16-55/2.8 II - initial build quality thoughts

[noggin2k1]

I've had my new 16-55 recently arrive, and I thought I'd give my thoughts on it's build - something that has been discussed a lot, but I might be able to offer a slightly different view on things.

"It's not up to red badge build quality".

I've seen this quite a bit, and it's something I definitely disagree with. It definitely feels 'in line' the previous version 16-55, and definitely feels like Fuji's premium offering. Whereas the latest f1.4 primes feel more 'metal to the touch', first impressions are this definitely has more plastic - however it feels fully in line with Sony & Canon premium offerings in that respect.

"The zoom is faulty / not smooth".

For me, this is simply down to a modern mid-range zoom optical design.

The barrel extension isn't linear, and it's just down to variable gearing (I'm sure there is a more correct term for this). 16-23mm range sees very little barrel extension, 23-35mm is roughly double, and 35-55mm is roughly double again. The further down the focal range you get, the more barrel extension is needed, therefore the more torque is needed from the hand.

For reference, my Sony 24-70/2.8 GM II operates in a near identical way. The Fuji zoom ring may feel slightly more 'sticky', but we're splitting hairs there.

"The aperture ring doesn't give enough resistance".

I fully agree with this, but this isn't just isolated to this lens - for whatever reason, Fuji massively struggle with consistency here. Whereas my 33/1.4 is absolutely perfect, my 18/1.4 feels way looser. I put this down to a bad copy, but I've tried 3x 18/1.4's and they're all the same. All of my Fuji lenses with an aperture ring give a very different feel, whereas my Sony lenses are very consistent.

The 16-55 is however a little different in that the aperture dial almost feels 'dampened' but in a bad way. Whilst it'd be really easy to nudge the dial on the 18/1.4, it'll still decisively click between apertures. The 16-55 on the other hand - it'd be really easy to leave it between settings. I feel like it's to give some form of 'resistance' when click is turned off, but it's not a good implementation. Fuji are way off the execution of other manufacturers here.

Just some initial build thoughts there - the lens will be off with me on vacation shortly to run it though it's optical performance.

 

[drewdude]

I received mine a few days ago, and I just completed a test shoot for confirming whether the lens is centred (distant object test, and resolution chart), and a test to confirm contrast/CA/sharpness with a resolution chart.



my findings are:

- outperforms my 50-140 in all metrics

- it’s consistent across all focal lengths that I tested it at (16/23/33/55) from a centre sharpness perspective.

- it performs better than my xf16 f1.4 at f5.6 overall, where the XF16 performs slightly better in the corners at 2.8, but the 16-55 does better with contrast. My 16 had no apparent CA at 2.8, nor does my 16-55.

- at 33 it is a very slight step down in performance when compared to my 33 f1.4 across all apertures. However, I am still very impressed with the 16-55 at this focal range.

- at 55 is is a bit more of a step down than my 56 WR than it was with my 33. But honestly, still very good.

Build quality:

- steady resistance on my zoom function, however a bit sticky; I also noticed it to be a bit less resistance than my 50-140.

- aperture ring is good but as others have stated, it’s not as crisp as the other lenses I own at least.

- everything else is excellent

Im really happy to report that I think I at least have a solid performer from a resolution/build quality perspective. I haven’t tested autofocus with it yet, but I’m sure it’s snappy.

last thing… when fitted to my x-h2, and lens hood ‘engaged’ , it fits in my peak design 3L sling… albeit sidewise.

 

[RangerPhotog]

"The aperture ring doesn't give enough resistance".

I fully agree with this, but this isn't just isolated to this lens - for whatever reason, Fuji massively struggle with consistency here. Whereas my 33/1.4 is absolutely perfect, my 18/1.4 feels way looser. I put this down to a bad copy, but I've tried 3x 18/1.4's and they're all the same.

Yup...the loose aperture ring of the 18/1.4 is a trait of the lens unfortunately and widely reported. It is my only criticism of this lens and it is annoying but it is one of my most used lenses.

 

[Meeces]

Got mine as a very nice X-mas gift and finally got a chance to take it out today. I would agree with your initial impressions 100%. That aperture ring click (or lack thereof) is frustrating coming from the 1st version. It's more like a suggestion than anything else. Enjoy the more compact/less bulky size. Initial image review is promising . . . as I would expect.

 

[jhorse]

I've had my new 16-55 recently arrive, and I thought I'd give my thoughts on it's build - something that has been discussed a lot, but I might be able to offer a slightly different view on things.

Thanks - interesting views.

"It's not up to red badge build quality".

I've seen this quite a bit, and it's something I definitely disagree with. It definitely feels 'in line' the previous version 16-55, and definitely feels like Fuji's premium offering.

As a buyer of the Mk II too, I'd have to agree!

"The zoom is faulty / not smooth".

For me, this is simply down to a modern mid-range zoom optical design.

The barrel extension isn't linear, and it's just down to variable gearing (I'm sure there is a more correct term for this). 16-23mm range sees very little barrel extension, 23-35mm is roughly double, and 35-55mm is roughly double again. The further down the focal range you get, the more barrel extension is needed, therefore the more torque is needed from the hand.

For reference, my Sony 24-70/2.8 GM II operates in a near identical way. The Fuji zoom ring may feel slightly more 'sticky', but we're splitting hairs there.

If I were nitpicking, I'd say relative to my Mk I version (traded-in for the Mk II) that the zoom has a more coarse feel. Nothing for me to worry about. Your explanation is better and makes sense.

"The aperture ring doesn't give enough resistance".

I fully agree with this, ...

The 16-55 is however a little different in that the aperture dial almost feels 'dampened' but in a bad way.

I actually prefer the more subtle feel of the aperture ring relative top the Mk I, but I think I am a lone voice here.

Just some initial build thoughts there - the lens will be off with me on vacation shortly to run it though it's optical performance.

Have a great time. Hopefully you can show some images upon return.

 

[LordNutHatch]

I just got my 16-55 II back from Fujifilm Repair, which I sent in because the lens just isn't performing like I feel that a $1200 Red-Badge lens should; i.e. in all of my comparisons b/w it and the 16-50 2.8-4.8, the kit lens comes out with better IQ. Thought perhaps it might have been de-centered, but Fuji reports the lens is within spec and performing as it should. Great, awesome... I go to take some shots with it, and it will not open up to f/2.8. Best it can do is a 3.2 :-x If I put the camera on Auto it'll go to 2.8 fine, but when I use the Aperture ring, even though it's racked to 2.8, 3.2 is the best it can do.

I was noticing what sounded like stuck aperture blades when shooting wide open, which made no sense. Didn't think much of it, but now with this new inability to shoot at f/2.8, it's concerning.

At this point, I'm done with this lens. Worst Fuji purchase I've made to date.

EDIT: not sure what was going on, if the blades were cold after being on the FedEx truck all morning, or my X-T5 was acting up, but the lens seems to be opening up to 2.8 now.

Doing more comparisons b/w it and the 16-50 now, just to confirm what I'm seeing and helping make a decision as to which I'll be keeping.

 

[Minolta TC-1]

EDIT: not sure what was going on, if the blades were cold after being on the FedEx truck all morning, or my X-T5 was acting up, but the lens seems to be opening up to 2.8 now.

Doing more comparisons b/w it and the 16-50 now, just to confirm what I'm seeing and helping make a decision as to which I'll be keeping.

I'm hoping for you your experience with this lens is now better than before. I just wanted to say that whenever I receive electronics in winter, I always leave them in the box to warm up for at least half a day. In case of the 16-55, half a day in the shipment box and half a day in the Fuji black box before I opened it. That stuff is way too precious to risk getting condensaton on or in it.