It is not a design problem. The lens was strictly built as a photography lens and was never designed to be parfocal. Even the higher-end red badge lenses such as 16-55 & 50-140 aren't parfocal.
You're correct. The Fujifilm 16-80mm F4 lens wasn't designed to be parfocal, as it's primarily a photography lens. The Sony 24-105mm F4, which I also own, isn't parfocal like the Fujifilm 16-80mm F4. However, it shows better focus consistency and no warping issues. I know this is not exactly an apple to apple comparison, but there are non-parfocal lenses, like the Sony, that perform well in these aspects.
Nice review. I own both the 16-80mm and 16-55mm and they are both great lenses but serve very different purposes. The 16-80mm is a great one option travel lens. It is pretty compact and not too heavy and covers as much of a range as you will need for most general travel. The constant f/4 aparture is not ideal for night photography however the OIS on this lens is phenomenal and I have managed to get sharp handheld shots of 1/15 second at night. The 16-55mm is an incredible lens and has been described as a "bag of primes" for very good reason. It is sharp right across the zoom range and the f/2.8 aperture is quite good handheld in low light as long as it is on a body that has IBIS. It's only downside is its size and weight. In my opinion it is too big and heavy to use as a general travel lens. I have taken it on overseas trips and found it was too big and heavy for a full day travel lens. By taking my 16-80mm I do sacrifice some image quality. I have tested both lenses side by side and you can only see the differences in image quality when you look at the image at 200%. The 16-80mm is definitely softer in the corners, however when showing people my travel photos I would never zoom to 200% and only look at the corners. At 200%, looking at the centre of the frame there is very minimal difference. I would definitely recommend picking up the 16-80mm if you are looking for a decent all round lens, particularly for travel.
Thanks for the feedback and comparison. I was actually debating between the 16-80mm and the 16-55mm myself. In the end, I went with the 16-80mm because it offers the wide-angle end at 16mm, and the optical image stabilization is crucial for my video work. Plus, it's slightly less expensive. I appreciate hearing from someone who has tested both lenses to share their experiences.
I bought a new one and the manual focus, if needed, is not working at all. Doesn’t matter which camera. All the software is up to date… even the distributor couldn’t find a solution… the lens itself is a great idea by fuji. But it had from the begging on trouble with focus. Also that Fuji still builds focus by wire is totally outdated and slow….🎉
An incredibly useful lens, even though the image quality isn't that great (but still sufficient). I purchased it as a kit with XT3 in 2021 and have since got the combo through some serious rains, fogs, snow, dusty areas and so on. No problems with either the camera or the lens.
Fujifilm DOES have a power zoom lens! The 18-120mm! It's also parfocal, so you can zoom in and out no prablemo! It's a lens I've been eyeballing for a year...
That's the problem these days. People think that EVERY lens is suppose to be good for video handling which in fact companies like Fujifilm makes PHOTOGRAPHY lenses as well as Video featured lenses. A little homework/online search will easily take care of it for them. I smh when I see reviews like this.
I understand your point. While the Fujifilm 16-80mm F4 is primarily a photography lens, many creators seek versatile options. In my review, I aimed to highlight its potential for both photography and video.
@@AkiTechSpace I get it but you can't wish it will be what it isn't. Reviewing a Photography centric lens and then consider it a negative because it's functions don't do what video shooters need is missing the whole point of the product and should be recognized, that's all.
This is great travel lens for DAY shooting, the F4 is limited at night. I've found myself using my 27mm and 33mm primes more as a result, especially at night. I'm thinking about getting the 56mm 1.2 to round out my primes and may get rid of this lens eventually.
This is the lens youtubers love to hate...and parrot love to repeat whitout ever tried it . If Andy Mumford make stunning photography with this lenses i guess it's good enough for many of us. Work this lense inside his capabilities like many other lenses need and you could be very pleased.
I totally agree. I would've gone for the 16-55 if it was more budget friendly and has OIS built in for smooth video filming. Nonetheless, the 16-55 is a beast and I would love to own one someday...
@@AkiTechSpace I forgot who / what made me buy the 16-55 but, I did... And I had it on the X-T30 for a while.. Then I was like, this is ridiculous lol, so I threw it on an X-T4. Did a LOT of work on that combo right there...but then got rid of that setup, and got a Panasonic S5ii. Which I still have and love but...I also came back to Fuji, and got the X-T5, which I shot w/ the 27mm 2.8 the other day but...the whole time I was thinking about the 16-55 lol. So I'm gonna buy it used, soon.
![[ENG] Fuji 16-80mm F4 Vs the new 18-120mm F4 - Which one will I keep?](/img/n.gif)
What do you think of the Fujifilm 16-80mm F4?
It is not a design problem. The lens was strictly built as a photography lens and was never designed to be parfocal. Even the higher-end red badge lenses such as 16-55 & 50-140 aren't parfocal.
You're correct. The Fujifilm 16-80mm F4 lens wasn't designed to be parfocal, as it's primarily a photography lens. The Sony 24-105mm F4, which I also own, isn't parfocal like the Fujifilm 16-80mm F4. However, it shows better focus consistency and no warping issues. I know this is not exactly an apple to apple comparison, but there are non-parfocal lenses, like the Sony, that perform well in these aspects.
What’s a red badge lens?
@@shaocaholica their best of the best. like L series, or G series for Canon and Sony
a parfocal lens means there will be at least 3 more glass elements and one more focus driving section. Will you be glad to take another 400g with you?
Nice review. I own both the 16-80mm and 16-55mm and they are both great lenses but serve very different purposes. The 16-80mm is a great one option travel lens. It is pretty compact and not too heavy and covers as much of a range as you will need for most general travel. The constant f/4 aparture is not ideal for night photography however the OIS on this lens is phenomenal and I have managed to get sharp handheld shots of 1/15 second at night.
The 16-55mm is an incredible lens and has been described as a "bag of primes" for very good reason. It is sharp right across the zoom range and the f/2.8 aperture is quite good handheld in low light as long as it is on a body that has IBIS. It's only downside is its size and weight. In my opinion it is too big and heavy to use as a general travel lens. I have taken it on overseas trips and found it was too big and heavy for a full day travel lens. By taking my 16-80mm I do sacrifice some image quality. I have tested both lenses side by side and you can only see the differences in image quality when you look at the image at 200%. The 16-80mm is definitely softer in the corners, however when showing people my travel photos I would never zoom to 200% and only look at the corners. At 200%, looking at the centre of the frame there is very minimal difference.
I would definitely recommend picking up the 16-80mm if you are looking for a decent all round lens, particularly for travel.
Thanks for the feedback and comparison. I was actually debating between the 16-80mm and the 16-55mm myself. In the end, I went with the 16-80mm because it offers the wide-angle end at 16mm, and the optical image stabilization is crucial for my video work. Plus, it's slightly less expensive. I appreciate hearing from someone who has tested both lenses to share their experiences.
I bought a new one and the manual focus, if needed, is not working at all. Doesn’t matter which camera. All the software is up to date… even the distributor couldn’t find a solution… the lens itself is a great idea by fuji. But it had from the begging on trouble with focus. Also that Fuji still builds focus by wire is totally outdated and slow….🎉
most zoom lenses are not parfocal. you might want to look into the 18-120 pz
An incredibly useful lens, even though the image quality isn't that great (but still sufficient). I purchased it as a kit with XT3 in 2021 and have since got the combo through some serious rains, fogs, snow, dusty areas and so on. No problems with either the camera or the lens.
Fujifilm DOES have a power zoom lens! The 18-120mm! It's also parfocal, so you can zoom in and out no prablemo! It's a lens I've been eyeballing for a year...
Thanks for sharing. I HAVE to check it out now!
That's the problem these days. People think that EVERY lens is suppose to be good for video handling which in fact companies like Fujifilm makes PHOTOGRAPHY lenses as well as Video featured lenses. A little homework/online search will easily take care of it for them. I smh when I see reviews like this.
I understand your point. While the Fujifilm 16-80mm F4 is primarily a photography lens, many creators seek versatile options. In my review, I aimed to highlight its potential for both photography and video.
@@AkiTechSpace I get it but you can't wish it will be what it isn't. Reviewing a Photography centric lens and then consider it a negative because it's functions don't do what video shooters need is missing the whole point of the product and should be recognized, that's all.
This is great travel lens for DAY shooting, the F4 is limited at night. I've found myself using my 27mm and 33mm primes more as a result, especially at night. I'm thinking about getting the 56mm 1.2 to round out my primes and may get rid of this lens eventually.
I also pair the 16-80 with the 27mm. Getting the 56mm 1.2 will be my dream someday...
This is the lens youtubers love to hate...and parrot love to repeat whitout ever tried it . If Andy Mumford make stunning photography with this lenses i guess it's good enough for many of us. Work this lense inside his capabilities like many other lenses need and you could be very pleased.
If were just one Fuji lens to uso,I would like to have this one, right now I have an offer for US $400, quite a Bargain uh?
the most hated on lens, but also the sleeper travel and video lens
Why tho?
Nice that it's weather resistant but I'd be scared to get anything wet
I feel like the 16-55 2.8 has this lens beat by a MILE !
It is. The 16-80 is basically a kit lens; it came packaged in my xt-3 bundle.
I totally agree. I would've gone for the 16-55 if it was more budget friendly and has OIS built in for smooth video filming. Nonetheless, the 16-55 is a beast and I would love to own one someday...
@@AkiTechSpace I forgot who / what made me buy the 16-55 but, I did... And I had it on the X-T30 for a while.. Then I was like, this is ridiculous lol, so I threw it on an X-T4. Did a LOT of work on that combo right there...but then got rid of that setup, and got a Panasonic S5ii. Which I still have and love but...I also came back to Fuji, and got the X-T5, which I shot w/ the 27mm 2.8 the other day but...the whole time I was thinking about the 16-55 lol. So I'm gonna buy it used, soon.
It is my standard lens on my X-E3. Used and took it everywhere I went in the world. Not as good as the 16-55 lens, but more versatile
ofc it will be better, its a red badge, plus that price tag it commands is still a bit steep
I hate Power Zooms.
which this one is not. you might be referring to the 15-45, now that thing is sharp but the zoom sux