I bought one of these about 18 months ago to replace my 16-80mm and I love it. It doesn't get used as much as I'd like but when I do use it, I love the images I can create with it. It's surprisingly good for video too.
I've steered away from all Fuji Zoom lenses, I've never been happy with them for photographs. I have never owned this lens or the 50-140 so they may be the exceptions. My worry that always stopped me buying this lens is how good is it at F/2.8 compared to an F/1.4 prime stopped down to F/2.8 All of my F/1.4 primes are good at F/1.4 and are great at F/2.8. a lot of the time I am shooting, I don't want to stop down to F/4 because it would require pushing ISO too high (and I am working in situations where flash is not an option). For me to leave my "Bag of Primes" at home in reality it is never more than 3 primes, the zoom would have to be 95% as good as the Prime is stopped down to F/2.8 and not require being stopped down to F/4 or F5.6. I realise that my use case is not normal but, for every piece of gear now, I ask myself a question... will this make me money/save me money/Time or cost me money.
Have had this lens for a few months, was the first I got when I moved to Fuji (the second being a macro from Laowa). It is a magnificent lens, sharp (too sharp?), quiet, nails the focus, super versatile, and really is a bag of primes. Do I miss faster capabilities, not really, as I shoot for the most part during light hours, and if I need to shoot at night, I have a small light tripod with me for some longer shutters. You will love it!
Once I understood the different focal lengths, a high-end zoom is just the better choice imo. I started with the 16-55, sold it for prime lenses and a couple years later I'm back to the 16-55 😅
I bought this lens nearly 4 years ago while on a job with a client. We were shooting some static green screen footage and I was using the 18-55 kit at the time. After wrapping day one of our green screen filming the creative director on the project wasn't happy with the fall off and softness in the corner of the frames. Being a young and a generally new freelancer at the time I promised to fix it feeling it was mine and my gears fault. In retrospect, I could've just rented but I hastily bought this lens telling myself it was an investment even though it put me in the negative for this gig. I will admit I found the 16-55mm lens extremely boring and only used it for "less creative" paid work but over time I came to really enjoy this lens especially when hiking or on roadtrips. It's also made it's money back tenfold through gigs. If I could only have one lens on my XT5 this one is tied very closely with my 33mm 1.4 WR at the moment; which I would also highly recommend.
@@LightSkinJedi1920 Definitely a great all around kit. I prefer a prime whenever possible so the 33mm is fantastic for getting good compositions. And the 16-55mm f2.8 is maybe one of the best all around lenses. It's large but extremely capable. Plus if you do commercial work it looks professional and has the image quality to match.
I need one, I grabbed the Viltrox 75 first to do portrait work and it’s fantastic and I ended up grabbing the 27 when the announced it because it was hard to find the 16-55 at a good price. I also want the Viltrox 13 and the Fuji 90 to round things out.
Yeh, I am a Sigma 18-35+XH2S kinda guy as well, and I just can't bring myself to buy the 16-55 (at any decent price), there's just too many deal breakers for me. 1) Not internal zooming. I'm sorry but if the 50-140 can sort this then so should the 16-55. Lenses should be long term investments, I would not feel great about my weather sealing investment on a lens that is not internal zooming (I'd almost risk my 18-35 more than the 16-55 :S 2) Lens creep. Again, not internal zooming this is an issue. These two things I think really are quite significant and frankly I'm a little surprised Fuji have slapped a red badge on a lens that suffers both of these issues. 3) F2.8. Now... f2.8 in and of itself is not a totally terrible thing, but it matters WHERE that f2.8 exists on the focal length. For the 50-140 we're starting to get the benefits of tele compression to assist with (sufficient) subject isolation shots at 2.8, but on a wide to normal zoom, f2.8 on a zoom... urgh... its rendering depth like an f4 lens on FF. It's a hard pill to swallow and for me makes it more of a landscape zoom lens than an event/portraiture lens. That Sigma f1.8 look is SO good! I have owned both the XF23/2 and Touit 32/1.8 and the Sigma matches them for speed, now THAT is a bag of primes! I dunno man... I think I would even consider the new forthcoming 16-50/2.8-4.8 kit lens replacement than the 16-55... But... if you got the lens at a good price then none of what I said really matters. I just get completely confused when people say the 50-140 needs a mkII version and yet everyone thinks the 16-55 is perfect... I don't get it... like there is literally nothing that can be improved on the 50-140, maybe make it parfocal (it is pretty near damn parfocal as is!). The way I see it the 16-55 needs to be faster and internal zooming, then it becomes a significant consideration. Sadly a lot of the lens innovation seems to be on FF mounts. 28-70/2, 35-150/2-2.8, 24-105/2.8. Imagine this level of commitment for APS-C! We should in theory be capable of similar zoom specs with lighter weight and sizes if we only need to cover a smaller image circle, or even if we had them similar size and weight our IQ should be better corner to corner. But where are they??... We're all pining our hopes on Sigma to give us the 18-35 in X mount... Anyway, I do have some decisions to make myself, I have the Sigma 50-100/1.8 also now and really I ought to not have both the 50-140 and this lens (as its doubling up a little, much like you with your 16-55+18-35), so I have no place to judge! 😁
Having rented it out for a couple trips to take the place of my Sigma 18-50, the size ruins it for me. But the photos you get out of it are lovely. No complaints on the image quality. And having the linear motors over the sigma is another massive pro. At 40fps continuous shooting on the XH2S, the 16-55 can keep up. Sigma 18-50 will not
Thanks for sharing, I can just say that I bought the 16-55mm about a year ago in very good condition used for a fair price and I absolutely love it for my landscape work. And here in my experience you do see a quality difference to the 18-55mm and to the 16-80mm which I found pretty soft at the wide and the long end.
I use the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 for basketball, low light events and video for the beautiful smooth manual focusing, the 16-55 f2.8 is the backup and do everything else with the 50-140 f2.8 and the Nikkor AF-S 80-400 4.5-5.6. Just a great around solid workhorse unlike some of the plasticy 3rd party zooms I just couldn't trust for paid work,
I’m also travelling to Southern Asia in April and have been thinking about which lenses to take. The 16-55mm was one of my options and watching your video confirmed it for me. Will probably add my 35mm 1.4 for low light. Enjoy your trip
The tamron is soft everywhere outside of 23-55mm, is very fuzzy at times at 70mm, has a lot of aberrations, and very cheap quality zoom & focus ring. My focus ring stopped rotating smoothly. Eventually switched to the 16-55. The 16-55 also behaves much better while zooming
Mine arrives early next week. I went through the same thought process and when I saw a good deal on a used one I jumped. Hoping I made the right decision!
It may work for your use case but for me, all the sharpness in the world doesn't make up for the lack of stabilization -Fuji ibis is definitely subpar for video use, and the sheer size and weight.
why not the 16-80? asking because I am thinking about getting something better than 18-55 but still light to travel, I don't really need 2.8 to shoot street and landscape...
@@ztao3777 really depends on use cases. are you doing pin sharp landscape? are you doing portraits and want to see all the pores on your face? 16-80 gets a lot of shit but tbh it is the perfect travel lens "soft" is really subjective and you really need to zoom in to see the "soft" 99% of ppl don't give a shit or wont even notice the soft
@@kuroexmachina trust me, it is easier to crop from 55mm to 80mm without losing too much of your image. 16-80mm is not sharp or bright enough. The advantage of it lays in its compact form factor. The retail price can’t justify the image quality you get. If you’re going to get a single lens outside the bundle, sigma 18-50 and Tamron 17-70 could be much better.
It's not the size at all. It's a brilliant lens in almost all ways, and it was my main lens for all my paid events and work for a long time. The thing that ended up killing it for me is the 2.8 aperture. Being APSC the 2.8 is not really 2.8 (when thinking about depth of field). It's more like F4, so even up close, I couldn't separate my subject from the background, which was a real problem. I now use the 18mm 1.4 - and problem solved!
I just picked one up today for a great deal and It's pretty much like new. Now I'm in a dilemma. I have too many lenses and I will need to pick what to sell. This lens pretty much covers all the focal ranges and very close in aperture to the ones that I have of the 35 F2, 50 F2, and 16 F2.8. I also have the 35 F1.4 but debating if I should sell it off as well. I like the compactness of the F2/F2.8 primes but I hardly use the 50 F2. The 16 F2.8 was more recent but not really used as much either. I do like the 35 F1.4 so that's why I'm debating if I should sell to get the 33 F1.4. I've been wanting the 50-140, too, so if I sell the F2/F2.8 primes, I could use that money towards a used one and either keep the 35 F1.4 or sell it to get the 33 F1.4. Decisions, decisions.
I've bought & sold this lens twice; I'll not be buying it again. I like the Sigma, although I don't have one. If I'd been in your position, I'd have bought a prime, probably the new 33mm F/1.4, (I have the 23mm F/1.4 WR) or possibly the 18/F1.4 (which with X-H2 you have plenty of room to crop) and/or used my feet to zoom. For a Hybrid shooter the 16-55mm F2.8 is wrong on so many levels. If you want a mid range zoom then buy the excellent 16-80mm F/4 (which I have, but don't love). Yes the 16-55mm can be considered as a bunch of primes, but the latest F/1.4 Fujifilm lenses are lighter, quicker, quieter and so much more pleasant to use! I've been there; thinking I need a good middle/standard range zoom, (not just Fujifilm, but also in the past both Nikon & Canon Canon), and I've always been disappointed. By all means but the excellent 50-140mm F/2.8, which I have, but it's best teamed up wide a good wide angled zoom and/or a pair of excellent primes!
I've have a fujifilm Xh-1 for about two and a half years now and I had a 18-55mm to start as it was nice and cheap but seen all the reviews on the 16-55mm so I saved up and got one and I got to say its on my Xh-1 90% of the time now, its that good im thinking of the 50-140mm as that's a red badge lens too.
I’ve had both, if you want the best auto focus the 16-55 wins. I had problems with the sigma during an important shoot and it let down bad but I put the 16-55 same settings and location and it worked great.
I bought one of these about 18 months ago to replace my 16-80mm and I love it. It doesn't get used as much as I'd like but when I do use it, I love the images I can create with it. It's surprisingly good for video too.
Totally agree
I've steered away from all Fuji Zoom lenses, I've never been happy with them for photographs.
I have never owned this lens or the 50-140 so they may be the exceptions.
My worry that always stopped me buying this lens is how good is it at F/2.8 compared to an F/1.4 prime stopped down to F/2.8
All of my F/1.4 primes are good at F/1.4 and are great at F/2.8. a lot of the time I am shooting, I don't want to stop down to F/4 because it would require pushing ISO too high (and I am working in situations where flash is not an option).
For me to leave my "Bag of Primes" at home in reality it is never more than 3 primes, the zoom would have to be 95% as good as the Prime is stopped down to F/2.8 and not require being stopped down to F/4 or F5.6.
I realise that my use case is not normal but, for every piece of gear now, I ask myself a question... will this make me money/save me money/Time or cost me money.
Have had this lens for a few months, was the first I got when I moved to Fuji (the second being a macro from Laowa). It is a magnificent lens, sharp (too sharp?), quiet, nails the focus, super versatile, and really is a bag of primes. Do I miss faster capabilities, not really, as I shoot for the most part during light hours, and if I need to shoot at night, I have a small light tripod with me for some longer shutters. You will love it!
Once I understood the different focal lengths, a high-end zoom is just the better choice imo. I started with the 16-55, sold it for prime lenses and a couple years later I'm back to the 16-55 😅
I bought this lens nearly 4 years ago while on a job with a client. We were shooting some static green screen footage and I was using the 18-55 kit at the time. After wrapping day one of our green screen filming the creative director on the project wasn't happy with the fall off and softness in the corner of the frames. Being a young and a generally new freelancer at the time I promised to fix it feeling it was mine and my gears fault. In retrospect, I could've just rented but I hastily bought this lens telling myself it was an investment even though it put me in the negative for this gig. I will admit I found the 16-55mm lens extremely boring and only used it for "less creative" paid work but over time I came to really enjoy this lens especially when hiking or on roadtrips. It's also made it's money back tenfold through gigs. If I could only have one lens on my XT5 this one is tied very closely with my 33mm 1.4 WR at the moment; which I would also highly recommend.
I have the 33 1.4 and I love it. This helped me think more about the 16-55. Was thinking of having the 33 and 16-55
@@LightSkinJedi1920 Definitely a great all around kit. I prefer a prime whenever possible so the 33mm is fantastic for getting good compositions. And the 16-55mm f2.8 is maybe one of the best all around lenses. It's large but extremely capable. Plus if you do commercial work it looks professional and has the image quality to match.
I need one, I grabbed the Viltrox 75 first to do portrait work and it’s fantastic and I ended up grabbing the 27 when the announced it because it was hard to find the 16-55 at a good price. I also want the Viltrox 13 and the Fuji 90 to round things out.
Yeh, I am a Sigma 18-35+XH2S kinda guy as well, and I just can't bring myself to buy the 16-55 (at any decent price), there's just too many deal breakers for me.
1) Not internal zooming. I'm sorry but if the 50-140 can sort this then so should the 16-55. Lenses should be long term investments, I would not feel great about my weather sealing investment on a lens that is not internal zooming (I'd almost risk my 18-35 more than the 16-55 :S
2) Lens creep. Again, not internal zooming this is an issue.
These two things I think really are quite significant and frankly I'm a little surprised Fuji have slapped a red badge on a lens that suffers both of these issues.
3) F2.8. Now... f2.8 in and of itself is not a totally terrible thing, but it matters WHERE that f2.8 exists on the focal length. For the 50-140 we're starting to get the benefits of tele compression to assist with (sufficient) subject isolation shots at 2.8, but on a wide to normal zoom, f2.8 on a zoom... urgh... its rendering depth like an f4 lens on FF. It's a hard pill to swallow and for me makes it more of a landscape zoom lens than an event/portraiture lens. That Sigma f1.8 look is SO good! I have owned both the XF23/2 and Touit 32/1.8 and the Sigma matches them for speed, now THAT is a bag of primes! I dunno man... I think I would even consider the new forthcoming 16-50/2.8-4.8 kit lens replacement than the 16-55...
But... if you got the lens at a good price then none of what I said really matters. I just get completely confused when people say the 50-140 needs a mkII version and yet everyone thinks the 16-55 is perfect... I don't get it... like there is literally nothing that can be improved on the 50-140, maybe make it parfocal (it is pretty near damn parfocal as is!). The way I see it the 16-55 needs to be faster and internal zooming, then it becomes a significant consideration.
Sadly a lot of the lens innovation seems to be on FF mounts. 28-70/2, 35-150/2-2.8, 24-105/2.8. Imagine this level of commitment for APS-C! We should in theory be capable of similar zoom specs with lighter weight and sizes if we only need to cover a smaller image circle, or even if we had them similar size and weight our IQ should be better corner to corner. But where are they??... We're all pining our hopes on Sigma to give us the 18-35 in X mount...
Anyway, I do have some decisions to make myself, I have the Sigma 50-100/1.8 also now and really I ought to not have both the 50-140 and this lens (as its doubling up a little, much like you with your 16-55+18-35), so I have no place to judge! 😁
My absolute FAVORITE lens. I've used it on the X-T4 religiously, but have also thrown it on the X-Pro 1 and the X-T30.
Having rented it out for a couple trips to take the place of my Sigma 18-50, the size ruins it for me. But the photos you get out of it are lovely. No complaints on the image quality. And having the linear motors over the sigma is another massive pro. At 40fps continuous shooting on the XH2S, the 16-55 can keep up. Sigma 18-50 will not
The same story with the RF28-70 F2.0. Everyone said they love prime lenses until they tried that lens :))
Thanks for sharing, I can just say that I bought the 16-55mm about a year ago in very good condition used for a fair price and I absolutely love it for my landscape work. And here in my experience you do see a quality difference to the 18-55mm and to the 16-80mm which I found pretty soft at the wide and the long end.
Great to hear!
I use the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 for basketball, low light events and video for the beautiful smooth manual focusing, the 16-55 f2.8 is the backup and do everything else with the 50-140 f2.8 and the Nikkor AF-S 80-400 4.5-5.6. Just a great around solid workhorse unlike some of the plasticy 3rd party zooms I just couldn't trust for paid work,
I think you should have gotten the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8. It is half the size, weight, and price, with very similar IQ on the 26 MP sensor in your XH2s.
Probably substantially less than half the size and weight. Some people apparently don’t care.
I’m also travelling to Southern Asia in April and have been thinking about which lenses to take. The 16-55mm was one of my options and watching your video confirmed it for me. Will probably add my 35mm 1.4 for low light. Enjoy your trip
Glad I could be of some assistance. Thank you - enjoy yours 👍
Thinking about it. Upgrade from the Tamron 17-70mm f2.8. Don't think I'll be satisfied with the new 16-50mm f2.8- f4.?
Definitely check this lens out!
What about tamron 17-70 2.8 IS ? Or Maybe 16-55 better in quality and details ? Chrom.abberation and other ..
The tamron is soft everywhere outside of 23-55mm, is very fuzzy at times at 70mm, has a lot of aberrations, and very cheap quality zoom & focus ring. My focus ring stopped rotating smoothly. Eventually switched to the 16-55. The 16-55 also behaves much better while zooming
@@Eyeofkamau thank you !
Mine arrives early next week. I went through the same thought process and when I saw a good deal on a used one I jumped. Hoping I made the right decision!
I'm sure you have!
Planning on getting one as well. I am not one of those photographic snob that think prime is the one and only be all.
Did you look at the tamron 17-70 ?
I don’t shoot Fuji anymore but that lens was my favorite
It may work for your use case but for me, all the sharpness in the world doesn't make up for the lack of stabilization -Fuji ibis is definitely subpar for video use, and the sheer size and weight.
why not the 16-80? asking because I am thinking about getting something better than 18-55 but still light to travel, I don't really need 2.8 to shoot street and landscape...
16-80 is too soft and the maximum aperture is just f4.
@@ztao3777 really depends on use cases. are you doing pin sharp landscape? are you doing portraits and want to see all the pores on your face?
16-80 gets a lot of shit
but tbh it is the perfect travel lens
"soft" is really subjective and you really need to zoom in to see the "soft"
99% of ppl don't give a shit or wont even notice the soft
@@kuroexmachina trust me, it is easier to crop from 55mm to 80mm without losing too much of your image. 16-80mm is not sharp or bright enough. The advantage of it lays in its compact form factor. The retail price can’t justify the image quality you get. If you’re going to get a single lens outside the bundle, sigma 18-50 and Tamron 17-70 could be much better.
I love this lens. Really versatile. Yes it's a chunker, but 1 lens v 3 primes to cover that focal range. One lens I'd never part with.
Great video! Did you try it with the 40 mpx sensor? Thanks!
Not yet!
i want this because of weather sealing, because I am based in Finland and winter here is unforgiving. But its out of my budget for now😭
This lens would make sense for you for sure
It's not the size at all. It's a brilliant lens in almost all ways, and it was my main lens for all my paid events and work for a long time. The thing that ended up killing it for me is the 2.8 aperture. Being APSC the 2.8 is not really 2.8 (when thinking about depth of field). It's more like F4, so even up close, I couldn't separate my subject from the background, which was a real problem. I now use the 18mm 1.4 - and problem solved!
I just picked one up today for a great deal and It's pretty much like new. Now I'm in a dilemma. I have too many lenses and I will need to pick what to sell. This lens pretty much covers all the focal ranges and very close in aperture to the ones that I have of the 35 F2, 50 F2, and 16 F2.8. I also have the 35 F1.4 but debating if I should sell it off as well. I like the compactness of the F2/F2.8 primes but I hardly use the 50 F2. The 16 F2.8 was more recent but not really used as much either. I do like the 35 F1.4 so that's why I'm debating if I should sell to get the 33 F1.4. I've been wanting the 50-140, too, so if I sell the F2/F2.8 primes, I could use that money towards a used one and either keep the 35 F1.4 or sell it to get the 33 F1.4. Decisions, decisions.
That is a pickle!!!
Have never used one but on trips I do miss a good zoom nowadays
Fair
What adapter do I need to get the sigma 8-35 1.8 to work on my xh2?
You need the Fringer EF-FX pro 2 adapter
Can you compare the 16-55 to the sigma 18-35
Next video my friend 😉
I would happily buy a much larger lens for an equivalent to a 24 70 2.8 full frame
My go-to lens on the Xt5 or XS20.
I said that too but now it is my powerhouse lens..
There's a reason why it's known as the Prime Zoom
Yeah true
I've bought & sold this lens twice; I'll not be buying it again.
I like the Sigma, although I don't have one. If I'd been in your position, I'd have bought a prime, probably the new 33mm F/1.4, (I have the 23mm F/1.4 WR) or possibly the 18/F1.4 (which with X-H2 you have plenty of room to crop) and/or used my feet to zoom. For a Hybrid shooter the 16-55mm F2.8 is wrong on so many levels. If you want a mid range zoom then buy the excellent 16-80mm F/4 (which I have, but don't love).
Yes the 16-55mm can be considered as a bunch of primes, but the latest F/1.4 Fujifilm lenses are lighter, quicker, quieter and so much more pleasant to use!
I've been there; thinking I need a good middle/standard range zoom, (not just Fujifilm, but also in the past both Nikon & Canon Canon), and I've always been disappointed. By all means but the excellent 50-140mm F/2.8, which I have, but it's best teamed up wide a good wide angled zoom and/or a pair of excellent primes!
Nice lens but Not on my xpro3
Yeah same. I wouldn’t put this on mine either
What beach is that son
then the mark II came out. way lighter
Its heavy but it is the only lens that is usually stuck at my camera.
Sigma 1850 f2.8 is a much better choice than 1655 in most circumstances.
Debatable
I've have a fujifilm Xh-1 for about two and a half years now and I had a 18-55mm to start as it was nice and cheap but seen all the reviews on the 16-55mm so I saved up and got one and I got to say its on my Xh-1 90% of the time now, its that good im thinking of the 50-140mm as that's a red badge lens too.
Yeah that 50-140 is a banger! Great lens. Definitely worth the money
...wait... the 18-35 doesn't even exist for Fujifilm
Did you watch the video?
@@Jay_Ducker yeah yeah, I got it now :)
too big
too expensive
skip
get the sigma 18-50 f2.8
I’ve had both, if you want the best auto focus the 16-55 wins. I had problems with the sigma during an important shoot and it let down bad but I put the 16-55 same settings and location and it worked great.