16-55 F 2.8 mk2 vs 16-50 F2.8 4.8 = any comparison out there ?

LordNutHatch said:

I know what you’re saying, and yes, the caption mistakenly says both were shot at 2.8, which is not correct. However, most people I think want to see wide open comparisons, so that’s what I did, otherwise there’d be little point to the constant 2.8 the new lens provides. I also shot the 16-55 II against my primes too, they are sharp wide open at much more shallow DOF. However, similar to primes, where stopping down provides an increase in sharpness/clarity, it would be beneficial to see if that’s also the case with the new lens. I need more time behind this lens so I can learn more of its nuances and character.

Click to expand...

A common understanding is that both lenses are very capable examples of their type. Most meaningful comparisons are typically like for like, i.e. under the same or as close as possible conditions in order to discover differences. Not certain if this is precisely what you did, but for example comparing one lens at 50mm and f4.8 with another at 55mm at f2.8 would not really be a very useful comparison. Shows what each is like at maximum reach and corresponding aperture only. Anyway, with the two lenses you have the best of both options to choose from.

LordNutHatch said:

I know what you’re saying, and yes, the caption mistakenly says both were shot at 2.8, which is not correct. However, most people I think want to see wide open comparisons, so that’s what I did, otherwise there’d be little point to the constant 2.8 the new lens provides. I also shot the 16-55 II against my primes too, they are sharp wide open at much more shallow DOF. However, similar to primes, where stopping down provides an increase in sharpness/clarity, it would be beneficial to see if that’s also the case with the new lens. I need more time behind this lens so I can learn more of its nuances and character.

Click to expand...

Setting your caption mistake aside, I tend to agree with your "wide open comparisons" maximum aperture approach, in this case at least. In this way one can decide whether it's worth it to pay another $700 (in my case), to have the larger f2.8 aperture at the long end. Stated maximum apertures are one thing, but the question is always how sharp a lens is at the stated maximum widest aperture. One of the things I really like about the XF 16-50 f2.8-4.8 is that I can get acceptably sharp images shooting wide open at any focal length and get even sharper images at f5.6 that are often indistinguishable if not better than to those shot at f8.

For those who don't really need an f2.8 lens beyond 16mm , ( like me), I heartily recommend the smaller, lighter, and far less expensive, (and dare I say maybe better built), XF 16-50 f2.8-4.8 lens with internal zoom over the larger, heavier and much more costly XF 16-55 f2.8 mk2 with external zoom.

dachshund7 said:

Nice review! Thanks.

I also struggle over selling lenses. I figure they don't take up much room!

Click to expand...

They take up a lot of money!

jonikon said:

LordNutHatch said:

I know what you’re saying, and yes, the caption mistakenly says both were shot at 2.8, which is not correct. However, most people I think want to see wide open comparisons, so that’s what I did, otherwise there’d be little point to the constant 2.8 the new lens provides. I also shot the 16-55 II against my primes too, they are sharp wide open at much more shallow DOF. However, similar to primes, where stopping down provides an increase in sharpness/clarity, it would be beneficial to see if that’s also the case with the new lens. I need more time behind this lens so I can learn more of its nuances and character.

Click to expand...

Setting your caption mistake aside, I tend to agree with your "wide open comparisons" maximum aperture approach, in this case at least. In this way one can decide whether it's worth it to pay another $700 (in my case), to have the larger f2.8 aperture at the long end. Stated maximum apertures are one thing, but the question is always how sharp a lens is at the stated maximum widest aperture. One of the things I really like about the XF 16-50 f2.8-4.8 is that I can get acceptably sharp images shooting wide open at any focal length and get even sharper images at f5.6 that are often indistinguishable if not better than to those shot at f8.

For those who don't really need an f2.8 lens beyond 16mm , ( like me), I heartily recommend the smaller, lighter, and far less expensive, (and dare I say maybe better built), XF 16-50 f2.8-4.8 lens with internal zoom over the larger, heavier and much more costly XF 16-55 f2.8 mk2 with external zoom.

Click to expand...

I have decades of experience (as an amateur) with variable aperture zoom lenses. Extend the zoom, and finding the aperture changes, and so SS is affected or has to be adjusted. Irritating, and slows things down. Especially for an everyday standard zoom, the benefit of a constant aperture for me cannot be overstated.

The advantage of f2.8 vs f4.8 is also not trivial in many situations. I can’t conceive why you might need f2.8 at 16mm FL but never 27, 35, 40… and you are suggesting that some zoom are not sharp at maximum reach. That idea needs backing up with specifics and evidence.

There is nothing at all wrong with the build quality of my 16-55/2.8 MkII. I’m not delighted by the soft clicks of the aperture ring, but understand why Fuji made the lens this way to have the broadest appeal. The zoom action is fine.

On the X-T5, the MkII feels compact, light and well balanced. It is a bit lighter than the 16-80 for goodness sake, which is a full stop slower across its (greater) zoom lens.

I’m not here to suggest to anyone which one they should choose of the excellent options which Fuji offers, or the great third party alternatives. Forgetting bundle deals which complicate comparison, in the U.K. the 16-55 II retails for almost exactly double the price of the 16-50. Anyone with an interest in either, or both, can figure what makes best sense to them. No need for anyone to suggest here that either of these takes the crown as the best overall. Different users can decide for themselves.

LordNutHatch said:

Size/weight: there's no contest here, the 16-50 is a featherweight in comparison. I replaced the petal hoods of both lenses with Haoge square hoods, and that cuts down the sizes a bit, but it also highlights the larger front element of the 16-55 II, that's where the feeling of "bigger" is most obvious.

Click to expand...

I am intrigued by the two Haoge square lens hoods. I have found one that is bespoke for the 16-50/f.4.8 on Amazon and the Haoge website and may buy it.

However, I cannot find one for the 16-55/f2.8. There is one shown for the Mk I, which has a 77mm thread (I understand the Haoge lens hoods are a bayonet fit), but the Mk II has a smaller diameter (72mm). Have you used one cited for another lens or is there a bespoke Mk II version? Thanks.
--
J.

jhorse said:

The quote from above: “If there are people who do own both, would be interesting to learn why.”

I own both, but unplanned! When the 16-50 was announced I thought it would be a good update to my venerable 18-55, which I had had since I joined Fujiland in 2016. The three reasons over the 18-55 for the trade-up were: 16mm, WR and probably better IQ on a 40Mp sensor. The latter has, in my opinion, proved the case. As a light weight all weather hiking lens on my XT5 I am very pleased with it. It arrived in June.

I had the 16-55 Mk I since 2019. I used it a lot for general, sports and hiking. While I did not mind the weight and size, first on a XT3 then on a XT5, a lighter version would always have been attractive. Then in October, Fuji announced the 16-55 Mk II. Despite owning the 16-50, I thought why not trade-in the old 16-55 for the new version if the trade-in price was fair. Over the 5-6 years of owning and using the Mk I the trade-in offer was only £200 less than I paid for it, so I jumped. Yes, the cost of change was more, but since owning the Mk II I have been pleased with both its IQ and its weight/size reduction for hiking. The only minor issue is the zoom ring feels slightly coarse, but it seems to be coming smoother with use. It arrived in November.

Had I known in June that a 16-55 Mk II was to be released later in the year, I would have held off on the 16-50 and just bought the 16-55. That said, I plan to keep and use both lenses.

I tested both lenses individually upon arrival to ensure no defects or IQ deficiencies. I was/am pleased with each. I have not done any direct, side,-by-side tests so I am not in a position to give a fair, comparative assessment.

Hope that helps.

Click to expand...

Had the same feeling initially - I would say almost slightly sticky and difficult to make precise adjustments because of it. I was a bit miffed by that, but over the course of a month and a bit of ownership it has become buttery smooth. Very nice to use now.

The only criticism I still have is the aperture ring, which as others have said is a little lackluster in its clicks. Having owned the 18mm 1.4 and still owning the new 56mm 1.2, I'm quite used to these loose rings. Why they are all so different, I don't know, but if you're listening Fuji, aim for the tension on the 33mm 1.4 please - perfection

Anyway, I drift off the topic. I haven't used the new kit lens but nearly bought it ahead of the new 16-55mm announcement. It looks brilliantly compact and I imagine would be ideal for travel. I did manage to compare the new 16-55 to the Sigma 18-50 recently. I was impressed with the latter in the centre but it was much less competitive from the midframe and out (which was a bit of a relief in a way, ha).

GeoMur said:

jhorse said:

The quote from above: “If there are people who do own both, would be interesting to learn why.”

I own both, but unplanned! When the 16-50 was announced I thought it would be a good update to my venerable 18-55, which I had had since I joined Fujiland in 2016. The three reasons over the 18-55 for the trade-up were: 16mm, WR and probably better IQ on a 40Mp sensor. The latter has, in my opinion, proved the case. As a light weight all weather hiking lens on my XT5 I am very pleased with it. It arrived in June.

I had the 16-55 Mk I since 2019. I used it a lot for general, sports and hiking. While I did not mind the weight and size, first on a XT3 then on a XT5, a lighter version would always have been attractive. Then in October, Fuji announced the 16-55 Mk II. Despite owning the 16-50, I thought why not trade-in the old 16-55 for the new version if the trade-in price was fair. Over the 5-6 years of owning and using the Mk I the trade-in offer was only £200 less than I paid for it, so I jumped. Yes, the cost of change was more, but since owning the Mk II I have been pleased with both its IQ and its weight/size reduction for hiking. The only minor issue is the zoom ring feels slightly coarse, but it seems to be coming smoother with use. It arrived in November.

Had I known in June that a 16-55 Mk II was to be released later in the year, I would have held off on the 16-50 and just bought the 16-55. That said, I plan to keep and use both lenses.

I tested both lenses individually upon arrival to ensure no defects or IQ deficiencies. I was/am pleased with each. I have not done any direct, side,-by-side tests so I am not in a position to give a fair, comparative assessment.

Hope that helps.

Click to expand...

Had the same feeling initially - I would say almost slightly sticky and difficult to make precise adjustments because of it. I was a bit miffed by that, but over the course of a month and a bit of ownership it has become buttery smooth. Very nice to use now.

The only criticism I still have is the aperture ring, which as others have said is a little lackluster in its clicks. Having owned the 18mm 1.4 and still owning the new 56mm 1.2, I'm quite used to these loose rings. Why they are all so different, I don't know, but if you're listening Fuji, aim for the tension on the 33mm 1.4 please - perfection

Click to expand...

Quite right that they do differ, and agree as a pure stills photographer, that the rings with more resistance and ‘clickyness’ are best against inadvertent changes of aperture. The 16-55/f2.8 II has been engineered with the switch to make it click-free for video use. I’m not an engineer, nor seen the internals, but expect this mechanism also requires the profile of the teeth to be smoother or shallower in profile than those lenses which have stronger clicks, and resistance, like the excellent 33 does.

jhorse said:

LordNutHatch said:

Size/weight: there's no contest here, the 16-50 is a featherweight in comparison. I replaced the petal hoods of both lenses with Haoge square hoods, and that cuts down the sizes a bit, but it also highlights the larger front element of the 16-55 II, that's where the feeling of "bigger" is most obvious.

Click to expand...

I am intrigued by the two Haoge square lens hoods. I have found one that is bespoke for the 16-50/f.4.8 on Amazon and the Haoge website and may buy it.

However, I cannot find one for the 16-55/f2.8. There is one shown for the Mk I, which has a 77mm thread (I understand the Haoge lens hoods are a bayonet fit), but the Mk II has a smaller diameter (72mm). Have you used one cited for another lens or is there a bespoke Mk II version? Thanks.

--
J.
http://jules7.smugmug.com/

Click to expand...

So that’s a hood for the 16-80, which I had sitting around from when I owned that lens. Who knows if it’s the proper, exact fit for the optical formula, but thus far, no adverse effects detected.

Powerdoc said:

I have the 16-50 mm F2.8 F4.8 for "tourism" photography. Typically I shoot at F5.6 F8, otherwise I shoot prime. I wonder if the new 16-55 F2.8 LM WR is better at this aperture.

If someone has any info , he is welcome

Thanks in advance

Click to expand...

Other than some potential CA/fringing issues and somewhat softer corners in some situations, I doubt you’ll see much of a difference between the two lenses in real-world shooting at f/5.6 to f/8, but the point of a fast, pro-quality f/2.8 zoom is to not have to switch to primes at wider apertures. When you don’t want to carry a bag of primes, but do want to shoot in low light/indoors or with greater subject isolation, that’s what 16-55 f/2.8 (either version) is for.

For curiosity sake, and to satisfy some members here, I just took some shots w/ both lenses set to as close as possible settings at the longest matching focal length and aperture, which meant trying to set the 16-55 II set to 50mm (close I could get was 49.8), and f/4.8 (close I could get was f/4.5 or f/5, so I went with f/4.5).

Note that there may be a possibility that I have a de-centered lens, who knows, this is just one sample, and I'm not a professional tester, so don't base any decisions off my stuff here. I'm sure we'll eventually get a more precise review from someone more reputable I compare/test my lenses shooting around for a few weeks and build up my observations in order to notice trends and the character to get a holistic picture, it isn't just one aspect that makes/breaks it for me.

Center of frame: lenses are very close, and the 16-55 II does better here compared to its 55mm, but the 16-50 is still noticeably sharper.


16-55 II vs. 16-50, center

Edge of frame: 16-50 is much sharper, no contest.


16-55 II vs. 16-50, right edge

Ok, so the "kit" lens is sharper than the newest Red-Badge lens, but here's where I think the trade-off happens: bokeh quality, and probably a smoother rendering. The 16-55 II's bokeh quality is substantially better (in my opinion, of course, since this is all subjective), and so perhaps the lens designers may have sacrificed some ultimate sharpness in exchange for more pleasing performance in this area.


16-55 II vs. 16-50, bokeh near center

Open the 16-55 II to f/2.8, and it's clear what you're getting with the constant f/2.8 (or sacrificing when opting for the 16-50):


16-55 II @ f/2.8 vs. 16-50 @ f/4.8, bokeh near center

My personal conclusion so far after shooting with the 16-55 II for a month:

This 16-55 II is my first experience with a Fuji Red Badge lens, and I honestly expected it to be a world beating, test chart eating engineering masterpiece, but so far the performance I'm seeing isn't that. HOWEVER, sharpness, MTF charts, brick wall tests, etc, aren't everything, and I think maybe the design philosophy for this lens was meant to encompass more? I love lenses with character and am OK with imperfections, my prime lineup is the Fuji original trio of 18 /f2, 35 f/1.4, 60 f/2.4 squarely for that reason, so I'm definitely not after absolute sharpness and perfection, just surprised at the results is all.

It's also a good thing that Fuji isn't pulling punches with its kit lens just to protect the big boy Red Badger, it's letting the spec features/limitations define the market... if you need constant 2.8, extra 5mm, and click-less aperture, you go 16-55 II, but if you don't necessarily need those features then the 16-50 is an easy choice, and you can be confidant knowing you're not giving up anything performance-wise.

So far, I'm leaning towards keeping the 16-55 II and parting w/ the 16-50, as I'm wanting a 1-lens solution, and have more need of a lens that can work indoors vs. one that's better suited for outdoor/landscapes.

Probably if I owned the 16-55 mk2, I'd own that and the 35mm f/1.4 and be done.

That said, I own the 16-50 and 35 f/2 and am happy with the small size (i.e. I'm an old dawg and prefer smaller and lighter lenses). I kinda miss the 33 f/1.4 (I know, off topic) for being able to shoot it wide open, so your 35 f/1.4 would be a keeper. I'm a 50mm-e guy, and I like pairing a 50mm-e prime with a standard zoom.

RobRoy22 said:

jonikon said:

LordNutHatch said:

I know what you’re saying, and yes, the caption mistakenly says both were shot at 2.8, which is not correct. However, most people I think want to see wide open comparisons, so that’s what I did, otherwise there’d be little point to the constant 2.8 the new lens provides. I also shot the 16-55 II against my primes too, they are sharp wide open at much more shallow DOF. However, similar to primes, where stopping down provides an increase in sharpness/clarity, it would be beneficial to see if that’s also the case with the new lens. I need more time behind this lens so I can learn more of its nuances and character.

Click to expand...

Setting your caption mistake aside, I tend to agree with your "wide open comparisons" maximum aperture approach, in this case at least. In this way one can decide whether it's worth it to pay another $700 (in my case), to have the larger f2.8 aperture at the long end. Stated maximum apertures are one thing, but the question is always how sharp a lens is at the stated maximum widest aperture. One of the things I really like about the XF 16-50 f2.8-4.8 is that I can get acceptably sharp images shooting wide open at any focal length and get even sharper images at f5.6 that are often indistinguishable if not better than to those shot at f8.

For those who don't really need an f2.8 lens beyond 16mm , ( like me), I heartily recommend the smaller, lighter, and far less expensive, (and dare I say maybe better built), XF 16-50 f2.8-4.8 lens with internal zoom over the larger, heavier and much more costly XF 16-55 f2.8 mk2 with external zoom.

Click to expand...

I have decades of experience (as an amateur) with variable aperture zoom lenses. Extend the zoom, and finding the aperture changes, and so SS is affected or has to be adjusted. Irritating, and slows things down. Especially for an everyday standard zoom, the benefit of a constant aperture for me cannot be overstated.

Click to expand...

Somewhat true in the days of fixed ISO film, but digital photography with Auto ISO changed all that. I use Auto ISO almost exclusively, so a variable aperture lens is not an issue for me when shooting in manual mode and a little change in shutter speed is of no consequence when shooting in Aperture priority mode in bright daylight conditions anyway. I don't use Shutter priority anymore because setting the shutter speed and the aperture with Auto ISO in Manual mode gives me much more control over the resulting image.

RobRoy22 said:

The advantage of f2.8 vs f4.8 is also not trivial in many situations.

Click to expand...

When shooting in bright daylight conditions it is trivial with a maximum focal length of only 50mm. We are not talking telephoto lens here.

RobRoy22 said:

I can’t conceive why you might need f2.8 at 16mm FL

Click to expand...

I am really surprised you don't see the value of f2.8 at 16mm because when shooting indoors where light is lower and spaces are confined a larger aperture and a wider lens are what's typically wanted. But apparently you think the XF 16 f2.8 prime lens is of no value and must be bought by fools.

RobRoy22 said:

but never 27, 35, 40… and you are suggesting that some zoom are not sharp at maximum reach. That idea needs backing up with specifics and evidence.

Click to expand...

Look no farther than the XF 16-80mm and tell me if you think it is sharp beyond the center at 80mm.

RobRoy22 said:

There is nothing at all wrong with the build quality of my 16-55/2.8 MkII. I’m not delighted by the soft clicks of the aperture ring, but understand why Fuji made the lens this way to have the broadest appeal. The zoom action is fine.

Click to expand...

I can't say from direct experience, but there have been a number of posts on this forum from owners of the new XF 16-55 Mkll complaining about the build quality of that lens. So please don't shoot the messenger. There have also been some really bad reviews from verified buyers of the 16-55 Mkll lens at B&H photo that would give one pause.

RobRoy22 said:

On the X-T5, the MkII feels compact, light and well balanced. It is a bit lighter than the 16-80 for goodness sake, which is a full stop slower across its (greater) zoom lens.

I’m not here to suggest to anyone which one they should choose of the excellent options which Fuji offers, or the great third party alternatives. Forgetting bundle deals which complicate comparison, in the U.K. the 16-55 II retails for almost exactly double the price of the 16-50. Anyone with an interest in either, or both, can figure what makes best sense to them. No need for anyone to suggest here that either of these takes the crown as the best overall. Different users can decide for themselves.

Click to expand...

Currently in the US the XF 16-50 f2.8-4.8 is priced at $499 and the XF 16-55 f2.8 $1199. With the money I saved by buying the XF 16-50 instead of the XF 16-55 , i have saved almost enough money to buy a new XF 70-300mm which would be more useful to me than having an f2.8 aperture from 17-55mm. Therefore I agree with you that it comes down to what makes the most dollars and sense for each individual when choosing their lens selection. More choices is a good thing.

jonikon said:

RobRoy22 said:

jonikon said:

LordNutHatch said:

I know what you’re saying, and yes, the caption mistakenly says both were shot at 2.8, which is not correct. However, most people I think want to see wide open comparisons, so that’s what I did, otherwise there’d be little point to the constant 2.8 the new lens provides. I also shot the 16-55 II against my primes too, they are sharp wide open at much more shallow DOF. However, similar to primes, where stopping down provides an increase in sharpness/clarity, it would be beneficial to see if that’s also the case with the new lens. I need more time behind this lens so I can learn more of its nuances and character.

Click to expand...

Setting your caption mistake aside, I tend to agree with your "wide open comparisons" maximum aperture approach, in this case at least. In this way one can decide whether it's worth it to pay another $700 (in my case), to have the larger f2.8 aperture at the long end. Stated maximum apertures are one thing, but the question is always how sharp a lens is at the stated maximum widest aperture. One of the things I really like about the XF 16-50 f2.8-4.8 is that I can get acceptably sharp images shooting wide open at any focal length and get even sharper images at f5.6 that are often indistinguishable if not better than to those shot at f8.

For those who don't really need an f2.8 lens beyond 16mm , ( like me), I heartily recommend the smaller, lighter, and far less expensive, (and dare I say maybe better built), XF 16-50 f2.8-4.8 lens with internal zoom over the larger, heavier and much more costly XF 16-55 f2.8 mk2 with external zoom.

Click to expand...

I have decades of experience (as an amateur) with variable aperture zoom lenses. Extend the zoom, and finding the aperture changes, and so SS is affected or has to be adjusted. Irritating, and slows things down. Especially for an everyday standard zoom, the benefit of a constant aperture for me cannot be overstated.

Click to expand...

Somewhat true in the days of fixed ISO film, but digital photography with Auto ISO changed all that. I use Auto ISO almost exclusively, so a variable aperture lens is not an issue for me when shooting in manual mode and a little change in shutter speed is of no consequence when shooting in Aperture priority mode in bright daylight conditions anyway. I don't use Shutter priority anymore because setting the shutter speed and the aperture with Auto ISO in Manual mode gives me much more control over the resulting image.

jonikon said:

The advantage of f2.8 vs f4.8 is also not trivial in many situations.

Click to expand...

When shooting in bright daylight conditions it is trivial with a maximum focal length of only 50mm. We are not talking telephoto lens here.

jonikon said:

I can’t conceive why you might need f2.8 at 16mm FL

Click to expand...

I am really surprised you don't see the value of f2.8 at 16mm because when shooting indoors where light is lower and spaces are confined a larger aperture and a wider lens are what's typically wanted. But apparently you think the XF 16 f2.8 prime lens is of no value and must be bought by fools.

Click to expand...

Where on earth did I say this. You’ve mangled the meaning of my sentence, also by splitting it here.

jonikon said:

jonikon said:

but never 27, 35, 40… and you are suggesting that some zoom are not sharp at maximum reach. That idea needs backing up with specifics and evidence.

Click to expand...

Look no farther than the XF 16-80mm and tell me if you think it is sharp beyond the center at 80mm.

Click to expand...

Oh, this hobby horse again!

jonikon said:

jonikon said:

There is nothing at all wrong with the build quality of my 16-55/2.8 MkII. I’m not delighted by the soft clicks of the aperture ring, but understand why Fuji made the lens this way to have the broadest appeal. The zoom action is fine.

Click to expand...

I can't say from direct experience, but there have been a number of posts on this forum from owners of the new XF 16-55 Mkll complaining about the build quality of that lens. So please don't shoot the messenger. There have also been some really bad reviews from verified buyers of the 16-55 Mkll lens at B&H photo that would give one pause.

jonikon said:

On the X-T5, the MkII feels compact, light and well balanced. It is a bit lighter than the 16-80 for goodness sake, which is a full stop slower across its (greater) zoom lens.

I’m not here to suggest to anyone which one they should choose of the excellent options which Fuji offers, or the great third party alternatives. Forgetting bundle deals which complicate comparison, in the U.K. the 16-55 II retails for almost exactly double the price of the 16-50. Anyone with an interest in either, or both, can figure what makes best sense to them. No need for anyone to suggest here that either of these takes the crown as the best overall. Different users can decide for themselves.

Click to expand...

Currently in the US the XF 16-50 f2.8-4.8 is priced at $499 and the XF 16-55 f2.8 $1199. With the money I saved by buying the XF 16-50 instead of the XF 16-55 , i have saved almost enough money to buy a new XF 70-300mm which would be more useful to me than having an f2.8 aperture from 17-55mm. Therefore I agree with you that it comes down to what makes the most dollars and sense for each individual when choosing their lens selection. More choices is a good thing.

Click to expand...

And yet you keep emphasising the same points and opinions suggesting that you are right and anyone with different priorities is misguided. Not at all balanced or impartial IMO.

I've been doing more shooting and comparisons b/w these two lenses since I last posted, and the 16-50 consistently trounces the new 16-55 II at every focal length and comparable aperture, and it's not even close. Doesn't matter that the new lens is stopped down, it never reaches the sharpness or clarity of the kit lens, center or corners. In addition, this thing is just not producing very pleasing looking photos. It's to the point where I'm convinced something is wrong with my copy, so I'm probably going to send it in to Fuji for inspection/repair. So, please retract all of my previous tests and commentary until I can confirm I have a good copy :-(

LordNutHatch said:

I've been doing more shooting and comparisons b/w these two lenses since I last posted, and the 16-50 consistently trounces the new 16-55 II at every focal length and comparable aperture, and it's not even close. Doesn't matter that the new lens is stopped down, it never reaches the sharpness or clarity of the kit lens, center or corners. In addition, this thing is just not producing very pleasing looking photos. It's to the point where I'm convinced something is wrong with my copy, so I'm probably going to send it in to Fuji for inspection/repair. So, please retract all of my previous tests and commentary until I can confirm I have a good copy :-(

Click to expand...

It could very well be that the lens is decentered. You might want to test this out. If so exchange it for a good copy.

Will do, thank you. Wish it wasn't 0F degrees outside though. makes it painful to do these tests.

LordNutHatch said:

I've been doing more shooting and comparisons b/w these two lenses since I last posted, and the 16-50 consistently trounces the new 16-55 II at every focal length and comparable aperture, and it's not even close. Doesn't matter that the new lens is stopped down, it never reaches the sharpness or clarity of the kit lens, center or corners. In addition, this thing is just not producing very pleasing looking photos. It's to the point where I'm convinced something is wrong with my copy, so I'm probably going to send it in to Fuji for inspection/repair. So, please retract all of my previous tests and commentary until I can confirm I have a good copy :-(

Click to expand...

i's unfortunate. There is no way that the kit lens trounce a good copy of this lens. I hope that you will get a good copy.

Powerdoc said:

LordNutHatch said:

I've been doing more shooting and comparisons b/w these two lenses since I last posted, and the 16-50 consistently trounces the new 16-55 II at every focal length and comparable aperture, and it's not even close. Doesn't matter that the new lens is stopped down, it never reaches the sharpness or clarity of the kit lens, center or corners. In addition, this thing is just not producing very pleasing looking photos. It's to the point where I'm convinced something is wrong with my copy, so I'm probably going to send it in to Fuji for inspection/repair. So, please retract all of my previous tests and commentary until I can confirm I have a good copy :-(

Click to expand...

i's unfortunate. There is no way that the kit lens trounce a good copy of this lens. I hope that you will get a good copy.

Click to expand...

I agree, I have both lenses. The 16-55 is excellent in my amateur testing at various focal lengths and apertures.

The 16-50 is also excellent, but my experience of both lenses is that the 16-50 can keep up with the 16-55 under normal viewing conditions, but 'consistently trounce' it? No, not unless there is an issue with the 16-55.

--
J.
http://jules7.smugmug.com/

LordNutHatch said:

Edge of frame: 16-50 is much sharper, no contest.


16-55 II vs. 16-50, right edge

Click to expand...

In this one, at least, it looks like something else is awry - to my eye, the left hand image appears sharper than the right in all but the very bottom right corner. I'm not sure I'd draw the same conclusions as you from that and I know which I would prefer for proper photography.

Perhaps I've mixed them up? Otherwise, are you sure everything was lined up etc?

GeoMur said:

LordNutHatch said:

Edge of frame: 16-50 is much sharper, no contest.


16-55 II vs. 16-50, right edge

Click to expand...

In this one, at least, it looks like something else is awry - to my eye, the left hand image appears sharper than the right in all but the very bottom right corner. I'm not sure I'd draw the same conclusions as you from that and I know which I would prefer for proper photography.

Perhaps I've mixed them up? Otherwise, are you sure everything was lined up etc?

Click to expand...

Caption may be mixed up, again. I have many more comparison shots I can use, but it was the same story with each, the 16-50 was MUCH sharper on the edges and corners in all of them.