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

Following on a previous thread of mine[1], where I was comparing simulated field of view of Fuji`s two "kit" zooms - namely XF 18-55mm and XF 16-80mm, contemplating whether I should get the latter as I already had the former - here`s a real, shootout comparison between the two this time (you guessed, I did get XF 16-80mm in the meantime).

All images shot on a tripod, aperture at f/8, not in the best lighting (a bit harsh sunlight), but sufficient for the purpose.

For starters, here`s a comparison to show the focal length field of view differences between 16 - 18 - 55 - 80 mm, to be followed by full-size straight-out-of-camera (SOOC) JPEGs and Capture One (C1) exported RAWs - both with "Manufacturer Profile" lens corrections, but no corrections as well, seeing how that influences corner/edge sharpness.

p.s. XF 18-55mm also has Capture One`s own lens correction profile, being a bit different than "Manufacturer Profile" (also cropping a bit more, especially at the wide end), but as there is no such support for XF 16-80mm yet, that comparison is currently omitted.

#1, 16mm frame with 18mm, 55mm, 80mm (real) and 135mm (simulated) framelines

For people interested in how would 135mm field of view look like, too (as to be found in XF 18-135mm zoom lens, for example), there are (white) 135mm framelines added as well, but those are simulated (in contrast to the yellow ones, being obtained from real photos taken at appropriate focal lengths).

Unedited, full-size straight-out-of-camera (SOOC) JPEGs

#2, JPEG, Fujinon XF 16-80mm f/4 @ 16mm, f/8, 1/400, ISO 160

#3, JPEG, Fujinon XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4.0 @ 18mm, f/8, 1/500, ISO 160

#4, JPEG, Fujinon XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4.0 @ 55mm, f/8, 1/200, ISO 160

#5, JPEG, Fujinon XF 16-80mm f/4 @ 80mm, f/8, 1/200, ISO 160

"Capture One" (C1) exported RAWs, "Manufacturer Profile" lens corrections applied

#6, RAW, Fujinon XF 16-80mm f/4 @ 16mm, f/8, 1/400, ISO 160

#7, RAW, Fujinon XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4.0 @ 18mm, f/8, 1/500, ISO 160

#8, RAW, Fujinon XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4.0 @ 55mm, f/8, 1/200, ISO 160

#9, RAW, Fujinon XF 16-80mm f/4 @ 80mm, f/8, 1/200, ISO 160

"Capture One" (C1) exported RAWs, uncorrected (lens corrections turned off)

#10, RAW (uncorrected), Fujinon XF 16-80mm f/4 @ 16mm, f/8, 1/400, ISO 160

#11, RAW (uncorrected) , Fujinon XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4.0 @ 18mm, f/8, 1/500, ISO 160

#12, RAW (uncorrected) , Fujinon XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4.0 @ 55mm, f/8, 1/200, ISO 160

#13, RAW (uncorrected) , Fujinon XF 16-80mm f/4 @ 80mm, f/8, 1/200, ISO 160

Thanks for taking the time and effort in making this useful comparison. I personally find 18mm isn't wide enough for my (WA) needs, prefer the 16.

SpeedyNeo wrote:

Thanks for taking the time and effort in making this useful comparison. I personally find 18mm isn't wide enough for my (WA) needs, prefer the 16.

Thank you for finding it useful

Indeed, while the difference might not be _that_ big, it can be rather useful still, 16mm being my personal preference as well.

In the past, when I was traveling with XF 18-55mm, there were a few occasions where I reached for my 1" compact Canon G7 X just because of its 24mm equivalent field of view.