Early thoughts on 16-80

[HatWearingFool]

Yesterday I received my brand new 16-80. I've been fairly negative regarding this lens since it was released. For it's performance I've felt it to be overpriced, but Fujifilm has been having a sale on the lens here in Canada for just over a month now.

With the sale nearing it's end I've been going back and forth on wether or not I should get it. It's now $774 (regularly $1079). I've always felt it should be priced around 750-800 so I figured I should just bit the bullet.

It does balance better than I initially thought it would on my x-t20. It's about the same size as my viltron 85 MK1 but lighter. The Viltrox is the largest lens I can easily use one handed with the x-t20 and the 16-80 is quite a bit easier.

The autofocus seems snappy and the OIS works well.

Also this feels like the first Fuji lens I have (out of 6) with a decent lens cap, so that's progress.

Really it's a solid lens except for the optics. Unfortunately I think it's hard to justify this lens for it's regular price based on the optical quality, but at the current 30% off I think it's worth it.

Here is a photo (jpeg from camera, but edited) taken last night. I took this one handed, in the wind, in the dark, while lighting it with my cellphone held in the other hand. I was happily surprised with the result. I tried to time the gusts of wind as best I could.







--
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mr.kelly.graham/

 

[Heinz]

Really it's a solid lens except for the optics.

Lol, what a statement. I have already taken over 1000 photos with the 16-80 and i can assure that it is absolutely nothing wrong with the optics.

Here i posted some shots

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64671998

--
Heinz
http://flickr.com/photos/55025133@N02
http://500px.com/hejakma

 

[sir_c]

I agree. When I got my XT4 I bought the 16-80 in a bundle. The 16-80 cost me 400 Euro this way, which is a very good deal. The corners at the wide end and the high vignetting bother me the most, but other than that I am quite happy with it. It is sharper than my 18-55.

 

[Jerry-astro]

Yesterday I received my brand new 16-80. I've been fairly negative regarding this lens since it was released. For it's performance I've felt it to be overpriced, but Fujifilm has been having a sale on the lens here in Canada for just over a month now.

With the sale nearing it's end I've been going back and forth on wether or not I should get it. It's now $774 (regularly $1079). I've always felt it should be priced around 750-800 so I figured I should just bit the bullet.

It does balance better than I initially thought it would on my x-t20. It's about the same size as my viltron 85 MK1 but lighter. The Viltrox is the largest lens I can easily use one handed with the x-t20 and the 16-80 is quite a bit easier.

The autofocus seems snappy and the OIS works well.

Also this feels like the first Fuji lens I have (out of 6) with a decent lens cap, so that's progress.

Really it's a solid lens except for the optics. Unfortunately I think it's hard to justify this lens for it's regular price based on the optical quality, but at the current 30% off I think it's worth it.

Here is a photo (jpeg from camera, but edited) taken last night. I took this one handed, in the wind, in the dark, while lighting it with my cellphone held in the other hand. I was happily surprised with the result. I tried to time the gusts of wind as best I could.

I’m also struggling to understand how a lens could be rated as “nice except for the optics.” That feels a lot like saying the weather was nice except for the tornado that wiped out the town. Since optics are pretty well the major criterion for evaluating lenses, I’d also be interested in understanding how subpar optics would make a lens “nice” in any way even if it’s built like a tank.

--
Jerry-Astro
Fuji Forum co-Mod

 

[HatWearingFool]

Really it's a solid lens except for the optics.

Lol, what a statement. I have already taken over 1000 photos with the 16-80 and i can assure that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the optics.

Here i posted some shots

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64671998

 

[HatWearingFool]

I agree. When I got my XT4 I bought the 16-80 in a bundle. The 16-80 cost me 400 Euro this way, which is a very good deal. The corners at the wide end and the high vignetting bother me the most, but other than that I am quite happy with it. It is sharper than my 18-55.

Yes, the bundle is nice. Unfortunately the 16-80 didn’t exist when I bought my camera.

 

[HatWearingFool]

Yesterday I received my brand new 16-80. I've been fairly negative regarding this lens since it was released. For it's performance I've felt it to be overpriced, but Fujifilm has been having a sale on the lens here in Canada for just over a month now.

With the sale nearing it's end I've been going back and forth on wether or not I should get it. It's now $774 (regularly $1079). I've always felt it should be priced around 750-800 so I figured I should just bit the bullet.

It does balance better than I initially thought it would on my x-t20. It's about the same size as my viltron 85 MK1 but lighter. The Viltrox is the largest lens I can easily use one handed with the x-t20 and the 16-80 is quite a bit easier.

The autofocus seems snappy and the OIS works well.

Also this feels like the first Fuji lens I have (out of 6) with a decent lens cap, so that's progress.

Really it's a solid lens except for the optics. Unfortunately I think it's hard to justify this lens for it's regular price based on the optical quality, but at the current 30% off I think it's worth it.

Here is a photo (jpeg from camera, but edited) taken last night. I took this one handed, in the wind, in the dark, while lighting it with my cellphone held in the other hand. I was happily surprised with the result. I tried to time the gusts of wind as best I could.

I’m also struggling to understand how a lens could be rated as “nice except for the optics.” That feels a lot like saying the weather was nice except for the tornado that wiped out the town. Since optics are pretty well the major criterion for evaluating lenses, I’d also be interested in understanding how subpar optics would make a lens “nice” in any way even if it’s built like a tank.

--
Jerry-Astro
Fuji Forum co-Mod

Well personally the lens caps, zoom creep, lens hoods, etc on some of the other lenses drive me a bit batty at times. So I don’t think you can solely evaluate a lens on optics. It’s nice to know if you are going to be frustrated in daily use.



I the for the regular price I’d be happy with lens except for the optics. (Hence not buying). At the current price I think the optics are fine.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say if optics are good enough depending on how much a lens costs.



--
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mr.kelly.graham/

 

[HaroldC3]

Yesterday I received my brand new 16-80. I've been fairly negative regarding this lens since it was released. For it's performance I've felt it to be overpriced, but Fujifilm has been having a sale on the lens here in Canada for just over a month now.

With the sale nearing it's end I've been going back and forth on wether or not I should get it. It's now $774 (regularly $1079). I've always felt it should be priced around 750-800 so I figured I should just bit the bullet.

It does balance better than I initially thought it would on my x-t20. It's about the same size as my viltron 85 MK1 but lighter. The Viltrox is the largest lens I can easily use one handed with the x-t20 and the 16-80 is quite a bit easier.

The autofocus seems snappy and the OIS works well.

Also this feels like the first Fuji lens I have (out of 6) with a decent lens cap, so that's progress.

Really it's a solid lens except for the optics. Unfortunately I think it's hard to justify this lens for it's regular price based on the optical quality, but at the current 30% off I think it's worth it.

Here is a photo (jpeg from camera, but edited) taken last night. I took this one handed, in the wind, in the dark, while lighting it with my cellphone held in the other hand. I was happily surprised with the result. I tried to time the gusts of wind as best I could.

I’m also struggling to understand how a lens could be rated as “nice except for the optics.” That feels a lot like saying the weather was nice except for the tornado that wiped out the town. Since optics are pretty well the major criterion for evaluating lenses, I’d also be interested in understanding how subpar optics would make a lens “nice” in any way even if it’s built like a tank.

Well personally the lens caps, zoom creep, lens hoods, etc on some of the other lenses drive me a bit batty at times. So I don’t think you can solely evaluate a lens on optics. It’s nice to know if you are going to be frustrated in daily use.

I the for the regular price I’d be happy with lens except for the optics. (Hence not buying). At the current price I think the optics are fine.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say if optics are good enough depending on how much a lens costs.

I think people are jumping on that sentence, "Really it's a solid lens except for the optics..." but instead of being before the other sentence it should have been behind, to make your point clearer.



Anyways, hopefully, you are able to enjoy the lens and live with the compromises that come with it.

 

[Jerry-astro]

Yesterday I received my brand new 16-80. I've been fairly negative regarding this lens since it was released. For it's performance I've felt it to be overpriced, but Fujifilm has been having a sale on the lens here in Canada for just over a month now.

With the sale nearing it's end I've been going back and forth on wether or not I should get it. It's now $774 (regularly $1079). I've always felt it should be priced around 750-800 so I figured I should just bit the bullet.

It does balance better than I initially thought it would on my x-t20. It's about the same size as my viltron 85 MK1 but lighter. The Viltrox is the largest lens I can easily use one handed with the x-t20 and the 16-80 is quite a bit easier.

The autofocus seems snappy and the OIS works well.

Also this feels like the first Fuji lens I have (out of 6) with a decent lens cap, so that's progress.

Really it's a solid lens except for the optics. Unfortunately I think it's hard to justify this lens for it's regular price based on the optical quality, but at the current 30% off I think it's worth it.

Here is a photo (jpeg from camera, but edited) taken last night. I took this one handed, in the wind, in the dark, while lighting it with my cellphone held in the other hand. I was happily surprised with the result. I tried to time the gusts of wind as best I could.

I’m also struggling to understand how a lens could be rated as “nice except for the optics.” That feels a lot like saying the weather was nice except for the tornado that wiped out the town. Since optics are pretty well the major criterion for evaluating lenses, I’d also be interested in understanding how subpar optics would make a lens “nice” in any way even if it’s built like a tank.

Well personally the lens caps, zoom creep, lens hoods, etc on some of the other lenses drive me a bit batty at times. So I don’t think you can solely evaluate a lens on optics. It’s nice to know if you are going to be frustrated in daily use.

I the for the regular price I’d be happy with lens except for the optics. (Hence not buying). At the current price I think the optics are fine.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say if optics are good enough depending on how much a lens costs.

Maybe it’s just the way I interpreted it. I guess no matter how well built a lens might be (and I might admire that part of the design), if the optics don’t measure up to whatever standards I might have, then it would be a no go. However, the inverse may not work quite the same way (again, for me). i.e. if the lens construction is a bit subpar but the optics are excellent (and the price is right, of course), I might be willing to still consider purchasing it anyway. This is all a very individual thing depending on how one’s lenses are handled (I tend to baby mine a bit) and what sort of subject matter the lens is being used for (how critical is optimal rendering of fine detail for example).

Anyway, no intent to nitpick here… it was really just a minor point.

--
Jerry-Astro
Fuji Forum co-Mod

 

[JayNGu]

How does it compare to the 18-55? I would expect a drop off in optical performance for the increased range, but I wouldn't want it massive either. I've always been happy with the optics of the 18-55, but could be interested in the increased range if the trade off isn't too great, especially at the wide and the long end.

Thanks, Jason

 

[HatWearingFool]

Yesterday I received my brand new 16-80. I've been fairly negative regarding this lens since it was released. For it's performance I've felt it to be overpriced, but Fujifilm has been having a sale on the lens here in Canada for just over a month now.

With the sale nearing it's end I've been going back and forth on wether or not I should get it. It's now $774 (regularly $1079). I've always felt it should be priced around 750-800 so I figured I should just bit the bullet.

It does balance better than I initially thought it would on my x-t20. It's about the same size as my viltron 85 MK1 but lighter. The Viltrox is the largest lens I can easily use one handed with the x-t20 and the 16-80 is quite a bit easier.

The autofocus seems snappy and the OIS works well.

Also this feels like the first Fuji lens I have (out of 6) with a decent lens cap, so that's progress.

Really it's a solid lens except for the optics. Unfortunately I think it's hard to justify this lens for it's regular price based on the optical quality, but at the current 30% off I think it's worth it.

Here is a photo (jpeg from camera, but edited) taken last night. I took this one handed, in the wind, in the dark, while lighting it with my cellphone held in the other hand. I was happily surprised with the result. I tried to time the gusts of wind as best I could.

I’m also struggling to understand how a lens could be rated as “nice except for the optics.” That feels a lot like saying the weather was nice except for the tornado that wiped out the town. Since optics are pretty well the major criterion for evaluating lenses, I’d also be interested in understanding how subpar optics would make a lens “nice” in any way even if it’s built like a tank.

Well personally the lens caps, zoom creep, lens hoods, etc on some of the other lenses drive me a bit batty at times. So I don’t think you can solely evaluate a lens on optics. It’s nice to know if you are going to be frustrated in daily use.

I the for the regular price I’d be happy with lens except for the optics. (Hence not buying). At the current price I think the optics are fine.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say if optics are good enough depending on how much a lens costs.

I think people are jumping on that sentence, "Really it's a solid lens except for the optics..." but instead of being before the other sentence it should have been behind, to make your point clearer.

Anyways, hopefully, you are able to enjoy the lens and live with the compromises that come with it.

I’ll definitely be able to live with it. I have a use for it and I think it’ll be just fine in for that. I do think it’s worth it at the current price.

--
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mr.kelly.graham/

 

[HatWearingFool]

Yesterday I received my brand new 16-80. I've been fairly negative regarding this lens since it was released. For it's performance I've felt it to be overpriced, but Fujifilm has been having a sale on the lens here in Canada for just over a month now.

With the sale nearing it's end I've been going back and forth on wether or not I should get it. It's now $774 (regularly $1079). I've always felt it should be priced around 750-800 so I figured I should just bit the bullet.

It does balance better than I initially thought it would on my x-t20. It's about the same size as my viltron 85 MK1 but lighter. The Viltrox is the largest lens I can easily use one handed with the x-t20 and the 16-80 is quite a bit easier.

The autofocus seems snappy and the OIS works well.

Also this feels like the first Fuji lens I have (out of 6) with a decent lens cap, so that's progress.

Really it's a solid lens except for the optics. Unfortunately I think it's hard to justify this lens for it's regular price based on the optical quality, but at the current 30% off I think it's worth it.

Here is a photo (jpeg from camera, but edited) taken last night. I took this one handed, in the wind, in the dark, while lighting it with my cellphone held in the other hand. I was happily surprised with the result. I tried to time the gusts of wind as best I could.

I’m also struggling to understand how a lens could be rated as “nice except for the optics.” That feels a lot like saying the weather was nice except for the tornado that wiped out the town. Since optics are pretty well the major criterion for evaluating lenses, I’d also be interested in understanding how subpar optics would make a lens “nice” in any way even if it’s built like a tank.

Well personally the lens caps, zoom creep, lens hoods, etc on some of the other lenses drive me a bit batty at times. So I don’t think you can solely evaluate a lens on optics. It’s nice to know if you are going to be frustrated in daily use.

I the for the regular price I’d be happy with lens except for the optics. (Hence not buying). At the current price I think the optics are fine.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say if optics are good enough depending on how much a lens costs.

Maybe it’s just the way I interpreted it. I guess no matter how well built a lens might be (and I might admire that part of the design), if the optics don’t measure up to whatever standards I might have, then it would be a no go. However, the inverse may not work quite the same way (again, for me). i.e. if the lens construction is a bit subpar but the optics are excellent (and the price is right, of course), I might be willing to still consider purchasing it anyway. This is all a very individual thing depending on how one’s lenses are handled (I tend to baby mine a bit) and what sort of subject matter the lens is being used for (how critical is optimal rendering of fine detail for example).

Anyway, no intent to nitpick here… it was really just a minor point.

--
Jerry-Astro
Fuji Forum co-Mod

Usually I agree, but I swear the 27mm mk1 lens cap falls off in the slightest breeze. I lost two of them. I actually just sold that lens and tossed in another fuji lens cap I had purchased in advance.



Constantly being worried about losing that thing was a real drag and definitely affected my enjoyment of using that lens.

--
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mr.kelly.graham/

 

[Jerry-astro]

Yesterday I received my brand new 16-80. I've been fairly negative regarding this lens since it was released. For it's performance I've felt it to be overpriced, but Fujifilm has been having a sale on the lens here in Canada for just over a month now.

With the sale nearing it's end I've been going back and forth on wether or not I should get it. It's now $774 (regularly $1079). I've always felt it should be priced around 750-800 so I figured I should just bit the bullet.

It does balance better than I initially thought it would on my x-t20. It's about the same size as my viltron 85 MK1 but lighter. The Viltrox is the largest lens I can easily use one handed with the x-t20 and the 16-80 is quite a bit easier.

The autofocus seems snappy and the OIS works well.

Also this feels like the first Fuji lens I have (out of 6) with a decent lens cap, so that's progress.

Really it's a solid lens except for the optics. Unfortunately I think it's hard to justify this lens for it's regular price based on the optical quality, but at the current 30% off I think it's worth it.

Here is a photo (jpeg from camera, but edited) taken last night. I took this one handed, in the wind, in the dark, while lighting it with my cellphone held in the other hand. I was happily surprised with the result. I tried to time the gusts of wind as best I could.

I’m also struggling to understand how a lens could be rated as “nice except for the optics.” That feels a lot like saying the weather was nice except for the tornado that wiped out the town. Since optics are pretty well the major criterion for evaluating lenses, I’d also be interested in understanding how subpar optics would make a lens “nice” in any way even if it’s built like a tank.

Well personally the lens caps, zoom creep, lens hoods, etc on some of the other lenses drive me a bit batty at times. So I don’t think you can solely evaluate a lens on optics. It’s nice to know if you are going to be frustrated in daily use.

I the for the regular price I’d be happy with lens except for the optics. (Hence not buying). At the current price I think the optics are fine.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say if optics are good enough depending on how much a lens costs.

Maybe it’s just the way I interpreted it. I guess no matter how well built a lens might be (and I might admire that part of the design), if the optics don’t measure up to whatever standards I might have, then it would be a no go. However, the inverse may not work quite the same way (again, for me). i.e. if the lens construction is a bit subpar but the optics are excellent (and the price is right, of course), I might be willing to still consider purchasing it anyway. This is all a very individual thing depending on how one’s lenses are handled (I tend to baby mine a bit) and what sort of subject matter the lens is being used for (how critical is optimal rendering of fine detail for example).

Anyway, no intent to nitpick here… it was really just a minor point.

Usually I agree, but I swear the 27mm mk1 lens cap falls off in the slightest breeze. I lost two of them. I actually just sold that lens and tossed in another fuji lens cap I had purchased in advance.

Constantly being worried about losing that thing was a real drag and definitely affected my enjoyment of using that lens.

Absolutely legitimate concern. That would drive me nuts as well.

--
Jerry-Astro
Fuji Forum co-Mod

 

[HatWearingFool]

How does it compare to the 18-55? I would expect a drop off in optical performance for the increased range, but I wouldn't want it massive either. I've always been happy with the optics of the 18-55, but could be interested in the increased range if the trade off isn't too great, especially at the wide and the long end.

Thanks, Jason

I haven’t done a lot of testing yet. But I’d say my copy of the 16-80 is worse than my copy of the 18-55 from maybe 40-55. It seems to get worse as you go along. It seems particularly weak once you get to 80mm.

I tried a couple of used copies before and found the same as well. It’s possible I have a good copy of the 18-55… I don’t know.

My 16-80 seems very good at 35mm though, which is nice since that is a focal length I quite like. Actually I’d say it seems to have a sweet spot in the 23-35mm range. I don’t do a lot wide so haven’t looked at 16mm very closely. For my preference I would have preferred a 18-80 since I never shoot wider (with out stitching a panorama) and it might have meant higher overall optical quality, but I recognize the 16mm range is very important to a lot of buyers.

 

[9VIII]

Every once in a while I get tempted by the 16-80, but then I check reviews and find that the XC-15-45 is still very competent at everything I would want our of the 16-80.

The differences feel especially minor when I got the 15-45 virtually for free in a bundle with my X-E3.

--
Marmite Gang For Life!!!

 

[sir_c]

I made this comparison below with the Lenstip charts, where I tried to align the axes.

My own images with the 16-80 are mostly sharper than the 18-55 and are much in line with below figures.

You can also see that the 16-55 has its own compromises.

 

[MarkMyWords]

I made this comparison below with the Lenstip charts, where I tried to align the axes.

My own images with the 16-80 are mostly sharper than the 18-55 and are much in line with below figures.

You can also see that the 16-55 has its own compromises.

LensTip results place the 16-80 significantly sharper than the 18-55, and close to the 16-55. Does this suggest that the 18-55 and 16-55 are overrated and/or the 16-80 underrated, or LensTip is misleading?

 

[sir_c]

Somewhere in between I'd say. The charts only tell a part of the story.

You can have per-copy variance to begin with. Next, Lenstip do their test at a certain focal distance. Close range performance can be different from infinity focus. You can't see vignetting, coma or CA here, and so on.

My take is that the 16-80 is not as bad as what some say. It really is a very capable and sharp lens. There are a few points where it does fall behind, like vignetting and wide angle corner performance.

But you hardly ever hear people moan about the 16-55 performance drop in certain areas, even though it is there. Plus, for me, I got rid of my DSLR with 1kg+ 24-70/2.8 because of the weight. So why would I replace that with something similar?

In many of my images, the extremes corners aren't important at all. The center on the other hand is really very good. The bokeh is nice for a zoom lens too. But it really depends on what you tolerate which compromises fits you best.

Some of my nicest shots I made with my 18-55. The versatility of the 16-80 however makes the former stay home nowadays.

 

[MrSee]

Nice shot

 

[HatWearingFool]

I made this comparison below with the Lenstip charts, where I tried to align the axes.

My own images with the 16-80 are mostly sharper than the 18-55 and are much in line with below figures.

You can also see that the 16-55 has its own compromises.

LensTip results place the 16-80 significantly sharper than the 18-55, and close to the 16-55. Does this suggest that the 18-55 and 16-55 are overrated and/or the 16-80 underrated, or LensTip is misleading?

The 16-80 was tested on higher resolution sensor. Even lens tip tells you not to directly compare results.

--
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mr.kelly.graham/