Quick comparison of the 18-55 vs 16-55

As the title says, this is a brief comparison of my XF 18-55 and XF 16-55. This is not a scientific comparison, I tried to replicate shooting conditions between both lenses but I was handholding the camera in each shot so it's not exact. UV filter was on both lenses but the one of the 18-55 is older (maybe this affected my results a bit, maybe not).

I decided to have a little Christmas tree showdown as I found the rendering differences between the two lenses were quite interesting. The XF 16-55 seems to be much more contrasty compared to the XF 18-55, and my copy of the XF 18-55 seems to be more affected by the lighting in the background than the other lens.
Since I've heard so much about the IQ of the XF 18-55, I was curious to see if other people's experience was different and how their copy compared to the XF 16-55 (if they owned both).

All shots were captured in Velvia with the same settings (except the 55mm pic where I was at a slightly higher ISO with the 16-55). I'll add some thoughts on each comparison pic but would like to hear your thoughts on this (casual) comparison.


XF 16-55 at (roughly) 18mm


XF 18-55mm at 18mm

18mm comparison:

Images seem much more contrasty with the XF 16-55. Strangely, the XF 18-55 seems to do a tiny bit better on the extreme corner of the picture (bottom left) with the little bear on the floor, maybe this was a focus issue. I feel the XF 18-55 could have a touch of contrast and almost get the same look at the XF 16-55 here. Detail seems to be a bit better on the XF 16-55 (to be expected).


XF 16-55 at 35mm


XF 18-55 at 35mm

35mm comparison:

I think my XF 16-55 copy performs stronger at 35mm than at the wide end. I think this image is a clearer win for the 16-55, as the image seems to be sharp across the whole frame and the corners do much better than the 18-55. If you look at the little bear in the bottom left, it's much clearer.


XF 16-55 at 55mm (ISO 500)


XF 18-55 at 55mm (ISO 320)

55mm comparison:

Again, I think it's a big difference when viewing at 100%. The image is sharper across the frame and doesn't suffer from as much glare as the XF 18-55. Sharpness in the centre is a bit better than the 18-55 but the sharpness at the top of the image is noticeably different. I tried to frame these as closely as I could, but it wasn't exact.

Also, as I was making this comparison, I turned around and saw a little bird was perched on a feeder outside. I decided to take a quick pic:


XF 50-230 with sharpening via Topaz Sharpen AI


XF 50-230 with sharpening via Topaz Sharpen AI

I guess the lesson to learn is, gear comparisons and pixel peeping are fine but don't forget to look outside the window once in a while

One reason the 18-55 has such mixed reactions is its field curvature at 18. It is sharp at the edges if you focus there, but if you focus in the centre corners on that plane are blurry.

The flip side of that is the corners nearer the camera end up sharper. It can be used to your advantage.

Well your 16-55 is better as expected but the filter on the 18-55 is clearly affecting it with the glare coming in from the left. Take them both off and try again. No idea why people still use UV filters.

Nice comparison - and bonus shots, Arjun. I also agree with the two posts following.

The field curvature on the 18-55 not only exists at 18mm wide open, but is still there up to about 23mm unless you stop down to at least f/4.5 roughly. The lens is also not one I'd prefer to shoot from 50mm onwards when I have other choices. However, given its size and quality of build I'm happy to have it with me for casual shooting, traveling light and in the majority of its zoom range. Keep in mind that the OIS tends to work out a bit better in low light social situations (unless you have an IBIS body of course).

As for UV and skylight filters, I also agree that even with high quality ones I'd avoid their use unless you are going into dusty, windy conditions; the IQ penalty is not worth it. Hoods offer similar protection and actually improve IQ! And, as my conversion to their use was only a few years ago, you get used to having them on the lens sooner than you'd guess.

maltmoose said:

Well your 16-55 is better as expected but the filter on the 18-55 is clearly affecting it with the glare coming in from the left. Take them both off and try again. No idea why people still use UV filters.

Click to expand...

Alrighty, I will try again tomorrow without the filter.

I guess it's habit, I've always used a UV filter similar to a screen protector on a phone. It wasn't intentional but I remember being on holiday a few months ago and I had a lens lying on my bed (with the filter on). Someone threw a bag on the same bed and the lens rolled off before I could catch it. The UV filter got warped and it cracked, but the lens was ok. Whether the lens would've been tough enough to survive the hit on it's own, I'm not sure - carelessness is the reason it fell, but the filter did save my bacon.

JNR said:

Nice comparison - and bonus shots, Arjun. I also agree with the two posts following.

The field curvature on the 18-55 not only exists at 18mm wide open, but is still there up to about 23mm unless you stop down to at least f/4.5 roughly. The lens is also not one I'd prefer to shoot from 50mm onwards when I have other choices. However, given its size and quality of build I'm happy to have it with me for casual shooting, traveling light and in the majority of its zoom range. Keep in mind that the OIS tends to work out a bit better in low light social situations (unless you have an IBIS body of course).

As for UV and skylight filters, I also agree that even with high quality ones I'd avoid their use unless you are going into dusty, windy conditions; the IQ penalty is not worth it. Hoods offer similar protection and actually improve IQ! And, as my conversion to their use was only a few years ago, you get used to having them on the lens sooner than you'd guess.

Click to expand...

That's very interesting, if you have to stop down to negate the effects then it sort of counteracts the whole 18mm F2.8 selling point a bit (mind you, the lens was bundled with the camera so it was cheap overall). Also yes I've noticed it's not too strong at 50mm+ (but, this may be down to the filter).

It's a bit of a habit for me to use them, as it gives a certain level of assurance in case anything happens (see above). What about CPL filters? I've heard they help colours pop more and increase contrast. I'm still learning so will try and put some of these suggestions into play, like the use of the lens without a UV filter.

As per the OP I use UV filters in a similar way to screen protectors and conversely am surprised when people don’t. I suppose part of it has something do with having younger children who at one point would have ensured all my lenses had a regular layer of sticky fingerprints, had there not been a filter in the way and I suspect that kind of frequency of cleaning the front element would soon have started to remove coatings.

The kids are older now and it’s probably not such a concern.. but it’s rare that I notice the filters having such a detrimental effect, compared to what could potentially happen to unprotected lenses.

Arjun_R_1 said:

JNR said:

Nice comparison - and bonus shots, Arjun. I also agree with the two posts following.

The field curvature on the 18-55 not only exists at 18mm wide open, but is still there up to about 23mm unless you stop down to at least f/4.5 roughly. The lens is also not one I'd prefer to shoot from 50mm onwards when I have other choices. However, given its size and quality of build I'm happy to have it with me for casual shooting, traveling light and in the majority of its zoom range. Keep in mind that the OIS tends to work out a bit better in low light social situations (unless you have an IBIS body of course).

As for UV and skylight filters, I also agree that even with high quality ones I'd avoid their use unless you are going into dusty, windy conditions; the IQ penalty is not worth it. Hoods offer similar protection and actually improve IQ! And, as my conversion to their use was only a few years ago, you get used to having them on the lens sooner than you'd guess.

Click to expand...

That's very interesting, if you have to stop down to negate the effects then it sort of counteracts the whole 18mm F2.8 selling point a bit (mind you, the lens was bundled with the camera so it was cheap overall). Also yes I've noticed it's not too strong at 50mm+ (but, this may be down to the filter).

It's a bit of a habit for me to use them, as it gives a certain level of assurance in case anything happens (see above). What about CPL filters? I've heard they help colours pop more and increase contrast. I'm still learning so will try and put some of these suggestions into play, like the use of the lens without a UV filter.

Click to expand...

Keep in mind that field curvature is really only an issue when you need to have an entire frame width in focus - typically shooting landscapes or architecture - and if you're serious about that kind of photography good primes are the best way to go. As someone else mentioned, you can even use field curvature to your advantage if you get a lucky perspective situation.

Yes, a CPL is helpful in limited situations. Used to be needed a lot of the time back in the film days. If you shoot RAW, you can get some of that in processing for typical shots with a good converter but the CPL is needed for glare elimination (windows and water most often). Not every CPL is worth the price, and some cheap ones are quite good (look for tests on line).

I mention this because five decades ago I worked in a camera store and filters were the highest mark-up items we sold. That's why people thought they were essential back then - filter selling kept many a store in business longer over the years!

Threaded said:

As per the OP I use UV filters in a similar way to screen protectors and conversely am surprised when people don’t. I suppose part of it has something do with having younger children who at one point would have ensured all my lenses had a regular layer of sticky fingerprints, had there not been a filter in the way and I suspect that kind of frequency of cleaning the front element would soon have started to remove coatings.

The kids are older now and it’s probably not such a concern.. but it’s rare that I notice the filters having such a detrimental effect, compared to what could potentially happen to unprotected lenses.

Click to expand...

Thats fair enough, but in that case id use high quality protection filters instead of uv filters.

But really the main reason i posted is because ive seen several posts over the years, testing their lenses, do comparison etc with unexpected results because they have used a filter of some kind. Sometimes it appears they dont even realise the difference until its pointed out to them.

Hi,

It's always good practice to test your own gear. I bought my original XT1 and 18-55 as kit but mostly used primes for quite a few years and kept the zoom for family travel. I eventually had to answer the 16-55 questions for myself.... Was it significantly better than my 18-55? And was it as good as the 'bag of primes'?

I found the comparison between the zooms more complex than expected. It simply wasn't as clear as many forum posts here suggested. I found the differences greatest wide open at 18mm. The 16-55 was clearly the better lens at that point. The differences diminished as I either a) zoomed to longer FLs or b) stopped down at any FL. At the long end my 16-55 was very soft specifically at f2.8, but recovered to be indistinguishable from my 18-55 at f4 and down.

I concluded that my 16-55 was indeed as good as a bag of (f2.8) primes in its wider half, but not in its longer half, and that neither zoom was as good as my 50mm or 60mm. (I don't own the 56mm.) There were a few other issues for me. The 16-55 is not a one lens solution if you like close-up images. It doesn't focus to any decent magnification (as zooms go) and it doesn't play nicely with close-up accessories like extension tubes and CU lenses. I didn't enjoy the prospect of buying 77mm filters either.

I also learned that after 6 months use, I disliked the size and weight of the 16-55 on camera. I didn't mind the weight in the case - it's lighter than the four primes it replaces. I didn't like the forward balance and overall weight on-camera. The XT4 and 16-55 weigh about 1.3Kg - not what I left the DSLR world for. I sold it, returned to primes, and kept the 18-55 for family travel (making the mental note to generally avoid using it wide open around 18mm - 23mm). So much smaller and lighter.

On filters generally, I'd say always test your own - all of them. Shoot a detailed scene from a tripod, at a sharp aperture, in good light, with the filter on and then off, and pixel peep at high magnification - you'll have your answer. Then ask what sized print that magnification represented. If you can just, just, see an impact at 200% - a six foot by four foot print - is it worth worrying about? There is no one outcome. Some filters affect some lenses. Some don't. Personally, I continued using clear filters. I've lost count of the number I've thrown out over the years. Use a hood to achieve what hoods were designed for - glare and flare suppression. Be aware they offer zero protection against windblown sand, salt, spray, or helicopter wash, and very little protection from small children.

Regards, Rod