Does the XF 16-80 feel out of place on the X-E5?

[michaeladawson]

Loving my X-E5 so far. My only "real" issue so far is not the X-E5 itself but my lack of a lens like the XF 16-80 f/4. My most used lens on full frame Nikon is the Z 24-120 f/4. It is almost the only lens I use when I travel. I also take along the 14-30 for those ultra wide occasions, but the 24-120 is the workhorse.

I currently use the X-E5 with the Fuji f/2 prime lenses from 18mm to 50mm. I also use the older 18-55 f/2.8-4 zoom. But I really like the 16-80 range (24-120 FF equiv). The 18-55 would be a decent travel lens for many. But for me it is not wide enough, and definitely not long enough.

I'm seriously wanting to get the 16-80 f/4. It is very close to the size and weight of my Nikon 14-30 lens. It seems a bit large looking next to the X-E5, but obviously I can't mount it to see how it handles.

Who has tried or uses the 16-80 Fujifilm on the X-E5 (or I suppose X-E4 for that matter)? What are your opinions of the size of the lens. Is it unwieldy? A bit unwieldy, but nothing that should prevent me from getting it?

I know the 16-80 gets mixed reviews for IQ. Some hate it. Others say it's not so bad or even pretty good. I'm assuming it's at least as good as the 18-55. That is not the question here though. I'm interested solely in the size and weight when mounted on the X-E5.

I will say that I have gone out with the X-E5 and 55-200. The 55-200 isn't quite as fat as the 16-80. but it is longer and weighs more. I didn't find this combo to be uncomfortable. But I would use a 16-80 much more often than the 55-200.

Opinions to share?

--
Mike Dawson

 

[biza43]

Don't be a sissy Michael. For the last 7 years my go to lens was the 16-80 on the XE3 and before that for several years I used the wonderful 16-80 Nikon lens, with Nikon cam, as my favorite. I think the Nikon was better but I went all over the world with the 16-80 on the XE3 and it is not a problem to use. Any lens on an XE works for me, as it is my only camera, basically.

On the other hand, since I bought the XE5 I sold the 16-80 and bought the 16-50 which I intend to use on vacations from now on. My reasoning is that the newer lens is smaller, sharper and I can use the teleconverter for very usable 70mm (20MP) range if needed.

Honestly, if Fuji upgraded the 16-80 as a more compact model I would love to have it, but I'm pleased so far with the 16-50. I also love the new 23 and I carry a 12mm as well.

Not being a sissy. I’m perfectly happy carrying my larger and heavier Nikon Z7 with 24-120. I just have this nice X-E5 that I like using, whose aesthetics and ergos I hate to ruin with an overly large lens.

I think my decision is going to come down lens IQ. And in that case the Fuji 16-80 is likely to lose out to the Nikon 24-120.

You first said that IQ of the lens was not a deciding factor, but now it seems it is? I have used the lens a couple of years ago with great results; flexibility when travelling, hiking, on the trail, trumps any shortcomings.

I have the X-E5, which I use with the little Voigtlander 27 X lens; I have a smallgrip on the camera, makes handling it better for me.

 

[Erik Baumgartner]

Don't be a sissy Michael. For the last 7 years my go to lens was the 16-80 on the XE3 and before that for several years I used the wonderful 16-80 Nikon lens, with Nikon cam, as my favorite. I think the Nikon was better but I went all over the world with the 16-80 on the XE3 and it is not a problem to use. Any lens on an XE works for me, as it is my only camera, basically.

On the other hand, since I bought the XE5 I sold the 16-80 and bought the 16-50 which I intend to use on vacations from now on. My reasoning is that the newer lens is smaller, sharper and I can use the teleconverter for very usable 70mm (20MP) range if needed.

Honestly, if Fuji upgraded the 16-80 as a more compact model I would love to have it, but I'm pleased so far with the 16-50. I also love the new 23 and I carry a 12mm as well.

Not being a sissy. I’m perfectly happy carrying my larger and heavier Nikon Z7 with 24-120. I just have this nice X-E5 that I like using, whose aesthetics and ergos I hate to ruin with an overly large lens.

I think my decision is going to come down lens IQ. And in that case the Fuji 16-80 is likely to lose out to the Nikon 24-120.

Yes, but maybe not the 16-50 or 16-55 f/2.8 mkII (pricey, but sharper, faster and about the same size as the 16-80).

 

[michaeladawson]

Don't be a sissy Michael. For the last 7 years my go to lens was the 16-80 on the XE3 and before that for several years I used the wonderful 16-80 Nikon lens, with Nikon cam, as my favorite. I think the Nikon was better but I went all over the world with the 16-80 on the XE3 and it is not a problem to use. Any lens on an XE works for me, as it is my only camera, basically.

On the other hand, since I bought the XE5 I sold the 16-80 and bought the 16-50 which I intend to use on vacations from now on. My reasoning is that the newer lens is smaller, sharper and I can use the teleconverter for very usable 70mm (20MP) range if needed.

Honestly, if Fuji upgraded the 16-80 as a more compact model I would love to have it, but I'm pleased so far with the 16-50. I also love the new 23 and I carry a 12mm as well.

Not being a sissy. I’m perfectly happy carrying my larger and heavier Nikon Z7 with 24-120. I just have this nice X-E5 that I like using, whose aesthetics and ergos I hate to ruin with an overly large lens.

I think my decision is going to come down lens IQ. And in that case the Fuji 16-80 is likely to lose out to the Nikon 24-120.

You first said that IQ of the lens was not a deciding factor, but now it seems it is? I have used the lens a couple of years ago with great results; flexibility when travelling, hiking, on the trail, trumps any shortcomings.

I didn’t exactly say that. Or rather, what I meant is that I wanted to hear opinions about size and weight of the lens. Not optical opinions, which I can find a ton of out there. I don’t actually mind hearing more opinions on the IQ of the lens. But I was more interested in hearing about how the lens feels on the X-E5.

I have the X-E5, which I use with the little Voigtlander 27 X lens; I have a smallgrip on the camera, makes handling it better for me.

 

[michaeladawson]

I think my decision is going to come down lens IQ. And in that case the Fuji 16-80 is likely to lose out to the Nikon 24-120.

Yes, but maybe not the 16-50 or 16-55 f/2.8 mkII (pricey, but sharper, faster and about the same size as the 16-80).

Suggestions noted. Thanks.

I don't want to pay the price of the new 16-55 MkII. I was going to pick up a used 16-80 for $450. But I was not aware that it was nearly the same size as the 16-80mm and a bit lighter. I have the original 16-55 in its box on the shelf (haven't used it in 7 years). I should pull it out and at least get a sense of how it feels on the X-E5, knowing the MkII is smaller and lighter.

Still, I'm not thrilled with the idea of cropping. But I do have the 55-200mm if needed. And on the plus side, having f/2.8 would be nice. tap, tap, tap, tap....

 

[robert1955]

I think my decision is going to come down lens IQ. And in that case the Fuji 16-80 is likely to lose out to the Nikon 24-120.

Yes, but maybe not the 16-50 or 16-55 f/2.8 mkII (pricey, but sharper, faster and about the same size as the 16-80).

Suggestions noted. Thanks.

I don't want to pay the price of the new 16-55 MkII. I was going to pick up a used 16-80 for $450. But I was not aware that it was nearly the same size as the 16-80mm and a bit lighter. I have the original 16-55 in its box on the shelf (haven't used it in 7 years). I should pull it out and at least get a sense of how it feels on the X-E5, knowing the MkII is smaller and lighter.

Still, I'm not thrilled with the idea of cropping. But I do have the 55-200mm if needed. And on the plus side, having f/2.8 would be nice. tap, tap, tap, tap....

How about the Tamron 17-70?

 

[CanaryMango]

Due to this thread I've just put my 16-80mm on my X-E5 for the first time. Surprisingly it actually felt fine, not too heavy or unbalanced. I think that balance is partly due to the X-E5 being surprisingly weighty for its size.

I was expecting the lens to feel better on my X-T50 but it feels pretty much the same.

And that's without my Smallrig grips on either camera.

I do tend to use smaller lighter primes such as my XC 35mm f/2 and Viltrox Air lenses on the X-E5, but I think now I'd be tempted to take the 16-80mm out too.

 

[michaeladawson]

How about the Tamron 17-70?

That's a nice suggestion. Longer long end. A little slimmer. But an inch longer and heavier than the Fujifilm. I would say the major con (for me) is that it has no aperture ring which is sort of a deal killer for why I have Fuji cameras in the first place.

 

[michaeladawson]

Due to this thread I've just put my 16-80mm on my X-E5 for the first time. Surprisingly it actually felt fine, not too heavy or unbalanced. I think that balance is partly due to the X-E5 being surprisingly weighty for its size.

I was expecting the lens to feel better on my X-T50 but it feels pretty much the same.

And that's without my Smallrig grips on either camera.

I do tend to use smaller lighter primes such as my XC 35mm f/2 and Viltrox Air lenses on the X-E5, but I think now I'd be tempted to take the 16-80mm out too.

Nice to know. Thanks for trying it out and reporting back.

 

[Erik Baumgartner]

I think my decision is going to come down lens IQ. And in that case the Fuji 16-80 is likely to lose out to the Nikon 24-120.

Yes, but maybe not the 16-50 or 16-55 f/2.8 mkII (pricey, but sharper, faster and about the same size as the 16-80).

Suggestions noted. Thanks.

I don't want to pay the price of the new 16-55 MkII. I was going to pick up a used 16-80 for $450. But I was not aware that it was nearly the same size as the 16-80mm and a bit lighter. I have the original 16-55 in its box on the shelf (haven't used it in 7 years). I should pull it out and at least get a sense of how it feels on the X-E5, knowing the MkII is smaller and lighter.

Still, I'm not thrilled with the idea of cropping. But I do have the 55-200mm if needed. And on the plus side, having f/2.8 would be nice. tap, tap, tap, tap....

 

[CanaryMango]

Due to this thread I've just put my 16-80mm on my X-E5 for the first time. Surprisingly it actually felt fine, not too heavy or unbalanced. I think that balance is partly due to the X-E5 being surprisingly weighty for its size.

I was expecting the lens to feel better on my X-T50 but it feels pretty much the same.

And that's without my Smallrig grips on either camera.

I do tend to use smaller lighter primes such as my XC 35mm f/2 and Viltrox Air lenses on the X-E5, but I think now I'd be tempted to take the 16-80mm out too.

Nice to know. Thanks for trying it out and reporting back.

You're welcome.

 

[michaeladawson]

A couple other things to consider.
Buying a used 16-80 could be a risky proposition unless there’s a really solid return policy. There are a lot of lousy copies out there. If it was a great copy, there’s a pretty good chance the original would have kept it.
While I agree the 16-80 is an super all-purpose focal range for traveling, 55mm from the 16-55 mkII cropped to an 80mm field of view with a 40MP sensor will likely look every bit as good as 80mm from even a very good copy of the 16-80.

All excellent points as usual.

I'm always hesitant to buy a used lens. Like you say, I'm always asking myself "Why did the owner sell this lens? What's wrong with it?"

And your "there are a lot of lousy copies out there" comment is sort of the frequent complaint of that lens. Wide variation in sample IQ.

 

[MarcosV]

Loving my X-E5 so far. My only "real" issue so far is not the X-E5 itself but my lack of a lens like the XF 16-80 f/4. My most used lens on full frame Nikon is the Z 24-120 f/4. It is almost the only lens I use when I travel. I also take along the 14-30 for those ultra wide occasions, but the 24-120 is the workhorse.

I currently use the X-E5 with the Fuji f/2 prime lenses from 18mm to 50mm. I also use the older 18-55 f/2.8-4 zoom. But I really like the 16-80 range (24-120 FF equiv). The 18-55 would be a decent travel lens for many. But for me it is not wide enough, and definitely not long enough.

I'm seriously wanting to get the 16-80 f/4. It is very close to the size and weight of my Nikon 14-30 lens. It seems a bit large looking next to the X-E5, but obviously I can't mount it to see how it handles.

Who has tried or uses the 16-80 Fujifilm on the X-E5 (or I suppose X-E4 for that matter)? What are your opinions of the size of the lens. Is it unwieldy? A bit unwieldy, but nothing that should prevent me from getting it?

I know the 16-80 gets mixed reviews for IQ. Some hate it. Others say it's not so bad or even pretty good. I'm assuming it's at least as good as the 18-55. That is not the question here though. I'm interested solely in the size and weight when mounted on the X-E5.

I will say that I have gone out with the X-E5 and 55-200. The 55-200 isn't quite as fat as the 16-80. but it is longer and weighs more. I didn't find this combo to be uncomfortable. But I would use a 16-80 much more often than the 55-200.

Opinions to share?

For the X-E5, buy a SmallRig L-Shaped Mount plate with handle. Whenever I think I'm going to have hand holding stability issues, that plate really came in handy.

As for the XF 16-80/4, I love the concept of this lens in my line up on paper; but, I do wish it was optically better. It is not as much as a compromised as the old XF 18-135 was; but, I find myself going with multi-lens combinations instead of just bringing the XF 16-80.

I do own other alternatives to the XF 16-80, including the Tamron 17-70/2.8; and had issues with weight/size over everything else. So i mainly have been leaning on the fact I personally can get by with a 50mm to 55mm on the long end of a standard zoom and if I need more reach, more often than not I would benefit from a XF 70-300...

Ironically my XF 16-80/4 gets a lot of use when I loan it out to family and friends along with a lesser used body (e.g., X-T4, X-T30).

 

[michaeladawson]

For the X-E5, buy a SmallRig L-Shaped Mount plate with handle. Whenever I think I'm going to have hand holding stability issues, that plate really came in handy.

As for the XF 16-80/4, I love the concept of this lens in my line up on paper; but, I do wish it was optically better. It is not as much as a compromised as the old XF 18-135 was; but, I find myself going with multi-lens combinations instead of just bringing the XF 16-80.

I do own other alternatives to the XF 16-80, including the Tamron 17-70/2.8; and had issues with weight/size over everything else. So i mainly have been leaning on the fact I personally can get by with a 50mm to 55mm on the long end of a standard zoom and if I need more reach, more often than not I would benefit from a XF 70-300...

Ironically my XF 16-80/4 gets a lot of use when I loan it out to family and friends along with a lesser used body (e.g., X-T4, X-T30).

Thanks. What I think I'm reading from you seems to be similar to what a few others have said. The size or weight of the 16-80mm isn't necessarily a huge issue. But like you, I might need to make my choice based on the IQ of the options at hand.

Time to pull "the brick" out of its box and see how it handles on the X-E5. If it's not too bad I might have to consider the new Mk II model. That might pair OK with my 55-200 for travel use.

I will have to think about what to do for an ultra-wide. At the moment the widest I have is the XF 14mm. With my Nikon Z7 I always have need of a few shots taken with the 14-30 f/4 zoom.

 

[robert1955]

--

As for the XF 16-80/4, I love the concept of this lens in my line up on paper; but, I do wish it was optically better. It is not as much as a compromised as the old XF 18-135 was; but, I find myself going with multi-lens combinations instead of just bringing the XF 16-80.

Agreed, I used to have one and never was never really satisfied [I realize this lens divides opinions]

I do own other alternatives to the XF 16-80, including the Tamron 17-70/2.8;

I have that, like its output, but its heavy and that missing 1mm at the wide end ...

and had issues with weight/size over everything else. So i mainly have been leaning on the fact I personally can get by with a 50mm to 55mm on the long end of a standard

currently I'm pretty satisfied with the 16-50

zoom and if I need more reach, more often than not I would benefit from a XF 70-300...

I wish there was something smaller, not even going to 300 would be acceptable

Ironically my XF 16-80/4 gets a lot of use when I loan it out to family and friends along with a lesser used body (e.g., X-T4, X-T30).

 

[robert1955]

For the X-E5, buy a SmallRig L-Shaped Mount plate with handle. Whenever I think I'm going to have hand holding stability issues, that plate really came in handy.

As for the XF 16-80/4, I love the concept of this lens in my line up on paper; but, I do wish it was optically better. It is not as much as a compromised as the old XF 18-135 was; but, I find myself going with multi-lens combinations instead of just bringing the XF 16-80.

I do own other alternatives to the XF 16-80, including the Tamron 17-70/2.8; and had issues with weight/size over everything else. So i mainly have been leaning on the fact I personally can get by with a 50mm to 55mm on the long end of a standard zoom and if I need more reach, more often than not I would benefit from a XF 70-300...

Ironically my XF 16-80/4 gets a lot of use when I loan it out to family and friends along with a lesser used body (e.g., X-T4, X-T30).

Thanks. What I think I'm reading from you seems to be similar to what a few others have said. The size or weight of the 16-80mm isn't necessarily a huge issue. But like you, I might need to make my choice based on the IQ of the options at hand.

Time to pull "the brick" out of its box and see how it handles on the X-E5. If it's not too bad I might have to consider the new Mk II model. That might pair OK with my 55-200 for travel use.

I will have to think about what to do for an ultra-wide. At the moment the widest I have is the XF 14mm. With my Nikon Z7 I always have need of a few shots taken with the 14-30 f/4 zoom.

Now that could also be a very interesting discussion ...

 

[MarcosV]

Thanks. What I think I'm reading from you seems to be similar to what a few others have said. The size or weight of the 16-80mm isn't necessarily a huge issue. But like you, I might need to make my choice based on the IQ of the options at hand.

Time to pull "the brick" out of its box and see how it handles on the X-E5. If it's not too bad I might have to consider the new Mk II model. That might pair OK with my 55-200 for travel use.

I pre-ordered the XF 16-80/4 based on its specs and the fact that 24-105/4 was my favorite travel zoom for my old Canon 5D Mk III. It would have gotten more use if I am usually able to bring a camera bag with the f/2.8 zooms and not worry about telephoto reach.

If I really was in a situation where I could not change lenses (e.g., hiking to the bottom of the Grand Canyon or out in the dusty desert where it is impossible to lens swap without getting dust on your sensor) and was using a camera body with decent WR, I would bring the XF 16-80/4.

When I finally got IBIS with the X-H1, "the brick" was the standard lens I used, along with XF 10-24/4 Mk I, and XF 70-300.

Then I discovered the Sigma 10-18/2.8 and 18-50/2.8.

I still use the Sigma 10-18/2.8 as my wide angle zoom (it is so small and light that I forgive its lesser optical qualities over my XF 10-24 and Tamron 11-20/2.8.

My new favorite standard zoom is the XF 16-55/2.8 Mk II. This lens is about the same size as the XF 16-80/4 and about an oz heavier.

XF 55-200 is fine for travel given its size and weight. I switched it for XF 70-300 because that lens takes teleconverters.

I will have to think about what to do for an ultra-wide. At the moment the widest I have is the XF 14mm. With my Nikon Z7 I always have need of a few shots taken with the 14-30 f/4 zoom.

Since I'm dedicating so much weight/volume in my camera bag for the XF 16-55/2.8 Mk II, I love the tiny Sigma 10-18/2.8. Sure this lens has no WR; but, this lens really works well for me.

 

[Paulmorgan]

Loving my X-E5 so far. My only "real" issue so far is not the X-E5 itself but my lack of a lens like the XF 16-80 f/4. My most used lens on full frame Nikon is the Z 24-120 f/4. It is almost the only lens I use when I travel. I also take along the 14-30 for those ultra wide occasions, but the 24-120 is the workhorse.

I currently use the X-E5 with the Fuji f/2 prime lenses from 18mm to 50mm. I also use the older 18-55 f/2.8-4 zoom. But I really like the 16-80 range (24-120 FF equiv). The 18-55 would be a decent travel lens for many. But for me it is not wide enough, and definitely not long enough.

I'm seriously wanting to get the 16-80 f/4. It is very close to the size and weight of my Nikon 14-30 lens. It seems a bit large looking next to the X-E5, but obviously I can't mount it to see how it handles.

Who has tried or uses the 16-80 Fujifilm on the X-E5 (or I suppose X-E4 for that matter)? What are your opinions of the size of the lens. Is it unwieldy? A bit unwieldy, but nothing that should prevent me from getting it?

I know the 16-80 gets mixed reviews for IQ. Some hate it. Others say it's not so bad or even pretty good. I'm assuming it's at least as good as the 18-55. That is not the question here though. I'm interested solely in the size and weight when mounted on the X-E5.

I will say that I have gone out with the X-E5 and 55-200. The 55-200 isn't quite as fat as the 16-80. but it is longer and weighs more. I didn't find this combo to be uncomfortable. But I would use a 16-80 much more often than the 55-200.

Opinions to share?

I still use an XE-2 and nothing feels out of place on that.

Guess it depends very much on the type of strap used, un-balanced with a neck strap, switch to a wrist strap, a quick and simple solution.

 

[NorCal Jim]

This is a very interesting thread to me since I have been wrestling with concerns about some of my cameras feeling unbalanced with larger lenses.

Recently, I had a chance to hold an X-T5 at Best Buy with the 16-80mm f/4 lens attached. I had only seen photos of this lens before and it seemed way too wide to be a practical choice for me. After holding the X-T5 with this lens attached, I was surprised that it didn't feel too heavy or unbalanced. Of course, your question was how it felt attached to the X-E5 and I have never held the X-E5. After assessing the weight of the 16-80mm f/4 lens, I would not hesitate to use it with the X-E5 with the Smallrig grip.

Back to my own concerns, I solved them with the use of a Peak Design neck strap and using my left hand to help support the camera vs. grasping the camera with one hand.

Jim

 

[britcam]

It’s fine. A bit awkward if you carry it around on a strap but that’s true for all but the smallest lenses.

When shooting two handed it balances well and maybe handles better than the 18-55.

Thanks.

And I do shoot two handed all the time. My left hand is underneath the lens supporting all the weight and my right hand only steers the camera. That's one reason I've never missed having a big grip for my right hand. Soap bar shapes are fine with me. In fact, when using a small camera I often walk about with the camera held in my left hand where I normally grip it for shooting. I then just raise the camera to my eye and add my right hand for AF and shutter control.

 

[britcam]

Get a grip and it will handle just fine. SmallRig makes one. I’ve even traveled with the XF 18-135 and Tamron 18-300 on my XE4.

A grip makes it handle similar to the Sony 6000 or A7C series.

Thanks for the response.

I'll take that opinion at just "it will handle fine." I don't use grips and never felt I needed larger grips, even with large lenses. So if you think it handles fine with a grip I'm fairly certain I'd feel it was fine even without a grip.