16-55 VS. 16-80: A contrary view

[David Garth]

I’ve owned my 16-80 for about a year and I’m quite satisfied with it. But recently a friend asked for my help deciding whether he should buy the 16-80 or the 16-55. He was concerned mostly about sharpness and not size or weight.

I’ve never owned or used a 16-55. I knew that many people feel the 16-55 is sharper. I was curious if this was measurable, or if it were conformational bias because 16-55 owners have typically spent a lot more money on them.

I went to the three most respected lens test sites and assigned a numerical rating to their sharpness ratings, but only on those important areas where they overlap—f4 to f8 and 16mm to 55mm. To my surprise, after I did the math, they came out almost exactly equal. (The 16-80’s weakness at 80mm didn’t factor in, since it’s kind of a bonus.) It appears both are good, but neither is “prime sharp” which is typical for wide to tele zooms. (Another surprise: At 16mm, the very cheap and light 15-45 is actually sharper than both of them.)


Thoughts?

 

[boogisha]

I would pretty much doubt that a larger lens with less zoom - being 16-55mm f/2.8, when shot at f/4 (so closed down a stop), is equal to a smaller lens with more zoom - being 16-80mm f/4, especially as the latter is shot wide open.

This should be even more strange at the widest end (16mm), where more optically corrected 16-55mm f/2.8 should pull an easy win, contrasting more digitally corrected (and optically compromised) 16-80mm f/4. At 55mm, the difference could/should be (much?) smaller, as the bigger lens is reaching its end of zoom, usually being its weakest point (though it can be specific lens copy dependent still), while the smaller lens is comfortably sitting close to the (better performing) middle of its zoom range.

All that said, 16-55mm allows shooting at f/2.8, still being pretty sharp (as to what its owners are saying, sometimes dubbing it as a "bag of primes"), so it`s a (big) thing to think about, too, and one of its major selling points - if one is not interested, then buying such a lens seems to be a pure waste of money, not to mention a burden to carry around for no actual gain.

For the majority of lenses, shooting above f/4 makes many of the differences melt away, anyway, so focusing on that part of the shooting aperture alone makes little sense to begin with - or, if that is really what one is most concerned with (and using the most), buying a faster (and usually larger, heavier and more expensive) lens makes no sense (other than leaving creative options open, in case using a faster/wider aperture could still be useful... and size, weight and price are not an issue).

p.s. I have and use XF 16-80mm f/4 myself, too, pretty much replacing my XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4.0, and while I don`t soubt it being a better lens, I`m not interested in XF 16-55 f/2.8 as I find it too big and heavy (where I came to Fuji from full-frame, appreciating the downsizing).

And XC 15-45mm f/3.5-5.6 is known for its excellent wide end performance, indeed, even having some people using it as a 15mm prime alone, completely ignoring the (possibly annoying) power zoom functionality.

 

[sluggy_warrior]

Since OIS also affects sharpness, it's worth mentioning that 16-80 has OIS while the 16-55 doesn't (ignore if IBIS).

I have decent hand holding technique, can take clean 1/4s shots easily at 140mm on my 50-140 with OIS on, but I still need a minimum of 1/180s with the 56/1.2 to avoid camera shake. So yes, OIS or IBIS is still an important factor to consider.

 

[Rightsaidfred]

I’ve never owned or used a 16-55.

Hi David

I have it, but have never had the 16-80. Very happy with my 16-55.

I went to the three most respected lens test sites and assigned a numerical rating to their sharpness ratings, but only on those important areas where they overlap—f4 to f8 and 16mm to 55mm. To my surprise, after I did the math, they came out almost exactly equal.

Thoughts?

Yep.

(1) Be careful in comparing MTF data.

(2) The sweet spot for center resolution of most lenses is around f/4...5.6, at least with the current sensors.

(3) The 16-55 offers f/2.8 as an asset which the 16-80 does not have. I find it very usable wide open.

(4) Sharpness is necessary but not sufficient. Bokeh and rendering play a role, for example. Also in this regard, I love my 16-55. But I lack the comparison with the 16-80.

Kind regards,

Martin

 

[bastibe]

After having compared many Fuji lenses in quite some depth myself, I have come to the conclusion that they are all sharp. They are all good. As are almost all modern lenses by any manufacturer.

Comparing the Fujifilm XF 16‑80 with the XF 18‑135 Travel Zoom Lenses

bastibe.de

Camera Resolution

bastibe.de

Fuji Zoom Lenses

bastibe.de

They differ in size, weight, focal range, aperture range, rendering of out of focus areas, that kind of thing. But there really isn't a huge difference in resolution between, say, my "bad" 18-135 and my "good" 60 f/2.4.

The days of actually soft lenses are behind us. Computer aided design and modern materials, and just simply modern table stakes have made sure of that.

(Of course there are still differences in contrast, resolution, and acutance, but they are minor. More in the realm of "rendering" than in "quality".)

 

[Flying Fijian]

I’ve owned my 16-80 for about a year and I’m quite satisfied with it. But recently a friend asked for my help deciding whether he should buy the 16-80 or the 16-55. He was concerned mostly about sharpness and not size or weight.

I’ve never owned or used a 16-55. I knew that many people feel the 16-55 is sharper. I was curious if this was measurable, or if it were conformational bias because 16-55 owners have typically spent a lot more money on them.

I went to the three most respected lens test sites and assigned a numerical rating to their sharpness ratings, but only on those important areas where they overlap—f4 to f8 and 16mm to 55mm. To my surprise, after I did the math, they came out almost exactly equal. (The 16-80’s weakness at 80mm didn’t factor in, since it’s kind of a bonus.) It appears both are good, but neither is “prime sharp” which is typical for wide to tele zooms. (Another surprise: At 16mm, the very cheap and light 15-45 is actually sharper than both of them.)

Thoughts?

 

[MarcosV]

I’ve owned my 16-80 for about a year and I’m quite satisfied with it. But recently a friend asked for my help deciding whether he should buy the 16-80 or the 16-55. He was concerned mostly about sharpness and not size or weight.

I’ve never owned or used a 16-55. I knew that many people feel the 16-55 is sharper. I was curious if this was measurable, or if it were conformational bias because 16-55 owners have typically spent a lot more money on them.

I went to the three most respected lens test sites and assigned a numerical rating to their sharpness ratings, but only on those important areas where they overlap—f4 to f8 and 16mm to 55mm. To my surprise, after I did the math, they came out almost exactly equal. (The 16-80’s weakness at 80mm didn’t factor in, since it’s kind of a bonus.) It appears both are good, but neither is “prime sharp” which is typical for wide to tele zooms. (Another surprise: At 16mm, the very cheap and light 15-45 is actually sharper than both of them.)

Thoughts?

I own both 16-55 and 16-80. They both have their purpose and I won't sell either of them --- unless a superior Mk II version is released.

The 16-55 remains my favorite standard zoom lens when size/weight does not matter, I love using this lens at f/2.8, especially when complemented by external bounce flash in event-style photography. The focusing is quick and accurate.

I like the 16-80 for the extra reach through 80mm, which can be long enough to allow me to leave my telephoto zoom at home, It has become my travel zoom, replacing my 16-55/2.8.

At f/4 to f/5.6, both lens does the job for me. I'm not missing sharpness between the two and there are plenty of times I prefer using them over my Fujifilm primes --- and I got a lot more primes than zooms in my collection.

One of these days if I got really bored, I'm tempted to try testing my favorite lens using the process that Roger Cicala says he uses for his personal equipment. https://www.dpreview.com/opinion/40...i-dont-use-an-mtf-bench-to-test-my-own-lenses

 

[Martin_99]

I’ve owned my 16-80 for about a year and I’m quite satisfied with it. But recently a friend asked for my help deciding whether he should buy the 16-80 or the 16-55. He was concerned mostly about sharpness and not size or weight.

I’ve never owned or used a 16-55. I knew that many people feel the 16-55 is sharper. I was curious if this was measurable, or if it were conformational bias because 16-55 owners have typically spent a lot more money on them.

I went to the three most respected lens test sites and assigned a numerical rating to their sharpness ratings, but only on those important areas where they overlap—f4 to f8 and 16mm to 55mm. To my surprise, after I did the math, they came out almost exactly equal. (The 16-80’s weakness at 80mm didn’t factor in, since it’s kind of a bonus.) It appears both are good, but neither is “prime sharp” which is typical for wide to tele zooms. (Another surprise: At 16mm, the very cheap and light 15-45 is actually sharper than both of them.)

Thoughts?

I just checked my favourite test sites which use exact values, graphs etc.: https://www.opticallimits.com/ and https://www.lenstip.com/

Unfortunately on both websites they tested 16-55 on 16Mpx sensor and 16-80 on newer 24Mpx sensor, so results are not comparable. But even that, there is still visible how good 16-55 is, if it's able to achieve similar results on old 16Mpx sensor. Not sure how big would be boost on 24Mpx though.


16-55 on X-E1


16-80 on X-T2


16-55 on X-E1 - edge results


16-80 on X-T2 - edge results

 

[sir_c]

I made a similar comparison a while ago. If you look up lenstip's review of the xf 50/2 you can see it only differs a few lpmm between the two sensor sizes. Hardly noticeable. Sure, i know lenstip has a particular way of testing, but i have not found anything better. And my own observations are in line with what was said in the reviews.

 

[Martin_99]

I made a similar comparison a while ago. If you look up lenstip's review of the xf 50/2 you can see it only differs a few lpmm between the two sensor sizes. Hardly noticeable. Sure, i know lenstip has a particular way of testing, but i have not found anything better. And my own observations are in line with what was said in the reviews.

Thanks! It's surprising result for me, I expected bigger difference. When optical limits tested Sony 90mm f2.8 macro, there were quite different results on 24/42Mpx, but there was also difference FF/apsc crop:


90mm macro on FF 42Mpx camera


90mm macro on 24Mpx apsc