Reading mode: Light Dark

16-50 vs 16-80 close focus at their long ends?

Go to last post
Lettermanian

Lettermanian

Senior Member
Messages
3,217
Solutions
10
Reaction score
2,559
Location
Nova Scotia, CA
I have recently returned to Fuji from a year with Lumix L-mount, and purchased the X-T5 with the new 16-50. It's a nice kit lens, and actually gives decent out-of focus areas when at minimum focus distance. However, I have taken some mfd pics at 50mm, and am not too impressed by the lack of sharpness. It's ok, just not great. My questions:



- Have any other owners seen similar results with mfd at 50mm? Just wondering if my expectations are in line for this lens.


- Can any owners of the 16-80 give input about sharpness of a subject (flowers for example) and bokeh quality at 80mm mfd? I know about the issues with this lens, thus the specificity of my question.

These two lenses seems to have the best mfd spec of most of Fuji's zooms ( I am familiar with the mfd of the 70-300; it is on order ;) ) , so any input specifically on the 16-80's performance at mfd would be appreciated. Thanks :)
 
You want to know the 16-80's performance at closest focal distance at 50mm? or at 80mm?

Knowing none are as good as the 60mm or 80mm macro...
 
RWN Photo said:
You want to know the 16-80's performance at closest focal distance at 50mm? or at 80mm?

Knowing none are as good as the 60mm or 80mm macro...
Click to expand...
At 80mm, sorry for not clarifying. I'm not looking at a dedicated macro, as I still want an all-purpose zoom.
 
The mfd of the 16-80 is supposed to be 35cm at all focal lengths.

Being intrigued by your question, I just did a quick and dirty test of my 16-80 by taking a picture of some books on a shelf in my office at that distance from the focal plane, which puts the subject about 20cm from the front of the lens. Even though the lighting was far from ideal, the results surprised me by how sharp they are. Can't say anything about bokeh though.

Taken with X-T5 and XF 16-80 at 35 cm distance from the focal plane
Taken with X-T5 and XF 16-80 at 35 cm distance from the focal plane
 
I can't answer the question but the trial version of Topaz Photo AI might answer the question differently.
 
Lettermanian said:
I have recently returned to Fuji from a year with Lumix L-mount, and purchased the X-T5 with the new 16-50. It's a nice kit lens, and actually gives decent out-of focus areas when at minimum focus distance. However, I have taken some mfd pics at 50mm, and am not too impressed by the lack of sharpness. It's ok, just not great. My questions:

- Have any other owners seen similar results with mfd at 50mm? Just wondering if my expectations are in line for this lens.

- Can any owners of the 16-80 give input about sharpness of a subject (flowers for example) and bokeh quality at 80mm mfd? I know about the issues with this lens, thus the specificity of my question.
Click to expand...
one of the greatest advantages of the 16-80 is its close focus capability at 80mm. It gets sharper at f5.6 and stays that way for higher aperture so need to close down further. Check these posts close ups…


Out with XT3+16-80 (another day, another hike :-) )

Another Sunday, another route to hike, new life to photograph :-) All more than 100% crops and edited to my taste in LR. Wish I had some more zoom at the long FL, but center sharpness of the 16-80 is really good. This was my favorite :-) And some more, not as good as the first ones...
www.dpreview.com www.dpreview.com
Lettermanian said:
These two lenses seems to have the best mfd spec of most of Fuji's zooms ( I am familiar with the mfd of the 70-300; it is on order ;) ) , so any input specifically on the 16-80's performance at mfd would be appreciated. Thanks :)
Click to expand...
 
*Apologies to Yannis; I had posted this on one of his older threads instead of my own :-|

These are two sample images taken with the new 16-50, at 50mm f5.6 minimum focus distance. The first is SOOC HEIF exported to JPEG to post here, high iso NR is -4, sharpening is at 0 in-camera. The second is a JPEG from the RAW file. I think DPR does apply some compression too.

Is this level of sharpness a reasonable expectation for this lens? Not said cynically; I just want to know what to expect, and wondering if the 16-80 at 80mm mfd will give slightly better results.

*edit to add: I was shooting in the evening light so the ISO is somewhat high. I will try again today in better light.



JPEG from HEIF, no pp
JPEG from HEIF, no pp



JPEG from RAW, no pp
JPEG from RAW, no pp



--
"I much prefer to be behind the camera than in front of it."
- Me and every other introvert
 
John Bean (UK) said:
It's not clear to me what you expected here; at this distance, 50mm, f/5.6 and a very 3D subject it's not even obvious where the plane of focus is supposed to be as nothing much is actually in focus.
Click to expand...
The tips of the front petals are what I was focussed on, with the camera's green confirmation box. That should be evident if looking at these images on a large screen. Those are the sharpest points of focus in the scene, and shooting at f5.6 I would think some more detail in the petals should have been captured.
 
TL;DR: the lens exhibits low contrast, softer focus and some "glow" at minimum focus distances, especially at 50mm. The lens performs better when further away from the subject.

I think this answers my initial inquiry about the new 16-50. I watched some review videos of the lens (Christopher Frost, Gordon Laing, Richard Wong), and it was seen (especially in CF's review) that at mfd at 50mm the lens exhibits low contrast, softer focus and some (LoCA?) glow on edges at wider apertures: f4.8, 5.6, clearing up at f8 and best at f11. CF's video can be seen here and skip to the 6:48 mark for close-focus review. At distances further than mfd the lens gives more defined results at 4.8, 5.6, etc. At 16mm mfd the results are similar for mfd and further than mfd. Pics below to demonstrate; all are JPEG's exported from RAF's in Lightroom with no editing. I was not measuring mfd with a ruler, I just went as close as possible using AF-S and green box confirmation (the way I would normally use the camera).

At least I know now what to expect. I don't have a way to do the same comparison with a 16-80, but for now it's clear to me what the limitations are of the new lens. Again, it's not a complaint, just a sincere effort to know the gear. In other respects I think it's a great little lens. I have some pics with it from a recent trip through the Rockies, and for the most part it proved to be a good sharp lens for landscapes. I think for close-focus with my zooms I'll stick with the 70-300mm for now.

50mm at f4.8 minimum focus distance.
50mm at f4.8 minimum focus distance.

F4.8 but further away
F4.8 but further away

F5.6 mfd
F5.6 mfd

F5.6 further away
F5.6 further away

F8 mfd
F8 mfd

F8 further away
F8 further away

16mm at f2.8 mfd
16mm at f2.8 mfd

16mm at f4 mfd
16mm at f4 mfd

16mm f5.6 mfd
16mm f5.6 mfd

16mm f8 mfd
16mm f8 mfd

--
"I much prefer to be behind the camera than in front of it."
- Me and every other introvert
 
Last edited:
Lettermanian said:
John Bean (UK) said:
It's not clear to me what you expected here; at this distance, 50mm, f/5.6 and a very 3D subject it's not even obvious where the plane of focus is supposed to be as nothing much is actually in focus.
Click to expand...
The tips of the front petals are what I was focussed on, with the camera's green confirmation box. That should be evident if looking at these images on a large screen. Those are the sharpest points of focus in the scene, and shooting at f5.6 I would think some more detail in the petals should have been captured.
Click to expand...
On what basis? I’m looking on a small screen but the DoF is very shallow under these conditions.
 
9ad3576afe0c427c9638e2512ad3a945.jpg

XT4, XF 16-50 at 50mm F6,4, cropped by around 30%

Don't know exactly how close I was, but for me it exceeds my expectations for this 'kit-zoom'.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
  • Question Question
Does the XF 16-80 feel out of place on the X-E5?
2 3
Replies
56
Views
6K
unceunce
U
bastibe
  • Question Question
16-55@55 cropped vs 16-80@80?
Replies
6
Views
60
7777markw
7
D.A.A.N.
Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 vs Fuji 16-50 /16-55
Replies
19
Views
2K
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
797
D.A.A.N.
D.A.A.N.
A
Anyone directly compared Sigma 18-50 with Fuji 16-50 2.8-4/16-55 mkii?
Replies
14
Views
229
MarcosV
M

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