Worth swapping the 16-80 f/4 kit lens for the 16-55 f/2.8 lens?

To me, it was not worth it.

A few months ago, I accidentally dropped my 16-80, which decentered it quite badly, and only a few days before a photo vacation. At the same time, a used 16-55 popped up for an unusually good price. So I ended up taking the 16-55 on vacation instead of my usual 16-80.

For the entire vacation, I was annoyed at the 16-55's weight, and lack of stabilisation (on my X-T3). My wrist actually started hurting, probably because the 16-55 is not only bulkier, but also much more front-heavy than the 16-80. It requires a different hand posture to hold, and one-handed shooting is no longer comfortable.

Coming back and looking at the pictures, I wasn't impressed. Sure, they were sharp and contrasty and such. But not noticeably moreso than what I usually get from the 16-80. I guess the corners at 16mm were better, if you squint really hsrd, but there are much simpler solutions to that problem than carrying the brick. Come to think of it, I can't actually remember any image where that fabled corner softness of the 16-80 actually meaningfully impacted any of my images.

In practice, found the additional stop of light at f/2.8 almost negligible. There are only very few things that are made possible by just one stop difference. On the flip side, I actually prefer the 16-80's smoother/smaller bokeh over the 16-55's larger, but rougher one.

Later on, I actually bought an add-on grip for the X-T3, to give the 16-55 another chance. But frankly, there just aren't any situations where that small (hypothetical) improvement in corner sharpness at 16mm is actually worth the weight and inconvenience for me. If I need more light, I'd rather take a bright prime.

I've had both on a few cameras now. Currently I have the 16-80, I prefer it because of that fact it goes to 80mm rather than 55mm. I do want a faster lens but I will get primes and keep the 16-80. Do you need f2.8? Maybe the 18-55 f2.8-f4 would be better and cheaper?

I originally swapped the 18-55 for the 16-55 on my XT3 and for the price difference and weight penalty I really didn't see much point for me personally. I'm not going to get a longer lens than the 80mm so the 16-80mm covers everything I need focal length wise and then I will add fast primes.

Hi,

I can't say anything about the 16-80. I had the 18-55 before I bought the 16-55. Big, big step not only because of sharpness but about every other aspect. The 16-55 especially shines when the light is tricky.

Last year I went on various trios with the 16-80, and its flexibility and quality is hard to beat. If you don't mind the extra weight, need f/2.8, and don't need OIS and 80mm, then yes, the 16-55 is another very good lens.

What the 16-80 lacks in sharpness at the extremes, it returns in versatility. I like the OIS, the added range and the smaller weight compared to the 16-55. That 77mm filter is pretty fat when inside the bag.

If your purpose is to do indoors portraits, then perhaps a fast f/1.4 prime could be a better option. Not only does it give you many extra stops of light, the corners are better and the rendering is usually more pleasing, and at a lower weight too.

I use my primes for low light or portraits, or when I want to have a lightweight kit (35/1.4, 14/2.8). The 16-80 is my one-lens-travel-solution or when I'm just lazy.

So try to think of what use cases you want to cover. And perhaps some nice deal turns up one day, who knows. Second hand could be a good way to keep your finances healthy.

Erik Baumgartner said:

majosm said:

Erik Baumgartner said:

Papa48 said:

I owned a 16-80 for over a year. It’s a good, but not great lens. I shot mainly landscapes, seascapes, along with some portraits and events. The edge sharpness was never quite there outdoors, and I found it a bit front heavy. The 16-55 is highly prized by a majority of reviewers in this community. If the size, weight and cost are fine for you, it would perform excellently for your needs.

Click to expand...

You must have bad copy. Mine is very sharp across the frame, even wide open at f/2.8. The wide end is as good or better than almost any prime, the long end is very good as well less so in the corners wide wide open, but you aren't going to be shooting many landscapes wide open at longer focal lengths anyway.


Even wide open at f/2.8, the edge sharpness looks pretty damn good to me - at 16mm here.


Stopped down to f/9 for landscape DOF, still pretty good edge sharpness here at 47mm too.

Click to expand...

Hold on, these are with the 16-55. Was Papa48 referring to that or the 16-80 as “good, but not great”? Sounds to me like the latter.

Click to expand...

Wow, I totally misread that. You’re right, he was talking about the 16-80, not the 16-55 (which these examples were shot with). Apologies Papa48, I’m an idiot today.

Click to expand...

No worries. Your posts are otherwise 100% great and helpful. I read many of them.

If you have a body with IBIS, yes, but it is a modest gain. If not then no, definately not.

TumblingTiger said:

I recently purchased an X-T5 with the 16-80mm f/4 kit lens, which is solid and I'm pleased with it. However, I'm thinking about selling that lens and getting a Fujifilm 16-55 f/2.8 lens instead just to get a bit of a wider aperture lens.

Can anyone else who's made this switch share any opinions on whether any upgrade in pic quality is worth the extra weight (and price) of the f/2.8 lens--and also whether the fact there's no IS in the f/2.8 lens makes any noticeable difference since the X-T5 has IBIS anyway?

I'd also welcome any opinions on how well-balanced the X-T5 feels with the larger f/2.8 lens compared to the f/4.

Thanks!

Click to expand...

I have both. Let's just say that the 16-80 is my main lens for walking around. It's lack of stabilization and its size prohibits its use on my x-pro3. It works well on my new X-H2, but still stick on the 16-80. Post can take care of most of the 16-80's shortcomings compared to the 16-55. If I need to shoot in reduced light, I'll use my f/1.4 primes. I really ought to sell the 16-55. It just sits in my bag......

Marc

--
Marc Weinberg Photography

It probably depends to some extent on what you're photographing. I shoot portraits and events for a living and I have the 16-55 2.8 almost permanently attached to my XT3. That set up is my go to outdoor location system along with the 90 f2.

Right now the 16-55 is on my XT 20. I have some travel coming up and I just wanted to see what that combo was like. I also have a pretty good copy of the 18-55 that I could use for that.

I would like to try that Tamron 17-70 lens but can't really justify the expense.

I had the 16-80 but not the 16-55, which I ruled out as I went from Sony FF to Fuji to lighten my load. I was disappointed with the 16-80 -- maybe a bad copy -- but the worst was the long end. I found anything over 70mm quite soft. I traded that for the Tamron 17-70 and found its IQ noticeable better than the (my) 16-80; and it's 2.8 and lighter than the 16-55. I would like to hear from those who have the Tamron and compared it to either the 16-55 or 16-80.

Michael Everett said:

I had the 16-80 but not the 16-55, which I ruled out as I went from Sony FF to Fuji to lighten my load. I was disappointed with the 16-80 -- maybe a bad copy -- but the worst was the long end. I found anything over 70mm quite soft. I traded that for the Tamron 17-70 and found its IQ noticeable better than the (my) 16-80; and it's 2.8 and lighter than the 16-55. I would like to hear from those who have the Tamron and compared it to either the 16-55 or 16-80.

Click to expand...

Did you calculate weight difference? Went from Fuji X-T2 (16-80 / 13 mm) to Sony FF A7IV (24-105 / 20mm) and Sony kit with two lenses weights just 200g more. At the same time 24-105 from Sony has much better IQ than 16-80.

[No message]

[No message]

TumblingTiger said:

rmcdonough said:

On the downside, it's big and heavy. It's very close to diminishing the advantages of an APS-C sensor and smaller lenses. I'm still rocking an X-T2, so I have no IS whatsoever but it had rarely been a problem. On my last trip to Portugal, I opted to take the 18-55 instead as it's lighter and attracts less attention. But if I were back in a place with tougher weather conditions, the 16-55 would be with me. It is built like a tank. While it is a beast of a lease, I find it well balanced on the X-T2, so I think you'd be fine with the X-T5. If you had an X-T30, then I'd say it's be awkwardly balanced.

Click to expand...

Yes, I did try out the 16-55 f/2.8 on the X-T5 at the Fuji store yesterday, and surprisingly, the extra weight didn't bother me tremendously, but it did feel a bit front-heavy.

TumblingTiger said:

I think it boils down to what you want to do with the lens. If it's just for travel, you might want to consider the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 or hang on to the 16-80. The Sigma lens has certainly piqued my interest, but it's not as rugged as the 16-55 f/2.8. The 16-80 f/4.0 is solid, but f/4.0 might be too slow, but the added reach is a bonus.

Click to expand...

I will not be traveling with the X-T5--this is just for use locally. I'm trying to stick with Fuji lenses for now. I also don't often need the extra 55-80 range.

One concern about the 16-55 f/2.8 was that it doesn't have IS, although the X-T5 does have IBIS.

Thanks!

Click to expand...

I really don’t miss having stabilization with my X-T2 at all with the 16-55, but the X-T5 has IBIS, so no worries there.

Papa48 said:

I owned a 16-80 for over a year. It’s a good, but not great lens. I shot mainly landscapes, seascapes, along with some portraits and events. The edge sharpness was never quite there outdoors, and I found it a bit front heavy. The 16-55 is highly prized by a majority of reviewers in this community. If the size, weight and cost are fine for you, it would perform excellently for your needs.

Click to expand...

I have owned the 16-55 for some time, but I only kept the 16-80 long enough to determine that it seemed to lack sharpness in the telephoto end.

If I didn't already own the 50-140, it would have been a harder choice. Meaning the zoom range possibilities by packing the 16-55 and the 50-140 gave me everything I need. Of course at the expense of weight on my shoulder packing two lenses. :-D

My X-T2 doesn't have IBIS and it's generally not been a problem. I'd like to see what the lens can do on a body like X-T4 or X-T5. The only times I wish I had IBIS is in low light and I don't have a tripod. But even in those situations, it's not been a problem overall. The lens is killer optically.

PROval said:

Michael Everett said:

I had the 16-80 but not the 16-55, which I ruled out as I went from Sony FF to Fuji to lighten my load. I was disappointed with the 16-80 -- maybe a bad copy -- but the worst was the long end. I found anything over 70mm quite soft. I traded that for the Tamron 17-70 and found its IQ noticeable better than the (my) 16-80; and it's 2.8 and lighter than the 16-55. I would like to hear from those who have the Tamron and compared it to either the 16-55 or 16-80.

Click to expand...

Did you calculate weight difference? Went from Fuji X-T2 (16-80 / 13 mm) to Sony FF A7IV (24-105 / 20mm) and Sony kit with two lenses weights just 200g more. At the same time 24-105 from Sony has much better IQ than 16-80.

Click to expand...

400 grammes et non 200 grammes

I have had experience of both lenses but favour the 16-55 although there is perhaps a case for both with that extra reach of the 16-80 as a walkabout lens. The sharpness and quality of the 16-55 is far better in my opinion and balances really well on my XH2. I also own the 50-14 F/2.8 and will probably only need something like the Viltrox 13mm F/1.4 to complete my setup. If you can afford it, the 16-55 is certainly one of Fuji’s finest lens.