XF 16-50mm 2.8-4.8 R LM WR lens underwhelming?

Has anyone else been disappointed with the XF 16-50mm 2.8-4.8 R LM WR lens? I used the XF 18-55mm 2.8-4.0 rather happily for years, but decided to switch to ther newer kit lens when I bought my X-T50. Although I understand the newer lens is technically superior, I haven't found it to deliver noticeably sharper images than the older 18-55mm kit lens, especially in lower light conditions.

In fact, I find that the older 18-55mm kit lens outperforms especially at the longer focal lengths, likely due to the wider max aperture at the longer lengths. My images with the newer 16-55mm 2.8-4.8 lens tend to be noisier in general, perhaps because the max aperture is larger with the older lens across the entire overlapping 18-50 focal range, requiring I use a higher ISO to expose correctly with my desired SS.

I know the newer 16-50mm 2.8-4.8 is supposed to be the "new standard," according to Fujifilm, but I can't say I've been very impressed with it. I'd be really curious to hear other's thoughts on your impressions of how good the 16-50mm 2.8-4.8 is. I've used it with my X-T5 and X-T50.

Not really. I am thrilled with it. Literally zero complaints, except for the price as a standalone lens at least in EU.

I don't own a 40mp body so I cannot comment on that. I also haven't used it in really low light situations (like a dark music venue) but to be honest I had not used my 18-55mm either in such conditions since I would rather use primes for that.

What convinced my to get one was the pictures in DPreview gallery on 40mp bodies, which displayed great optical quality for what this lens is.

As a sidenote my copy is better than what my 18-55mm was and I am pretty sure I had a decent copy of the old kit lens. I didn't have any complaints with that one either but the new ones is just better overall.

--
https://www.instagram.com/filippos.drylerakis/
flickr.com/photos/194737069@N06

I’ve no experience with either lens, but I’m puzzled how a difference of just half a stop (from f4.0 to f4.8) could have a significant effect on shutter speed, ISO or resulting noise. This would also suggest you are frequently using the maximum aperture, rather than stopping down. For low light levels, a lens with several stops more light gathering would be more appropriate, either your 33mm f1.4 or Sigma 56mm f1.4.

TumblingTiger said:

Has anyone else been disappointed with the XF 16-50mm 2.8-4.8 R LM WR lens? I used the XF 18-55mm 2.8-4.0 rather happily for years, but decided to switch to ther newer kit lens when I bought my X-T50. Although I understand the newer lens is technically superior, I haven't found it to deliver noticeably sharper images than the older 18-55mm kit lens, especially in lower light conditions.

In fact, I find that the older 18-55mm kit lens outperforms especially at the longer focal lengths, likely due to the wider max aperture at the longer lengths. My images with the newer 16-55mm 2.8-4.8 lens tend to be noisier in general, perhaps because the max aperture is larger with the older lens across the entire overlapping 18-50 focal range, requiring I use a higher ISO to expose correctly with my desired SS.

I know the newer 16-50mm 2.8-4.8 is supposed to be the "new standard," according to Fujifilm, but I can't say I've been very impressed with it. I'd be really curious to hear other's thoughts on your impressions of how good the 16-50mm 2.8-4.8 is. I've used it with my X-T5 and X-T50.

Click to expand...

I have both lens, and the new one is superior

Half a stop of difference is not very important.

You should do side by side comparison , to see if you have a bad copy

--

It's all about photography

Let me just grab my popcorn

TumblingTiger said:

Has anyone else been disappointed with the XF 16-50mm 2.8-4.8 R LM WR lens? I used the XF 18-55mm 2.8-4.0 rather happily for years, but decided to switch to ther newer kit lens when I bought my X-T50. Although I understand the newer lens is technically superior, I haven't found it to deliver noticeably sharper images than the older 18-55mm kit lens, especially in lower light conditions.

In fact, I find that the older 18-55mm kit lens outperforms especially at the longer focal lengths, likely due to the wider max aperture at the longer lengths. My images with the newer 16-55mm 2.8-4.8 lens tend to be noisier in general, perhaps because the max aperture is larger with the older lens across the entire overlapping 18-50 focal range, requiring I use a higher ISO to expose correctly with my desired SS.

I know the newer 16-50mm 2.8-4.8 is supposed to be the "new standard," according to Fujifilm, but I can't say I've been very impressed with it. I'd be really curious to hear other's thoughts on your impressions of how good the 16-50mm 2.8-4.8 is. I've used it with my X-T5 and X-T50.

Click to expand...

I also replied on one of your facebook groups posts.

With Fuji there's always the issue with sample variation, so you might not have gotten a good enough copy of the 16-50.

A good copy of the 16-50 will be slightly better than a good copy of the 18-55, from what I've seen here.

But more importantly, the difference between f/4 and f/4.8 is just half a stop. That's like the difference between shooting at 1/100 and 1/150. Or f/1.2 and f/1.4. ISO 500 and 750. It's marginal at best.

I could not disagree with you more. If find the XF 16-50 f2.8-4.8 t0 be an excellent lens on the 26MP sensor, and far better than any of the three copies I had of the XF 18-55. Its not just sharpness either, (which can be achieved at less than f8}. The XF16-50 has very good contrast, very good resistance to sun flares, and smoother out of focus areas and low CAs in JPEGs. Needless to say I am thrilled to finally have a small lightweight 16-50 zoom lens that performs well throughout its focal length range. sorry it doesn't work for you on yor 49 MP sensor.

I find IQ at 50 mm to be very good, even when not at f8.









other focal lengths are very good as well...













All photos are out of camera JPEGs with no post processing,



--
~ J

I agree outdoor pics are fine with this lens when you have plenty of light, but have you tried it indoors in lower light conditions? I’ve found the indoor performance to be worse than the older kits lens.

It is onlt half a stop difference not easy to see in ISO terms.

TumblingTiger said:

I agree outdoor pics are fine with this lens when you have plenty of light, but have you tried it indoors in lower light conditions? I’ve found the indoor performance to be worse than the older kits lens.

Click to expand...

A lens is a tool. Pick the right tool for the task. A f2.8-4.8 zoom is not designed for indoor, low light scenes. Yes, it came be used, especially at f2.8, which is the same aperture as the old lens, but suggest you use a more approbate lens. If I wanted high performance for indoor photography I would buy a f1.4 prime.

I find the 16-50 to be excellent for its use case and intended purpose and at its price point. When comparing it to my old 18-55 and my 16-55f2.8 it preforms very well.

TumblingTiger said:

I agree outdoor pics are fine with this lens when you have plenty of light, but have you tried it indoors in lower light conditions? I’ve found the indoor performance to be worse than the older kits lens.

Click to expand...

I may be missing something here but here is my take.

A lens is what it is. If it performs well in a given situation it will perform well in any situtation providing the user adjusts the exposure properly.

If a lens is optically good at e.g. f/5.6 when used in daylight it will be good at f/5.6 when used during a low light scenario. Obviously if you use e.g. a shutter speed of 1/500 when outdoors at f/5.6 , you cannot expect using the same shutter speed during that low light scenario and have the same great result you had while being outdoors. You need to adjust your exposure, not just bump ISO. But that is not a lens issue, since like I said a lens is what it is.

Which is why different scenarios require different lenses/tools. It is not that somehow a lens is a poor performer during low light. It is just not suitable for that given scenario since there is simply not enough light.

Finally, having used the older 18-55mm a lot for nearly 3 years before selling it, I can compare it to my 16-50mm directly since their max aperture is very similar and I can say that "there is nothing the older kit lens can do that the new one cannot do, if you have a body with IBIS".

P.S. in my first post I said that I have not used any of these two in low light conditions a lot. The reason is that I tried to so do and quickly found out that it is out of their league unless you use a tripod for long exposure. They are just not made for such cases, but that is true for both of them even at their wide end.

--
https://www.instagram.com/filippos.drylerakis/
flickr.com/photos/194737069@N06

TumblingTiger said:

I agree outdoor pics are fine with this lens when you have plenty of light, but have you tried it indoors in lower light conditions? I’ve found the indoor performance to be worse than the older kits lens.

Click to expand...

I've taken photos indoors in my home at 16mm f2.8 with better IQ than the 18-55 at 18mm at f2.8 so I'm happy. You have made a claim that the 18-55 has superior IQ to the XF 16-50 without any evidence, so I think it is only fair that you back up your assertion by posting some of your photos from each lens so we have some idea of what you are complaining about. Otherwise your assertion is just that and nothing more.

pifilos said:

TumblingTiger said:

I agree outdoor pics are fine with this lens when you have plenty of light, but have you tried it indoors in lower light conditions? I’ve found the indoor performance to be worse than the older kits lens.

Click to expand...

I may be missing something here but here is my take.

A lens is what it is. If it performs well in a given situation it will perform well in any situation providing the user adjusts the exposure properly.

Click to expand...

I seriously doubt that the old 18-55 has any low light advantage over the new 16-50, but there are a few real world exceptions to this thinking.

A lens that requires significant geometric and vignetting correction (both the 18-55 and new 16-50 do) will perform noticeably worse around the edges in very low light as, with corrections, the image periphery can already be operating with a 2+ stop ISO disadvantage (your ISO 3200 image could easily have ISO 12800 edges). The X100 lenses fall heavily into this category (though the Ricoh GR is even worse).

Also, in very bright/high contrast light, a lens that is normally a generally very good performer in "normal" light, can become a real mess when any underlying CA/fringing issues become accentuated.

That all said, from what I've seen, the new 16-50 is a significantly better lens than the average 18-55.


Corner crop of a DPR SOOC JPEG 16-50 WR example,

pifilos said:

If a lens is optically good at e.g. f/5.6 when used in daylight it will be good when used during a low light scenario. Obviously if you use e.g. a shutter speed of 1/500 when outdoors at f/5.6 , you cannot expect using the same shutter speed during that low light scenario and have the same great result you had while being outdoors. You need to adjust your exposure, not just bump ISO. But that is not a lens issue, since like I said a lens is what it is.

Which is why different scenarios require different lenses/tools. It is not that somehow a lens is a poor performer during low light. It is just not suitable for that given scenario since there is simply not enough light.

Finally, having used the older 18-55mm a lot for nearly 3 years before selling it, I can compare it to my 16-50mm directly since their max aperture is very similar and I can say that "there is nothing the older kit lens can do that the new one cannot do, if you have a body with IBIS".

P.S. in my first post I said that I have not used any of these two in low light conditions a lot. The reason is that I tried to so do and quickly found out that it is out of their league unless you use a tripod for long exposure. They are just not made for such cases, but that is true for both of them even at their wide end.

Click to expand...

Erik Baumgartner said:

pifilos said:

TumblingTiger said:

I agree outdoor pics are fine with this lens when you have plenty of light, but have you tried it indoors in lower light conditions? I’ve found the indoor performance to be worse than the older kits lens.

Click to expand...

I may be missing something here but here is my take.

A lens is what it is. If it performs well in a given situation it will perform well in any situation providing the user adjusts the exposure properly.

Click to expand...

I seriously doubt that the old 18-55 has any low light advantage over the new 16-50, but there are a few real world exceptions to this thinking.

A lens that requires significant geometric and vignetting correction (both the 18-55 and new 16-50 do) will perform noticeably worse around the edges in very low light as, with corrections, the image periphery can already be operating with a 2+ stop ISO disadvantage (your ISO 3200 image could easily have ISO 12800 edges). The X100 lenses fall heavily into this category (though the Ricoh GR is even worse).

Click to expand...

All true. However even the $1200 16-55 f 2.8 (that you think highly of), suffers these issues as described in its review by Photozone, (Now OpticalLimits.com)

"In RAW mode - thus with disabled vignetting- and distortion-correction, we can, unfortunately, observe the dark side of the force again. The light falloff is clearly visible at f/2.8 with a maximum of 1.8EV (f-stops) at 16mm - this is beyond our usual scale here! 1.5EV at 55mm is also pretty bad actually. Stopping down to f/5.6 is therefore a good idea if you prefer to disable auto-correction altogether." ...

https://photozone.de/fuji_x/971-fuji1655f28?start=1

Native distortion of the 16-55 f2.8 is also bad at 16mm.

"The original characteristic of the lens is disappointing especially given the size of lens and the complexity of the optical design which should really help to tame the issue. At 16mm there is a MASSIVE amount of barrel distortion (5.6%) - the next stop beyond this is a fish-eye lens really. The 2.4% of pincushion distortion at 55mm is also nothing to be proud of either."

https://photozone.de/fuji_x/971-fuji1655f28?start=1

Erik Baumgartner said:

Also, in very bright/high contrast light, a lens that is normally a generally very good performer in "normal" light, can become a real mess when any underlying CA/fringing issues become accentuated.


Corner crop of a DPR SOOC JPEG 16-50 WR example,

Click to expand...

Santa Clara church in Stockholm, sez Google lens.

Here's the image with DxO lens profile and fringing corrections. I like PhotoLab's magic wands to set chromatic aberration intensity and size! This is one of the few times when the Ektachrome emulation is my favorite.

jonikon said:

Erik Baumgartner said:

pifilos said:

TumblingTiger said:

I agree outdoor pics are fine with this lens when you have plenty of light, but have you tried it indoors in lower light conditions? I’ve found the indoor performance to be worse than the older kits lens.

Click to expand...

I may be missing something here but here is my take.

A lens is what it is. If it performs well in a given situation it will perform well in any situation providing the user adjusts the exposure properly.

Click to expand...

I seriously doubt that the old 18-55 has any low light advantage over the new 16-50, but there are a few real world exceptions to this thinking.

A lens that requires significant geometric and vignetting correction (both the 18-55 and new 16-50 do) will perform noticeably worse around the edges in very low light as, with corrections, the image periphery can already be operating with a 2+ stop ISO disadvantage (your ISO 3200 image could easily have ISO 12800 edges). The X100 lenses fall heavily into this category (though the Ricoh GR is even worse).

Click to expand...

All true. However even the $1200 16-55 f 2.8 (that you think highly of), suffers these issues as described in its review by Photozone, (Now OpticalLimits.com)

"In RAW mode - thus with disabled vignetting- and distortion-correction, we can, unfortunately, observe the dark side of the force again. The light falloff is clearly visible at f/2.8 with a maximum of 1.8EV (f-stops) at 16mm - this is beyond our usual scale here! 1.5EV at 55mm is also pretty bad actually. Stopping down to f/5.6 is therefore a good idea if you prefer to disable auto-correction altogether." ...

https://photozone.de/fuji_x/971-fuji1655f28?start=1

Native distortion of the 16-55 f2.8 is also bad at 16mm.

"The original characteristic of the lens is disappointing especially given the size of lens and the complexity of the optical design which should really help to tame the issue. At 16mm there is a MASSIVE amount of barrel distortion (5.6%) - the next stop beyond this is a fish-eye lens really. The 2.4% of pincushion distortion at 55mm is also nothing to be proud of either."

https://photozone.de/fuji_x/971-fuji1655f28?start=1

Click to expand...

First, nothing I wrote was meant to bash any particular lenses you may fancy, I was only pointing out that some lenses aren't going to perform their best in all situations - it isn't just a question of setting the right exposure.

As far as the old 16-55 goes, I honestly think there were some bum copies of the 16-55 going around when some of these early reviews were written, they just don't agree with many users' real world results. And I don't really care how much electronic correction is going on if the end result is good. And it is good. My 16-55 is at least as good or better at 16mm (including in the corners) as any other 16mm options for X-mount I've tried, including the two Fuji 16mm primes ...and that's pretty damn good. It's not the perfect lens by any stretch - it's not as great at the long end as it is at the wide end, and it's not all that great in bokeh department with a busy background, but it's the only mid range zoom I've ever used that doesn't having any glaring faults at all (other than maybe its size), and can be used in any sort of light from one focal range extreme to the other at any aperture without ever having to worry about image quality, with CA/fringing, ghosting, flare etc. all being pretty much non issues. I have little doubt that the 16-55 II is a significant improvement in some areas, but that doesn't make the older lens instantly suck, so I'm not in any rush to replace it just yet, and when I do, it won't be with the 16-50 WR.


Excellent performance across the frame at 16mm, even in the corners wide open at f/2.8.


Typical 16mm at f/8


I honestly take very few shots at the long end that require sharp corners, but it's not bad there either.


Another one towards the long end.


It's not too bad in the middle range either.

CAcreeks said:

Erik Baumgartner said:

Also, in very bright/high contrast light, a lens that is normally a generally very good performer in "normal" light, can become a real mess when any underlying CA/fringing issues become accentuated.


Corner crop of a DPR SOOC JPEG 16-50 WR example,

Click to expand...

Santa Clara church in Stockholm, sez Google lens.

Here's the image with DxO lens profile and fringing corrections. I like PhotoLab's magic wands to set chromatic aberration intensity and size! This is one of the few times when the Ektachrome emulation is my favorite.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I can "fix" the RAW to some degree in Lightroom as well, but it's unfortunate that the SOOC jpeg is not well corrected at all.


Lightroom edit w/Defringing.

TumblingTiger said:

I agree outdoor pics are fine with this lens when you have plenty of light, but have you tried it indoors in lower light conditions? I’ve found the indoor performance to be worse than the older kits lens.

Click to expand...

In what way? Do you examples with both lenses shot in the same light to share? I can’t imagine a half a stop on the long end is going to make a whole lot of difference.

Erik Baumgartner said:

CAcreeks said:

Erik Baumgartner said:

Also, in very bright/high contrast light, a lens that is normally a generally very good performer in "normal" light, can become a real mess when any underlying CA/fringing issues become accentuated.


Corner crop of a DPR SOOC JPEG 16-50 WR example,

Click to expand...

Santa Clara church in Stockholm, sez Google lens.

Here's the image with DxO lens profile and fringing corrections. I like PhotoLab's magic wands to set chromatic aberration intensity and size! This is one of the few times when the Ektachrome emulation is my favorite.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I can "fix" the RAW to some degree in Lightroom as well, but it's unfortunate that the SOOC jpeg is not well corrected at all.


Lightroom edit w/Defringing.

Click to expand...

This image is a testament to the sharpness of the XF 16-50 at 16mm and f2.8. I would expect any zoom lens shot at 16mm at f2.8 in such challenging light conditions to show some native CA. The fact that it can be cleaned up in post with the proper software without destroying fine detail is a testament to the good optics of the XF 16-50. However a black mark goes to the poor JPEG engine of the X-T5 which is obviously not up to the task of properly processing the huge 40MP files. From what I have seen, the Fujifilm cameras with the 24 and 26MP have noticeably better out of camera JPEGs than the X-T5 JPEGs that too often look half baked.

--
~ J

jonikon said:

Erik Baumgartner said:

CAcreeks said:

Erik Baumgartner said:

Also, in very bright/high contrast light, a lens that is normally a generally very good performer in "normal" light, can become a real mess when any underlying CA/fringing issues become accentuated.


Corner crop of a DPR SOOC JPEG 16-50 WR example,

Click to expand...

Santa Clara church in Stockholm, sez Google lens.

Here's the image with DxO lens profile and fringing corrections. I like PhotoLab's magic wands to set chromatic aberration intensity and size! This is one of the few times when the Ektachrome emulation is my favorite.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I can "fix" the RAW to some degree in Lightroom as well, but it's unfortunate that the SOOC jpeg is not well corrected at all.


Lightroom edit w/Defringing.

Click to expand...

This image is a testament to the sharpness of the XF 16-50 at 16mm and f2.8. I would expect any zoom lens shot at 16mm at f2.8 in such challenging light conditions to show some native CA.

Click to expand...

No, not really. The end result is a pretty decent looking image (I do like the lens overall), but this is really some pretty bad CA. In 7 years of regular shooting with the old 16-55 f/2.8 in challenging light, I’ve never seen chromatic aberrations anywhere near this bad, including with far more extreme scenes than this. Does this mean the 16-50 is a bad lens? No, not at all, but it means it does come with some potential limitations that people should be aware of. My Viltrox 13 f/1.4 is fantastic for almost anything, but it can have significant ghosting blob issues with a bright sun in the frame. It’s almost never a problem, but it’s a similar inherent optical bugaboo I need to be aware of when shooting with it. It can similarly be fixed in post when it happens, but will be noticeable in a SOOC jpeg.

jonikon said:

The fact that it can be cleaned up in post with the proper software without destroying fine detail is a testament to the good optics of the XF 16-50.

Click to expand...

I would say it’s a testament to how well modern software can be used to deal with a significant optical aberration. This example required manual intervention for best results that went beyond just the normal profile corrections.

jonikon said:

However a black mark goes to the poor JPEG engine of the X-T5 which is obviously not up to the task of properly processing the huge 40MP files.

Click to expand...

You can’t really expect the in-camera jpeg processing to automatically clean up this degree of fringing (which will probably only show up on rare occasions). The amount of auto-correction required to handle this in-camera could easily have unintended, undesirable, and irreversible consequences elsewhere in the image. That’s why RAW editors often have dedicated fine-tunable defringing tools for this (which will also work on jpegs). Sometimes SOOC isn’t going to fly without a little help.

jonikon said:

From what I have seen, the Fujifilm cameras with the 24 and 26MP have noticeably better out of camera JPEGs than the X-T5 JPEGs that too often look half baked.

Click to expand...

I can’t say the jpegs from any of them regularly look all that great to me SOOC. Sometimes they do, sure, but not reliably so (IMO), especially in more challenging light (like this example).