-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
New Fuji 16-50 F2.8-4.8 vs Sigma 18-50 F2.8
- Thread starter stevesayskanpai
- Start date
Pictures shooter
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 285
- Reaction score
- 194
biza43,
Generally, all your considerations sound reasonable and based on obvious common considerations. So, don't see the reasons to retort.
Nevertheless, I can't agree that the new lens is optically better than old till we see a credible detailed comparison/testing of two lenses directly in a head-to-head.
Pictures shooter
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 285
- Reaction score
- 194
Sounds so credible.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)
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
May I ask why did not you go with Sony and still prefer Fuji system?
(Sorry for off topic)
BeatX
Senior Member
Im comparing lenses in same parameters category.
And Fujifilm glass should be cheaper compared to FF equivalents lenses, because it is aps-c system after all, and one of its main benefits should be savings in size, weight and cost.
Don't You think Paulo?
Yes, corners are slightly less sharper than center.Seems to have lower performance in the corners compared to centre, so similar to 16-80. Which is as expected for the price.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
But very slightly if You ask me.
Did You saw this full resolution sample images of XF 16-50/2.8-4.8 (?)
Fujifilm XF 16-50mm f2.8-4.8 sample images
Sample images taken with a final production Fujifilm XF 16-50mm f2.8-4.8. All are JPEGs straight out of camera. If you find my reviews and samples useful, please treat me to a coffee at www.paypal.me/cameralabs These samples and comparisons are part of my Fujifilm XF 16-50mm f2.8-4.8 review...
www.flickr.com
I've never seen in my life XF 16-80/4 images taken on 40Mpix sensor, with such sharpness across the frame (when stopped down to f/5.6), like those first wave of sample images from Gordon Laing's (@ cameralabs.com) review.
Or here, on dpreview sample gallery:
Ap0ll0n
Senior Member
BeatX
Senior Member
No problem, i'm happy to answer
To be true, my main reason I didn't switch to Sony system is because of their crappy color science (skin tones in particular)
As You can tell from my portfolio on flickr.com - Im mainly portrait photographer, and for my way of shooting, colors are essential in composition, since I take approach of imho one of most difficult portrait photography style - environmental portraits.
With all my experience I simply failed to mimic Fujifilm colors, whenever I'm trying to edit RAW files from other cameras.
I guess it is my skill issue.
I'm aware of cobalt-images.com film profiles, but there is one huge advantage in Fujifilm cameras - it's SOOC .jpg recipes.
Believe me or not, but Fujifilm SOOC .jpg recipes takes very often crucial part in my editing workflow.
They are so damn good, if You find right one.
Please, take a look at these examples:
These are both SOOC .jpg with my recipes, I didn't touch them at all (beside retouch in first one)
I mean, I tried to do my own editing but after spending lot of time in C1 it turns out, that SOOC .jpg version looks better, than my attempts
And this + overall color science + excellent skin tones, are main reason im still in Fujifilm system.
Images from Sony cameras are just look very clinical, flat and with wired colors, compared to Fujifilm.
Images from Fujifilm, are just so... "organic" (?)
I can't explain this, but I see it very clearly and I'm lacking skills to know how to replicate it in post.
Plus in Fujifilm I have access to most interesting standard lens (portrait lens in my case) I've ever had: Viltrox 27/1.2
And on top of that, I have access to XF 16/1.4 and XF 56/1.2 R lenses, which have very pleasing, vintage like rendering - for my eyes at least.
I'm using both 16/1.4 and 56/1.2 as my specializing lenses, for creative compositions, like here:
So, to summarize.. Sony system best advantages: AF-C and lens selection are not so much important in my photography.
For my photography, I'm only missing in Fujifilm system true travel zoom lens starting from 20mm (in FF terms)
I'm not shooting sport, BIF, or landscape photography to be limited with Fujifilm in this area
--
My gallery: https://www.flickr.com/photos/maciej_k/
Last edited:
Thanks for posting this link. It confirms to me that the new XF 16-50 f2.8-4.8 is a superior lens optically to the old XF 18-55 by a good margin and may very well be the highest quality 16-50mm kit lens available for any APS-C camera. The weather sealing, lighter weight and especially 16mm at the wide end is important to me. Kudos to Fujifilm for making this lens available to us.
biza43
Forum Pro
Thing is, the FF lenses you are comparing to cost a lot more than the Fuji. As I wrote in my previous post, and seems like you chose to cut it from your reply. For example, the Sony 24-70 f/4 that you so highly praise in my shop costs 1485 EUR, compared to Fuji 800 EUR. Fuji knows how to make great lenses too, but great lenses come at a cost.Im comparing lenses in same parameters category.
And Fujifilm glass should be cheaper compared to FF equivalents lenses, because it is aps-c system after all, and one of its main benefits should be savings in size, weight and cost.
Don't You think Paulo?
Fuji have the 16-55 f/2.8, more expensive, for those that want more.
Yes, corners are slightly less sharper than center.Seems to have lower performance in the corners compared to centre, so similar to 16-80. Which is as expected for the price.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
But very slightly if You ask me.
Did You saw this full resolution sample images of XF 16-50/2.8-4.8 (?)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/cameralabs/albums/72177720317010265/
They look very promising if You ask me
I've never seen in my life XF 16-80/4 images taken on 40Mpix sensor, with such sharpness across the frame (when stopped down to f/5.6), like those first wave of sample images from Gordon Laing's (@ cameralabs.com) review.
Or here, on dpreview sample gallery:
https://www.dpreview.com/sample-gal...lm-xf-16-50mm-f2-8-4-8-r-lm-wr-sample-gallery
stevesayskanpai
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,119
- Reaction score
- 627
Thanks for all the replies. Still a tough call given the price difference! Kind of wish I'd got the 16-50 bundled as a kit lens instead of the 15-45 (although obviously that wasn't possible back in November!!
jhorse
Veteran Member
Yup, seems like a good update. I have ordered one and will trade-in my 18-55. My reasoning primarily as a general purpose and hiking lens, was improved IQ, starting at 16mm and WR.
(I did look at the Sigma 18-50 a few months back, but it did not tick enough boxes for me).
Pictures shooter
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 285
- Reaction score
- 194
Thank you so much. I feel some soulful color-сharming in your Fuji's straight out of camera jpeg pictures.No problem, i'm happy to answer
To be true, my main reason I didn't switch to Sony system is because of their crappy color science (skin tones in particular)
As You can tell from my portfolio on flickr.com - Im mainly portrait photographer, and for my way of shooting, colors are essential in composition, since I take approach of imho one of most difficult portrait photography style - environmental portraits.
With all my experience I simply failed to mimic Fujifilm colors, whenever I'm trying to edit RAW files from other cameras.
I guess it is my skill issue.
I'm aware of cobalt-images.com film profiles, but there is one huge advantage in Fujifilm cameras - it's SOOC .jpg recipes.
Believe me or not, but Fujifilm SOOC .jpg recipes takes very often crucial part in my editing workflow.
They are so damn good, if You find right one.
Please, take a look at these examples:
These are both SOOC .jpg with my recipes, I didn't touch them at all (beside retouch in first one)
I mean, I tried to do my own editing but after spending lot of time in C1 it turns out, that SOOC .jpg version looks better, than my attempts
And this + overall color science + excellent skin tones, are main reason im still in Fujifilm system.
Images from Sony cameras are just look very clinical, flat and with wired colors, compared to Fujifilm.
Images from Fujifilm, are just so... "organic" (?)
I can't explain this, but I see it very clearly and I'm lacking skills to know how to replicate it in post.
Plus in Fujifilm I have access to most interesting standard lens (portrait lens in my case) I've ever had: Viltrox 27/1.2
And on top of that, I have access to XF 16/1.4 and XF 56/1.2 R lenses, which have very pleasing, vintage like rendering - for my eyes at least.
I'm using both 16/1.4 and 56/1.2 as my specializing lenses, for creative compositions, like here:
So, to summarize.. Sony system best advantages: AF-C and lens selection are not so much important in my photography.
For my photography, I'm only missing in Fujifilm system true travel zoom lens starting from 20mm (in FF terms)
I'm not shooting sport, BIF, or landscape photography to be limited with Fujifilm in this area
IMO Sony is good for reliable routine technical work, but Fuji rather for soul and pleasure.
Last edited:
David Garth
Leading Member
For me, image quality, maximum aperture, size and weight are most important. OIS, weather resistance and zoom direction, not so much.
I’ll wait to assess image quality until there have been more reviews by trusted reviewers, especially since there is usually sample-to-sample variation in these lenses. Size and weight are similar to my Sigma.
In the meantime, I’m totally satisfied with my Sigma 18-50 combined with my Sigma 10-18 . It’s an awesome combination of abilities in two very compact lenses.
I’ll wait to assess image quality until there have been more reviews by trusted reviewers, especially since there is usually sample-to-sample variation in these lenses. Size and weight are similar to my Sigma.
In the meantime, I’m totally satisfied with my Sigma 18-50 combined with my Sigma 10-18 . It’s an awesome combination of abilities in two very compact lenses.
I had the 16-80mm f4 for a while.
The only thing you gain with the new 16-50mm compared to the 16-80mm is a smaller size and the f2.8 at the wide angle.
But therefor you loose 30mm of focal length at the tele end and you loose f-stops. At 27mm the new 16-50mm is also already at f4. from there on it gets darker. You also loose the OIS, which is great on the 16-80mm.
For me it would be all just about the size at the end.
Pierre69
Well-known member
I sold my Sigma 18-50 for the new XF 16-50, and I miss the Sigma and just buy it again and sell my XF 16-50.
I don't like the internal zoom of the XF 16-50, you never know where you are. I don't need the aperture ring when it's not a constant f2.8 lens.
I need the constant f2.8 of the Sigma. I don't mind the inverted zoom ring because all my zooms are Sigma (10-18 and 100-400).
And if I need to be wider than 18, I have the Sigma 10-18.
I don't like the internal zoom of the XF 16-50, you never know where you are. I don't need the aperture ring when it's not a constant f2.8 lens.
I need the constant f2.8 of the Sigma. I don't mind the inverted zoom ring because all my zooms are Sigma (10-18 and 100-400).
And if I need to be wider than 18, I have the Sigma 10-18.
Last edited:
Heritage Cameras
Senior Member
Sounds good. Sigma could really do with a medium-sized lens lens to fill in the gap between the 18-50mm and 100-400mm. Years ago there was a good 50-150mm f/2.8 for APS-C DSLRs, until it was bloated to the size an a 70-200mm f/2.8 with the addition of OIS...
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/0927261474/sigma50-150dc
Last edited:
Pierre69
Well-known member
I don't need a mid range zoom between the 18-50 and the 100-400. I have a Viltrox 75 f1.2, and if needed I can crop x1.4 or x2 with the X-T5 (eq FF 157mm or 225mm when croped).
Last edited:
At the moment I am not tempted from XF 16-50, I own XC 16-50 II, but constant 2.8 aperture is always welcome.
After watching reviews and some considerations I ordered Tamron 17-70mm 2.8 because of the range. Yes it is bigger and heavier than mentioned lenses, but sometimes I need longer range.
After watching reviews and some considerations I ordered Tamron 17-70mm 2.8 because of the range. Yes it is bigger and heavier than mentioned lenses, but sometimes I need longer range.
Pictures shooter
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 285
- Reaction score
- 194
Absolutely!
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum