Reading mode: Light Dark

New Fuji 16-50 F2.8-4.8 vs Sigma 18-50 F2.8

Go to last post
stevesayskanpai said:
Just watched Gordon Laing's review of this new lens. Appears as tho all things considered the Sigma is the better choice? But it's close.

Fuji - wider lens, slightly smaller and lighter, better for landscapes?

Sigma - faster lens, cheaper, better for street?

Your thoughts? This would be to add to the 15-45 I already have.
Click to expand...
Based on Gordon Laing's review my subjective opinion is that:
If 16-18mm range is important for you, then it might be a justified reason to prefer Fuji's new kit lens.
Generally Gordon Laing did let us know that new Fuji kit is definitely a nice and useful lens, but it's not the champion in terms of optical quality at all.
And my personal subjective opinion is that there are no serious reasons to pay neither 799 Euro nor 699 USD for this lens. But it's not so bad idea to buy it together with new body for 300...400 USD but no more...
 
stevesayskanpai said:
Just watched Gordon Laing's review of this new lens. Appears as tho all things considered the Sigma is the better choice? But it's close.

Fuji - wider lens, slightly smaller and lighter, better for landscapes?

Sigma - faster lens, cheaper, better for street?

Your thoughts? This would be to add to the 15-45 I already have.
Click to expand...
 
Morris0 said:
Sigma lenses zoom in the opposite direction of Fuji. I personally get confused and miss moments because of this. Sigma needs to regear there lenses to match the native mount lenses.

Morris
Click to expand...
Zoom direction might be really important for professionals, but I know no one amateur who really cares about this.
 
stevesayskanpai said:
Just watched Gordon Laing's review of this new lens. Appears as tho all things considered the Sigma is the better choice? But it's close.

Fuji - wider lens, slightly smaller and lighter, better for landscapes?

Sigma - faster lens, cheaper, better for street?

Your thoughts? This would be to add to the 15-45 I already have.
Click to expand...
I am buying the new 16-50 as a bundle with either the X-T50 or X-T5 camera body. Nice to have 16mm on the wide end and having WR is also nice for use with camera bodies with WR in a small travel kit for use outdoors during daylight hours.

My Sigma 18-50/2.8 gets a lot of use over my XF 16-55/2.8. This is especially true when I have wider than 18mm covered by other lens in my kit (e.g., Sigma 10-18/2.8) and there is little chance of rain.

If I can only pick one, I would go for the Sigma.
 
Pictures shooter said:
stevesayskanpai said:
Just watched Gordon Laing's review of this new lens. Appears as tho all things considered the Sigma is the better choice? But it's close.

Fuji - wider lens, slightly smaller and lighter, better for landscapes?

Sigma - faster lens, cheaper, better for street?

Your thoughts? This would be to add to the 15-45 I already have.
Click to expand...
Based on Gordon Laing's review my subjective opinion is that:
If 16-18mm range is important for you, then it might be a justified reason to prefer Fuji's new kit lens.
Generally Gordon Laing did let us know that new Fuji kit is definitely a nice and useful lens, but it's not the champion in terms of optical quality at all.
And my personal subjective opinion is that there are no serious reasons to pay neither 799 Euro nor 699 USD for this lens. But it's not so bad idea to buy it together with new body for 300...400 USD but no more...
Click to expand...
I do not agree with your reasoning because you are not taking inflation in to account nor the fact that the new XF 16-50 2.8-4.8 goes wider and is optically superior to the old XF 18-55 and is also weather sealed. The XF 18-55 was introduced in a dozen years ago in 2012 at the same $699 price as the new XF 16-50. Indexing for inflation the introductory $699 price of the XF 18-55 would be approximately $950 US in todays money. I'm grateful to Fujifilm that they kept the price down of their new kit lens to 2012 prices and improved the lens as well. Nothing to complain about there.
All things considered, the XF 16-50 f2.8-4.8 is a good value at $699 in todays money, and a steal at $400 in a kit.
 
jonikon said:
Pictures shooter said:
stevesayskanpai said:
Just watched Gordon Laing's review of this new lens. Appears as tho all things considered the Sigma is the better choice? But it's close.

Fuji - wider lens, slightly smaller and lighter, better for landscapes?

Sigma - faster lens, cheaper, better for street?

Your thoughts? This would be to add to the 15-45 I already have.
Click to expand...
Based on Gordon Laing's review my subjective opinion is that:
If 16-18mm range is important for you, then it might be a justified reason to prefer Fuji's new kit lens.
Generally Gordon Laing did let us know that new Fuji kit is definitely a nice and useful lens, but it's not the champion in terms of optical quality at all.
And my personal subjective opinion is that there are no serious reasons to pay neither 799 Euro nor 699 USD for this lens. But it's not so bad idea to buy it together with new body for 300...400 USD but no more...
Click to expand...
I do not agree with your reasoning because you are not taking inflation in to account nor the fact that the new XF 16-50 2.8-4.8 goes wider and is optically superior to the old XF 18-55 and is also weather sealed. The XF 18-55 was introduced in a dozen years ago in 2012 at the same $699 price as the new XF 16-50. Indexing for inflation the introductory $699 price of the XF 18-55 would be approximately $950 US in todays money. I'm grateful to Fujifilm that they kept the price down of their new kit lens to 2012 prices and improved the lens as well. Nothing to complain about there.
All things considered, the XF 16-50 f2.8-4.8 is a good value at $699 in todays money, and a steal at $400 in a kit.
Click to expand...
Well, I would agree your considerations concerning inflation. It's all true, of course.
But can't be sure about your statement that new lens is optically superior to the old.
It appears that no one reviewer has yet performed a direct head-to-head comparison for the pair of old and new lenses we're discussing here.
Generally, no doubts new lens looks nice and been useful, but it's clear to me that new lens is not optically perfect.
Gordon Laing recommends closing aperture up to two stops to improve obvious edge softness.
Necessity to close strongly aperture to get acceptable degree of sharpness is typically a clear sign of non-perfect lens' optical quality.
 
Pictures shooter said:
jonikon said:
Pictures shooter said:
stevesayskanpai said:
Just watched Gordon Laing's review of this new lens. Appears as tho all things considered the Sigma is the better choice? But it's close.

Fuji - wider lens, slightly smaller and lighter, better for landscapes?

Sigma - faster lens, cheaper, better for street?

Your thoughts? This would be to add to the 15-45 I already have.
Click to expand...
Based on Gordon Laing's review my subjective opinion is that:
If 16-18mm range is important for you, then it might be a justified reason to prefer Fuji's new kit lens.
Generally Gordon Laing did let us know that new Fuji kit is definitely a nice and useful lens, but it's not the champion in terms of optical quality at all.
And my personal subjective opinion is that there are no serious reasons to pay neither 799 Euro nor 699 USD for this lens. But it's not so bad idea to buy it together with new body for 300...400 USD but no more...
Click to expand...
I do not agree with your reasoning because you are not taking inflation in to account nor the fact that the new XF 16-50 2.8-4.8 goes wider and is optically superior to the old XF 18-55 and is also weather sealed. The XF 18-55 was introduced in a dozen years ago in 2012 at the same $699 price as the new XF 16-50. Indexing for inflation the introductory $699 price of the XF 18-55 would be approximately $950 US in todays money. I'm grateful to Fujifilm that they kept the price down of their new kit lens to 2012 prices and improved the lens as well. Nothing to complain about there.
All things considered, the XF 16-50 f2.8-4.8 is a good value at $699 in todays money, and a steal at $400 in a kit.
Click to expand...
Well, I would agree your considerations concerning inflation. It's all true, of course.
But can't be sure about your statement that new lens is optically superior to the old.
It appears that no one reviewer has yet performed a direct head-to-head comparison for the pair of old and new lenses we're discussing here.
Click to expand...
The XF 16-50 has two more extra-low dispersion (ED) glass elements than the 18-55 with three elements rather than one. So a higher quality lens by design.

Also DPR has stated the XF 16-50 is sharper than its predecessor

"and it's sharper than the outgoing version, making it a better fit for the 40MP X-series cameras." https://www.dpreview.com/news/4965051090/fujifilm-updates-16-50mm-f2-8-4-8-r-lm-wr-premium-kit-lens
Pictures shooter said:
Generally, no doubts new lens looks nice and been useful, but it's clear to me that new lens is not optically perfect.
Click to expand...
I have read a lot of lens reviews over many years, but I don't recall any of the stating a lens as "perfect"
Pictures shooter said:
Gordon Laing recommends closing aperture up to two stops to improve obvious edge softness.
Click to expand...
Stopping down to get better edge sharpness is typical for almost all lenses, even prime lenses, and especially zoom lenses. Nothing new there.
Pictures shooter said:
Necessity to close strongly aperture to get acceptable degree of sharpness is typically a clear sign of non-perfect lens' optical quality.
Click to expand...
It all depends on what one considers acceptable sharpness and at what aperture. So you have already decided this lens is not for you, which is your prerogative.

I am going to wait for a real quantitative test of the XF 16-50 however, before passing judgement on its optical performance, rather than based on one persons subjective opinion of one copy of the lens. I think that is the fair and prudent thing to do.
 
Pictures shooter said:
But can't be sure about your statement that new lens is optically superior to the old.
It appears that no one reviewer has yet performed a direct head-to-head comparison for the pair of old and new lenses we're discussing here.
Click to expand...
Richard Wong did direct comparison between old and new kit lens:

 
Pictures shooter said:
jonikon said:
Pictures shooter said:
stevesayskanpai said:
Just watched Gordon Laing's review of this new lens. Appears as tho all things considered the Sigma is the better choice? But it's close.

Fuji - wider lens, slightly smaller and lighter, better for landscapes?

Sigma - faster lens, cheaper, better for street?

Your thoughts? This would be to add to the 15-45 I already have.
Click to expand...
Based on Gordon Laing's review my subjective opinion is that:
If 16-18mm range is important for you, then it might be a justified reason to prefer Fuji's new kit lens.
Generally Gordon Laing did let us know that new Fuji kit is definitely a nice and useful lens, but it's not the champion in terms of optical quality at all.
And my personal subjective opinion is that there are no serious reasons to pay neither 799 Euro nor 699 USD for this lens. But it's not so bad idea to buy it together with new body for 300...400 USD but no more...
Click to expand...
I do not agree with your reasoning because you are not taking inflation in to account nor the fact that the new XF 16-50 2.8-4.8 goes wider and is optically superior to the old XF 18-55 and is also weather sealed. The XF 18-55 was introduced in a dozen years ago in 2012 at the same $699 price as the new XF 16-50. Indexing for inflation the introductory $699 price of the XF 18-55 would be approximately $950 US in todays money. I'm grateful to Fujifilm that they kept the price down of their new kit lens to 2012 prices and improved the lens as well. Nothing to complain about there.
All things considered, the XF 16-50 f2.8-4.8 is a good value at $699 in todays money, and a steal at $400 in a kit.
Click to expand...
Well, I would agree your considerations concerning inflation. It's all true, of course.
But can't be sure about your statement that new lens is optically superior to the old.
It appears that no one reviewer has yet performed a direct head-to-head comparison for the pair of old and new lenses we're discussing here.
Generally, no doubts new lens looks nice and been useful, but it's clear to me that new lens is not optically perfect.
Click to expand...
If you were expecting optical perfection in a standard zoom with 58mm filter size at around 800 EUR, you need to revisit your assumptions. Such lenses cost almost 3000 EUR for other systems like Nikon, Canon, and Sony.
Pictures shooter said:
Gordon Laing recommends closing aperture up to two stops to improve obvious edge softness.
Click to expand...
Which is normal for such a lens category.
Pictures shooter said:
Necessity to close strongly aperture to get acceptable degree of sharpness is typically a clear sign of non-perfect lens' optical quality.
Click to expand...
Even top quality lenses benefit from closing down. Especially zooms, and in corners. People obsess with corners, but how often are you placing your main subject there? For landscapes, you will be at f/8 or f/11 anyway. For street, around f/5.6 or f/8. For portraits, are you placing people in the corners? This is a mid class kit zoom, with its inherent compromises, nothing new.
 
Pictures shooter said:
Morris0 said:
Sigma lenses zoom in the opposite direction of Fuji. I personally get confused and miss moments because of this. Sigma needs to regear there lenses to match the native mount lenses.

Morris
Click to expand...
Zoom direction might be really important for professionals, but I know no one amateur who really cares about this.
Click to expand...
I do
 
BeatX said:
Pictures shooter said:
But can't be sure about your statement that new lens is optically superior to the old.
It appears that no one reviewer has yet performed a direct head-to-head comparison for the pair of old and new lenses we're discussing here.
Click to expand...
Richard Wong did direct comparison between old and new kit lens:

Click to expand...
I thought his review was pretty fair. I have looked at a couple of reviews, admittedly most seem to be pre-production copies, and on balance, at this early stage, the improvements are enough for me to have placed an order yesterday. I have the old 18-55, which has severed me well. The general consensus that its optical performance has improved image quality, even if only by a little for the 40Mp sensor, combined with 16mm and WR for my use-case of hiking with a XT5, were enough to persuade me.

But as other posters here have said, there is no such thing as a perfect lens, especially at this price point and for a general purpose zoom lens. For me the improvements are good enough.

As a pre-order only gets me on a waiting list and we are unlikely to see lenses in the real world for at least a month, I have time to review me decision if and when other reviews emerge.
 
biza43 said:
Pictures shooter said:
jonikon said:
Pictures shooter said:
stevesayskanpai said:
Just watched Gordon Laing's review of this new lens. Appears as tho all things considered the Sigma is the better choice? But it's close.

Fuji - wider lens, slightly smaller and lighter, better for landscapes?

Sigma - faster lens, cheaper, better for street?

Your thoughts? This would be to add to the 15-45 I already have.
Click to expand...
Based on Gordon Laing's review my subjective opinion is that:
If 16-18mm range is important for you, then it might be a justified reason to prefer Fuji's new kit lens.
Generally Gordon Laing did let us know that new Fuji kit is definitely a nice and useful lens, but it's not the champion in terms of optical quality at all.
And my personal subjective opinion is that there are no serious reasons to pay neither 799 Euro nor 699 USD for this lens. But it's not so bad idea to buy it together with new body for 300...400 USD but no more...
Click to expand...
I do not agree with your reasoning because you are not taking inflation in to account nor the fact that the new XF 16-50 2.8-4.8 goes wider and is optically superior to the old XF 18-55 and is also weather sealed. The XF 18-55 was introduced in a dozen years ago in 2012 at the same $699 price as the new XF 16-50. Indexing for inflation the introductory $699 price of the XF 18-55 would be approximately $950 US in todays money. I'm grateful to Fujifilm that they kept the price down of their new kit lens to 2012 prices and improved the lens as well. Nothing to complain about there.
All things considered, the XF 16-50 f2.8-4.8 is a good value at $699 in todays money, and a steal at $400 in a kit.
Click to expand...
Well, I would agree your considerations concerning inflation. It's all true, of course.
But can't be sure about your statement that new lens is optically superior to the old.
It appears that no one reviewer has yet performed a direct head-to-head comparison for the pair of old and new lenses we're discussing here.
Generally, no doubts new lens looks nice and been useful, but it's clear to me that new lens is not optically perfect.
Click to expand...
If you were expecting optical perfection in a standard zoom with 58mm filter size at around 800 EUR, you need to revisit your assumptions. Such lenses cost almost 3000 EUR for other systems like Nikon, Canon, and Sony.
biza43 said:
Gordon Laing recommends closing aperture up to two stops to improve obvious edge softness.
Click to expand...
Which is normal for such a lens category.
biza43 said:
Necessity to close strongly aperture to get acceptable degree of sharpness is typically a clear sign of non-perfect lens' optical quality.
Click to expand...
Even top quality lenses benefit from closing down. Especially zooms, and in corners. People obsess with corners, but how often are you placing your main subject there? For landscapes, you will be at f/8 or f/11 anyway. For street, around f/5.6 or f/8. For portraits, are you placing people in the corners? This is a mid class kit zoom, with its inherent compromises, nothing new.
Click to expand...
 
britcam said:
Then please explain why the Fuji 16-80 f4 receives such flak ? I use mine mainly in urban / street situations, and it is very sharp.

Softish in the corners - very probably, but that’s an irrelevance for me, as my subject is mostly in the centre of the frame.
Click to expand...
Good, that You mentioned " for You " ;)

And its not that XF 16-80/4 is probably soft in the corners - this is a fact confirmed by many lab tests:
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/fujifilm-fujinon-xf-16-80mm-f-4-r-ois-wr-review-34410/performance

If this zoom suits You, its fine - Im happy that XF 16-80/4 serve You well.
But it doesn't change the fact, that this lens overall sharpness lack behind a competition.
Every system has 24-105/4 (or 24-120/4) zoom lens, and if You check lab charts or sample images - every single this type of zoom has better sharpness than XF 16-80/4
Not to mention about gems like Nikkor Z 24-120/4 S or Olympus 12-100/4 IS PRO
If Sony will eventually update their 24-105/4 G, it will be for sure another superb zoom lens, like their 16-35/2.8 II GM or 24-70/2.8 II GM

Meanwhile Sony users have 20-70/4 G travel zoom lens, which is better in every category than XF 16-80/4, has way more useful focal length, with very similar size and weight (and also have aperture ring) ;)

0a0ca0eaf8164e4689e5ea8b0408260f.jpg

https://camerasize.com/compact/#883.1085,900.853,900.1150,862.784,ha,t

For me personally, Sony 20-70/4 G is ultimate travel zoom lens, and if I would switch to Sony this would be my first priority lens to buy (or perhaps Tamron 20-40/2.8, which is even better optically?)

See now what I mean, saying that XF 16-80/4 has nothing rally special to offer, compared to competition?
Fujinon XF 16-50/2.8-4.8 however is another story.
Like I said before, this travel zoom lens alone is good reason to choose aps-c Fuji X system, for its size and weight - yet delivering good, to very good overall IQ :)

--
My gallery: https://www.flickr.com/photos/maciej_k/
 
Last edited:
I feel like a 20-60mm like Panasonic or 20-70mm like Sony should become the new standard. So much more versatile.

Instad of the weird 15-45mm Fujifilm should have done a XC13-45mm f4
 
max2331 said:
I feel like a 20-60mm like Panasonic or 20-70mm like Sony should become the new standard. So much more versatile.

Instad of the weird 15-45mm Fujifilm should have done a XC13-45mm f4
Click to expand...
Yeah, I can't agree more :)

20mm (in FF terms) is so much more useful than 24mm.. (again, in FF terms). I rally hope, that some manufacturer will eventually lunch aps-c standard zoom lens, starting from 13mm. But for now we have to live with what we have. At least I'm happy to see that Fujifilm has successfully updated their obsolete kit lens. And I hope they will don't stop on this, and update their red badge XF 16-55/2.8 for modern IQ standards. Or perhaps Fujifilm will even update XF 16-80/4 (?) Who knows..

Anyway, I will buy XF 16-50/2.8-4.8 for sure, as my holiday/landscape travel friendly standard zoom lens :D

--
My gallery: https://www.flickr.com/photos/maciej_k/
 
Last edited:
I'm impressed that Camera Size has the new 16-50/f4.8 in their library already. Kudos to them!
 
britcam said:
biza43 said:
Pictures shooter said:
jonikon said:
Pictures shooter said:
stevesayskanpai said:
Just watched Gordon Laing's review of this new lens. Appears as tho all things considered the Sigma is the better choice? But it's close.

Fuji - wider lens, slightly smaller and lighter, better for landscapes?

Sigma - faster lens, cheaper, better for street?

Your thoughts? This would be to add to the 15-45 I already have.
Click to expand...
Based on Gordon Laing's review my subjective opinion is that:
If 16-18mm range is important for you, then it might be a justified reason to prefer Fuji's new kit lens.
Generally Gordon Laing did let us know that new Fuji kit is definitely a nice and useful lens, but it's not the champion in terms of optical quality at all.
And my personal subjective opinion is that there are no serious reasons to pay neither 799 Euro nor 699 USD for this lens. But it's not so bad idea to buy it together with new body for 300...400 USD but no more...
Click to expand...
I do not agree with your reasoning because you are not taking inflation in to account nor the fact that the new XF 16-50 2.8-4.8 goes wider and is optically superior to the old XF 18-55 and is also weather sealed. The XF 18-55 was introduced in a dozen years ago in 2012 at the same $699 price as the new XF 16-50. Indexing for inflation the introductory $699 price of the XF 18-55 would be approximately $950 US in todays money. I'm grateful to Fujifilm that they kept the price down of their new kit lens to 2012 prices and improved the lens as well. Nothing to complain about there.
All things considered, the XF 16-50 f2.8-4.8 is a good value at $699 in todays money, and a steal at $400 in a kit.
Click to expand...
Well, I would agree your considerations concerning inflation. It's all true, of course.
But can't be sure about your statement that new lens is optically superior to the old.
It appears that no one reviewer has yet performed a direct head-to-head comparison for the pair of old and new lenses we're discussing here.
Generally, no doubts new lens looks nice and been useful, but it's clear to me that new lens is not optically perfect.
Click to expand...
If you were expecting optical perfection in a standard zoom with 58mm filter size at around 800 EUR, you need to revisit your assumptions. Such lenses cost almost 3000 EUR for other systems like Nikon, Canon, and Sony.
britcam said:
Gordon Laing recommends closing aperture up to two stops to improve obvious edge softness.
Click to expand...
Which is normal for such a lens category.
britcam said:
Necessity to close strongly aperture to get acceptable degree of sharpness is typically a clear sign of non-perfect lens' optical quality.
Click to expand...
Even top quality lenses benefit from closing down. Especially zooms, and in corners. People obsess with corners, but how often are you placing your main subject there? For landscapes, you will be at f/8 or f/11 anyway. For street, around f/5.6 or f/8. For portraits, are you placing people in the corners? This is a mid class kit zoom, with its inherent compromises, nothing new.
Click to expand...
Then please explain why the Fuji 16-80 f4 receives such flak ? I use mine mainly in urban / street situations, and it is very sharp.
Click to expand...
Not sure why you are replying to me, but anyway... it receives flak for the same reason, people expect the 16-80 to be perfect, bla, bla, bla. I have used that lens for trekking and travelling, and found the results excellent. Is my 16 f/1.4 better in the corners? Yes, but I expect it to be.
britcam said:
Softish in the corners - very probably, but that’s an irrelevance for me, as my subject is mostly in the centre of the frame.
Click to expand...
Which was my reasoning above. Again, not sure why you replied to me, since we are agreeing.
britcam said:
I’m an architect working in France, and if I come across an old building (usually in a very distressed state), then I would reduce the aperture to say f8 to get excellent overall sharpness.
The 16-80 has outstanding OIS and I use it on my XT2, XE2 & XM1 as well as my XS10. So I see no advantage whatsoever in the new non OIS Fuji 16-50 variable aperture lens.
Click to expand...
Some people may prefer the f/2.8 at 16mm and the smaller size.
britcam said:
Regards
Rich S
Click to expand...
 
jhorse said:
I'm impressed that Camera Size has the new 16-50/f4.8 in their library already. Kudos to them!
Click to expand...
Yes, and hopefully the X-T50 will follow soon...
 
BeatX said:
britcam said:
Then please explain why the Fuji 16-80 f4 receives such flak ? I use mine mainly in urban / street situations, and it is very sharp.

Softish in the corners - very probably, but that’s an irrelevance for me, as my subject is mostly in the centre of the frame.
Click to expand...
Good, that You mentioned " for You " ;)

And its not that XF 16-80/4 is probably soft in the corners - this is a fact confirmed by many lab tests:
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/fujifilm-fujinon-xf-16-80mm-f-4-r-ois-wr-review-34410/performance

If this zoom suits You, its fine - Im happy that XF 16-80/4 serve You well.
But it doesn't change the fact, that this lens overall sharpness lack behind a competition.
Click to expand...
Costs 875 EUR in my local shop.
BeatX said:
Every system has 24-105/4
Click to expand...
Sony one costs 1235 EUR in my local shop.
BeatX said:
(or 24-120/4) zoom lens, and if You check lab charts or sample images - every single this type of zoom has better sharpness than XF 16-80/4
Not to mention about gems like Nikkor Z 24-120/4 S
Click to expand...
Cost is 1290 EUR in same shop. Z 24-70 f/4 is 1075 EUR.
BeatX said:
or Olympus 12-100/4 IS PRO
If Sony will eventually update their 24-105/4 G, it will be for sure another superb zoom lens, like their 16-35/2.8 II GM or 24-70/2.8 II GM

Meanwhile Sony users have 20-70/4 G
Click to expand...
Costs 1485 EUR in my local shop.
BeatX said:
travel zoom lens, which is better in every category than XF 16-80/4, has way more useful focal length, with very similar size and weight (and also have aperture ring) ;)

0a0ca0eaf8164e4689e5ea8b0408260f.jpg

https://camerasize.com/compact/#883.1085,900.853,900.1150,862.784,ha,t

For me personally, Sony 20-70/4 G is ultimate travel zoom lens, and if I would switch to Sony this would be my first priority lens to buy (or perhaps Tamron 20-40/2.8, which is even better optically?)

See now what I mean, saying that XF 16-80/4 has nothing rally special to offer, compared to competition?
Click to expand...
You should compare within same lens category, the Fuji is the cheapest one, and as such why would you expect it to perform at the same level as the other ones?
BeatX said:
Fujinon XF 16-50/2.8-4.8 however is another story.
Like I said before, this travel zoom lens alone is good reason to choose aps-c Fuji X system, for its size and weight - yet delivering good, to very good overall IQ :)
Click to expand...
Seems to have lower performance in the corners compared to centre, so similar to 16-80. Which is as expected for the price.



--
www.paulobizarro.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D.A.A.N.
Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 vs Fuji 16-50 /16-55
Replies
19
Views
32K
baobob
baobob
D.A.A.N.
Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 vs Fuji XF 16-50 f/2.8-4.8 or 16-55 f/2.8
Replies
0
Views
8K
D.A.A.N.
D.A.A.N.
G
Should I swap the new XF16-50 F2.8-4.8 to a used XF16-55 F2.8 Mark1
2
Replies
29
Views
4K
Orsonneke1
Orsonneke1
stevesayskanpai
Cheap Fuji 16-50 F2.8-4.8
Replies
13
Views
3K
Simon_101
S
Bijo S
Fujinon XF 16-50/2.8-4.8 vs Sigma 18-50mm?
2
Replies
26
Views
18K
Bijo S
Bijo S

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top