XF 18-55mm vs XF 16-80mm field of view comparison (simulated)

I have XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4.0 lens, and I am contemplating getting XF 16-80mm f/4 for quite some time now, taking over "no lens swap" (+ travel) role.

All other things aside, I was also curious in field of view differences between these two lenses, so I`ve made a simulated comparison.

Posting it here for whomever might find it useful, too.

p.s. Sample image is one of my (straight out of camera) photos, nothing special, but I found it useful for the purpose. Time allowing, I might post more examples in the future.

#1, 16mm frame with 18mm, 55mm and 80mm framelines

#2, Same size, zoom range from 18mm to 55mm (with 80mm framelines) and 16mm (with 18mm framelines) to 80mm

Why? Shoot what you have and LOVE it. There will always be pluses and minuses.

Steve Bingham wrote:

Why? Shoot what you have and LOVE it. There will always be pluses and minuses.

Why... is there a difference between 16mm, 18mm, 55mm and 80mm field of view? (as that is what this topic is about, after all )

I wasn`t discussing any pluses/minuses (and purposefully), but merely showing the field of view comparison, from 16mm, through 18mm and 55mm, all the way to 80mm.

But let me humor you (as I guess you`re asking why would I want to swap 18-55mm for 16-80mm) - because I find 16mm more useful on the wide end, and I would definitely appreciate 80mm at the long end (all the other things aside still). So... convenience? Shoot me!

Otherwise, I don`t mind shooting with (all manual) 35mm f/0.95 (Mitakon) all day long, and I`m loving it, all right But that`s beside the point here.

Useful comparison, thank you! It's always good to do these experiments, as I find it way too easy to fall into the trap of just assuming that 16 will be "way better" than 18, when in reality the differences are rather small.

In game design, they advise you to always change parameters by at least a factor of two if you want to see tangible results.

Hi, thanks for the time to do this. Interesting. For me, as one with two zooms starting at 16 (16-55) and one at 18 (18-55), for a subject at this distance in a more rural setting, the difference is small. However, in a urban environment, or in large mountainous scenes, the difference in the angle of view might be more telling.  In this case, if you were often taking urban images, then the case for a 16mm zoom is more compelling.

At the other end, it confirms for me that one can crop. Today's sensors are good, so a degree of crop-ability is possible without undue image degrading. I use a rule of thumb of up to 25% max crop as my guideline. So in this case for my needs there would be no compelling reason to get a 80mm zoom over a 55mm one.

Since I got a 16-55mm zoom, I have seldom used my 14/f2.8 and I have been wondering about whether the angle of view is sufficiently different to keep it. I have been meaning to do a similar test to yours between the two lenses, so you have spurred me on to do it.

That is beyond doubt the most sensible, only sensible, reply to the numerous questions on here about "marginal" gear swaps that prey on members minds.  This is (alas) a gear orientated forum and people make the mistake of thinking because the forum is about gear that photography is too.

Bravo.

jhorse wrote:

At the other end, it confirms for me that one can crop. Today's sensors are good, so a degree of crop-ability is possible without undue image degrading. I use a rule of thumb of up to 25% max crop as my guideline. So in this case for my needs there would be no compelling reason to get a 80mm zoom over a 55mm one.

On the long end you can crop, and on the wide end you can stitch. I often shoot panos if I want a wider field of view. Or I shoot a zoomed-in pano if I want a wider aperture. A three-image APS-C pano produces the same picture as a FF sensor.

At least so long as there is no significant movement in the shot, of course.

bastibe wrote:

jhorse wrote:

At the other end, it confirms for me that one can crop. Today's sensors are good, so a degree of crop-ability is possible without undue image degrading. I use a rule of thumb of up to 25% max crop as my guideline. So in this case for my needs there would be no compelling reason to get a 80mm zoom over a 55mm one.

On the long end you can crop, and on the wide end you can stitch. I often shoot panos if I want a wider field of view. Or I shoot a zoomed-in pano if I want a wider aperture. A three-image APS-C pano produces the same picture as a FF sensor.

At least so long as there is no significant movement in the shot, of course.

Yes, you are right. I had forgotten the stitching technique. I have just bought into Capture One 20, and am learning it, but have yet to get to stitching. Good point.

a_c_skinner wrote:

That is beyond doubt the most sensible, only sensible, reply to the numerous questions on here about "marginal" gear swaps that prey on members minds. This is (alas) a gear orientated forum and people make the mistake of thinking because the forum is about gear that photography is too.

Bravo.

So you don't think that 18-55 and 16-80 lenses are very different in terms of focal length?

Photography is a lot about gear, or do you take photos without cameras and lenses?

jhorse wrote:

bastibe wrote:

jhorse wrote:

At the other end, it confirms for me that one can crop. Today's sensors are good, so a degree of crop-ability is possible without undue image degrading. I use a rule of thumb of up to 25% max crop as my guideline. So in this case for my needs there would be no compelling reason to get a 80mm zoom over a 55mm one.

On the long end you can crop, and on the wide end you can stitch. I often shoot panos if I want a wider field of view. Or I shoot a zoomed-in pano if I want a wider aperture. A three-image APS-C pano produces the same picture as a FF sensor.

At least so long as there is no significant movement in the shot, of course.

Yes, you are right. I had forgotten the stitching technique. I have just bought into Capture One 20, and am learning it, but have yet to get to stitching. Good point.

Hi - just in case you weren't aware, I'm afraid Capture One 20 doesn't have pano stitching capability - I use Affinity Photo with C1 for that - other apps that can stitch and work with C1 are available though 

Murdoko wrote:

Don't forget the XF 18-135mm which is the original one lens solution. Would be cool to see 135mm as an overlay on the picture as well but I can imagine most people would go for the 16-80mm over the 18-135mm any day.

Hmmm, when I travel I shoot with my XH1 and the 27mm pancake lens. Reasonably compact package. Who wants to drag around a big ol’ 16-80 lens?

Pan50 wrote:

Murdoko wrote:

Don't forget the XF 18-135mm which is the original one lens solution. Would be cool to see 135mm as an overlay on the picture as well but I can imagine most people would go for the 16-80mm over the 18-135mm any day.

Hmmm, when I travel I shoot with my XH1 and the 27mm pancake lens. Reasonably compact package. Who wants to drag around a big ol’ 16-80 lens?

What you use has no bearing on the choice of others. I have travelled with the 16-55 zoom for example.

At the wide end, not very different.  At the long end obviously but Steve's comment is still good.

Hi. Thank you for this. I have been looking for this type of comparison for some time. now i wish this same was done for the prime lenses. especially the new ones. there was a fuji site but they did not have the newer ones.

keep up the good work!

bastibe wrote:

Useful comparison, thank you! It's always good to do these experiments, as I find it way too easy to fall into the trap of just assuming that 16 will be "way better" than 18, when in reality the differences are rather small.

In game design, they advise you to always change parameters by at least a factor of two if you want to see tangible results.

Under assumption you meant to reply to me - you`re welcome, I was curious myself, and I`m glad if anyone else finds the (simulated) comparison useful

Though, "centered" 18mm framelines might influence perception that difference is smaller than it really is - here`s a bit different framing:

#3, 18mm framelines bottom right aligned with 16mm field of view, showing all the extra space on the left and top sides

Is it groundbreaking? Certainly not - but to be fair, this specific scene is not the best example, either, as there`s nothing interesting in the part left out in 18mm field of view, either.

In some other scenarios, it might mean squeezing in an extra person (or more), or just providing a less than "snug" fit for the main subject(s) (possibly allowing for different aspect ratios, too, without being restricted by image boundaries too early).

jhorse wrote:

Hi, thanks for the time to do this. Interesting. For me, as one with two zooms starting at 16 (16-55) and one at 18 (18-55), for a subject at this distance in a more rural setting, the difference is small. However, in a urban environment, or in large mountainous scenes, the difference in the angle of view might be more telling. In this case, if you were often taking urban images, then the case for a 16mm zoom is more compelling.

You`re welcome, I find it interesting as well, and your note about some other scenarios being yet more favorable towards 16mm is well placed. Small apartment with a group of friends could be another example.

At the other end, it confirms for me that one can crop. Today's sensors are good, so a degree of crop-ability is possible without undue image degrading. I use a rule of thumb of up to 25% max crop as my guideline. So in this case for my needs there would be no compelling reason to get a 80mm zoom over a 55mm one.

While this is true, it can also be used as a counter-argument - with same amount of cropping, 80mm will "simulate" longer focal length still

Since I got a 16-55mm zoom, I have seldom used my 14/f2.8 and I have been wondering about whether the angle of view is sufficiently different to keep it. I have been meaning to do a similar test to yours between the two lenses, so you have spurred me on to do it.

Looking forward to it, especially as difference between 14mm and 16mm should be even more noticeable than between 16mm and 18mm.

a_c_skinner wrote:

That is beyond doubt the most sensible, only sensible, reply to the numerous questions on here about "marginal" gear swaps that prey on members minds. This is (alas) a gear orientated forum and people make the mistake of thinking because the forum is about gear that photography is too.

Bravo.

Right. And totally misplaced one, in terms of what the topic here is. Bravo, indeed.