Comparing the XF 18-55 and XC 16-50 (v2)

As a continuation of my 18-55 review here, I've decided to compare them directly.

I'm still struggling to choose between the two lenses. I've had the XC one for a few years now and have been generally happy with it. It's small and lightweight, while still delivering very good IQ. Its OIS is effective and the short MFD is great to have on a standard zoom. So is the wide starting point (16mm). It's a great match for my X-T30.

Last summer I decided to get the 18-55 as I found a great deal on a used copy. I liked the build quality, larger aperture and the physical switches on the lens. Having an aperture ring is okay although the fact it's unmarked isn't great. I'm totally fine controlling aperture using the front dial of my camera. However, 18mm isn't as useful on a standard zoom, the MFD is poor and OIS isn't very effective (I'd say it's good to about 2 stops). The lens is also a bit front-heavy on the small X-T30 body. Lastly, it has a significant focus curvature at 18mm which limits the benefits of the wide aperture in some scenarios.

Which brings me to the comparison. Everything was shot in manual mode using a tripod and a cable release. I decided to compare the lenses at their widest focal length, then at the middle of the range (which came out at about 28mm for both lenses) and then fully zoomed in. I compared their wide open apertures and then stopped down to f/8. First are 100% crops from the middle of the frame.

Middle - I'd say the XC lens is slightly better

Corner - both lenses exhibit field curvature, but it's way worse on the XF lens. It however is sharper in the corners stopped down.

Halfway through the zoom range; center crop. Both are very good, perhaps the XF lens has an edge.

Corner crop - wide open they're quite comparable but stopped down the XF lens is definitely better.

Zoomed all the way in. I had to redo the XC 16-50 image at f/5.6 a couple of hours later as the original image was soft for some reason. Both are similar to my eye.

Again comparable performance in my view.

And lastly here are the whole scenes at both ends of the lenses' zoom range - this is just to compare their FOV differences.

18 vs 16 mm

55 v 50mm - I've forgotten to set a custom WB and the camera has picked a colder one for the XC lens shot

Has anyone gone through a similar dilemma? Both have their advantages but I still can't decide which is best for me.

LeicaC wrote:

If you don’t see any significant advantages to the 18-55 just keep your XC zoom!

I think I have stated each lens' advantages pretty clearly. So your comment doesn't really add anything to the discussion that will hopefully start soon.

Your original post and images are helpful. I’ve always wondered about the comparative image quality of these two lenses. I traded my XF 18-55 over a year ago for the XF 16--80, and sometimes find it heavier and bulkier than I like, for longer walks. The 15-45 now seems a nice low-cost, lightweight alternative for those days.

Papa48 wrote:

Your original post and images are helpful. I’ve always wondered about the comparative image quality of these two lenses. I traded my XF 18-55 over a year ago for the XF 16--80, and sometimes find it heavier and bulkier than I like, for longer walks. The 15-45 now seems a nice low-cost, lightweight alternative for those days.

I wonder how the 15-45 compares to the 18-55. Seems like a much better travel lens as it covers wide angle a lot better, plus is half the size.

Papa48 wrote:

Your original post and images are helpful. I’ve always wondered about the comparative image quality of these two lenses. I traded my XF 18-55 over a year ago for the XF 16--80, and sometimes find it heavier and bulkier than I like, for longer walks. The 15-45 now seems a nice low-cost, lightweight alternative for those days.

Thank you! The 16-80 seems like a good idea for a walk-around lens although it's indeed larger and heavier for smaller cameras. Still, considering its vast range it's well sized. I haven't tried the 15-45 though.

I had first the XF 18-55.  Was good in some cases, but soft in others.

Then I acquired the XC 16-50.

I quickly sold the 18-55. As you noted, the XC is just consistently decent, at an unbeatable price and weight.  My only reserve is the build quality,  I'm always scared to break it.

I would not the look at the XF18-55 as alternative but rather the Sigma 18-50, which might offer an actual step up in IQ.

I have all 3 of the lens in discussion. As you and others have observed they are very close in image quality. That being said if you really need 15 18 is not helpful. I enjoy my 18-55 on my XT2 as I can adjust the aperture ring with one finger. I think it might have more contrast and resistance to flare than the 15-45. There is no denying the build is most robust on the 18-55 but the 16-50 has a sort of rugged utilitarian feel about it while the 15-45 kind of has a point & shoot vibe about it but its image quality demands that it is also a contender. I did get some flare but no ghosting when the sun was low in the sky and entered the upper left corner with the 15-45. I have an aftermarket rubber hood but did not have it on so maybe more my fault than the lens. It was an action shot of my wife feeding a Giraffe so there was no chance of  me moving on the crowded platform.  It performed better than many other lens that I have had might. So its all anectdotal and Im good with having all 3 and weight and angle of view influence my decision on which goes on ,XHI, XM1, XT2. Thanks for taking the time to do the hard work of testing and I found it very interesting.

WeirdSheep wrote:

This is classic analysis paralysis. Both lenses perform sufficiently well to not worry about any tiny differences that any observer to your images is ever going to notice. So the decision comes down to whether you want a wider, lighter and slower lens over a faster, narrower, heavier more premium feeling lens, that's it.

With its more effective OIS the 16-50 looks like a better bet to me as you yourself prefer the wider fov of 16mm. No-one obsesses about edges and corners except photographers, make your choice and concentrate on better compositions using your chosen lens and you'll soon forget about them too.

Thanks for commenting. I agree both lenses perform very well, I'm not a huge pixel peeper myself and rarely do this kind of tests. But I thought it might be useful to someone in a similar position.

I guess all in all the 16-50 is a better package for most needs, although I could live with either lens. I'll continue to evaluate.

RobertMachin wrote:

I had first the XF 18-55. Was good in some cases, but soft in others.

Then I acquired the XC 16-50.

I quickly sold the 18-55. As you noted, the XC is just consistently decent, at an unbeatable price and weight. My only reserve is the build quality, I'm always scared to break it.

I would not the look at the XF18-55 as alternative but rather the Sigma 18-50, which might offer an actual step up in IQ.

Knock on wood, I haven't had any issues with plastic mounts in my life so far (and I've had a few lenses with those). I just keep a mental note not to pick up the camera by the lens, and will unmount the lens when the camera goes to my bag (and will attach a metal mount lens to the camera instead).

io_bg wrote:

Thank you! The 16-80 seems like a good idea for a walk-around lens although it's indeed larger and heavier for smaller cameras. Still, considering its vast range it's well sized. I haven't tried the 15-45 though.

Having tried all of these lenses, my thoughts regarding each are:

- 16-50: (had 3 copies) I really like this lens, the optical quality is actually really good (at least in benign lighting), and it also works great for infrared IME. The range is useful, it’s light, it’s easy to use, the OIS is good; the only thing I don’t really like is the lack of aperture ring, but that’s partly why it’s cheap. It came very close to being my one zoom lens.

- 18-55: (had 1 copy) admittedly I only had this very briefly but I didn’t feel it had any qualities that compelled me to keep it. The feel of the lens is obviously a good step up from the XCs, but the image quality didn’t blow me away, the aperture ring is unmarked, and most of all it only starts at 18mm.

- 15-45: (had 4 copies) on paper it’s a winner: it’s the smallest and lightest, it goes to 15mm if you like the wide end (which I do) and it’s sharp, even at the long end if you get a good one. Again, works well for infrared. But it does feel a lot more fragile than the 16-50, the power zoom is what it is (I’m not a fan but could live with it), and it’s not great at handling really challenging light IMO… but the killer for me is the delay in powering up and powering down, while the lens extends and contracts. You can’t just whip the camera out, shoot and move on. For that reason alone I never really used it much.

- 16-80: (had 1 copy) this is the one normal zoom I’ve really loved. Ever (ok, there was one from my film days). The range is super versatile, it’s WR, the aperture ring is nice, it feels like a quality build, the image quality is plenty good enough for me… usability is great, it just ticks all the boxes. I normally use primes, but when I do want a zoom (hiking) this is the one. It’s no crazy big or heavy, but if you’re after a “walk-around”/EDC zoom then I guess the size/weight consideration could steer you to one of the others.

I never really liked the images I got from 16-50. It’s a good zoom range but the results were just ok, never great and the build quality was also not great. The 15-45 is better in my opinion. It’s even smaller, even lighter, mounts a little tighter, goes wider.

I haven’t owned the 18-55. Always sort of wanted one but felt that even used the price was a little too high. I would rather spend that money on a Sigma 18-50, especially if you have a body with IBIS.

I had a 18-55 and made a few of my favourite shots with it.  I wish it started with 16.

Last year I planned on replacing it with a 15-45 and a 16-80 and I did this year.  I never had the 16-50, either version.

Thoughts about the lenses:

18-55: decent sharpness in all FL across the frame, good build quality (same as the 16-80).  Good balance on XE and XT bodies.  Didn't find the f/2.8 at 18mm all that useful for my photos.

15-45: decent sharpness in all FL across the frame, great sharpness corner-to-corner at the wide end.  Extremely small and light, but feels more fragile than the 18-55.  I'm ok with its power zoom.

16-80: decent sharpness in the middle of the FL.  soft edge and corners at the wide end, but if you do not pixel peep it isn't that bad.  At the tele end the edges are also supposed to be soft but I haven't tested that - at 80 I plan on keeping the edge in the bokeh area anyway.  I read that with Raw, turn off distortion correction and the corners will be decent at 16mm, but haven't tried it personally.  A bit heavier than the 18-55 but still balances well on XT and XS.  Tolerable when I need a "one lens" setup.

Felt that I've made the right call.  Starting at something wider than 18 is critical for me.  Having the 2 lenses gives the flexibility to choose a kit or to mount it on 2 bodies.

IMHO the 18-55 will be completely supplanted by the Sigma 18-50.  It's brighter, sharper, lighter, smaller in 2 out of 3 dimensions, focuses closer, and comparable in price with the 18-55 new.  There's zero to very little downside picking the Sigma over the XF1855.

Thanks everyone for the comments, they're highly appreciated. Good to see there's more people who like the small 16-50!

I tried and used the following lenses and kept switching between them as all have there advantages and disadvantages and i still can't say which I like the most

I had 3x 16-50, 2x 15-45 and 2x 18-55.

The 16-50mm has the best Focus range of these 3 for me and the image quality was always great. I just have the same problem with it than with the 15-45mm: Build quality and the missing aperture ring. The 15-45mm has a great wide angle but my first copy was definetly not sharp at 15mm plus the electronic zoom is horrible. My second copy was sharper but the zoom still killed it for me.

The 18-55 is just a joy to shoot with from the feeling itself. The metal finish, dials and switches make it nice to operate. It has also the aperture advantage over the other two.

I am just missing the 16mm especially on trips and vacations.

Between the 16-50 and the 18-55 I never saw a real difference in image quality.

The 15-45 is not good enough for me.

IMHO the 18-55 will be completely supplanted by the Sigma 18-50. It's brighter, sharper, lighter, smaller in 2 out of 3 dimensions, focuses closer, and comparable in price with the 18-55 new. There's zero to very little downside picking the Sigma over the XF1855.

The Sigma is missing the OIS and the switches and aperture control.

Besides this I also think its might be a great lens