Did You use AF to set focus on those test shots?By all means, have a look (I didn't include all of them, but are a few). Also, I noticed I had a typo on that last image. The one on the right was mislabeled but it's from the 16-80mm
From owning the 16-80, I know that sometimes it can be weirdly blurry, without being a focus problem. Or being unlikely to be a focus problem: I got this general blurriness shooting landscapes at f/11 (before I knew it is not a good aperture to shoot at with this lens, better stick to (f/5.6 to f/6.4) whereas sometimes, same settings, I get crispy images.
I’m very curious if the changes between the lenses you mentioned can bring such a difference. maybe the new lenses are sharper, but I don’t see a normal user noticing that without zooming in….
You are kicking a dead horse. The only problem with the XF16-80 was unrealistic expectations (though it did have early shutter shock issues with the OIS..that got resolved in FW).And yet, in real world use it is happening.. at least for 16mm in 16-80/4
Cleaning front element in 16-80/4 will not help this lens to bring on more crisp images in the corners.
I don't want to kick dead horse and elaborate more on 16-80/4 so I will only write this: in moment of introducing new kit lens XF 16-50/2.8-4.8 Fuji Imho should withdraw from production 16-80/4
How do you like the Samyang 75mm f/1.8? Really considering getting that one, it is so light...
Thats an example of classic fuji AF issue, looks like its front focused, basically fuji AF just decided it was good enough. f10 doesnt help but its an af issue. Been there done that. People can hate on me all they want.From owning the 16-80, I know that sometimes it can be weirdly blurry, without being a focus problem. Or being unlikely to be a focus problem: I got this general blurriness shooting landscapes at f/11 (before I knew it is not a good aperture to shoot at with this lens, better stick to (f/5.6 to f/6.4) whereas sometimes, same settings, I get crispy images.
XF 16-80 can be perfectly crisp, at least to my eyes.
I haven't figured out why this soft, out-of-focus look show up sometimes (well, like at least 50%), maybe some shutter shock, maybe OIS... but it is the reason I have stopped using the 16-80 as my go to lens.
Which is sad because it can also deliver very good results, and if though the 55-80 range is not usable for landscapes (and too short for wildlife), it is useful for "portrait" or "macro".
You are absulutely right, there should not be any serious comparisons between XF 16-80/4 and XF 16-55/2.8 MkII, as a latter is pro grade lens, where 16-80/4 is kit lensYou are kicking a dead horse. The only problem with the XF16-80 was unrealistic expectations (though it did have early shutter shock issues with the OIS..that got resolved in FW).And yet, in real world use it is happening.. at least for 16mm in 16-80/4
Cleaning front element in 16-80/4 will not help this lens to bring on more crisp images in the corners.
I don't want to kick dead horse and elaborate more on 16-80/4 so I will only write this: in moment of introducing new kit lens XF 16-50/2.8-4.8 Fuji Imho should withdraw from production 16-80/4
I've had 2 copies of the lens (ended up with a 2nd one that came with my XT5). BOTH outperformed (by a small margin) my 18-55 in the overlapping range..and my copy of the 18-55 was pretty good.
I did eventually replace the 16-80 with the new XF16-50 + samyang 75F1.8. The new XF16-50 is a better lens..but the 16-80 is not the dog that some people claim. It should be compared to the 18-55 or 18-135 not the red badge 16-55.
This is my conclusion also when I've evaluated this image (very nice shot, BTWThats an example of classic fuji AF issue, looks like its front focused, basically fuji AF just decided it was good enough. f10 doesnt help but its an af issue. Been there done that. People can hate on me all they want.From owning the 16-80, I know that sometimes it can be weirdly blurry, without being a focus problem. Or being unlikely to be a focus problem: I got this general blurriness shooting landscapes at f/11 (before I knew it is not a good aperture to shoot at with this lens, better stick to (f/5.6 to f/6.4) whereas sometimes, same settings, I get crispy images.
XF 16-80 can be perfectly crisp, at least to my eyes.
I haven't figured out why this soft, out-of-focus look show up sometimes (well, like at least 50%), maybe some shutter shock, maybe OIS... but it is the reason I have stopped using the 16-80 as my go to lens.
Which is sad because it can also deliver very good results, and if though the 55-80 range is not usable for landscapes (and too short for wildlife), it is useful for "portrait" or "macro".
) I really like it. I use it for ski photography - where i need the fast shutter speed. I backcountry ski and bring an XT50 + the samyang - so the size & weight is important. The AF is pretty fast - i think the focusing is faster/a little better than the 16-80 that it replaced. Certainly more keepers. Also have the XF90F2 which is even better, but much bigger and heavier.
The X16-80 f4 is a fine lens. My wife used it for a couple years (came in a kit on her XH2) and it produce some wonderful images. I think the problem was the expectations were too high - after all it is not a "Red Badge" zoom and it was not the replacement for the 16-55, that came later.
Yes, this is something to consider. I didn't see obvious signs of baked-in noise reduction in my phone RAW files though. I have with some dedicated cameras (like the Sony A7III)
Um... that's not how that works. Phone sensors have physically the number of pixels that the manufacturer communicates. My phone has 50MP, it has 50 million physical pixels. However, when shooting JPEG, it does a pixel binning of 2x2 resulting in 12.5MP images. I only get the full 50MP when shooting RAW, but then as I mentioned the noise is generally too high.
I would have said uneducated guess if you think atoms are that big. The pixel pitch of an average smartphone sensor is around 1µm (that's the pixel pitch of the 50MP sensor in the Samsung A56 for example). An atom of silicon (what camera sensors are made of) is about 0.2 nano meters wide. In other words, a single pixel of a 50MP smartphone camera sensor would be about 5000 atoms wide.
Just go read the datasheet of any smartphone sensor, there are your facts.
