Fujinon 16-50/2.8-4.8 R LM WR mini review

[BeatX]

Hello everyone,

This is my mini review of Fuji new kit lens.
I've bought XF 16-50/2.8-4.8 recently mainly for my future travel/holiday photography (specifically landscape photography) and to document my family life
Handling, size and weight of this little lens combined with my X-H2 is perfect match.
This setup feels lighter than it looks, and is very comfortable to hold for very long time.

This is imho beautiful looking setup, rally joy to use

Anyway, I'll start with the build quality.
To simply put: its outstanding, especially considering it is a kit lens.
Apart from aperture and MF rings (which are plastic), and zoom ring (which is rubberized), its all metal construction super tightly assembled.
Build quality feels basically the same like on XF 33/1.4 and similar - feels very premium.
Lens is WR, has internal zooming!! (zoom ring turns super smoothly), its very small and ultra lightweight.
Overall, when it comes to build quality - zero complains.

Autofocus in this zoom has LM, which is blazing fast, almost completely silent and accurate (at least in AF-S).
I don't trust Fuji AF-C mode at all, so I didn't test this lens AF accuracy in that mode.
What is interesting though, is that it seems that this lens is not that prone to well known Fuji infamous AF-S issue with wide angles lenses, when focusing on infinity.
I would say AF-S, its more-less ok, but far from being 100% reliable.
When shooting at wide angles (for example combination 16mm@f/5.6), I would recommend to check every shot on LCD after taking a photo, or even better - watch AF distance scale indicator on EVF/LCD before taking a shot, to make sure for critical focus.

Image quality, sharpness.
Finally, after I've got my hands on XF 16-50/2.8-4.8, I could do proper sample test shots on 40Mpix sensor, to evaluate lens acutance.
I didn't run very detailed IQ tests for every FL and aperture combination - lets wait for lenstip.com and their detailed lab test with accurate measurements
As a reference lens for wide angle sample shots, I took my Viltrox 13/1.4
My main interest for XF 16-50/2.8-4.8 is 16mm, so in my tests I focus mainly on this focal length.
I can say already, that 23mm and 35mm FL's are very much ok - I didn't noticed any noticable sharpness problems there.
What I can also say already, is that center of the frame is always perfectly sharp in any FL or any aperture.
Problems starts with extreme focal lengths and image corners (as is usual the case with zoom lenses), where corners sharpness are never gets to the level I would call good.
Corner sharpness in XF 16-50/2.8-4.8 on extreme FL is average/okish, and its best at around f/8
For some users such corner sharpness will be good enough, for others not.
Good news is that in this lens center sharpness is so high, that stopping down 16-50/2.8-4.8 to f/8 for better corner sharpness (so where diffraction kicks in) doesn't hurt so much.
At f/8 lens overall acutance become more even across the frame, and I would say it is as good as it gets.
I mean, overall sharpness from new Fuji kit lens should be good for small prints (up to lets say A3 paper size), or for taking snapshots from holidays and watching them on screen without pixel peeping, but frankly I don't really see the overall IQ of this lens meeting standards of more demanding users, unfortunately (I'm one of such users)
This is good lens for hobbyists, but I would not recommend it for serious applications, such as landscape photography for selling big prints, or for pixel peepers

Moving on.. CA is present, but not as pronounced as I would expect, for me its on average level.
Flare resistance, again - average.
For specific combination flare and ghosting can be very visible, but for "normal" use its not a problem.
Vignetting: quite big, super easy to fix in post.
Distortions.. uhh - those are humangous! In matter of fact, Im 100% sure that average corner sharpness is due to distortion software correction.
Bokeh/rendering? boring and flat, nothing to write home about (as expected of course)

Anyways, below are sample images in full resolution from my X-H2, so everyone can judge the image quality for themselves and verify my opinion.
Link to all RAW files (warning, archive weight is around 1GB)

Fujinon_16-50_sample_images.zip

drive.google.com

All below images are developed in LR and demosaiced, using "Enhance" tool, with default Lightroom sharpening and lens profile corrections applied.
Only tweaks I made are in WB or exposure, to even images.

Chromatic aberration test:

Lens flare test:

Above examples, are taken in extreme conditions.. In normal use flare resistance is good, like in sample below:

Bokeh test:

Sharpness test at f/5.6 for typical landscape application to check how lens resolve fine details in scenery in various FL + comparison with Viltrox 13/1.4, Viltrox 27/1.2 and Viltrox 75/1.2

16mm Image corner sharpness test at various apertures.
As a bonus, last image is processed through DXO PureRAW 3 with DeepPRIME XD demosaic engine, and all lens corrections are applied (lens softness: soft)

Did I regret buying this lens? No, but only because I've got stellar Viltrox 13/1.4 for wide angle landscape shots during my trips.
New XF 16-50/2.8-4.8 as a one lens solution is not good enough for any serious application imo.
Did I will get rid of this lens? No, I think no, because for my use this lens seems to be ideal.
Like I said in the beginning.. my use for this zoom is mainly holiday trips, where I think this new kit lens super small weight and size is more important, that ultimate IQ.
Time will tell.

In summary, did I recommend this lens? Absolutely yes, if You are fine with its average corner sharpness.
Sigma 18-50/2.8 has even worst corner sharpness than 16-50/2.8-4.8, same as Tamron 17-70/2.8 (Not to mention about XF 16-80/4 or XF 16-50/2.8)
From my knowledge, at the moment of writing this review every other aps-c or FF system kit lens has maybe as good, or worst overall IQ than new XF 16-50/2.8-4.8
I repeat, kit lens - not premium standard zoom upgrade
But new Fuji kit zoom is for sure smallest and lightest among all aps-c and FF systems, with premium build quality and excellent price (when bought in bundle with camera)

My conclusion: Fujinon XF 16-50/2.8-4.8 R LM WR is all about compromises.
Only question is, if You are willing to accept those compromises or not.
I hope that my review and sample images will help You all to make a decision

--
X-H2 | Viltrox 13/1.4 | Viltrox 27/1.2 | Viltrox 75/1.2 | Fujinon 16-50/2.8-4.8
My gallery: https://www.flickr.com/photos/maciej_k/

 

[io_bg]

Thanks for the review. It seems to be a good lens indeed. I handled one briefly in a camera store (attached to a X-T50) and indeed it seemed very well built, and the zoom action was great. No complaints on the handling aspect from my very limited experience.

Regarding your last part, aren't all lenses a compromise? The best quality ones tend to be expensive and heavy, or are a single focal length. The cheaper ones might not excel in their output, but can be smaller, lighter and usually good enough.

 

[Matt3400]

Thanks for sharing your review, agree mostly with your analysis after having this lens for a couple of months. Your comment about the distortion impacting corner sharpness is certainly true at 16mm. That said, at F8 I've found sharpness to be consistently good across most of the frame and focal lengths and it's really only the extreme edges & corners that are suffering. If you can get away with turning off the distortion corrections the corners sharpen up quite well.

Overall I'm very impressed with what Fuji achieved with this lens; small, light, well built & delivers very good image quality. I've tried out the Sigma 18-50, Tamron 17-70 & Fuji 16-80 and I think the 16-50 is the best of the bunch by some margin for my uses. It would maybe be a different conversation if a faster lens was needed. It will be interesting to see what Fuji deliver with the 16-55 mk II, will be keeping a close eye on that.

 

[Robmas4229]

Thanks for the work you put into this review. Nicely done.

I’ve been using this lens (Xf 16-50 r lm wr) on an XT5 for several months now and am quite pleased with it. It pairs nicely with my Xf 23mm f/1.4 r lm due to similar size and same filter diameter.

I find the size, weight and build quality to be really nice. I love the internal zooming and I feel that this adds to the WR-ness of the lens.

I’ve previously owned the Xf 18-55, 16-80, 18-135 and the Sigma 18-50. I think I’ve found my favorite normal zoom.

Although the long end isn’t very long, I’ve found that the longer focal lengths are better served by a longer zoom anyway, in my case the XF 70-300.

Thanks for your hard work.

Edited to add: The haoge square lens hood for the 23mm MkII also fits this lens, with no vignetting.

 

[BeatX]

Regarding your last part, aren't all lenses a compromise? The best quality ones tend to be expensive and heavy, or are a single focal length. The cheaper ones might not excel in their output, but can be smaller, lighter and usually good enough.

Heh.. Good point I didn't think about it this way. Indeed every lens is sum of compromises. I do expect from the upcoming XF 16-55/2.8 MKII to be optically very good across the frame, in all focal lenght and apertures - but it for sure will have its price in size and weight. Compromise..

Anyway, imo XF 16-50/2.8-4.8 is well thought compromise between IQ, focal range (variable aperture), and compact size. Like I said earlier, it should be great companion for holidays, for family snapshots, and perhaps for street photo?

 

[BeatX]

Thanks for sharing your review

You welcome

Overall I'm very impressed with what Fuji achieved with this lens; small, light, well built & delivers very good image quality.

Same, maybe it is not clear in my review, but despite all optical imperfections - overall I'm impressed of new Fujinon XF 16-50/2.8-4.8

 

[Mateus1]

(...)
What I can also say already, is that center of the frame is always perfectly sharp in any FL or any aperture.
Problems starts with extreme focal lengths and image corners (as is usual the case with zoom lenses), where corners sharpness are never gets to the level I would call good.... I mean, overall sharpness from new Fuji kit lens should be good for small prints (up to lets say A3 paper size)...
This is good lens for hobbyists, but I would not recommend it for serious applications, such as landscape photography for selling big prints, or for pixel peepers

Distortions.. uhh - those are humangous! In matter of fact, Im 100% sure that average corner sharpness is due to distortion software correction.

I have notice the same with Fuji 16/2.8 prime and 15-50mm zoom - huge distortion that makes corners sharpness average even at F/8 (the best f/stop anyway). For small landscape prints up to A3 shoot with F8 they are acceptable + post sharpering but for larger prints it's better to use other lenses. And avoid using them at all for landscape wide opened - really bad & soft corners seen even on smaller prints.

 

[Mark Casebeer]

Thanks for a nice detailed review. It should help users either looking for a new lens in this line or replacing there older kit lens.



I purchased mine with the X-50 and I’m pleasantly surprised how it performs. I love the internal zoom and it’s close focusing ability.



I enjoy primes but having a walk-around zoom like the 16-50 can just be fun. I’m not as worried about corner sharpness as for me I really was not expecting that level of performance. Other users may want that level of sharpness.



Thanks again, well done.

Mark

 

[Bart1969]

Hello,

thanks for the interesting review, I see you are using a bottom bracket for the X-H2, can you please specify which brand and where you bought it?

Thanks

 

[unhappymeal]

Looks like a good lens. I am still amazed though that no one can do a kit lens as sharp across the frame as the Olympus 12-45 f/4 Pro.

 

[Joachim Gerstl]

Looks like a good lens. I am still amazed though that no one can do a kit lens as sharp across the frame as the Olympus 12-45 f/4 Pro.

Yes but that's a f8 equivalent lens on full frame. There are not too many customers for such a slow lens. If I don't care about lens speed at all there is a 28-400mm f4-f8 from Nikon.

I would love to see something like a 14-50mm f4 from Fuji.

 

[pifilos]

Looks like a good lens. I am still amazed though that no one can do a kit lens as sharp across the frame as the Olympus 12-45 f/4 Pro.

I have never used a m4/3 system so I cannot tell for sure, but judging from the RAW samples of this lens in DPreview gallery I would say that - at least - my XF 16-50mm performs somewhat better.

 

[BeatX]

Thanks for sharing your review, agree mostly with your analysis after having this lens for a couple of months. Your comment about the distortion impacting corner sharpness is certainly true at 16mm. That said, at F8 I've found sharpness to be consistently good across most of the frame and focal lengths and it's really only the extreme edges & corners that are suffering. If you can get away with turning off the distortion corrections the corners sharpen up quite well.

Inspired by Your finding regards software lens barrel distortion correction impact degrading corner sharpness, today I did some test to check it out.
Indeed, average corner acutance is caused by software lens correction.
When in LR I turned off lens profile correction, then corner sharpness has become good.
Not great, but good enough to level I would call useful.
So, thx for pointing it out

I will add that according to my today findings, where I was checking corner sharpness in various aperture values, I did estimated that corner sharpness has its peak performance between f/6.4 and f/7.1
f/8 doesn't improve corner acutance further, it just introduce slightly visible diffraction, so sharpness across whole image is more even - and this initially gave me the impression of improved image quality throughout the frame.
But now I can say for sure, that using 16-50/2.8-4.8 @f/8 has zero benefits compared to f/6.4 or f/7.1 when it comes to improving overall acutance.
f/6.4 or f/7.1 is way to go, for landscape shoots if one need big DOF

I did also play with LR lens profile correction, and I noticed, that when You leave lens profile corrections on, but manually decrease barrel distortions corrections to 50 value (so in between full and no correction), then its nice compromise between achieving straight image, but retaining some more sharpness in corners.
And then when I did exported image and downscaled it to 26Mpix, then image finally become looking good enough even for my high expectations.
I rather choose to have not perfect straight lines, but slightly more sharpness across the frame, than opposite.

So, for using 16mm in XF 16-50/2.8-4.8, my recommendations is combination of aperture between f/6.4 - f/7.1, lens profile corrections on, decreasing barrel distortions corrections to 50 and exporting file resized to 26Mpix (for users with X-Trans V 40Mpix sensor of course)
This is imo optimal compromise between having big DOF, quite straight image, and sharpness for this lens.
Of course every image where there is a lot of fine details, should be always demosaiced in LR by using "Enhance" tool for squeezing maximum of those fine details from original RAW file.

 

[BeatX]

Hello,

thanks for the interesting review, I see you are using a bottom bracket for the X-H2, can you please specify which brand and where you bought it?

Thanks

Sure, it's SmallRig L Bracket

Overall, I recommend buying it - comfort of holding the camera is significantly improved when someone has medium/large hands (because the smallest finger has support).

But there is also a downside to this solution - the bottom gets scratched a little where the plate touches the camera (at the grip area)
You can see it in my first overview image of X-H2 + 16-50/2.8-4.8 laying on the stone.
It's not a big scratch, but still - something like this shouldn't happen.
And it didn't when I used the Smallrig l-bracket for my previous X-S10
I'm wondering whether to buy half case cover with suede inside.
Something like this

 

[BeatX]

Looks like a good lens. I am still amazed though that no one can do a kit lens as sharp across the frame as the Olympus 12-45 f/4 Pro.

I have never used a m4/3 system so I cannot tell for sure, but judging from the RAW samples of this lens in DPreview gallery I would say that - at least - my XF 16-50mm performs somewhat better.

https://www.lenstip.com/584.4-Lens_...l_ED_12-45_mm_f_4.0_PRO_Image_resolution.html
(Check sample images)

Olympus 12-45/4 Pro is indeed very good performer as for m4/3 standards.
But frankly, when it comes to sharpness - images from this lens are basically the same as those from high-end smartphones (for my eyes at least)
Lack of fine details, and basically lack of any play/fun with bokeh or shallow DOF
With XF 16-50/2.8-4.8 there is at least 16/2.8 combination, where is at least some option for playing with shallow DOF when You get closer:

But honestly there is not so much fun to be had with the shallow DOF in XF 16-50/2.8-4.8, because even the cheapest and most ordinary, humble chinese fully manual lens knocks new Fuji kit lens out of the water, when playing with shallow DOF:

This is why, its good to have always with You such ultra small and cheap MF lens, like TTArtisan 35/1.4
It complements very nicely new Fuji kit lens, for portraits or night time shooting.
I think, that legendary Fujinon XF 35/1.4 would complement XF 16-50/2.8-4.8 during holidays even better.
This is why I'm starting to think about adding XF 35/1.4 into my bag for super small and light yet very capable holiday/travel kit..

BTW: colors in last two images are mainly from new Reala Ace Fuji film simulation.
This film sim rocks! I highly recommend everyone who can, to try it out for shooting portraits/people

--
X-H2 | Viltrox 13/1.4 | Viltrox 27/1.2 | Viltrox 75/1.2 | Fujinon 16-50/2.8-4.8
My gallery: https://www.flickr.com/photos/maciej_k/

 

[Visible_Light]

Anyway, I'll start with the build quality.
To simply put: its outstanding, especially considering it is a kit lens.
Apart from aperture and MF rings (which are plastic), and zoom ring (which is rubberized), its all metal construction super tightly assembled.
Build quality feels basically the same like on XF 33/1.4 and similar - feels very premium.

I really enjoyed your “mini” review of the BeatX lens! As I mentioned in my previous thread, I absolutely love it. Like you, I think the build quality is outstanding. Before this, I had three copies of the 18-55 (and a 16-80), and the 16-50 definitely feels much better.

I do have some info for future readers that are considering to buy this lens to replace their current kitlens.

The aperture ring has a satisfying "clicky" feel, and it's less prone to accidental adjustments compared to the 18-55. Additionally, all my 18-55 copies had a bit of play in the outer compartments, which is something I appreciate not experiencing with the 16-50. Even though it feels lightweight, I find the build quality comparable to the 16-80. However, since the 16-80 is an extending zoom lens, it does expose the plastic barrel more which makes it feel less premium.

One small correction: you mentioned that the MF and aperture rings are plastic, but they’re actually made of metal! Similar to the more expensive 16-55 and 16-80, the zoom ring is also rubberized indeed.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the lens!

 

[Visible_Light]

This is why, its good to have always with You such ultra small and cheap MF lens, like TTArtisan 35/1.4
It complements very nicely new Fuji kit lens, for portraits or night time shooting.
I think, that legendary Fujinon XF 35/1.4 would complement XF 16-50/2.8-4.8 during holidays even better.
This is why I'm starting to think about adding XF 35/1.4 into my bag for super small and light yet very capable holiday/travel kit..

BTW: colors in last two images are mainly from new Reala Ace Fuji film simulation.
This film sim rocks! I highly recommend everyone who can, to try it out for shooting portraits/people

Yeah completely agree. The 16-50 can so everything like landscape travel docu. And for a nice portable portrature lens I have the XF 35mm 1.4:

This shot was un edited just using Acros + extra grain for a film look.

Also unedited Velvia..

 

[CAcreeks]

"Another brick in the wall"

Hard to believe DxO has already done a lens profile for this lens! Here's a RAF conversion with PhotoLab 7 (I'll upgrade to 8 when it goes on sale). You can compare the o-o-c JPEG, linked below. To my eye, DxO improves corner sharpness.

https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/1737607092/fujifilm-x-t50-sample-gallery/0371781756

 

[BeatX]

Guys, we have first lab test of 16-50/2.8-4.8

Fujifilm XF 16-50mm f/2.8-4.8 R LM WR review: above standard zoom

The original XF 18-55mm was widely considered one of the best kit zooms ever, can its successor live up to that lofty reputation?

www.digitalcameraworld.com

I have noticed that what we humans perceive image being "sharp" is expressed by a value of at least 1500 for measurements from digitalcameraworld.com
At least for aps-c sensors.

I would like to point out that the resolution measurement results from digitalcameraworld.com fully confirm my observations in my review regards corner sharpness.
New Fuji kit lens reaches "usable/okeish" levels of sharpness in corners from f/6.4 with peak performance at f/8
When taking diffraction to consideration (which becomes visible from f/6.4 @ 40Mpix apsc sensor https://www.photopills.com/calculators/diffraction ), then seems like f/6.4 is best compromise for 40Mpix, and f/7.1 for 26Mpix

Still, without a doubt XF 16-50/2.8-4.8 has better overall acutance than XF 16-80/4 which in my eyes is its closest competition:

Fujifilm Fujinon XF 16-80mm F4 R OIS WR review

Is the Fujifilm Fujinon XF 16-80mm F4 R OIS WR the most useful X-mount standard zoom of all? It certainly ticks a lot of boxes

www.digitalcameraworld.com

So as everyone can see in lab tests and in my sample images, there is room for improvement in new kit lens corner sharpness.
This is why, someone who is aiming for ultimate IQ in UWA lens or in standard zoom, should look for new XF 16-55/2.8 mkII which looks very promising.
But, if someone like me can sacrifice little corner sharpness for compactness and weight/size savings - then new Fuji kit lens is top notch offer in whole aps-c world standard zoom lenses selection, considering its build quality, build features and overall IQ

I think that at this point the new Fuji kit has no secrets for any user, and anyone who reads this thread will know 100% what they are choosing

 

[CAcreeks]

Guys, we have first lab test of 16-50/2.8-4.8

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/...eview#section-fujifilm-xf-16-50mm-lab-results

Thanks for the link.

Why did they do all or most measurements at 35mm instead of 50mm?