Finally, a first side by side comparison between the two lenses! And wow, I’m blown away by the new 16-55. The no more exposure stepping and the smoother bokeh sealed the deal for me. Will definitely pick up the new one soon! Thank you for the review.
Excellent video mate. Can you confirm if the video footage was SOOC or edited a bit? If it was SOOC, then were both shot @ eterna profile or something else?
Thanks man, the footage is SOOC and both were shot on the same profile. Can’t remember exactly which one. Must have either been Classic chrome or Reala Ace.
There seems to be a problem with your sharpness test. From all other reviews online, the sharpness is pretty much identical in the center, and only minutely better in the corners. You can see at 2:51 on your video the sharpness of the lenses are the same, but at 5:28 they are wildly different (it looks like you've added digital sharpening to the new lens and blur to the old). The original 16-55 is renowned for being extremely sharp wide open; stating the new one "out performs it by far" is completely untrue and not remotely possible.
People have always said the original 16-55 is sharp wide open, but honestly in my experience, this video is pretty accurate to the real world. The original 16-55 was FINE, but compared to the sharper primes, on my 40MP XT5 especially, there's a big difference, and the softness in this video is exactly what I experienced too. I think a lot of people saying it's tack sharp might just not have the experience with truly tack sharp lenses, and/or they're wearing slightly rose-coloured glasses. The MKII looks much sharper zoomed in.
Місяць тому+2
I’m considering buying the MkII and have watched all the videos. Previously, I’ve seen comparisons between the original 18-55 kit lens and the 16-55 MkI, where the difference (when pixel peeping) was marginal. Your video was the first I came across comparing the MkI and MkII, and knowing how close the kit lens and MkI were, I was sceptical of your 400% sharpness test. After watching other online comparisons between the MkI and MkII (where people used more scientific methods, like MTF charts), it is clear that there is very little difference in sharpness between the two lenses. If you haven’t altered the images in your test (which, to be honest, is what it looked like to me), then perhaps your copy of the MkI is defective. Another possibility is that it is caused by motion blur from the video. Obviously, doing a sharpness test at 1/24th shutter speed with a moving subject is seriously flawed. Anyway, the reason I am sceptical is because I was really hoping the MkII would be much better and your video could have been a deciding factor in purchasing it. It seems that your test was not a true reflection of the optical improvements (if any) of the new lens (which is £400 more expensive here in the UK). Here are some links with timestamps to a few controlled side-by-side comparisons (maybe you could pin a comment with this update?): ua-cam.com/video/3yhEBJi7i1o/v-deo.html and ua-cam.com/video/WJZHWcXUTFA/v-deo.html Cheers!
Thanks for your comment. I watched the link you added and It was comparing photos of the Mk1 and 2 which I dont think is a fair comparison. Video reflects different from photos and it also depends on the focal length and aperture. (TBH the video link you shared looked like a high F stop compared to mine that was wide open.) The sharpness test I did was standard, I didnt alter anything. The biggest changes was the warmness that came through, better bokeh, sharper focus and, off course the weight. Honestly if I didnt already own the Mk1 and had to choose I will def go for the MK2. I think it's worth the extra bucks
Місяць тому+1
@@DuanVanSchalkwyk I have no idea what the first video shots are at, but the image with the toy at the window has shallow DOF, so I would guess it's wide open at 2.8. The second video with the MTF chart starts at 2.8 (it says it on the screen). As far as how to test lens sharpness; you have to use a photo or watch the video playing (if you want a real world video test). Taking a still frame from 2 different videos that are shot at 24fps makes it impossible to test for sharpness (how do you know if the blur is from the lens of just from movement in that frame?). Your video (and findings) are proof that something went wrong when comparing sharpness. You can clearly see with the MTF chart in the second video (shot at 2.8) that they are almost identical, which means there is something very wrong with the 400% freeze frame in your test. Why don't you try taking a still using your video settings on a tripod of a non-moving subject (preferably with some small text in the image) and then do the comparison? Anyway, regardless of whether the MkII is a better lens or not, I thought I would just clear up the sharpness claim in your video. The difference in sharpness is more than Fuji's worst lens and their best; not too mention these lenses are both red label :)
Personally I wouldnt trust a lens with such a long focal range to provide good quality. The old 16-55 has been an outstanding lens for video production and think the MK2 will be even better
Update your lens firmware? The exposure change and other bugs have been fixed in the old lens with a firmware update. The new lens is sharper, but it does not have better autofocus. The autofocus does not depend on the lens. You can put a piece of polished coke bottle in front of a Sony and it will focus. Fuji firmware 7.1 makes it the worst autofocus in the industry by a smaller margin than before.
AF depends heavily on lenses used, even different masssively depends on zoom settings of a same lens. You can test it on this very 16-55mm lens. Fast AF enough at 16mm will resulted too slow AF at 55mm, while fast enough at 55mm will resulted in too fast/jerky AF at 16mm.
@@i7bua Let me rephrase what I said. The autofocus capabilities of the camera do not change with different lenses. A sharper lens will make it easier for the camera to find focus, and the motor inside the lens will affect how quickly, how loudly, and how smoothly the glass elements move inside the lens, but all lenses will use the same focusing algorithm. Firmware 7.1 makes autofocus usable on controlled sets, but not reliable in several less than ideal situations. This applies to every lens.
@@KarlGutowski Seems your knowledge is very limited. Just try it yourself with the XF 16-55mm 2.8 at different zoom settings. Then try a XF 35mm 1.4 vs a XF 33mm 1.4 to see the AF difference between lenses.
![Overrated: Camera features that don't matter [ft Gerald Undone]](/img/n.gif)
Finally, a first side by side comparison between the two lenses! And wow, I’m blown away by the new 16-55. The no more exposure stepping and the smoother bokeh sealed the deal for me. Will definitely pick up the new one soon! Thank you for the review.
Glad it was helpful! It's a big upgrade, best to be sure before you spend all that money. 😁
But stepping exposure was fixed with firmware for 16-55 f 2.8 MK I
Thanks, I realized that only after making this video. Wish I knew about the update sooner
So, was there the latest firmware from Feb 24 on the MK 1 lens?
Thank you for making this video.
Great review, thanks!
You're welcome!
Great review. Were you able to test starbursts? I m looking for a kit lens with good sun bursts (at f16 and above). Can you advise?
Excellent video mate.
Can you confirm if the video footage was SOOC or edited a bit?
If it was SOOC, then were both shot @ eterna profile or something else?
Thanks man, the footage is SOOC and both were shot on the same profile. Can’t remember exactly which one. Must have either been Classic chrome or Reala Ace.
@@DuanVanSchalkwykGreat, thanks for the quick reply❤️
Thanks for the review! Not sure I’ll buy another one, but at least it’s lighter.
It’s a big decision for sure!
Nice and informative video!
Glad you liked it!
There seems to be a problem with your sharpness test. From all other reviews online, the sharpness is pretty much identical in the center, and only minutely better in the corners. You can see at 2:51 on your video the sharpness of the lenses are the same, but at 5:28 they are wildly different (it looks like you've added digital sharpening to the new lens and blur to the old). The original 16-55 is renowned for being extremely sharp wide open; stating the new one "out performs it by far" is completely untrue and not remotely possible.
People have always said the original 16-55 is sharp wide open, but honestly in my experience, this video is pretty accurate to the real world. The original 16-55 was FINE, but compared to the sharper primes, on my 40MP XT5 especially, there's a big difference, and the softness in this video is exactly what I experienced too. I think a lot of people saying it's tack sharp might just not have the experience with truly tack sharp lenses, and/or they're wearing slightly rose-coloured glasses. The MKII looks much sharper zoomed in.
I’m considering buying the MkII and have watched all the videos. Previously, I’ve seen comparisons between the original 18-55 kit lens and the 16-55 MkI, where the difference (when pixel peeping) was marginal.
Your video was the first I came across comparing the MkI and MkII, and knowing how close the kit lens and MkI were, I was sceptical of your 400% sharpness test. After watching other online comparisons between the MkI and MkII (where people used more scientific methods, like MTF charts), it is clear that there is very little difference in sharpness between the two lenses.
If you haven’t altered the images in your test (which, to be honest, is what it looked like to me), then perhaps your copy of the MkI is defective. Another possibility is that it is caused by motion blur from the video. Obviously, doing a sharpness test at 1/24th shutter speed with a moving subject is seriously flawed.
Anyway, the reason I am sceptical is because I was really hoping the MkII would be much better and your video could have been a deciding factor in purchasing it. It seems that your test was not a true reflection of the optical improvements (if any) of the new lens (which is £400 more expensive here in the UK).
Here are some links with timestamps to a few controlled side-by-side comparisons (maybe you could pin a comment with this update?): ua-cam.com/video/3yhEBJi7i1o/v-deo.html and ua-cam.com/video/WJZHWcXUTFA/v-deo.html
Cheers!
Thanks for your comment. I watched the link you added and It was comparing photos of the Mk1 and 2 which I dont think is a fair comparison. Video reflects different from photos and it also depends on the focal length and aperture. (TBH the video link you shared looked like a high F stop compared to mine that was wide open.) The sharpness test I did was standard, I didnt alter anything. The biggest changes was the warmness that came through, better bokeh, sharper focus and, off course the weight. Honestly if I didnt already own the Mk1 and had to choose I will def go for the MK2. I think it's worth the extra bucks
@@DuanVanSchalkwyk I have no idea what the first video shots are at, but the image with the toy at the window has shallow DOF, so I would guess it's wide open at 2.8. The second video with the MTF chart starts at 2.8 (it says it on the screen).
As far as how to test lens sharpness; you have to use a photo or watch the video playing (if you want a real world video test). Taking a still frame from 2 different videos that are shot at 24fps makes it impossible to test for sharpness (how do you know if the blur is from the lens of just from movement in that frame?). Your video (and findings) are proof that something went wrong when comparing sharpness. You can clearly see with the MTF chart in the second video (shot at 2.8) that they are almost identical, which means there is something very wrong with the 400% freeze frame in your test. Why don't you try taking a still using your video settings on a tripod of a non-moving subject (preferably with some small text in the image) and then do the comparison?
Anyway, regardless of whether the MkII is a better lens or not, I thought I would just clear up the sharpness claim in your video. The difference in sharpness is more than Fuji's worst lens and their best; not too mention these lenses are both red label :)
In Australia, the new version sells for $2000.00, and the old lens sells for around $1300.00. Is the new lens $700.00 better?
It depends, what type of photos/videos do you make?
I never take videos, mainly landscape seascape and environmental portraits
@RayCross-x1n in that case I think the old 16-55 will work just fine 👌
@@DuanVanSchalkwyk thanks for your comments they have been very helpful
Was this recorded with the latest X-H2S firmware (7.10)?
Yes
I see different skin tones on 2:57. Is lens the only difference? Or another camera / settings were used? Thanks!
My 2 XH2-s’ had the exact same settings with the 2 different lenses
Thanks
I'm also curious about the comparison of the pictures.
For video production will the XF 18-120mm, which was developed with the Fujinon cine division, be better than the XF 16-55mm II.
Personally I wouldnt trust a lens with such a long focal range to provide good quality. The old 16-55 has been an outstanding lens for video production and think the MK2 will be even better
Update your lens firmware? The exposure change and other bugs have been fixed in the old lens with a firmware update. The new lens is sharper, but it does not have better autofocus. The autofocus does not depend on the lens. You can put a piece of polished coke bottle in front of a Sony and it will focus. Fuji firmware 7.1 makes it the worst autofocus in the industry by a smaller margin than before.
AF depends heavily on lenses used, even different masssively depends on zoom settings of a same lens. You can test it on this very 16-55mm lens. Fast AF enough at 16mm will resulted too slow AF at 55mm, while fast enough at 55mm will resulted in too fast/jerky AF at 16mm.
@@i7bua Let me rephrase what I said. The autofocus capabilities of the camera do not change with different lenses. A sharper lens will make it easier for the camera to find focus, and the motor inside the lens will affect how quickly, how loudly, and how smoothly the glass elements move inside the lens, but all lenses will use the same focusing algorithm. Firmware 7.1 makes autofocus usable on controlled sets, but not reliable in several less than ideal situations. This applies to every lens.
@@KarlGutowski Seems your knowledge is very limited. Just try it yourself with the XF 16-55mm 2.8 at different zoom settings. Then try a XF 35mm 1.4 vs a XF 33mm 1.4 to see the AF difference between lenses.