-80 for landscape and other out and about photography ? The price of the 16-80 compared to Fuji alternatives seems high which seems strange given the apparent lack of sharpness - at least of targets quite close.

Please don't suggest more expensive alternatives because the possible purchase will be funded mostly by selling my M4/3 equipment for about £800.

Jeff

PS I should have said that my main interest is printing to A3 or A3+ to mount in frames .

Click to expand...

The reason the lens is somewhat expensive is the same reason it isn’t so strong - it is a 5x zoom.

Click to expand...

I used to have an A Sony 16-80 years ago which was sharp but high level of distortion which maybe gives rise to my caution with the Fuji 16-80.

Click to expand...

I have the 16-80mm Fuji. It is great for what it is, but their are significant optical compromises that have to me made for a 5x zoom. No free lunches, sadly.

Click to expand...

This is just an excuse for a bad design.

The Oly 12-100 f4 has a 8.3x zoom range and it runs circles around the 16-80.

Click to expand...

More expensive. Also needs to cover a much smaller sensor.

biza43 said:

The same is true of the Nikkor Z 24-200. It's not as impressive as the Oly, but it's fairly close. Much better than the Fuji while being a 8.3x zoom as well.

Click to expand...

More expensive, even though it is not constant f/4.

biza43 said:

The Nikkor Z 24-120 f4 has the same range as the Fuji while being absolutely excellent optically (the best 24-120 on the market).

Click to expand...

More expensive.

biza43 said:

The Panasonic 12-60 f2.8-4 is also very good optically.

Click to expand...

Again, m43 sensor is a lot smaller.

biza43 said:

The Panasonic 12-60 f3.5-5.6 is a budget lens that I owned and it was also much better than the Fuji.

Click to expand...

Again, m43 sensor is a lot smaller. And slower at the tele end.

biza43 said:

... and the list goes on.

Click to expand...

Would you care to list for APSC systems? At least compare apples to apples, not lenses for sensors that are much smaller than APSC (and some more expensive than the Fuji); or lenses for FF that are a lot more expensive than the Fuji.

biza43 said:

So, no, the reason is not the 5x zoom range: the Fuji 16-80 is just a bad design.

Click to expand...

All designs are compromises. folks just need to select what fits their purposes and budgets. If you require a zoom which is better that the 16-80, also from Fuji, there is the 16-55 - where I live it is almost double the cost.

Click to expand...

JSR0720 said:

If one’s body, such as the XT5, has OIS, does it matter whether the lens does as well? If OIS is very impt, does it matter that the new Sigma doesn’t have it?

Click to expand...

Miamistan said:

I have owned all the fuji mid- range zooms. I have taken good landscapes with all of them but nothing compared to a full frame camera. If landscape were my thing I would look to buy a used Sony A2 with a tamron 17-28 mm. Will outperform any fuji setup to date, including using the so called brick (16-55). Believe it or not I find the 15-45 zoom at the wide end the best fuji has, of course thats my opinion.

I have stated over and over where fuji shines is when you keep it light. You can get an x-t30ii with the 15-45 as a kit new for 999.00. At the sied end of 15mm through around 30mm will produce great shots. I use fuji for street photography, travel and mostly for BW

Click to expand...

biza43 said:

Yannis1976 said:

For the last 1.5 year I had been using both Fuji xt3 and Olympus gear. After trying the 12-40 and then the 12-100, I realised that Fuji simply don’t care about developing a good sharp red badge zoom all around lens.

Click to expand...

Right...

biza43 said:

I haven’t tried all Fuji zoom lenses but the only stellar that I found so far and still have is the xf70-300.

Click to expand...

So you provide an opinion without any personal experience, that is rich...

Click to expand...

biza43 said:

biza43 said:

I have now sold my XT3 and may get the XT5 but most probably will only combine it with primes, until they come up with really sharp zoom lens, with good range, WR, aperture ring and acceptable weight and size.

Click to expand...

Well, if you knew about lens designs, you would know that acceptable weight and size (which varies from person to person) means that you need to compromise on lens speed and rely more on software corrections for things like CA and geometrical distortion.

Click to expand...

Jerry-astro said:

thxbb12 said:

JeffWorsnop said:

Hello

I am looking to ditch the M4/3 system. I have Oly EM 5 with good quality 12-40 f2.8 and Pana 35-100 f2.8 lenses. Replacing with X t30 or 20 plus 16-80 lens looks a good option. But the 16-80 gets poor reviews for sharpness in numerous tests and reviews. The tests seem to use shots a short distance from the camera. I know it is a challenge to get top quality from a 5 times zoom but can anyone comment on the quality of the 16-80 for landscape and other out and about photography ? The price of the 16-80 compared to Fuji alternatives seems high which seems strange given the apparent lack of sharpness - at least of targets quite close.

Please don't suggest more expensive alternatives because the possible purchase will be funded mostly by selling my M4/3 equipment for about £800.

Jeff

PS I should have said that my main interest is printing to A3 or A3+ to mount in frames .

Click to expand...

I used to own a E-M1 Mk1 + 12-40 f2.8. Great combo. Unfortunately my home was broken into and all my photo gear was stolen.

Instead of buying MFT again, I bought into the Fuji system. Somewhat recently, I bought the Fuji 16-80 f4 for its versatility especially during holidays. The range is fantastic, but the sharpness is below average and plain bad in the corners. The center is always very sharp though.

The Oly 12-40 f2.8 is the best standard zoom I've ever used. So it's no surprise than it's miles ahead of the Fuji when it comes to sharpness, especially in the corners. The Oly is sharp all the way to the corners already at f2.8. To get somewhat ok corners, the Fuji needs to be stopped down to f7.1 minimum.

If you expect similar IQ to your Oly setup, you'll definitely be disappointed with the Fuji 16-80.

Comparing MFT vs Fuji, I'd say that Fuji has fantastic primes, often better than in the MFT equivalents. However, when it comes to zooms, it's the opposite. I used to be very happy with the zooms I had with my MFT gear. In Fuji land, I find the zoom sub-par. Granted, I haven't tried the 16-55 and 50-140, but other zooms didn't impress me, quite the opposite. Now, I only have primes and no Fuji zooms. I'm gonna buy the new Sigma 18-50 f2.8 as soon as it gets available as I believe it will be very good while compact in size.

Here, people will likely tell you the 16-80 is not that great because it's a 5x zoom so compromises were made. This is bs. I owned the Oly 12-100 f4 and that lens was incredible. Very close in IQ to the 12-40 while having a 8x zoom range (and starting at 12mm)! Quite an engineering achievement. It's a shame that Fuji cannot make better zooms (or good zooms that are not very expensive or not huge).

You can inspect a few full-resolution shots I took with my 16-80 on my flickr page here if you want to have an idea of the IQ of the Fuji lens:

https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=92066060@N00&view_all=1&text=16-80

Click to expand...

Well, as you stated, you haven't tried either the 16-55 or 50-140, which are, without question, among two of Fujifilm's best (and sharpest) zoom lenses. So, let me suggest that you do whatever testing or research you might have done, but this time include at least those two lenses, before coming to a general conclusion like that. I'd also question your leaving these out if they fall into your "huge" category. In the case of the 16-55, a lot of the size and weight is simply attributable to the fact that it is a constant f/2.8 aperture lens. There will inevitably have to be a size/weight cost for that, and I personally have had zero issues handling that lens for any number of different usages. Of course, all this falls into personal preference, but I find it a bit strange that you'd choose to leave those lenses out of your analysis here. Also, given the difference in sensor size, I'm not exactly sure that a comparison with MFT here really tells the whole story either.

Click to expand...

Oregon Dawg said:

Well, the Nikon 24-120mm f4 is $1,100. That's the apples to apples comparison. The Nikon also weighs the same as the Fuji 16-55, so there's that.

The 24-200 is f/4-6.3. It's a different lens. I suppose you could compare it to the Fuji 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 and have a more valid argument. This Nikon is pretty heavy as well at 570g. The Fuji is 490g.

The lens you probably should be comparing the 16-80 to is the Nikon DX 18-140mm, which I doubt performs much differently from the Fuji 16-80. And also still has a different focal length range, so still not quite apples to apples.

All these zoom have compromises. It just depends on what your personal priorities are. If you want ultimate image quality, unless you buy the expensive zooms like the Fuji 16-55 or Nikon 24-120, then you will compromise on size/weight/image quality. Or in the case of m4/3 the compromise is the sensor. I personally find APS-C to be a nice middle ground, and Fuji has a great lens selection that is getting even better with third party lenses such as Tamron and Sigma. Life is good.

Click to expand...

Yannis1976 said:

The only reason I am making these posts is to show that it is feasible for a camera manufacturer to design and produce a good, sharp, not huge or super heavy all around lens. Since Fuji hasn't done it all these years, I have come to the conclusion that such a zoom is not their priority. In my opinion and from a sales & marketing perspective, that is wrong.

Fuji fanatics might be fine with all the different, great primes, but since Fuji decided to attract users from other brands too (looking at PASM models), I believe they need to have a good all around lens.

Click to expand...

Yannis1976 said:

...eally sharp zoom lens, with good range, WR, aperture ring and acceptable weight and size.

Click to expand...

Oregon Dawg said:

Yannis1976 said:

The only reason I am making these posts is to show that it is feasible for a camera manufacturer to design and produce a good, sharp, not huge or super heavy all around lens. Since Fuji hasn't done it all these years, I have come to the conclusion that such a zoom is not their priority. In my opinion and from a sales & marketing perspective, that is wrong.

Fuji fanatics might be fine with all the different, great primes, but since Fuji decided to attract users from other brands too (looking at PASM models), I believe they need to have a good all around lens.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. I sure like the size/weight/features of the 18-55 Fuji. It would be good if it got a refresh with WR because I think a compact zoom would be popular and f/2.8-4 is plenty good. The 16-80 also looks good to me, although I would use it as a travel lens and its compromises are acceptable to me. The 16-55 is way too heavy for me for travel purposes, let alone its price. So, I understand your sentiments.

Click to expand...

aanogueira said:

Yannis1976 said:

...eally sharp zoom lens, with good range, WR, aperture ring and acceptable weight and size.

Click to expand...

But who would pay its price? There is always some compromise.

Click to expand...

Yannis1976 said:

Apart from the 16-55, which I have no interest for, is there any all around Fuji lens I need to test to have an opinion about this subject?

Click to expand...

Jerry-astro said:

Yannis1976 said:

Apart from the 16-55, which I have no interest for, is there any all around Fuji lens I need to test to have an opinion about this subject?

Click to expand...

Sure, if you want another example of a superb Fujifilm zoom lens, take a look at the 150-600. I’ve done a fair amount of work with it recently, and it offers consistently superb IQ pretty well throughout its range — better even than the 100-400 that preceded it.

Click to expand...

Jerry-astro said:

I personally really dislike generalizations.

Click to expand...

Jerry-astro said:

Like any other manufacturer, Fuji has some superb lenses and others that are perhaps a bit more mundane. That is true both for their prime and zoom offerings, and it’s also true for their competition. If you believe that Fuji’s best zoom lenses are at FL ranges that don’t meet your needs… so be it, and you then have to choose to either go with primes or find another brand with zooms that can meet your expectations and needs. Plain and simple.

And to your earlier comment… like anyone else here, you’re most certainly entitled to your opinion… even if [IMHO] it happens to be offbase.

Click to expand...

Yannis1976 said:

Jerry-astro said:

Yannis1976 said:

Apart from the 16-55, which I have no interest for, is there any all around Fuji lens I need to test to have an opinion about this subject?

Click to expand...

Sure, if you want another example of a superb Fujifilm zoom lens, take a look at the 150-600. I’ve done a fair amount of work with it recently, and it offers consistently superb IQ pretty well throughout its range — better even than the 100-400 that preceded it.

Click to expand...

Jerry, I am talking about an all around lens. Out of the 16-55, 18-55, 16-80, 18-135 and recently 18-120, only the 16-55 is optically great but has other disadvantages. All the others either have high sample variation or have noticeable weaknesses or both. Do you agree with that or not?

Click to expand...

Yannis1976 said:

Yannis1976 said:

I personally really dislike generalizations.

Click to expand...

I also don't like generalizations, but I have a hard time finding a good, sharp all around Fuji zoom lens. I love the Fuji bodies and small WR primes and my 70-300 and eventually will settle with a 16-80, but wish there was a good all around 16-135 lens like the 12-100 or Z24-200.

Click to expand...

Jerry-astro said:

Yannis1976 said:

Jerry-astro said:

Yannis1976 said:

Apart from the 16-55, which I have no interest for, is there any all around Fuji lens I need to test to have an opinion about this subject?

Click to expand...

Sure, if you want another example of a superb Fujifilm zoom lens, take a look at the 150-600. I’ve done a fair amount of work with it recently, and it offers consistently superb IQ pretty well throughout its range — better even than the 100-400 that preceded it.

Click to expand...

Jerry, I am talking about an all around lens. Out of the 16-55, 18-55, 16-80, 18-135 and recently 18-120, only the 16-55 is optically great but has other disadvantages. All the others either have high sample variation or have noticeable weaknesses or both. Do you agree with that or not?

Click to expand...

OK, I appreciate the clarification. I've only had direct experience with the 18-55 out of that list, but based on what I've read here and in various reviews, Your statement doesn't really sound off base. As far as the "other disadvantages," from my perspective, only the weight might fall into that category. Otherwise, I've found the 16-55 to be very close to ideal as a general purpose lens. Perhaps I might also be a bit less sensitive to, or concerned about, weight issues than others here given all the time I spend using longer lenses like the 100-400 (previously) and now the 150-600. I'm pretty used to toting fairly heavy kit around and full well realize that not everyone feels quite the same way about it.

Jerry-astro said:

Jerry-astro said:

I personally really dislike generalizations.

Click to expand...

I also don't like generalizations, but I have a hard time finding a good, sharp all around Fuji zoom lens. I love the Fuji bodies and small WR primes and my 70-300 and eventually will settle with a 16-80, but wish there was a good all around 16-135 lens like the 12-100 or Z24-200.

Click to expand...

Again, I've been really impressed with both the 150-600 and 16-55 in terms of IQ and sharpness, but I honestly have not used lenses in that FL range from other vendors, so I have no basis for comparison. It's also entirely possible that our criteria for acceptable IQ might be different, and what might be "meh" to you, I might see differently.

Click to expand...

Yannis1976 said:

biza43 said:

thxbb12 said:

Doppler9000 said:

JeffWorsnop said:

Doppler9000 said:

JeffWorsnop said:

Hello

I am looking to ditch the M4/3 system. I have Oly EM 5 with good quality 12-40 f2.8 and Pana 35-100 f2.8 lenses. Replacing with X t30 or 20 plus 16-80 lens looks a good option. But the 16-80 gets poor reviews for sharpness in numerous tests and reviews. The tests seem to use shots a short distance from the camera. I know it is a challenge to get top quality from a 5 times zoom but can anyone comment on the quality of the 16-80 for landscape and other out and about photography ? The price of the 16-80 compared to Fuji alternatives seems high which seems strange given the apparent lack of sharpness - at least of targets quite close.

Please don't suggest more expensive alternatives because the possible purchase will be funded mostly by selling my M4/3 equipment for about £800.

Jeff

PS I should have said that my main interest is printing to A3 or A3+ to mount in frames .

Click to expand...

The reason the lens is somewhat expensive is the same reason it isn’t so strong - it is a 5x zoom.

Click to expand...

I used to have an A Sony 16-80 years ago which was sharp but high level of distortion which maybe gives rise to my caution with the Fuji 16-80.

Click to expand...

I have the 16-80mm Fuji. It is great for what it is, but their are significant optical compromises that have to me made for a 5x zoom. No free lunches, sadly.

Click to expand...

This is just an excuse for a bad design.

The Oly 12-100 f4 has a 8.3x zoom range and it runs circles around the 16-80.

Click to expand...

More expensive. Also needs to cover a much smaller sensor.

Yannis1976 said:

The same is true of the Nikkor Z 24-200. It's not as impressive as the Oly, but it's fairly close. Much better than the Fuji while being a 8.3x zoom as well.

Click to expand...

More expensive, even though it is not constant f/4.

Yannis1976 said:

The Nikkor Z 24-120 f4 has the same range as the Fuji while being absolutely excellent optically (the best 24-120 on the market).

Click to expand...

More expensive.

Yannis1976 said:

The Panasonic 12-60 f2.8-4 is also very good optically.

Click to expand...

Again, m43 sensor is a lot smaller.

Yannis1976 said:

The Panasonic 12-60 f3.5-5.6 is a budget lens that I owned and it was also much better than the Fuji.

Click to expand...

Again, m43 sensor is a lot smaller. And slower at the tele end.

Yannis1976 said:

... and the list goes on.

Click to expand...

Would you care to list for APSC systems? At least compare apples to apples, not lenses for sensors that are much smaller than APSC (and some more expensive than the Fuji); or lenses for FF that are a lot more expensive than the Fuji.

Yannis1976 said:

So, no, the reason is not the 5x zoom range: the Fuji 16-80 is just a bad design.

Click to expand...

All designs are compromises. folks just need to select what fits their purposes and budgets. If you require a zoom which is better that the 16-80, also from Fuji, there is the 16-55 - where I live it is almost double the cost.

Click to expand...

Sorry but you are wrong:

Fuji XF 16-80 in Amazon.com costs 799$ (https://www.amazon.com/Fujinon-XF16...=1668713349&sprefix=fuji+16-80,aps,213&sr=8-1)

Nikon Z 24-200 in Nikon store in Amazon.com costs 795,96$ (https://www.amazon.com/stores/page/...89fd-9399-4187-9f92-4ba8f6bf2165&ref_=ast_bln)

So the argument against Fuji in this one remains valid. Since Nikon managed to produce a good 24-200 lens for a larger sensor and at a relatively normal size and weight, it is possible to do it also for APSC. For me, Fuji simply don't care to design and sell such a lens.

And the XF 16-55 might be sharp, but is huge, heavy, lacks a flexible focal range and also lacks OIS (needed in older models).

--
Yannis
https://www.flickr.com/photos/127079204@N06/
https://www.instagram.com/yannistzevhotmail/?hl=en
https://www.viewbug.com/member/Yannis76

Click to expand...

Jerry-astro said:

KariP said:

JeffWorsnop said:

Hello

I am looking to ditch the M4/3 system. I have Oly EM 5 with good quality 12-40 f2.8 and Pana 35-100 f2.8 lenses. Replacing with X t30 or 20 plus 16-80 lens looks a good option. But the 16-80 gets poor reviews for sharpness in numerous tests and reviews. The tests seem to use shots a short distance from the camera. I know it is a challenge to get top quality from a 5 times zoom but can anyone comment on the quality of the 16-80 for landscape and other out and about photography ? The price of the 16-80 compared to Fuji alternatives seems high which seems strange given the apparent lack of sharpness - at least of targets quite close.

Please don't suggest more expensive alternatives because the possible purchase will be funded mostly by selling my M4/3 equipment for about £800.

Jeff

PS I should have said that my main interest is printing to A3 or A3+ to mount in frames .

Click to expand...

I have used a 18-55 for several years starting first with X-E1. I have made A3+ prints with an Epson printer . Quality of that lens has been really good enough. There were some quality issues with that lens - I believe I got a good copy.

16-80 is very likely also good enough for A3+ prints. Some testers say that the long end of the lens is not stellar. Check "Optical Limits" site. I would take Fujinon 18-55.

In some tests the praised Fujinon 16 - 55f2,8 is not so much praised...too expensive. Well built and heavy, no OIS

Do you need OIS ? I need

Click to expand...

I’d have to disagree with that. If you are using a camera with IBIS, OIS is unnecessary and redundant. The 16-55 is superb, and for me, the weight is a complete non issue. I find the handling to be very comfortable… obviously YMMV. The IQ across its FL range, IMHO, is significantly superior to the 18-55, and I’ve owned and used both. I’ve also read similar reports from others here for years now. Stabilization is not an issue if your camera happens to have IBIS (as does both my previous X-H1 and the X-H2s that I’m currently using).

Bottom line: under no circumstances would I swap my 16-55 with the 18-55 I owned previously, and I found the IQ differences between the two to be noticeably in favor of the 16-55. I’ve rarely found much in the way of criticism of the 16-55 with respect to its IQ. Whether the weight and handling is an issue is a very individual thing… it’s never been a problem for me at all.

Click to expand...

KariP said:

Jerry-astro said:

KariP said:

JeffWorsnop said:

Hello

I am looking to ditch the M4/3 system. I have Oly EM 5 with good quality 12-40 f2.8 and Pana 35-100 f2.8 lenses. Replacing with X t30 or 20 plus 16-80 lens looks a good option. But the 16-80 gets poor reviews for sharpness in numerous tests and reviews. The tests seem to use shots a short distance from the camera. I know it is a challenge to get top quality from a 5 times zoom but can anyone comment on the quality of the 16-80 for landscape and other out and about photography ? The price of the 16-80 compared to Fuji alternatives seems high which seems strange given the apparent lack of sharpness - at least of targets quite close.

Please don't suggest more expensive alternatives because the possible purchase will be funded mostly by selling my M4/3 equipment for about £800.

Jeff

PS I should have said that my main interest is printing to A3 or A3+ to mount in frames .

Click to expand...

I have used a 18-55 for several years starting first with X-E1. I have made A3+ prints with an Epson printer . Quality of that lens has been really good enough. There were some quality issues with that lens - I believe I got a good copy.

16-80 is very likely also good enough for A3+ prints. Some testers say that the long end of the lens is not stellar. Check "Optical Limits" site. I would take Fujinon 18-55.

In some tests the praised Fujinon 16 - 55f2,8 is not so much praised...too expensive. Well built and heavy, no OIS

Do you need OIS ? I need

Click to expand...

I’d have to disagree with that. If you are using a camera with IBIS, OIS is unnecessary and redundant. The 16-55 is superb, and for me, the weight is a complete non issue. I find the handling to be very comfortable… obviously YMMV. The IQ across its FL range, IMHO, is significantly superior to the 18-55, and I’ve owned and used both. I’ve also read similar reports from others here for years now. Stabilization is not an issue if your camera happens to have IBIS (as does both my previous X-H1 and the X-H2s that I’m currently using).

Bottom line: under no circumstances would I swap my 16-55 with the 18-55 I owned previously, and I found the IQ differences between the two to be noticeably in favor of the 16-55. I’ve rarely found much in the way of criticism of the 16-55 with respect to its IQ. Whether the weight and handling is an issue is a very individual thing… it’s never been a problem for me at all.

Click to expand...

I think T30 or 20 was mentioned above and I did not know they have IBIS. OP had also some budget limitations - I did think of him and his wallet ;-) ;-) . Not trying to insult your dear lens. ;-)

I really do not believe in some personal experiences like - "I know my lens is better than yours". Very likely 16-55 is a good lens , but it was not shining in some tests. 18-55 is affordable OIS lens and my experience says, that A3+ landscape prints will look good. Do not have "the brick" - perhaps I just do not know...

Click to expand...