X-T1 to X-T4 Upgrade - Best General Purpose Lens

I currently have an X-T1 and am thinking about upgrading to an X-T4. I currently have two lenses, the 18-55 f/2.8-4.0 LM OIS kit lens that came with the camera and the 55-200 f/3.5-4.8 LM OIS. The 55-200 takes fantastic pictures and the 18-55 is generally pretty good, but just not quite as sharp.

I was thinking about "upgrading" the 18-55 to the 16-55 f/2.8 LM WR but I'm a little worried about the lack of OIS. I generally don't carry a tripod, so the low-light advantage of OIS has been pretty handy. So my question is, would the on-camera IS in the X-T4 in combination with the 16-55 non-OIS give similar low-light performance (especially with f/2.8 across the range) to the 18-55 OIS on the X-T1, and therefore make a good general purpose lens.

I don't really want to have to carry a third lens around, so that's not a practical option for me.

Thanks for you help,

Paul

PaulH74 wrote:

So my question is, would the on-camera IS in the X-T4 in combination with the 16-55 non-OIS give similar low-light performance (especially with f/2.8 across the range) to the 18-55 OIS on the X-T1, and therefore make a good general purpose lens.

Short answer:   Yes.

I'd wager you'll find the 16-55 on the X-T4 will return better results than what you've been experiencing, to boot.  

It’ll be about the same at similar focal lengths and apertures, but the larger eyeballs on the XT1 give better image quality at higher ISOs than the XT4.

Unless going with a small and ultra light body/lens combination, 16-55 is the go-to lens on my current primary body which is an X-H1. It's really a match made in heaven. I see no reason why an X-T4 wouldn't would not have the same stellar results with this lens. It's a very worthwhile upgrade over the 18-55.

PaulH74 wrote:

I currently have an X-T1 and am thinking about upgrading to an X-T4. I currently have two lenses, the 18-55 f/2.8-4.0 LM OIS kit lens that came with the camera and the 55-200 f/3.5-4.8 LM OIS. The 55-200 takes fantastic pictures and the 18-55 is generally pretty good, but just not quite as sharp.

I was thinking about "upgrading" the 18-55 to the 16-55 f/2.8 LM WR but I'm a little worried about the lack of OIS. I generally don't carry a tripod, so the low-light advantage of OIS has been pretty handy. So my question is, would the on-camera IS in the X-T4 in combination with the 16-55 non-OIS give similar low-light performance (especially with f/2.8 across the range) to the 18-55 OIS on the X-T1, and therefore make a good general purpose lens.

I don't really want to have to carry a third lens around, so that's not a practical option for me.

Thanks for you help,

Paul

As the X-T4 has in body image stabilization (IBIS) there is no need or at least not much benefit to have also a OIS lens as the 18-55 f/2.8-4. IBIS does the job and probably better than the OIS of that lens only as you are use to on the X-T1.

Sometimes  IBIS works together with OIS to improve slightly the net result with telephoto zoomlenses but I don't think this is the case with the 18-55 f/2.8-4.

I remember watching a video (don't remember where) that showed the image stabilization of the X-T4 + XF16-55mm was better than that of the X-T4 + XF18-55mm. This was for video, but I'd imagine the same applies for stills.

I agree with the others posters in this thread that recommend the XF16-55mm lens.

PaulH74 wrote:

I currently have an X-T1 and am thinking about upgrading to an X-T4. I currently have two lenses, the 18-55 f/2.8-4.0 LM OIS kit lens that came with the camera and the 55-200 f/3.5-4.8 LM OIS. The 55-200 takes fantastic pictures and the 18-55 is generally pretty good, but just not quite as sharp.

That's a nice set up

I was thinking about "upgrading" the 18-55 to the 16-55 f/2.8 LM WR but I'm a little worried about the lack of OIS. I generally don't carry a tripod, so the low-light advantage of OIS has been pretty handy. So my question is, would the on-camera IS in the X-T4 in combination with the 16-55 non-OIS give similar low-light performance (especially with f/2.8 across the range) to the 18-55 OIS on the X-T1, and therefore make a good general purpose lens.

Yes the ibis on xt4 will make the 16-55mm a good option & you get excellent image quality. However I hope you realise the weight difference is more than double what you currently have. What kind of low light shooting do you do?

I don't really want to have to carry a third lens around, so that's not a practical option for me.

Maybe consider xt3 +16-80 as well + a fast prime for low light, it may still be lighter than xt4 + 16-55 & a f1.4 prime is better for low light. You don't always have to carry around all the lenses.

Thanks. for you help,

Paul

Good luck with the upgrade

I have both set up (XT1 and 18-55 at work) and XT4 and 16-55 at home. IQ wize the 16-55 is better but I think that your main question was about stabilisation.

The answer is that the XT4 16-55 combo is better than the XT1 18-55 combo by a huge margin.

PaulH74 wrote:

I currently have an X-T1 and am thinking about upgrading to an X-T4. I currently have two lenses, the 18-55 f/2.8-4.0 LM OIS kit lens that came with the camera and the 55-200 f/3.5-4.8 LM OIS. The 55-200 takes fantastic pictures and the 18-55 is generally pretty good, but just not quite as sharp.

I was thinking about "upgrading" the 18-55 to the 16-55 f/2.8 LM WR but I'm a little worried about the lack of OIS. I generally don't carry a tripod, so the low-light advantage of OIS has been pretty handy. So my question is, would the on-camera IS in the X-T4 in combination with the 16-55 non-OIS give similar low-light performance (especially with f/2.8 across the range) to the 18-55 OIS on the X-T1, and therefore make a good general purpose lens.

I don't really want to have to carry a third lens around, so that's not a practical option for me.

Thanks for you help,

Paul

With X-T4 IBIS you do not really need OIS lenses.

In some tests ( like "Optical Limits" that i value ) 16-55f2.8  is optically not exceptional or stellar -  or much better than 18-55.

it 16-55 is heavier and is a WR lens - but look at the price and weight first. It  is an expensive big lens - is it really worth it?

Status value is of course a factor.

Even if stabilization was the only criteria to compare I would choose the X-T4 with 16-55 over prior model with the 18-55. I have the X-H1 but after experiencing IBIS it is my preference over lens stabilization now.

Telephoto is really the only place where IBIS comes up a little short vs. in lens systems.

No problem at all with the 16-55 on the T4

Jim from Ontario Canada
Fuji X-H1
Fuji 18-55 2.8-4

+1 vote for the 16-55.  It is such a versatile lens.

KariP wrote:

With X-T4 IBIS you do not really need OIS lenses.

In some tests ( like "Optical Limits" that i value ) 16-55f2.8 is optically not exceptional or stellar - or much better than 18-55.

it 16-55 is heavier and is a WR lens - but look at the price and weight first. It is an expensive big lens - is it really worth it?

Status value is of course a factor.

Kari, it's rare that we disagree, but on this one, we certainly do.  I've owned both the 18-55 and 16-55.  Optically, IMHO, there's simply no comparison... the 16-55 pretty well wins across its range, not to mention the fact that the constant f/2.8 aperture can be a big benefit for low light photography.  I didn't acquire my 16-55 until I had purchased the X-H1, since I rely heavily on stabilization and do a fair amount of photography in challenging lighting.  I found the optics across the FL range to be noticeably better on the 16-55, and while I respect Optical Limits (I haven't read the review in question), my own experience has been very different.  If you value stabilization and own a camera with IBIS, I think the choice is pretty simply and the IQ difference significantly more dramatic that what you suggested in your post.  I don't disagree with the weight as potential issue for some, but in my case at least (with the X-H1), I find that a heftier lens like the 16-55 actually balances and handles better than the lighter 18-55.  Of course YMMV.

And, finally, this has absolutely nothing to do with status, at least for me.  I see my gear as a set of tools, not something that defines status in any form.  If anything, when I'm out photographing  birds or other wildlife and run into other photographers, the reaction I get is almost universally one of curiosity... particularly from long time DSLR users who haven't yet made the move to mirrorless.

I'd second both of Jerry's points...

I find the 16-55 to be the better lens than the 18-55, Yes, it is heavier, but the 16mm (and obviously the overall better IQ) already made it for me. Sold the 18-55, never missed it.

About status... I don't know why, but somehow I have the impression that Fuji shooters don't care about status. People caring about status would rather buy... Sony? Canon? Leica? Strangely, if Fuji cameras would mean "status" that would rather chase me away from Fuji...

Jerry-astro wrote:

KariP wrote:

With X-T4 IBIS you do not really need OIS lenses.

In some tests ( like "Optical Limits" that i value ) 16-55f2.8 is optically not exceptional or stellar - or much better than 18-55.

it 16-55 is heavier and is a WR lens - but look at the price and weight first. It is an expensive big lens - is it really worth it?

Status value is of course a factor.

Kari, it's rare that we disagree, but on this one, we certainly do. I've owned both the 18-55 and 16-55. Optically, IMHO, there's simply no comparison... the 16-55 pretty well wins across its range, not to mention the fact that the constant f/2.8 aperture can be a big benefit for low light photography. I didn't acquire my 16-55 until I had purchased the X-H1, since I rely heavily on stabilization and do a fair amount of photography in challenging lighting. I found the optics across the FL range to be noticeably better on the 16-55, and while I respect Optical Limits (I haven't read the review in question), my own experience has been very different. If you value stabilization and own a camera with IBIS, I think the choice is pretty simply and the IQ difference significantly more dramatic that what you suggested in your post. I don't disagree with the weight as potential issue for some, but in my case at least (with the X-H1), I find that a heftier lens like the 16-55 actually balances and handles better than the lighter 18-55. Of course YMMV.

And, finally, this has absolutely nothing to do with status, at least for me. I see my gear as a set of tools, not something that defines status in any form. If anything, when I'm out photographing birds or other wildlife and run into other photographers, the reaction I get is almost universally one of curiosity... particularly from long time DSLR users who haven't yet made the move to mirrorless.

I mentioned also the price - 16-55 is about 1100€ and 18-55 comes often in a bundle ... half the price perhaps.

16-55 could work  quite well with my X-H1 and i read some tests ... i seriously considered the lens. But - perhaps some day if there is an offer.

In the beginning 18-55 had some sample/quality issues and there are good samples and some not so great. My lens (18-55)  came with X-E1 some (many);-) years ago and i have been quite happy with the IQ. I have compared it with 23f2, 55-200  and 55f1,2 also.

Perhaps you are not interested in status things - i think very many want "The Best" - even if they can not even use it   Even on this serious  specialist forum. Not meaning You 

If my 18-55 stops working i will replace it with 16-55 of course

and the 16mm vs 18mm angle of view difference is sometimes important.

But - as an upgrade from 18-55  i'm not sure if it really is worth it - compared to other possibilities. But why not if budget is OK

KariP wrote:

Jerry-astro wrote:

Kari, it's rare that we disagree, but on this one, we certainly do. I've owned both the 18-55 and 16-55. Optically, IMHO, there's simply no comparison... the 16-55 pretty well wins across its range, not to mention the fact that the constant f/2.8 aperture can be a big benefit for low light photography. I didn't acquire my 16-55 until I had purchased the X-H1, since I rely heavily on stabilization and do a fair amount of photography in challenging lighting. I found the optics across the FL range to be noticeably better on the 16-55, and while I respect Optical Limits (I haven't read the review in question), my own experience has been very different. If you value stabilization and own a camera with IBIS, I think the choice is pretty simply and the IQ difference significantly more dramatic that what you suggested in your post. I don't disagree with the weight as potential issue for some, but in my case at least (with the X-H1), I find that a heftier lens like the 16-55 actually balances and handles better than the lighter 18-55. Of course YMMV.

And, finally, this has absolutely nothing to do with status, at least for me. I see my gear as a set of tools, not something that defines status in any form. If anything, when I'm out photographing birds or other wildlife and run into other photographers, the reaction I get is almost universally one of curiosity... particularly from long time DSLR users who haven't yet made the move to mirrorless.

I mentioned also the price - 16-55 is about 1100€ and 18-55 comes often in a bundle ... half the price perhaps.

16-55 could work quite well with my X-H1 and i read some tests ... i seriously considered the lens. But - perhaps some day if there is an offer.

In the beginning 18-55 had some sample/quality issues and there are good samples and some not so great. My lens (18-55) came with X-E1 some (many);-) years ago and i have been quite happy with the IQ. I have compared it with 23f2, 55-200 and 55f1,2 also.

Perhaps you are not interested in status things - i think very many want "The Best" - even if they can not even use it Even on this serious specialist forum. Not meaning You

If my 18-55 stops working i will replace it with 16-55 of course

and the 16mm vs 18mm angle of view difference is sometimes important.

But - as an upgrade from 18-55 i'm not sure if it really is worth it - compared to other possibilities. But why not if budget is OK

Kari—
No question that there’s a significant price difference and whether the benefits that the 16-55 bring are worth that difference is a decision that everyone has to make individually.  I’ve owned both lenses (the 18-55 was my first Fujifilm lens) and ultimately replaced the 18-55 with the 16-55 after renting a copy and running some comparisons.  I found the difference in IQ to be pretty significant — absolutely enough [for me] to justify the upgrade, particularly on the long end, IIRC.  Even setting aside the advantage of constant f/2.8 aperture, I found the IQ to be more consistent across its FL range than the 18-55 — which, BTW, is not in any way a bad lens.  I’d simply argue that the IQ differences are not insignificant and the constant aperture can be a real help, particularly if you’re shooting in low light on the long end of the FL range.  That, for me, was enough to justify the purchase, and I’ve had no regrets since.

Jerry-astro wrote:

KariP wrote:

Jerry-astro wrote:

Kari, it's rare that we disagree, but on this one, we certainly do. I've owned both the 18-55 and 16-55. Optically, IMHO, there's simply no comparison... the 16-55 pretty well wins across its range, not to mention the fact that the constant f/2.8 aperture can be a big benefit for low light photography. I didn't acquire my 16-55 until I had purchased the X-H1, since I rely heavily on stabilization and do a fair amount of photography in challenging lighting. I found the optics across the FL range to be noticeably better on the 16-55, and while I respect Optical Limits (I haven't read the review in question), my own experience has been very different. If you value stabilization and own a camera with IBIS, I think the choice is pretty simply and the IQ difference significantly more dramatic that what you suggested in your post. I don't disagree with the weight as potential issue for some, but in my case at least (with the X-H1), I find that a heftier lens like the 16-55 actually balances and handles better than the lighter 18-55. Of course YMMV.

And, finally, this has absolutely nothing to do with status, at least for me. I see my gear as a set of tools, not something that defines status in any form. If anything, when I'm out photographing birds or other wildlife and run into other photographers, the reaction I get is almost universally one of curiosity... particularly from long time DSLR users who haven't yet made the move to mirrorless.

I mentioned also the price - 16-55 is about 1100€ and 18-55 comes often in a bundle ... half the price perhaps.

16-55 could work quite well with my X-H1 and i read some tests ... i seriously considered the lens. But - perhaps some day if there is an offer.

In the beginning 18-55 had some sample/quality issues and there are good samples and some not so great. My lens (18-55) came with X-E1 some (many);-) years ago and i have been quite happy with the IQ. I have compared it with 23f2, 55-200 and 55f1,2 also.

Perhaps you are not interested in status things - i think very many want "The Best" - even if they can not even use it Even on this serious specialist forum. Not meaning You

If my 18-55 stops working i will replace it with 16-55 of course

and the 16mm vs 18mm angle of view difference is sometimes important.

But - as an upgrade from 18-55 i'm not sure if it really is worth it - compared to other possibilities. But why not if budget is OK

Kari—
No question that there’s a significant price difference and whether the benefits that the 16-55 bring are worth that difference is a decision that everyone has to make individually. I’ve owned both lenses (the 18-55 was my first Fujifilm lens) and ultimately replaced the 18-55 with the 16-55 after renting a copy and running some comparisons. I found the difference in IQ to be pretty significant — absolutely enough [for me] to justify the upgrade, particularly on the long end, IIRC. Even setting aside the advantage of constant f/2.8 aperture, I found the IQ to be more consistent across its FL range than the 18-55 — which, BTW, is not in any way a bad lens. I’d simply argue that the IQ differences are not insignificant and the constant aperture can be a real help, particularly if you’re shooting in low light on the long end of the FL range. That, for me, was enough to justify the purchase, and I’ve had no regrets since.

Jerry,

I did not really notice or think  that OP was upgrading his whole system from X-T1 to T4.   With a camera body with  IBIS  a lens like 16-55 could be an upgrade. And T4 is not actually a cheap camera - why not a more expensive WR lens.

When i bought my X-H1 about a year ago it was really a bargain and i did not "upgrade" anything else - kept my X-E3 and lenses .   With H1  the 16-55 f 2,8 could be a great combo. Perhaps i should upgrade ;-). Size and weight could be in balance - and WR

BTW I bought a 16-80 in July  because in theory it could be something  like a traditional 24-105 (on FF camera) - BUT the sample i got was really a lemon (rotten lemon) and i returned it.  I have not tried again.

Because of this discussion i checked the prices  - there is at the moment a reasonable "cash back". 16-80 is 900€  (no cash back) and 16-55f2,8 will be about 1000€.... i must reconsider ;-).  WR  has some serious meaning for my "lifestyle" - 18-55  has survived a lot of traveling and boating. So far.