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

Started 3 months ago | Discussions
jonikon Veteran Member • Posts: 7,294
Re: How much is the XF 16-80mm f/4 going to cost?
1

biza43 wrote:

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.

And don't forget the OIS for those who do not own the larger and heavier X-H1. Personally I don't want to lug around any camera body larger or heavier than the X-T2. I used to lug around a Nikon D7000 with a Tokina 16-50 f2.8 lens attached and I am not going back to that kind of kit again!

-- hide signature --

Jon

A_Mist Regular Member • Posts: 108
Re: How much is the XF 16-80mm f/4 going to cost?

jonikon wrote:

biza43 wrote:

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.

And don't forget the OIS for those who do not own the larger and heavier X-H1. Personally I don't want to lug around any camera body larger or heavier than the X-T2. I used to lug around a Nikon D7000 with a Tokina 16-50 f2.8 lens attached and I am not going back to that kind of kit again!

Same here, personally I have zero interest in big 16-55mm f2.8, but probably will buy 16-80mm f4 if IQ is good enough. For the reasons mentioned above; smaller size, longer reach, OIS. Should be perfect with my X-T3. Did I mention OIS?

jonikon Veteran Member • Posts: 7,294
Re: It is an f4 lens

ASteve Bingham wrote:

The new Fufi 16-80 is an f4 lens. These are a lot cheaper to build than an f2.8/f4. I also TESTED the Nikon f2.8-f4 16-80 on a large ISO 12233 chart. It certainly had distortion at the wide end! (16mm). Although it had a few problems, it was a very well made lens . . .

Cough,cough...sputter! I can't agree and I doubt many others who can appreciate a well built lens would agree either. I would put the build quality of the Nikkor 16-80 on a par with a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 VR, that sells for $650.

and the best Nikon made for the DX.

Not even close. The best DX lens Nikon ever made is the Nikkor 17-55mm f2.8 ED-IF AFS. It's built like a tank and out of the five times I have rented this lens for wedding shoots  none showed defects such as  decentering. It's weakest at 17mm at the edges, but between 20-55mm it is very sharp across the frame with no signs of distortion or vignetting. The Nikkor 17-55 f2,8 Is a real dependable workhorse of a lens that never let me down.

-- hide signature --

Jon

Marcos Villaroman Veteran Member • Posts: 6,004
Re: How much is the XF 16-80mm f/4 going to cost?

afm wrote:

I guess the folks interested in this lens will rush to place an order and then hope they get a good copy. I agree it seem a good proposition for a traveller like me to have a one lens solution, but I am lucky to have a good 18-55 and will be reluctant to part with it particularly if the 16-80 is larger, heavier and expensive . Then there is the IQ. Time will tell I guess.

Yup.  Just like the 10-24, 56/1.2, 90/2, X-T1, and X-H1, I plan on pre-ordering the 16-80 at first opportunity.  Hopefully the lens lives up to what I want it to be in my lens line up.

It'll be interesting to see how Fujifilm sees this lens.  Will it be higher quality?  Will it be designed from the ground up as a less expensive lens?  If Fujifilm prices the 16-80 too low (e.g., $400) I might have seconds thoughts pre-ordering it.  

 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
Gringostarr Regular Member • Posts: 136
Re: How much is the XF 16-80mm f/4 going to cost?

For me IQ will be the deciding factor between getting the 16-80 or the 18-135. Weight should be less than a 3oz difference based on the weight of the 10-24 and price wise they should be fairly close, again based on the 10-24. The 18-135 gets mixed reviews though so if the 16-80 is much better it's a no brainer to pick it up, however if IQ is about the same between the two then I'd have to go with the longer reach of the 18-135.

 Gringostarr's gear list:Gringostarr's gear list
Fujifilm X-T30 Fujifilm XF 35mm F2 R WR Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Venus Laowa 9mm F2.8
OfDaniel
OfDaniel Regular Member • Posts: 107
Re: How much is the XF 16-80mm f/4 going to cost?

I’m excited about this lens. I’m just not interested in the 16-55 2.8, it’s huge, no IS and 2.8 is still not fast enough for the lower light work I do. The excellent primes I have cover those areas.

‘I would only use the 16-80 / 16-55 as outdoor lenses only, in which case I would rather have the longer reach with image stabilisation. So regardless of the cost, the 16-80 is by far the more appealing lens to me.

Mebyon K
Mebyon K Contributing Member • Posts: 831
Re: How much is the XF 16-80mm f/4 going to cost?

jonikon wrote:

I think it safe to assume it will cost $1100, which is about what the similar AF-S DX NIKKOR 16-80mm f/2.8-4E ED VR sells for. I for one am very interested in the Fujinon 16-80mm because I briefly had the Nikon 16-80mm before I switched to Fujifilm and found the focal length range the most useful of any mid range zoom lens I have ever owned. I hope the Fujinon version doesn't have the same issues as the Nikkor 16-80 though.

A 16-80mm lens is a 5:1 zoom ratio wide angle to medium telephoto optic. The largest zoom ratio possible for this type of lens to ensure high optical quality is 3:1, which is why both the Nikon 16-80 and 24-120 have visible optical deficiencies.

The only possible way to get decent optical quality for such a large zoom ratio would be to  employ a large degree of electronic correction, this may be fine for jpegs at smaller enlargements, but trying to get a biggish enlargement from a raw file would be an "interesting exercise"

-- hide signature --

Mebyon K

 Mebyon K's gear list:Mebyon K's gear list
Fujifilm XF 56mm F1.2 R
Steve Bingham
Steve Bingham Forum Pro • Posts: 26,555
Re: It is an f4 lens

OK. Looks like we disagree. That's fine. Thom Hogan also calls it the best DX lens Nikon ever made. Yeah, and I tested mine. At one time I owned a dozen Nikon lenses and used them to make a damn good living in photography (income easily in high 6 figures) - now retired. It was, however, and still is, over priced. By the way, I also owned, and tested, a Tamron 17-50. Not in the same class. Weddings? Hmmm. A retired civil engineer as a wedding photographer? I grew up with an entire family of civil engineers. (Father, brother, cousin, and uncle.)

jonikon wrote:

ASteve Bingham wrote:

The new Fufi 16-80 is an f4 lens. These are a lot cheaper to build than an f2.8/f4. I also TESTED the Nikon f2.8-f4 16-80 on a large ISO 12233 chart. It certainly had distortion at the wide end! (16mm). Although it had a few problems, it was a very well made lens . . .

Cough,cough...sputter! I can't agree and I doubt many others who can appreciate a well built lens would agree either.

Pretty casual statement.

I would put the build quality of the Nikkor 16-80 on a par with a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 VR, that sells for $650.

and the best Nikon made for the DX.

Not even close.

Damn, there goes my MS in Photography along with 40 years of hard work.

The best DX lens Nikon ever made is the Nikkor 17-55mm f2.8 ED-IF AFS. It's built like a tank and out of the five times I have rented this lens for wedding shoots none showed defects such as decentering.

Obviously. Roger wouldn't rent a decentered lens. And . . . the 17-55 was first sold in 2004 - or 15 years ago.

It's weakest at 17mm at the edges, but between 20-55mm it is very sharp across the frame with no signs of distortion or vignetting. The Nikkor 17-55 f2,8 Is a real dependable workhorse of a lens that never let me down.

-- hide signature --

Steve Bingham

 Steve Bingham's gear list:Steve Bingham's gear list
Nikon D7200 Nikon D810 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-140mm F3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-80mm F2.8-4E ED VR Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D +27 more
jjz2 Senior Member • Posts: 1,125
Re: How much is the XF 16-80mm f/4 going to cost?

Gringostarr wrote:

For me IQ will be the deciding factor between getting the 16-80 or the 18-135. Weight should be less than a 3oz difference based on the weight of the 10-24 and price wise they should be fairly close, again based on the 10-24. The 18-135 gets mixed reviews though so if the 16-80 is much better it's a no brainer to pick it up, however if IQ is about the same between the two then I'd have to go with the longer reach of the 18-135.

that's a hotly debated question.

I've had 18-135 and 15-85 on crop bodies and preferred the range of the latter. I guess some prefer the former.

from ~16-18 is a 9 degree difference wider though, while 80-135mm is an ~8 degree difference. really about a wash, do you want that much wider, or that much longer. I find it's easier to crop at that point, but impossible to go wider with such a zoom... IF the 16-80 is sharp at the long end, is the question.

 jjz2's gear list:jjz2's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm 15-45mm F3.5-5.6 OIS PZ 7artisans 35mm F1.2
Gringostarr Regular Member • Posts: 136
Re: How much is the XF 16-80mm f/4 going to cost?

jjz2 wrote:

Gringostarr wrote:

For me IQ will be the deciding factor between getting the 16-80 or the 18-135. Weight should be less than a 3oz difference based on the weight of the 10-24 and price wise they should be fairly close, again based on the 10-24. The 18-135 gets mixed reviews though so if the 16-80 is much better it's a no brainer to pick it up, however if IQ is about the same between the two then I'd have to go with the longer reach of the 18-135.

that's a hotly debated question.

I've had 18-135 and 15-85 on crop bodies and preferred the range of the latter. I guess some prefer the former.

from ~16-18 is a 9 degree difference wider though, while 80-135mm is an ~8 degree difference. really about a wash, do you want that much wider, or that much longer. I find it's easier to crop at that point, but impossible to go wider with such a zoom... IF the 16-80 is sharp at the long end, is the question.

Neither are actually wide enough which is why I already have the 9mm Laowa (which is fantastic aside from the vignetting that's easy to fix) to complement whichever zoom I end up grabbing between the 16-80 and 18-135 for use as my zoom kit. Anything longer than 60mm is either too heavy or too slow/plastic for my liking and while I would prefer an equivalent 200mm maximum length for my zoom kit I would be willing to settle on 120mm equivalent and crop if it meant the best possible IQ given the size and weight limitations I'm not willing to budge on.

 Gringostarr's gear list:Gringostarr's gear list
Fujifilm X-T30 Fujifilm XF 35mm F2 R WR Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Venus Laowa 9mm F2.8
jonikon Veteran Member • Posts: 7,294
Re: It is an f4 lens
2

Steve Bingham wrote:

OK. Looks like we disagree. That's fine. Thom Hogan also calls it the best DX lens Nikon ever made. Yeah, and I tested mine. At one time I owned a dozen Nikon lenses and used them to make a damn good living in photography (income easily in high 6 figures) - now retired. It was, however, and still is, over priced. By the way, I also owned, and tested, a Tamron 17-50. Not in the same class. Weddings? Hmmm. A retired civil engineer as a wedding photographer?

So you think an engineer isn't smart enough to use a camera? I would like to see you solve differential equations or do stress analysis. Get off your high horse. I only shot weddings for friends and family as a favor including my daughter's wedding and only got compliments on my work. Never did a paid gig, nor would I want to.

I grew up with an entire family of civil engineers. (Father, brother, cousin, and uncle.)

I don't see how that is reverent to anything. I have two sisters that are artists. So what?

jonikon wrote:

ASteve Bingham wrote:

The new Fufi 16-80 is an f4 lens. These are a lot cheaper to build than an f2.8/f4. I also TESTED the Nikon f2.8-f4 16-80 on a large ISO 12233 chart. It certainly had distortion at the wide end! (16mm). Although it had a few problems, it was a very well made lens . . .

Cough,cough...sputter! I can't agree and I doubt many others who can appreciate a well built lens would agree either.

Pretty casual statement.

I would put the build quality of the Nikkor 16-80 on a par with a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 VR, that sells for $650.

and the best Nikon made for the DX.

Not even close.

Damn, there goes my MS in Photography along with 40 years of hard work.

So you have a MS in the fuzzy studies. I am sure we are all so impressed. The fact is real photographers and artists don't need a degree because they have something infinitely more valuable... talent. Those who lack natural talent in the fine arts get degrees and then tell everyone they meet they have one in the hopes it will give them props.

The best DX lens Nikon ever made is the Nikkor 17-55mm f2.8 ED-IF AFS. It's built like a tank and out of the five times I have rented this lens for wedding shoots none showed defects such as decentering.

Obviously. Roger wouldn't rent a decentered lens.

No idea who you are talking about. I rented from a local camera shop.

It's weakest at 17mm at the edges, but between 20-55mm it is very sharp across the frame with no signs of distortion or vignetting. The Nikkor 17-55 f2,8 Is a real dependable workhorse of a lens that never let me down.

Your attempts to disparage me notwithstanding, I stand by my statements about the Nikkor 16-80mm f2.8-4. It could have, and should have, been a much better lens in every respect. But we all should know by now that Nikon reserves its best for full frame. Not even one DX lens is weather-sealed and only one DX prime lens, if you don't include macros. Pitiful.

-- hide signature --

Jon

surfoxy
surfoxy Regular Member • Posts: 208
Re: How much is the XF 16-80mm f/4 going to cost?

FTOG wrote:

Cagey75 wrote:

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

Canon hasn't had any trouble making a lot of money selling a 24-105/4.0 L IS USM at 1.000+ USD for 14 years - despite also offering a 24-70/2.8 L USM. It must have been popular and profitable, else they wouldn't have committed to updating it to a Version II.

Replacing one 16-80 with two lenses is not going to work for people who want the largest flexibility at f4.0 in one lens.

Different people have different use cases. Noone is dismissing your point of view (larger aperture, no IOS required on stabilized body, could be replaced by other lenses), so you could make a stronger effort to relate to other people's wants and needs (larger zoom range in a single lens, constant aperture compared to other Fuji standard zooms, more compact than a 18-135).

To state the obvious, Canon's f4 lens is full frame, so actually f4. Not f6. Pretty major difference for a lot of folks, and frankly as a Canon full-frame user the f4 was a weight/cost compromise from the f2.8.

Agree one the use cases obviously. The lens isn't for me, but obviously some folks will find great use for it.

-- hide signature --

Chris

 surfoxy's gear list:surfoxy's gear list
Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm XF 23mm F2 R WR Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 56mm F1.2 R +4 more
jjz2 Senior Member • Posts: 1,125
Re: How much is the XF 16-80mm f/4 going to cost?

Gringostarr wrote:

jjz2 wrote:

Gringostarr wrote:

For me IQ will be the deciding factor between getting the 16-80 or the 18-135. Weight should be less than a 3oz difference based on the weight of the 10-24 and price wise they should be fairly close, again based on the 10-24. The 18-135 gets mixed reviews though so if the 16-80 is much better it's a no brainer to pick it up, however if IQ is about the same between the two then I'd have to go with the longer reach of the 18-135.

that's a hotly debated question.

I've had 18-135 and 15-85 on crop bodies and preferred the range of the latter. I guess some prefer the former.

from ~16-18 is a 9 degree difference wider though, while 80-135mm is an ~8 degree difference. really about a wash, do you want that much wider, or that much longer. I find it's easier to crop at that point, but impossible to go wider with such a zoom... IF the 16-80 is sharp at the long end, is the question.

Neither are actually wide enough which is why I already have the 9mm Laowa (which is fantastic aside from the vignetting that's easy to fix) to complement whichever zoom I end up grabbing between the 16-80 and 18-135 for use as my zoom kit. Anything longer than 60mm is either too heavy or too slow/plastic for my liking and while I would prefer an equivalent 200mm maximum length for my zoom kit I would be willing to settle on 120mm equivalent and crop if it meant the best possible IQ given the size and weight limitations I'm not willing to budge on.

Yeah if your'e going THAT wide, then of course, neither will be good. I've just been in travel situations when many times the 24mm equiv was just enough to get the shot like a building or vista, where as the 28mm equiv didn't capture it. Shot too many zooms with an 18 wide end.

 jjz2's gear list:jjz2's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm 15-45mm F3.5-5.6 OIS PZ 7artisans 35mm F1.2
Jerry-astro
MOD Jerry-astro Forum Pro • Posts: 13,771
Let’s take a deep breath...
6

All right, guys, this discussion is starting to get personal and frankly, the thread is in real danger of getting locked. TBH, you should be supporting your arguments with facts and supportable opinions rather than feeling the necessity to share your experience or qualifications. This forum is full of people with a lot of talent, yet little formal training. Conversely, there are many folks here with significant education in photography and other visual arts. If you feel you have to fall back on your resume or experience to support your argument, then you might consider bolstering your case a bit.

So, please take it back a notch or two or “lock ‘em up” will have to do his dirty deed again. Let’s try to avoid that, OK?

-- hide signature --

Jerry-Astro
Fujifilm X Forum Co-Mod

 Jerry-astro's gear list:Jerry-astro's gear list
Fujifilm X-H1 Carl Zeiss Touit 2.8/12 Fujifilm XF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 OIS WR Fujifilm 16-55mm F2.8R LM WR Fujifilm XF 10-24mm F4 R OIS +1 more
BillGarrett Forum Member • Posts: 55
Re: How much is the XF 16-80mm f/4 going to cost?

I sure hope the 16-80 launches with a price point well below $1000US as some here have predicted, though my own prediction is that it will be $999 street at first. It's definitely a lens I'm interested in... though if it's $1k I might have to figure out how to do without it.

Some people ask what's the point of the extra 25mm reach from 55-80. I thought the same when I first bought the Nikon 16-85 for my DX camera years ago. I quickly discovered that the short telephoto range was pretty useful. It covered most of what I needed to go past mid-range for. With an 80/85 long end on my main lens I only needed to use/carry my longer telephoto lens for special purpose trips like shooting wildlife.

 BillGarrett's gear list:BillGarrett's gear list
Fujifilm X-T3 Carl Zeiss Touit 2.8/12 Fujifilm XF 10-24mm F4 R OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Carl Zeiss Touit 1.8/32
OP akin_t Veteran Member • Posts: 3,320
Re: How much is the XF 16-80mm f/4 going to cost?

BillGarrett wrote:

I sure hope the 16-80 launches with a price point well below $1000US as some here have predicted, though my own prediction is that it will be $999 street at first. It's definitely a lens I'm interested in... though if it's $1k I might have to figure out how to do without it.

Some people ask what's the point of the extra 25mm reach from 55-80. I thought the same when I first bought the Nikon 16-85 for my DX camera years ago. I quickly discovered that the short telephoto range was pretty useful. It covered most of what I needed to go past mid-range for. With an 80/85 long end on my main lens I only needed to use/carry my longer telephoto lens for special purpose trips like shooting wildlife.

I noticed you have the Touit 12mm and the 10-24mm, care to share when you decide to use one over the other? I'm assuming you use both for landscape work?

 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
FTOG Regular Member • Posts: 470
Re: How much is the XF 16-80mm f/4 going to cost?

surfoxy wrote:

To state the obvious, Canon's f4 lens is full frame, so actually f4. Not f6. Pretty major difference for a lot of folks, and frankly as a Canon full-frame user the f4 was a weight/cost compromise from the f2.8.

Agree one the use cases obviously. The lens isn't for me, but obviously some folks will find great use for it.

Yes and no. Sure, there is a DOF difference due to the sensor size. But light gathering is the same. f4.0 is f4.0. DOF equivalence doesn't change that.

The points still apply between a faster, shorter focal range unstabilized lens, and a wider focal length stabilized lens with a slower aperture.

 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
NextShowForSure Contributing Member • Posts: 765
Re: How much is the XF 16-80mm f/4 going to cost?

afm wrote:

I guess the folks interested in this lens will rush to place an order and then hope they get a good copy. I agree it seem a good proposition for a traveller like me to have a one lens solution, but I am lucky to have a good 18-55 and will be reluctant to part with it particularly if the 16-80 is larger, heavier and expensive . Then there is the IQ. Time will tell I guess.

I doubt if you are lucky to have a good copy but have an average copy of the lens.

One important thing on this forum is to keep clear of all this good copy/ bad copy malarkey which will always be heavily biased as in any forums to posts about the bad copies.

And then you have to allow for the sent 26 copies back before I got a good one brigade, who probably just have not got the means to buy the ultimate precision equipment they crave and are frustratingly slumming it in the mass produced affordable sector, fishing for the best quality outliers on the normal distribution curve of expected variation in production.

We are rather conditioned in to thinking if our 18-55 is OK it is some sort of miracle.

Probably the 16-80 may have a smoother, more predictable and less idiosyncratic performance to avoid these criticisms but that will cost. For many the 18-55 is fine for what it is and can do.

Cagey75
Cagey75 Senior Member • Posts: 1,062
Re: How much is the XF 16-80mm f/4 going to cost?
1

surfoxy wrote:

FTOG wrote:

Cagey75 wrote:

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

Canon hasn't had any trouble making a lot of money selling a 24-105/4.0 L IS USM at 1.000+ USD for 14 years - despite also offering a 24-70/2.8 L USM. It must have been popular and profitable, else they wouldn't have committed to updating it to a Version II.

Replacing one 16-80 with two lenses is not going to work for people who want the largest flexibility at f4.0 in one lens.

Different people have different use cases. Noone is dismissing your point of view (larger aperture, no IOS required on stabilized body, could be replaced by other lenses), so you could make a stronger effort to relate to other people's wants and needs (larger zoom range in a single lens, constant aperture compared to other Fuji standard zooms, more compact than a 18-135).

To state the obvious, Canon's f4 lens is full frame, so actually f4. Not f6. Pretty major difference for a lot of folks, and frankly as a Canon full-frame user the f4 was a weight/cost compromise from the f2.8.

Agree one the use cases obviously. The lens isn't for me, but obviously some folks will find great use for it.

You do realise that many people use the Canon on APSC dslr right? And it's still called an F4 ... this equivalence thing really gets grating, but if it makes you happier imagining that FF allows over a stop extra light then go right ahead.  I think most knowledgeable photographers know that only DOF is affected, and even then not by as much as you might like, as the FL is increased on APSC therefore gaining more compression therefore negating a lot of the benefit of the larger sensor.  F-Stoppers do a whole piece on debunking the whole shallower DOF per larger sensor thing.

For those looking forward to this lens, great! I just hope it isn't $1K or more or I feel you are being taken to the bank.  I can see why those not using an XH1 are interested, but for those of us who are benefiting from IBIS, it's not all that exciting.  The 16-55 is the better option by far IMO.  You can get this lens for a lot less than $1K used, if you look hard enough.

 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
surfoxy
surfoxy Regular Member • Posts: 208
Re: How much is the XF 16-80mm f/4 going to cost?

Yes, I realize al of that. For many of us the reduced separation is not ideal. As I said, not the only consideration, so I get that some will be interested in the lens.

-- hide signature --

Chris

 surfoxy's gear list:surfoxy's gear list
Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm XF 23mm F2 R WR Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 56mm F1.2 R +4 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads