How much is the XF 16-80mm f/4 going to cost?

Started 2 months ago | Discussions
akin_t Veteran Member • Posts: 3,320
How much is the XF 16-80mm f/4 going to cost?

I'm looking to simplify my kit and I'm actually selling off a few things like my 18-55mm... Before I do so, I guess I would make sure I could afford the replacement.

Any idea what the 16-80mm is supposed to launch at?

 akin_t's gear list:akin_t's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-E3 Fujifilm X-T2 Carl Zeiss Touit 1.8/32 Carl Zeiss Touit 2.8/12 +4 more
Marcos Villaroman Veteran Member • Posts: 6,000
Re: How much is the XF 16-80mm f/4 going to cost?
1

akin_t wrote:

I'm looking to simplify my kit and I'm actually selling off a few things like my 18-55mm... Before I do so, I guess I would make sure I could afford the replacement.

Any idea what the 16-80mm is supposed to launch at?

I have never seen any cost estimates and only a rough promise of the 16-80 being released in 2019.

If I had to make a guess for budgeting purposes, I would make a wild guess around the MSRP of the 18-135, $900.

 Marcos Villaroman's gear list:Marcos Villaroman's gear list
Sony RX100 IV Canon EOS 5D Mark III Fujifilm X-H1 Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM Fujifilm XF 56mm F1.2 R +56 more
SnipSnap
SnipSnap Regular Member • Posts: 205
Re: How much is the XF 16-80mm f/4 going to cost?

No idea on cost, but recently a fuji ambassador said it would be coming out in a month or so. I have no idea if that’s accurate or not.

-- hide signature --

New Zealander working in conservation, taking photos along the way: https://www.flickr.com/photos/leonberard/albums

 SnipSnap's gear list:SnipSnap's gear list
Nikon D500 Fujifilm X-T1 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II Nikkor AF-S 300mm f/4E PF ED VR Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM +1 more
FTOG Regular Member • Posts: 466
Re: How much is the XF 16-80mm f/4 going to cost?

Wouldn't be surprised if it cost ~1,000 EUR.

 FTOG's gear list:FTOG's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm X-E3 Fujifilm XF 23mm F2 R WR Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm 50mm F2 R WR +2 more
Cagey75
Cagey75 Senior Member • Posts: 1,001
Re: How much is the XF 16-80mm f/4 going to cost?

FTOG wrote:

Wouldn't be surprised if it cost ~1,000 EUR.

If that is the case I don't see why anyone would want it over the already excellent 16-55 2.8?  Sure,  it's shorter, but give me the 2.8 over a bit of extra reach any day of the week.

 Cagey75's gear list:Cagey75's gear list
Fujifilm X-H1 Fujifilm XF 35mm F2 R WR Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Fujifilm 16-55mm F2.8R LM WR Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 R WR +2 more
A_Mist Forum Member • Posts: 89
Re: How much is the XF 16-80mm f/4 going to cost?
2

Cagey75 wrote:

If that is the case I don't see why anyone would want it over the already excellent 16-55 2.8? Sure, it's shorter, but give me the 2.8 over a bit of extra reach any day of the week.

It’s not hard to see. Longer reach and OIS.

Peter Jonas Veteran Member • Posts: 3,772
Re: How much is the XF 16-80mm f/4 going to cost?
4

Cagey75 wrote:

FTOG wrote:

Wouldn't be surprised if it cost ~1,000 EUR.

If that is the case I don't see why anyone would want it over the already excellent 16-55 2.8? Sure, it's shorter, but give me the 2.8 over a bit of extra reach any day of the week.

For me it's quite the opposite: give me a longer reach or a wider zoom range any day over a stop of speed. I rarely shoot wider than f/5.6 aperture.

Also, hopefully the 16-80/4.0 will  lighter and more compact than the 16-55/2.8.

Accordingly, while the 16-55 has never really appealed to me, I am very interested in the 16-80.

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
Peter Jonas

 Peter Jonas's gear list:Peter Jonas's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 10-24mm F4 R OIS Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +2 more
biza43 Forum Pro • Posts: 10,233
Re: How much is the XF 16-80mm f/4 going to cost?
3

Cagey75 wrote:

FTOG wrote:

Wouldn't be surprised if it cost ~1,000 EUR.

If that is the case I don't see why anyone would want it over the already excellent 16-55 2.8? Sure, it's shorter, but give me the 2.8 over a bit of extra reach any day of the week.

Smaller.

Lighter.

Longer focal length.

Same sort of reasons why there are f2.8 and f4 standard zooms. Not everyone wants to lug around f2.8 zooms.

-- hide signature --

www.paulobizarro.com
http://blog.paulobizarro.com/

 biza43's gear list:biza43's gear list
Fujifilm X-H1 Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 R WR Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R XF 90mm +1 more
Cagey75
Cagey75 Senior Member • Posts: 1,001
Re: How much is the XF 16-80mm f/4 going to cost?

A_Mist wrote:

Cagey75 wrote:

If that is the case I don't see why anyone would want it over the already excellent 16-55 2.8? Sure, it's shorter, but give me the 2.8 over a bit of extra reach any day of the week.

It’s not hard to see. Longer reach and OIS.

It is hard to see for me otherwise I wouldn't have posted. For XH1 users like me ois is insignificant, and a bit of extra reach is doing what exactly? Because at f4 it's not great for portraiture, it's too short for wildlife, what exactly is the region between 55 and 80 at f4 doing for you that people are so excited for? At that price I think I'd much rather have the 18-55 and a 90 f2 but hey, let people spend their money how they like. I just can't see the excitement.

People seem to think it's going to be a lot smaller and lighter than the 16-55, I doubt it. If it's longer and also has ois, then it's not going to be small, lighter perhaps if its mostly plastic. Even if I needed the ois I'd find this hard to get exited about. The 18-135 already exists.

 Cagey75's gear list:Cagey75's gear list
Fujifilm X-H1 Fujifilm XF 35mm F2 R WR Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Fujifilm 16-55mm F2.8R LM WR Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 R WR +2 more
A_Mist Forum Member • Posts: 89
Re: How much is the XF 16-80mm f/4 going to cost?
5

Cagey75 wrote:

A_Mist wrote:

Cagey75 wrote:

If that is the case I don't see why anyone would want it over the already excellent 16-55 2.8? Sure, it's shorter, but give me the 2.8 over a bit of extra reach any day of the week.

It’s not hard to see. Longer reach and OIS.

It is hard to see for me otherwise I wouldn't have posted. For XH1 users like me ois is insignificant, and a bit of extra reach is doing what exactly? Because at f4 it's not great for portraiture, it's too short for wildlife, what exactly is the region between 55 and 80 at f4 doing for you that people are so excited for? At that price I think I'd much rather have the 18-55 and a 90 f2 but hey, let people spend their money how they like. I just can't see the excitement.

People seem to think it's going to be a lot smaller and lighter than the 16-55, I doubt it. If it's longer and also has ois, then it's not going to be small, lighter perhaps if its mostly plastic. Even if I needed the ois I'd find this hard to get exited about. The 18-135 already exists.

People have different needs. You wrote that ”...I don’t see why anyone would want it over the already excellent 16-55 2.8?”. Well now you do! The answer is simple, it has longer reach and OIS and it’s probably smaller and lighter. 55-80 matters to some. And, not everyone has X-H1.

It’s totally fine if you don’t prefer this lens, but strange that you cannot see from other perspective than yours.

Cagey75
Cagey75 Senior Member • Posts: 1,001
Re: How much is the XF 16-80mm f/4 going to cost?
1

A_Mist wrote:

Cagey75 wrote:

A_Mist wrote:

Cagey75 wrote:

If that is the case I don't see why anyone would want it over the already excellent 16-55 2.8? Sure, it's shorter, but give me the 2.8 over a bit of extra reach any day of the week.

It’s not hard to see. Longer reach and OIS.

It is hard to see for me otherwise I wouldn't have posted. For XH1 users like me ois is insignificant, and a bit of extra reach is doing what exactly? Because at f4 it's not great for portraiture, it's too short for wildlife, what exactly is the region between 55 and 80 at f4 doing for you that people are so excited for? At that price I think I'd much rather have the 18-55 and a 90 f2 but hey, let people spend their money how they like. I just can't see the excitement.

People seem to think it's going to be a lot smaller and lighter than the 16-55, I doubt it. If it's longer and also has ois, then it's not going to be small, lighter perhaps if its mostly plastic. Even if I needed the ois I'd find this hard to get exited about. The 18-135 already exists.

People have different needs. You wrote that ”...I don’t see why anyone would want it over the already excellent 16-55 2.8?”. Well now you do! The answer is simple, it has longer reach and OIS and it’s probably smaller and lighter. 55-80 matters to some. And, not everyone has X-H1.

It’s totally fine if you don’t prefer this lens, but strange that you cannot see from other perspective than yours.

I don't think you got me right whatsoever, I based my opinion on the price of it too, look back.  I said "in that case ..." referring to the suggestion it might be $1000 .... I don't think it's worth that much unless it's a very well built lens.  And if that's the case it's not going to be much lighter or smaller at all.  Doesn't matter if you agree or disagree, I'm just as entitled to an opinion.   I'll never get people getting defensive over lumps of gear though, especially ones not even released yet!

I think the only reason to be excited about this one is the fact Fuji have such big gaps in their line up.  Between 55 and 80mm there's little choice, apart from the old and slow 60mm and the 18-135

 Cagey75's gear list:Cagey75's gear list
Fujifilm X-H1 Fujifilm XF 35mm F2 R WR Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Fujifilm 16-55mm F2.8R LM WR Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 R WR +2 more
boy_wander Regular Member • Posts: 159
Re: How much is the XF 16-80mm f/4 going to cost?

I hope this has the same IQ as the 10-24. This would be a do-it-all travel lens both for video  and stills. I'd let go of my 10-24 for this, and keep my 23 1.4 and 56 1.2 and then I'll never EVER have GAS again

Cagey75
Cagey75 Senior Member • Posts: 1,001
Re: How much is the XF 16-80mm f/4 going to cost?
1

boy_wander wrote:

I hope this has the same IQ as the 10-24. This would be a do-it-all travel lens both for video and stills. I'd let go of my 10-24 for this, and keep my 23 1.4 and 56 1.2 and then I'll never EVER have GAS again

Lies! I only just got the 16-55, thought it might kill the urge for the 16 1.4 but it hasn't, I still want that too! Not sorry I shifted a couple of primes 35/50 for it though, but that 16 1.4 is a bit special.

 Cagey75's gear list:Cagey75's gear list
Fujifilm X-H1 Fujifilm XF 35mm F2 R WR Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Fujifilm 16-55mm F2.8R LM WR Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 R WR +2 more
biza43 Forum Pro • Posts: 10,233
Re: How much is the XF 16-80mm f/4 going to cost?
3

Cagey75 wrote:

A_Mist wrote:

Cagey75 wrote:

If that is the case I don't see why anyone would want it over the already excellent 16-55 2.8? Sure, it's shorter, but give me the 2.8 over a bit of extra reach any day of the week.

It’s not hard to see. Longer reach and OIS.

It is hard to see for me otherwise I wouldn't have posted. For XH1 users like me ois is insignificant, and a bit of extra reach is doing what exactly?

I would guess taking pictures with that focal length? For example when traveling, as in pic below, 105mm FF at f4.

It is often nice going from 24mm to 105mm with just one lens:

Going to 120mm is even better.

Because at f4 it's not great for portraiture, it's too short for wildlife, what exactly is the region between 55 and 80 at f4 doing for you that people are so excited for?

Plenty of examples available, and a standard f4 zoom is a favourite of many pros, inclusive.

At that price I think I'd much rather have the 18-55 and a 90 f2 but hey, let people spend their money how they like. I just can't see the excitement.

Horses for courses. Sure, I like to use the 90 f2 also.

People seem to think it's going to be a lot smaller and lighter than the 16-55, I doubt it.

We will see. But that has been the norm thus far.

If it's longer and also has ois, then it's not going to be small, lighter perhaps if its mostly plastic. Even if I needed the ois I'd find this hard to get exited about. The 18-135 already exists.

Another option, but f4 at tele is better.

-- hide signature --

www.paulobizarro.com
http://blog.paulobizarro.com/

 biza43's gear list:biza43's gear list
Fujifilm X-H1 Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 R WR Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R XF 90mm +1 more
Cagey75
Cagey75 Senior Member • Posts: 1,001
Re: How much is the XF 16-80mm f/4 going to cost?

biza43 wrote:

Cagey75 wrote:

A_Mist wrote:

Cagey75 wrote:

If that is the case I don't see why anyone would want it over the already excellent 16-55 2.8? Sure, it's shorter, but give me the 2.8 over a bit of extra reach any day of the week.

It’s not hard to see. Longer reach and OIS.

It is hard to see for me otherwise I wouldn't have posted. For XH1 users like me ois is insignificant, and a bit of extra reach is doing what exactly?

I would guess taking pictures with that focal length? For example when traveling, as in pic below, 105mm FF at f4.

It is often nice going from 24mm to 105mm with just one lens:

Going to 120mm is even better.

Because at f4 it's not great for portraiture, it's too short for wildlife, what exactly is the region between 55 and 80 at f4 doing for you that people are so excited for?

Plenty of examples available, and a standard f4 zoom is a favourite of many pros, inclusive.

At that price I think I'd much rather have the 18-55 and a 90 f2 but hey, let people spend their money how they like. I just can't see the excitement.

Horses for courses. Sure, I like to use the 90 f2 also.

People seem to think it's going to be a lot smaller and lighter than the 16-55, I doubt it.

We will see. But that has been the norm thus far.

If it's longer and also has ois, then it's not going to be small, lighter perhaps if its mostly plastic. Even if I needed the ois I'd find this hard to get exited about. The 18-135 already exists.

Another option, but f4 at tele is better.

I understand the FL side of it, but not the price as I said, if this was a $500 lens we're talking I think it would be fantastic.  But for $1000? Not so much.  I mean, the 55-200 already does F4 around 80mm but it's more versatile besides if you pair that with the 18-55.   And you can get both of those for about 700 used in great condition

 Cagey75's gear list:Cagey75's gear list
Fujifilm X-H1 Fujifilm XF 35mm F2 R WR Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Fujifilm 16-55mm F2.8R LM WR Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 R WR +2 more
A_Mist Forum Member • Posts: 89
Re: How much is the XF 16-80mm f/4 going to cost?
2

Cagey75 wrote:

A_Mist wrote:

Cagey75 wrote:

A_Mist wrote:

Cagey75 wrote:

If that is the case I don't see why anyone would want it over the already excellent 16-55 2.8? Sure, it's shorter, but give me the 2.8 over a bit of extra reach any day of the week.

It’s not hard to see. Longer reach and OIS.

It is hard to see for me otherwise I wouldn't have posted. For XH1 users like me ois is insignificant, and a bit of extra reach is doing what exactly? Because at f4 it's not great for portraiture, it's too short for wildlife, what exactly is the region between 55 and 80 at f4 doing for you that people are so excited for? At that price I think I'd much rather have the 18-55 and a 90 f2 but hey, let people spend their money how they like. I just can't see the excitement.

People seem to think it's going to be a lot smaller and lighter than the 16-55, I doubt it. If it's longer and also has ois, then it's not going to be small, lighter perhaps if its mostly plastic. Even if I needed the ois I'd find this hard to get exited about. The 18-135 already exists.

People have different needs. You wrote that ”...I don’t see why anyone would want it over the already excellent 16-55 2.8?”. Well now you do! The answer is simple, it has longer reach and OIS and it’s probably smaller and lighter. 55-80 matters to some. And, not everyone has X-H1.

It’s totally fine if you don’t prefer this lens, but strange that you cannot see from other perspective than yours.

I don't think you got me right whatsoever, I based my opinion on the price of it too, look back. I said "in that case ..." referring to the suggestion it might be $1000 .... I don't think it's worth that much unless it's a very well built lens. And if that's the case it's not going to be much lighter or smaller at all. Doesn't matter if you agree or disagree, I'm just as entitled to an opinion. I'll never get people getting defensive over lumps of gear though, especially ones not even released yet!

I think the only reason to be excited about this one is the fact Fuji have such big gaps in their line up. Between 55 and 80mm there's little choice, apart from the old and slow 60mm and the 18-135

I just find it strange that when you like apples, it’s hard for you to see why someone likes oranges. These lenses are different in many ways.

Cagey75
Cagey75 Senior Member • Posts: 1,001
Re: How much is the XF 16-80mm f/4 going to cost?

A_Mist wrote:

Cagey75 wrote:

A_Mist wrote:

Cagey75 wrote:

A_Mist wrote:

Cagey75 wrote:

If that is the case I don't see why anyone would want it over the already excellent 16-55 2.8? Sure, it's shorter, but give me the 2.8 over a bit of extra reach any day of the week.

It’s not hard to see. Longer reach and OIS.

It is hard to see for me otherwise I wouldn't have posted. For XH1 users like me ois is insignificant, and a bit of extra reach is doing what exactly? Because at f4 it's not great for portraiture, it's too short for wildlife, what exactly is the region between 55 and 80 at f4 doing for you that people are so excited for? At that price I think I'd much rather have the 18-55 and a 90 f2 but hey, let people spend their money how they like. I just can't see the excitement.

People seem to think it's going to be a lot smaller and lighter than the 16-55, I doubt it. If it's longer and also has ois, then it's not going to be small, lighter perhaps if its mostly plastic. Even if I needed the ois I'd find this hard to get exited about. The 18-135 already exists.

People have different needs. You wrote that ”...I don’t see why anyone would want it over the already excellent 16-55 2.8?”. Well now you do! The answer is simple, it has longer reach and OIS and it’s probably smaller and lighter. 55-80 matters to some. And, not everyone has X-H1.

It’s totally fine if you don’t prefer this lens, but strange that you cannot see from other perspective than yours.

I don't think you got me right whatsoever, I based my opinion on the price of it too, look back. I said "in that case ..." referring to the suggestion it might be $1000 .... I don't think it's worth that much unless it's a very well built lens. And if that's the case it's not going to be much lighter or smaller at all. Doesn't matter if you agree or disagree, I'm just as entitled to an opinion. I'll never get people getting defensive over lumps of gear though, especially ones not even released yet!

I think the only reason to be excited about this one is the fact Fuji have such big gaps in their line up. Between 55 and 80mm there's little choice, apart from the old and slow 60mm and the 18-135

I just find it strange that when you like apples, it’s hard for you to see why someone likes oranges. These lenses are different in many ways.

You might weirdly think I'm talking for the masses, but I'm just thinking aloud of my own preferences. Nothing to lose sleep over.

If you're excited about this lens good for you. I'm sure it'll be very nice, I just wouldn't choose it over the 16-55, not a chance. I'll take the few steps forward at 55mm and enjoy having the 2.8 - but then I didn't pay anything close to $1000 for it, got a killer deal on a minty used one.   Or I'll just use an adapted cheap but decent Canon 85mm. I know not everyone would use adapters, and not everyone needs 2.8, but I live in miserable rainy, dull Ireland it is important to me. So is money!

 Cagey75's gear list:Cagey75's gear list
Fujifilm X-H1 Fujifilm XF 35mm F2 R WR Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Fujifilm 16-55mm F2.8R LM WR Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 R WR +2 more
NextShowForSure Contributing Member • Posts: 687
Re: How much is the XF 16-80mm f/4 going to cost?

boy_wander wrote:

and then I'll never EVER have GAS again

I wonder how many times my wife has heard this one.

I fear the 16-80 f4 is possibly going to be approaching the zone of if you have to ask the price you cannot afford it. In Olympus terminology a pro lens.

It does sound good but i might have to trade in all my cameras to afford it and that could create a problem.

 NextShowForSure's gear list:NextShowForSure's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ300 Fujifilm X-A3 Fujifilm X-T100 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 35mm F2 R WR +3 more
Morris0
Morris0 Senior Member • Posts: 9,054
Re: How much is the XF 16-80mm f/4 going to cost?
1

The Canon 24-105 f4 L costs $1,100 US.  Add Fuji tax and you have your answer

Morris

 Morris0's gear list:Morris0's gear list
Fujifilm X-T3 Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D Nikon AF Nikkor 180mm f/2.8D ED-IF Fujifilm XF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 OIS WR Fujifilm XF 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 R LM OIS WR +12 more
lewiedude2
lewiedude2 Senior Member • Posts: 1,241
Re: How much is the XF 16-80mm f/4 going to cost?
1

Yet it hasn't been labeled a Red Badge lens. I would think that the price would be around that of the 10-24. Currently at $899 on BandH.com, after the "permanent" $100 price reduction...list was $999. So, I will say $900. And, I don't need it or want it.

 lewiedude2's gear list:lewiedude2's gear list
Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm 16-55mm F2.8R LM WR
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads