XF16-80mm vs. XF18-135mm for travel/landscape/architecture photography

Hello! Question about a potential lens upgrade.

I currently have a Fujifilm X-S10 with the XC15-45mm and XC50-230mm lenses. I find this is a really great combination of focal lengths that provides me with a very large range of zooms for my use case (travel photography, primarily landscapes/seascapes and buildings). However, I find myself often fiddling about with lenses and needing to switch a lot when I want to take pictures in medium focal lengths (like, the 30-70mm range), and sometimes wish I had a little bit more on the long end. I know a lot of that is developing technique and gaining an intrinsic understanding of focal lengths and what framing will subsequently look like. I'm definitely starting to get the feeling for it but I still feel like it'd be really good to have a lens that covers the kind of middle-ground between them. I'm also not overly fond of the electronic zoom on the 15-45 - while the lens provides useful focal lengths, it (for lack of better phrasing) doesn't feel as good to use as the 50-230. It feels like it's harder to get the exact focal length I want out of it, if that makes sense.

I'm wondering if it'd be better to invest in the XF16-80 or the XF18-135 (or something else entirely). I don't plan on selling the XC15-45, but instead keeping it as essentially a 15mm prime because it's so small and light (and also for webcam use), and I'm also not in a position to change systems. Plus, I don't really want to - I really like the physical feel of the X-S10 in my hands, and my technique isn't good enough to warrant an additional/replacement body at this point. The 16-80 seems like the newer and higher-quality lens, but I've also heard it can be a little soft around the edges which isn't ideal for landscape photography. The 18-135 has much more overlap with the 50-230, but it would also mean I could potentially augment my long-end with a teleconverter rather than buying a physically longer lens. I also feel like when I use the 50-230, I'm either using it in the 50-80 or so range or the 170+mm range. I'm not a professional, not by a long shot, but covering that 5mm gap in the middle and having something to deal with medium focal lengths without swapping lenses appeals to me.

There's also the XF 16-55mm f/2.8, but for the use cases I'm interested in, the faster aperture doesn't seem like a great trade-off for being considerably more expensive and having a much smaller zoom range than the other two options.

tl;dr: Fujifilm X-Mount for travel/landscape/architectural photography. Augment 15-45mm+50-230mm with 16-80 (and maybe the 70-300 or 100-400 later down the line) or 18-135+teleconverter?

I also don't know a lot about third-party lenses. I know there's the Tamron 18-300 which seems like a fantastic one-stop-shop lens but also appears to suffer hard from being a jack of all trades, and at equivalent focal lengths doesn't hold a candle to either of the Fuji lenses. OIS and WR also isn't hugely important for me, as I'm already very satisfied with my X-S10's IBIS and, well, the X-S10 isn't a weather-resistant body.

Thanks for any advice you've got!

wantfastcars wrote:

The 16-80 seems like the newer and higher-quality lens, but I've also heard it can be a little soft around the edges which isn't ideal for landscape photography.

I have written extensively on other threads so I'll not bore you - the 16-80 is a superb lens and once stopped down to f5.6 I found it as sharp as any other Fuji lens I owned - it's certainly no slouch at f4 either but from f5.6 onwards it is sharp across the frame. The one (well publicised) drawback is it IS soft at 80mm (or softer I should say) but again stop it down and it's more than acceptable.

If I could only pick one do-it-all lens, for me, it would be the 16-80 hands down.

tl;dr: Fujifilm X-Mount for travel/landscape/architectural photography. Augment 15-45mm+50-230mm with 16-80 (and maybe the 70-300 or 100-400 later down the line) or 18-135+teleconverter?

Forgive me if I've mis-read or misunderstood but the 18-135 doesn't take the TC so that will likely narrow your search field.

I'll just throw the idea of a prime or two into the mix as well. Certainly the 16 f2.8 and 23/35 f2's are great value for money - or even the Viltrox primes, I have found the 23mm to be excellent. A small prime is always a joy to use when shooting street or architecture (I've found) plus they do compliment the 16-80 well as they don't overlap too much on account of being 2-3 stops faster.

My X-S10 kit consists of the 16-80 and the 70-300+1.4 TC. (I passed on the 10-24 the last time it was on sale — we’ll see if this holds true next time.) I think this set makes for a spectacular travel combo for the type of travel that (for me) isn’t “toss the X100V into the bag.”

The X100v is my “primary” camera and meets my needs for a high percentage of the photography I enjoy. I have the conversion lenses for it as well. When traveling with the X-S10 the need for a “night time prime” is nicely handled by the X100V though I also have a small collection of manual primes (and adapters) — Nikon, Canon and Leica — left over from previous film-era systems. They sit ready, but to be honest I haven’t used them very much.

I’m not ruling out future Fuji Primes or the upcoming 200-600 (did I get that right?) but I’m extremely pleased with what I’ve got. What I could do with is a little more travel and opportunity to use this gear for the purposes I intended when I purchased it.

I’m kind of curious about needing to go longer than the 230. For wildlife, sure, but in the “travel/landscape/architecture” categories I’d rarely find a need to go longer than 230. What scenarios do you find demand more reach?

Personally I use the 16-80 as my main landscape lens, accompanied by a budget ultra wide (either the Pergear 10/8 or the Samyang 12/2). There are times that I would like a bit more reach than 80, but not enough to sacrifice the 16 at the wide end for an 18.

I would choose the 16-80 because 16-17mm is more useful to me than 81-135mm.

what another person wrote about the 16-80 jives with reviews I’ve read, that stop down to f5.6 and the edges sharpen up.  At f8-16 you would be fine for landscape.  Somewhat softer edges at 80mm which is typical for a zoom of this type (5x) but the center is sharp so subject isolation and portraits are in play at 80.

I've investigated these two lenses here: https://bastibe.de/2021-10-09-fuji-travel-zooms.html

This was a few months ago. I have not used the 18-135 since. My main criticism of the 18-135 is really the rough and irregular bokeh. Which is unimportant in landscapes, where you mostly shoot stopped down. But for people pictures where you want your background (slightly) out of focus, I much prefer the 16-80's smoother rendering.

Also, the 16-80 is a little bit smaller, which I have come to appreciate. And it does not creep. The wide end is strongly distorted, though.

No complaints in terms of resolution. Both of these lenses are sharp (and really, most modern lenses are).

Ever since getting the 70-300, I have noticed I don't need the long end of my main lens so much any more. I used to use the 18-135 mostly in the 18-60 range, and at 135 for far-away details. But for the latter, 135mm isn't really enough. Even the 70-300 with 1.4 TC often isn't long enough. Nothing ever is, I guess. So my use of my normal lens's long end has diminished, leading to less of a need for the 18-135 in my use.

Are you in the market for a used 18-135 in Europe? I have one for sale 😁.

Jeff Biscuits wrote:

I’m kind of curious about needing to go longer than the 230. For wildlife, sure, but in the “travel/landscape/architecture” categories I’d rarely find a need to go longer than 230. What scenarios do you find demand more reach?

I won’t speak for the OP but “wildlife” is one of my major subjects that dictate an ILC for travel as opposed to the “urban” X100V.

jaberg wrote:

I won’t speak for the OP but “wildlife” is one of my major subjects that dictate an ILC for travel as opposed to the “urban” X100V.

I suspect that probably speaks for everyone: if you’re getting worthwhile shots of animals on a 23mm lens then either they’re not wild or you’re in a lot of trouble 🙂

wantfastcars wrote:

Hello! Question about a potential lens upgrade.

I currently have a Fujifilm X-S10 with the XC15-45mm and XC50-230mm lenses. I find this is a really great combination of focal lengths that provides me with a very large range of zooms for my use case (travel photography, primarily landscapes/seascapes and buildings). However, I find myself often fiddling about with lenses and needing to switch a lot when I want to take pictures in medium focal lengths (like, the 30-70mm range), and sometimes wish I had a little bit more on the long end. I know a lot of that is developing technique and gaining an intrinsic understanding of focal lengths and what framing will subsequently look like. I'm definitely starting to get the feeling for it but I still feel like it'd be really good to have a lens that covers the kind of middle-ground between them. I'm also not overly fond of the electronic zoom on the 15-45 - while the lens provides useful focal lengths, it (for lack of better phrasing) doesn't feel as good to use as the 50-230. It feels like it's harder to get the exact focal length I want out of it, if that makes sense.

Yes I had this issue where the 50-230mm (great lens for the price btw) just sat in my bag when I was out hiking etc with friends and family.

I'm wondering if it'd be better to invest in the XF16-80 or the XF18-135 (or something else entirely). I don't plan on selling the XC15-45, but instead keeping it as essentially a 15mm prime because it's so small and light (and also for webcam use), and I'm also not in a position to change systems. Plus, I don't really want to - I really like the physical feel of the X-S10 in my hands, and my technique isn't good enough to warrant an additional/replacement body at this point. The 16-80 seems like the newer and higher-quality lens, but I've also heard it can be a little soft around the edges which isn't ideal for landscape photography. The 18-135 has much more overlap with the 50-230, but it would also mean I could potentially augment my long-end with a teleconverter rather than buying a physically longer lens. I also feel like when I use the 50-230, I'm either using it in the 50-80 or so range or the 170+mm range. I'm not a professional, not by a long shot, but covering that 5mm gap in the middle and having something to deal with medium focal lengths without swapping lenses appeals to me.

I had the 16-80mm but while it's not bad the range is still not enough and it's weak at the long end.

There's also the XF 16-55mm f/2.8, but for the use cases I'm interested in, the faster aperture doesn't seem like a great trade-off for being considerably more expensive and having a much smaller zoom range than the other two options.

So I got the 16-55 which is great across the focal lengths but I don't really need the f2.8 for hiking and it's heavy for what it is.I still had to carry the 50-230mm anyway.

tl;dr: Fujifilm X-Mount for travel/landscape/architectural photography. Augment 15-45mm+50-230mm with 16-80 (and maybe the 70-300 or 100-400 later down the line) or 18-135+teleconverter?

Teleconverter doesn't work with 18-135.

I also don't know a lot about third-party lenses. I know there's the Tamron 18-300 which seems like a fantastic one-stop-shop lens but also appears to suffer hard from being a jack of all trades, and at equivalent focal lengths doesn't hold a candle to either of the Fuji lenses. OIS and WR also isn't hugely important for me, as I'm already very satisfied with my X-S10's IBIS and, well, the X-S10 isn't a weather-resistant body.

Thanks for any advice you've got!

Yes as I mentioned in the other thread (landscape lens) the Tamron is a great all in one solution for these types of situations. I'm not sure where you've heard it's not as good as the Fujis but imo it's as good if not better. Plus the close focussing 1:2 at the wide end and 1:4 at the long end makes it super versatile. 
For now the Tamron is the only zoom lens I need until the compact Sigma 18-50 2.8 comes out at the end of the year.
Good luck with your decision.

I take the same subjects as you. I've settled on the 16-80 and like it a lot. What I lose in focal length range I gain back in features and slightly better overall IQ.

Thanks for all the replies everybody! I'm not going to reply to everybody individually since there's a lot, but I'll try to address the responses and questions.

First, re: teleconverter confusion. I caused some confusion in my initial post because I was uninformed. I had thought that the teleconverters could be used with any lens, and what I meant was using the 18-135 as a daily driver and buying a teleconverter to use with the 50-230 for the very long reach, instead of buying an additional longer lens. I didn't realize that only certain lenses were compatible with the TCs. That information alone swings me a little more in favor of the 16-80 since I'd likely be looking at replacing the 50-230 (which I do agree is a good lens, I got it in a kit) down the line anyways. Not yet, though.

Second, re: what do you want longer than 230 for? As others mentioned, occasional wildlife photos, but mainly, it's because I live in Japan (sorry, bastibe!). I sometimes find myself taking pictures downward from the top of a mountain, aiming for a small detail on a tall building, or trying to take pictures across bodies of water. The 230 is usually adequate for my use cases, but not always (in particular regards to that, I recently had the opportunity to take some pictures of commercial ships as well, which, shooting from the shore, really pushed the limits of the 230), which was why I was thinking about trying to add the teleconverter to it. That plan is out the window now, though.

Third, re: the Tamron 18-300. Despite the high praise I do see for it in individual lens reviews, I saw a review on another website that compared it directly to both the 16-80 and 18-135 at the same focal lengths and the Tamron lens was noticeably softer throughout the image. Granted, that was only one source, but being able to directly compare it to both of the other lenses I was interested in felt like it had more weight to it. I'll look into it more.

Based on peoples' replies here, I feel like the 16-80 would probably be the better lens for my use cases if I made the purchase right now, and then getting a lens longer than the 230 for those extreme reach pictures.

Thanks for all the responses so far folks. I'll make sure to keep checking back and let you know if I make a decision.

Third, re: the Tamron 18-300. Despite the high praise I do see for it in individual lens reviews, I saw a review on another website that compared it directly to both the 16-80 and 18-135 at the same focal lengths and the Tamron lens was noticeably softer throughout the image. Granted, that was only one source, but being able to directly compare it to both of the other lenses I was interested in felt like it had more weight to it. I'll look into it more.

Hey just wondering if you have a link for this comparison review as I haven't found anything...thanks

wantfastcars wrote:

Thanks for all the replies everybody! I'm not going to reply to everybody individually since there's a lot, but I'll try to address the responses and questions.

First, re: teleconverter confusion. I caused some confusion in my initial post because I was uninformed. I had thought that the teleconverters could be used with any lens, and what I meant was using the 18-135 as a daily driver and buying a teleconverter to use with the 50-230 for the very long reach, instead of buying an additional longer lens. I didn't realize that only certain lenses were compatible with the TCs. That information alone swings me a little more in favor of the 16-80 since I'd likely be looking at replacing the 50-230 (which I do agree is a good lens, I got it in a kit) down the line anyways. Not yet, though.

Second, re: what do you want longer than 230 for? As others mentioned, occasional wildlife photos, but mainly, it's because I live in Japan (sorry, bastibe!). I sometimes find myself taking pictures downward from the top of a mountain, aiming for a small detail on a tall building, or trying to take pictures across bodies of water. The 230 is usually adequate for my use cases, but not always (in particular regards to that, I recently had the opportunity to take some pictures of commercial ships as well, which, shooting from the shore, really pushed the limits of the 230), which was why I was thinking about trying to add the teleconverter to it. That plan is out the window now, though.

Third, re: the Tamron 18-300. Despite the high praise I do see for it in individual lens reviews, I saw a review on another website that compared it directly to both the 16-80 and 18-135 at the same focal lengths and the Tamron lens was noticeably softer throughout the image. Granted, that was only one source, but being able to directly compare it to both of the other lenses I was interested in felt like it had more weight to it. I'll look into it more.

Based on peoples' replies here, I feel like the 16-80 would probably be the better lens for my use cases if I made the purchase right now, and then getting a lens longer than the 230 for those extreme reach pictures.

Thanks for all the responses so far folks. I'll make sure to keep checking back and let you know if I make a decision.

16-80 and 70-300 would be a very nice combo in my opinion.

Good luck!

No...lens sharpness DOES NOT depend on how you process your images!  The sharpness of your photo depends on that.

Flying Fijian wrote:

Third, re: the Tamron 18-300. Despite the high praise I do see for it in individual lens reviews, I saw a review on another website that compared it directly to both the 16-80 and 18-135 at the same focal lengths and the Tamron lens was noticeably softer throughout the image. Granted, that was only one source, but being able to directly compare it to both of the other lenses I was interested in felt like it had more weight to it. I'll look into it more.

Hey just wondering if you have a link for this comparison review as I haven't found anything...thanks

I was mistaken - it was comparing the Tamron 18-300 to the 16-80 and the 70-300, not the 18-135.

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1730838/0

They aren't perfectly 1:1 comparisons, and are extremely limited in testing scope, but even still, especially at 300mm, the Tamron is markedly less sharp.

This is somewhat of an outlier, but the poster is using the same body as I am with similar lenses to what I'm considering. To me, looking at these particular images at least, the 16-80 looks much better at the 45-50mm range and the Tamron is completely obliterated at 300mm. Granted this is not consistent with the largely positive reviews of the Tamron lens, but having that clear AB test was valuable to me, especially given it's the same body I'd be using.

wantfastcars wrote:

Flying Fijian wrote:

Third, re: the Tamron 18-300. Despite the high praise I do see for it in individual lens reviews, I saw a review on another website that compared it directly to both the 16-80 and 18-135 at the same focal lengths and the Tamron lens was noticeably softer throughout the image. Granted, that was only one source, but being able to directly compare it to both of the other lenses I was interested in felt like it had more weight to it. I'll look into it more.

Hey just wondering if you have a link for this comparison review as I haven't found anything...thanks

I was mistaken - it was comparing the Tamron 18-300 to the 16-80 and the 70-300, not the 18-135.

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1730838/0

Oh okay fair enough..that was posted here too:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4606440

They aren't perfectly 1:1 comparisons, and are extremely limited in testing scope, but even still, especially at 300mm, the Tamron is markedly less sharp.

This is somewhat of an outlier, but the poster is using the same body as I am with similar lenses to what I'm considering. To me, looking at these particular images at least, the 16-80 looks much better at the 45-50mm range and the Tamron is completely obliterated at 300mm. Granted this is not consistent with the largely positive reviews of the Tamron lens, but having that clear AB test was valuable to me, especially given it's the same body I'd be using.

Yeah well you can't really expect it to be that sharp at 300mm compared to the 70-300 and there could possibly be camera shake at 1/320s @ 300mm. I find the centre sharpness at 300m good enough.

Even that review says "from 35mm to 150mm or so it performs much closer to the Fuji zooms". That's where I mostly use this lens...better then having to switch between 2 lenses.

Taken from the edge of the lake lol my wife was a bit concerned for my safety

I would have never even thought of this shot with the 16-80 or 16-55. The 50-230 would have been in my bag hiding in my bag or at home. I also got nice portraits, environmental portraits and even semi macros all with the one lens so I can't complain! I just received my Cpl filter too so going to use that next time and in better conditions.

If I need better quality then this, I'd put on a prime or pick up  the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 when that comes out. I don't really need any longer reach.

Good luck.