A little bit of everything: Fujifilm XF 16-80mm F4 sample gallery

badi - I was disappointed that they've dropped the tiliting screen in favour of fully articulated. I much prefer a screen that is on-axis with the lens/sensor when extended.

Another disappointment was that the AF joystick hasn't been enlarged and moved a bit higher.

I think many will be annoyed that Fujifilm are continuing to use the X-trans sensor too, which people claim produces poor colour with some image editors, and suffers from "worms", whatever the heck that means!

On a positive note, the addition of IBIS is very welcome, and should really be a standard requirement on any serious MILC.

I like x-Trans, that is one reason i am using mostly my X-T3. I also like APSC that is one reason i chose Fuji...

badi - I have no experience of X-trans, but comments here suggest opinions about it are strongly divided - some love it, some loathe it. Part of the "issue" seems to revolve around which RAW converter / image editor is used.

Possibly the best approach might be to make exposure, saturation, colour bias and contrast adjustments using Fujifilm software, and then use it to convert into JPEGs. Then the JPEGs could be imported into LR or whatever, where cloning, sharpening and cropping could be carried out.

i have some experience with it, i am a hobbyist, so super critical IQ is not my main concern, but the files are easy to work with. Usually the "loud critiques" come from people who (maybe) processed 1-2 files in LR without and seeing the "worms" :).
I use a X-E1 since forever, but in parallel my main system was Canon and also had some play with Olympus. Now i almost exclusively use the X-T3 since i bought it.

The "worm" issue is caused by the LR demozaicing when coupled with sharpening. If using LR I set the sharpening to zero, and apply sharpening in PS on the Tiff/JPG (if i really want to show off, i do a smart sharpening on the Lightness channel in LAB color space), and the fine details like foliage look amazing. Pther RAW converters don't show this, but sometimes even the internal JPG engine, if sharpness is pushed too much can show it... so i agree that some people might find it too problematic.

[continue]

The main thing i like about the X-Trans, is that because of larger RGB pattern the noise/grain ends up being a bit larger, with a more organic feel to my eyes. With Canon and especially Olympus i had to alter it with LR's "grain" to be pleasant and reduced the detail further.

badi - An interesting reply. I tend to go to the opposite extreme, I really dislike noise, and go to great lengths in post to minimise it, while retaining the maximum in fine detail resolution and micro-contrast.

Entoman, If the R5 actually materialises staying with Canon is prolly the wisest choice. I still have my 5DSR and 5Diii. Great cameras and lenses albeit large, heavy with horrid sensors (personal opinion). I have some good Canon glass so they are staying. I did have the opportunity to use a Sony for a while, my sentiments echo yours. Great sensor, huge dynamic range, didn't like the colour output. So when I came by a bit of money I decided to buy the Z6. Best camera I have ever used. The 24-70 lens is brutally sharp. The Z6 files are amazing, huge latitude, great colour, very plastic. As landscapes are my thing the Z6 is flawless. If the R5 sensor is as good as the 1DXiii you are in for a treat.

All the best.

Hey you're not commenting on the lens - the subject of the gallery article.

We understand and agree with you, SONY is better than anything else, especially A7iii.

Please, let's discuss Fuji. :)

$3400 vs $2200.

“ There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept“ - Ansel Adams.

To much emphasis is placed on sharpness. A good photographer can make superb photos with this lens. Concept, colour, composition is far more important.

A good photographer can make a good photo with a smartphone.

If wishes are higher in terms of DOF, he can use a RX100 small sensor camera that costs half of this lens alone without the body.

Face it, this lens costs more than one grand and does not deliver accordingly.
It reminds me of the 1k 1670/4 Zony with poor edges, but that lens at least has a Zeiss bokeh and a much broader highres center area.

Quoting a famous photographer out of context only illustrates that there are folks which will justify anything their favorite gear supplier provides.

I guess you are aware that Ansel Adams was part of F/64? Their very intention was to provide a photo where everything was detailed and sharp from fore- to background.

This lens design in contrast does not get more detailed outside of the center even if you stop it down beyond f5.6. So it is not well-suited for landscape photography.

The bokeh of this lens is quite busy, so it is not a good lens for low DOF either.

lol

Kubrick says f/0.7

So in this illustration, who's "Johnny"?! :).

Jajaja

agree!!!

Jack is obviously unimaginative and not a very good photographer.

I love f/4 zooms! I can afford them :).

^^^ I also can carry them

I can also get them into the cabin of an airplane in my pack. :)

Maybe to get deep DoF and maximum sharpness and min vignetting in the picture?

Maybe because it’s a nice, natural aperture that gives you enough shutter speed to handhold?
OTOH this is a review site so there’s an argument to be made for using all the apertures..OTOOH f/11 brings out the ignorant who think diffraction is a big deal.

“Surely there is some edge performance to be gained”

Not according to LensTip’s measurements: https://www.lenstip.com/571.4-Lens_review-Fujifilm_Fujinon_XF_16-80_mm_f_4_R_OIS_WR_Image_resolution.html

The edges are at their best at f/5.6 throughout the focal range, and so is the center except at the long end where it’s better wide open. Performance drops rather sharply (no pun intended) past that point.

Of course, smaller apertures would have more DoF, though. Speaking of which, I don’t know how the field curvature is on that lens.

I would rank them is the order you listed.

Chicky - corners have to be sharp in landscapes and many other genres too.

entoman, this is a nice standard zoom lens. I would need to evaluate it next to my Nikon 16-80mm and 24-70 f4 Z lenses, which are both fantastic, to see exactly how sharp it is, but to the pics to me look sharp enough for a zoom lens like this. To me they look tack sharp, but perhaps not razor sharp. You can't expect a zoom lens to be as sharp as a prime costing as much or more than this lens.

tolleknole, to me it looks like a typically nice standard zooms lens. But I'm curious and will test it to compare the sharpness to my Nikon standard zoom lenses. Corner softness though is a very typical thing for a standard zoom.

These pictures have been shot in "point and shoot" mode - i looked at some of the landscape shots in the set and they have been shot at sensitivities as high as ISO 5000, wide open at f4. You can hardly use such shots to assess the sharpness of a lens.

Agree. Most comments on this forum about lenses are subjective and of no practical value. This lens is almost as sharp as my 10 year Canon 17-40mmL which pros still use(my own subjective bias).
Gallery images have too many variables to be of much value. Look at bench tests.

“shaking from 30-ish degree temps”

Is that Fahrenheit or a heat stroke?

@Astrotripper. Did you ever use it?

This lens is my favorite! It's optically good but small and robust. OIS is great, AF superb and the focal range is just great!
It replaced my 16-55 and 50-140 in most situations.

"lacks in image quality department"<- did you ever test it ?

In the center of the frame it's as good as the XF 16-55. Corners lack behind in both end but are good otherwise.

It's not better as the very good 16-50 ois II kit lens. But with the price tag of a premium lens. The 16-50 ois II was a fraction of the price, small and lightweight.
The few mm more focal length really don't justify the price and weight.

"but who expects it to be?"

A Pentax user which own a 16-85mm f 4-5.6 lens maybe ?
The pentax cost 500$ and explodes the Fuji in terms of sharpness & rendering.

Don sata - small apertures like F16 will increase depth of field, possibly creating an illusion of better sharpness. But as spider-mario points out, overall image quality suffers due to diffraction. With most lenses, optimal performance is achieved at roughly 1-2 stops smaller than maximum aperture. So for this lens you would ideally shoot at F5.6-8.

entoman - sorry when I laugh at your "best at 1-2 stops". There might be a maximum in sharpness but the issue remains that corners often improve to an acceptable performance just when further stopping down.
I like images way more that have an even sharpness across the whole area than images with peak sharpness in the center but still totally MEH corners.
And while diffraction might be an issue it doesn't ruin a photo at f11 on APSC. It even doesn't on micro four thirds, so I think you can shoot f16 on APS-C if you need it...

fft2000 - Feel free to laugh, I'm not in the least offended :-) Ok, maybe 2-3 stops down might be more accurate, if you are concerned about maximising sharpness across the entire frame, rather than the centre.

Yes, you can shoot at F16 with APS, but there is a definite increase iin diffraction-related sharpness when compared to F8 or even F11. Maybe not noticeable with some subjects.

But as with all things, what is best for one genre of photography may not be best for another. e.g. for landscape, architecture, document/artwork photography etc you need even sharpness across the frame; but for sport, wildlife, portrait, macro and most other genres slight softness at the edges is rarely an issue, but central sharpness is critical.

According to https://dofsimulator.net/en/ with diffraction simulation enabled, f/16 on APS-C gives “0.021mm / 1 453 lines / 3.2Mpix” diffraction. That’s starting to be quite strong. If your lens still resolves less than 1450 LWPH by that point, then why not, but is that a lot of lenses? According to OpticalLimits, not even the 18-135mm wide open at the long end is that soft: https://www.opticallimits.com/fuji_x/888-fuji18135f3556?start=1

Now, if you want more DoF, that’s another issue. (One that DOF simulator, as its name suggests, can also help you with.)

Looking at the center sharpness of the 18-55mm as measured by LensTip on a 16MP camera, you can also see the almost wall-like bound imposed by diffraction:

https://www.lenstip.com/upload3/3918_roz_centr.jpg

The edges start with sufficiently low sharpness at the wide end that f/16 is not much worse, but it’s also not better (f/8 is, just like for the center):

https://www.lenstip.com/upload3/3919_roz_brzeg.jpg

(Full page: https://www.lenstip.com/383.4-Lens_review-Fujifilm_Fujinon_XF_18-55_mm_f_2.8-4_OIS_Image_resolution.html )

So, at least in the specific case of the 18-55mm, the way that f/16 makes the sharpness more homogeneous is by lowering center sharpness, rather than raising edge sharpness.

They have also tested the 16-80mm discussed here and it seems to be the case too (except that the peak in sharpness is achieved at f/5.6): https://www.lenstip.com/571.4-Lens_review-Fujifilm_Fujinon_XF_16-80_mm_f_4_R_OIS_WR_Image_resolution.html

I hear you, Carey. I guess a “gallery” truly isn’t a review. Still, since most lenses never make it to an official review I think galleries would be more impactful if a handful of comparison shots were included. Just something to consider.

Absolutely - I appreciate the feedback. We really are hoping to get our lens testing to a place where most lenses do make it to a full review. It's a huge gap for us.

I mean, this is a walk-around lens for general photography, so that's what I hoped to show with it. Again, controlled measurements of corner sharpness and the like are really best for an eventual full review.

Why are you comparing with a very old FF 24-120 lens? You should compare it with Nikkor DX 16-80

Or modern 24-105 lenses, which tend to be excellent.

But a manufacturer's converter would mean a different converter for each system, which is yet another variable to throw in, in addition to sensor size, tech, color filter array, and so on. Using the same piece of software by the same company does eliminate at least one variable for us.

Also, switching to another Raw converter would mean that it'd be difficult to then go back and compare against previous galleries. This isn't to say that we should never change because 'it's the way we've always done it,' but it is something to consider.