TENOG wrote:
Dan, how would you compare the IQ of the older 16-55 to the 18-55? I understand that it is 2 mm wider but that is not what I am asking. Do you think it has better IQ?
I know this wasn't directed towards me but I have quite a bit of experience with both so I thought I'd chime in. In short, the 18-55 is very good. The 16-55 is better in just about every way you can define IQ. But with both lenses I made images that I was very happy with.
Mine arrives tomorrow, I sucked it up and ordered it. I don't own the original as I view the X system as my more mobile kit to the Gfx heavy and bulky, less mobile kit. Then Fuji took my excuse away by making it the same size as my 16-80 daily zoom. I've been very happy with that lens despite what so many say. So from my perspective, the MkII has to outperform enough to offset losing 55-80. I'll be thrilled if it does but can't help but think I'm trying to fix a problem I don't have.
SGinNorcal wrote:
Mine arrives tomorrow, I sucked it up and ordered it. I don't own the original as I view the X system as my more mobile kit to the Gfx heavy and bulky, less mobile kit. Then Fuji took my excuse away by making it the same size as my 16-80 daily zoom. I've been very happy with that lens despite what so many say. So from my perspective, the MkII has to outperform enough to offset losing 55-80. I'll be thrilled if it does but can't help but think I'm trying to fix a problem I don't have.
IMHO, either 16-55 is an order of magnitude better than the 16-80 optically at f5.6 or wider. The new one is also a bit lighter still than the 16-80. I am certain you’ll like it.
Jack Flesher wrote:
IMHO, either 16-55 is an order of magnitude better than the 16-80 optically at f5.6 or wider. The new one is also a bit lighter still than the 16-80. I am certain you’ll like it.
Thanks for the encouragement. I don't doubt this at all within the 16-55 focal length and the F2.8 will be welcome as well. My only concern is for day hikes where this will be my only lens. I try to keep moving and don't like to change lenses often. Its often wildlife that uses the 55-80 range and there isn't time to be changing lenses anyway. Its less of a concern when backpacking on overnight trips, the 8mm and 70-300 will be available on those for wider and longer reach. It will be interesting to see how the 16-55 performs at Astro, since I've not really had a good Astro lens with me while backpacking, ever.
SGinNorcal wrote:
Thanks for the encouragement. I don't doubt this at all within the 16-55 focal length and the F2.8 will be welcome as well. My only concern is for day hikes where this will be my only lens. I try to keep moving and don't like to change lenses often. Its often wildlife that uses the 55-80 range and there isn't time to be changing lenses anyway. Its less of a concern when backpacking on overnight trips, the 8mm and 70-300 will be available on those for wider and longer reach. It will be interesting to see how the 16-55 performs at Astro, since I've not really had a good Astro lens with me while backpacking, ever. ...Show more →
My guess is that after your first day hike with it, you won’t even notice the 55-80 range missing 😎
I sent mine into Fuji, and they report that the lens is passing all of their benchmark tests "with flying colors". That's reassuring, but also a pretty big letdown because I'm finding the 16-50 to be a better lens at just about everything except not having a constant f/2.8. Even when compared at f/5.6, the kit zoom is giving me slightly better results... expected the lens that was stopped down twice to be better, but yeah, not the case. So I either have a brilliant copy of the kit lens or a duff copy of the red-badge, but again, Fuji says my lens is within spec.
For anything outdoors, especially hiking, the 16-50 is by far the way to go. It's substantially smaller than the 16-55 II, and an added bonus is a much better MFD in case you want to do some "macro"-ish shooting. I had the X-T5 + 16-50 with me in Sedona last month for hikes and such, and it was the only lens I used for the whole trip. Totally sold me, great little side-kick lens when you don't want to lug excess weight.
The 16-55 II is the obvious choice for indoor shooting, used it over the holidays for events and family gatherings. It does the job. Honestly, I'm trying to grasp at anything here to justify this lens, it's just not blowing me away, at all.
I'm not completely obsessed with weight. To me its a bigger deal when the weight of the lens makes the combo nose heavy. That said, the 16-50 would save me 7oz over the 16-80 and 6oz over the 16-55II. But I do prefer constant aperture lenses, like everybody probably. Despite having the longer MFD, 14", the 16-80 is very good at macro-ish and I'm don't want to lose that. I will be interesting to compare the shorter FL to longer MFD. Anyway, I'm trying to have an open mind with the 16-55II. If it replaces the 16-80 it will my most used lens, so its pretty important to me.
SGinNorcal wrote:
I'm not completely obsessed with weight. To me its a bigger deal when the weight of the lens makes the combo nose heavy. That said, the 16-50 would save me 7oz over the 16-80 and 6oz over the 16-55II. But I do prefer constant aperture lenses, like everybody probably. Despite having the longer MFD, 14", the 16-80 is very good at macro-ish and I'm don't want to lose that. I will be interesting to compare the shorter FL to longer MFD. Anyway, I'm trying to have an open mind with the 16-55II. If it replaces the 16-80 it will my most used lens, so its pretty important to me....Show more →
I've become skeptical of the "nose heavy" lens theory.
If you think about how we hold camera with larger lenses, we don't really "hold the camera" as much as we hold the lens with a camera attached to the back.
Once I realized this I felt like having a small camera attached to a large lens wasn't awkward at all.
gdanmitchell wrote:
I've become skeptical of the "nose heavy" lens theory.
If you think about how we hold camera with larger lenses, we don't really "hold the camera" as much as we hold the lens with a camera attached to the back.
Once I realized this I felt like having a small camera attached to a large lens wasn't awkward at all.
I can see that if shooting with a larger lens. But this is an every day kind of lens for me. Quite often, I am hiking with my mid range zoom on a strap, cross body. With a shorter, lighter lens, the camera body is flat against my body. Longer, heavier lens, tilt downward and the base of the camera is tilted against my body. Its hard to explain but along with the increased weight, bigger lenses don't "ride" well. Much more likely to bounce against me. Even worse with the Gfx of course, to the point that I don't try to carry it that way unless it has the Gf50 on it.
New toy, XF16-55II arrived an hour ago. Like a good photo geek, I immediately stopping working to play with it. First impressions are mostly positive. The zoom action is strange, certainly different than any other Fuji lens I have. Not gritty at all and I don't see it as an issue once I get used to it. Sharpness and detail are excellent even wide open and pixel peeping. I took a portrait style shot of my model (dog) at 2.8 indoors with low light, beautiful, definitely couldn't do that with 16-80. More in depth shooting to come and a good long hike early next week.
Quick update - this is an easy lens to like. Since its so similar in size to the 16-80, its easy to adjust to. Other than the different feel to the zoom ring, it feels similar. I got some shots in before sunset last night with bright low, brilliant sunlight. It handles too much light very well, as good as the best Fuji lenses in this regard. It definitely is degree sharper than the 16-80 and renders similar or better. AF is very fast and accurate, as fast a prime. I haven't played with cropping a 55mm shot to 80mm equivalent, but I think there is resolution there to pull it off. I'm happy with this lens, and will likely sell the 16-80 soon. The price difference is huge. I picked up the 16-80 when I bought my XT-5 for $500 and I feel that was a really screaming deal. That combined with 16-50 and Mark I 16-55 options, will probably make the MII as slow seller. Fuji probably developed this lens more to remain competitive on quality vs. sellling a high volume. I'm happy to have it.
SGinNorcal wrote:
That combined with 16-50 and Mark I 16-55 options, will probably make the MII as slow seller. Fuji probably developed this lens more to remain competitive on quality vs. sellling a high volume. I'm happy to have it.
I think you are likely right about that. It sounds like a nice upgrade to the 16-55mm zoom range, but it also doesn't sound like a lens that will compel many of use with v.1 lenses to upgrade. Some will, but most won't.
That being said, it is the kind of solid incremental update that good camera companies do, kind of like the various updates to the 70-200mm EF lenses that Canon did. They were all good lenses but Canon kept tweaking away at them and making them even better.
Not that it matters, but the lens hood is identical and interchangeable with the 16-80. The two appear to share some external parts at least. No need to reinvent them.
I got my 16-55mm II just last Friday. I've had it out several times and I think I got a pretty decent copy, as it is not that far off in sharpness compared to my 18mm 1.4. However, the aperture ring is on the light side, even lighter clicks than the 18mm. The zoom ring is fine, so no worries in that area. With the X-T5 it functions and handles well with a good balance.
I had the first 16-55 which I used with X-T3's and X-H1's. I feel that now I have a lighter, sharper and better balanced combination.
