Fair review. For those of us shooting landscape with it, it's sharper than the 16-55mm red badge when stopped down to f5.6-f8. Shooting wide open for up-close subjects, the out of focus rendering is pleasing enough to accept a little softness. I got back into photography with the X-series cameras because they were fun to use and (at least comparatively speaking) don't break the bank when it comes to lenses. I've since acquired a Canon FF camera and comparable RF lenses. The latter system may yield better overall sharpness and image quality, but it really is prohibitively expensive for some. I just can't bring myself to sell the Fuji system yet. In fact I may still buy the X-H2.
Wouldn't the 16-55 still be a better pick because the 16mm f/1.4 is technically a 17mm. In that regard, the newer 18mm offers much better image quality at barely any difference in field of view right?
@@professionalpotato4764 The 16mm is a 16mm, that rumor sprung up when comparing with the 16mm F2.8 came out it was slightly wider than the 16mm, making it look like the 16f1.4 was tighter than 16, when in reality, the 16f2.8 is actually wider than 16.
@@SP1CEANDW0LF The 16mm f/1.4 is also tighter than the 16-55mm. So that's 2 16mm lenses wider than the 16mm f/1.4, which leads me to think it is the 1.4 that's wrongly labelled or wrongly engineered.
@@detectivejonesw The Fuji system *was* more fun for me to use (I like the aperture rings on Fuji lenses, the tactile knobs, etc.), until i started doing more video. The autofocus just isn't up to Canon level. I don't depend on autofocus on either system altogether but the Fuji video is kind of annoying in some ways. Again, I really like both systems.
Can’t argue with the objective nature of this test, and the usual fair and dispassionate review from Chris, as always. Excellent. But there is still something distinctive, interesting and satisfying about this lens, even on the latest Fuji sensors, perhaps because of the close focusing distance. Some stunning night and black and white photography can be achieved with it, if that’s your thing. It’s maybe not worth the retail price new nowadays, but to my mind definitely worth looking at second hand if you’re already invested in the Fuji X system.
My favourite Fuji X lens. I don't use it wide-open for the reasons you showed, but shot at 5.6/8 I get great corner to corner sharpness for landscape/fishing photos. I also like the close-up look @f2 where, if handled properly, it can produce a very unique look. That said, I think it's time Fuji updated it like the 18 and 23. Thanks for the review.
This is so interesting. This lens happens to be one of my favorites out of all my prime lenses. The lens is not perfect by any means but the versatile of it makes it worth it to me. I especially like that you can get really close to your object, almost working it as a micro lens. I'm not a technical person, but the majority of my shots come out super sharp when I take them. Then again, I don't zoom in and pixel peep either. So that could be it?
I agree with you, i have the 16 1.4, the 33 1.4 and the 18-55 2.8-4. I do notice that the zoom lens is softer than the primes, but the primes are both very sharp, at least not as big a difference this video would suggest 😮 Could it be a difference in copies?
@@happymelanin The 16 is sharp in the center at 1.4, and really sharp across the frame stopped down. It's not sharp across the frame at 1.4 like some of the newer lenses (18f.14 is crazy), but normally if you are going for a landscape type shot, you're not gonna wanna shoot at 1.4 anyways so those appear sharp. And portrait shots, you are generally blurring out the background anyways, so you aren't gonna notice corner softness in those instances. So in most ways you will use this lens in reality, it is very sharp. The biggest downside would be in low-light environmental or landscape work, especially handheld, but that's a fairly niche usecase.
@@SP1CEANDW0LF okay. I see. I don’t use this lens for any portrait shots. Majority of my shots are landscapes. The most that I use it’s for micro shots, and I’m intentionally trying to blur those background’s.
It means you take photos and look at them like a normal person. The most magical lenses are ones that wouldn’t do very well in these lab conditions. This isn’t real life. These aren’t real pictures. They’re just photos of test charts and brick walls. Every lens that is magical has a lot of optical “flaws” and it’s those flaws that give you the look you’re seeing when you take real pictures in the real world. The more optically perfect you make the lens, the more soulless and bland it becomes, and this guy would rate it very high on his lab tests. The truth is this lens at f1.4 is very sharp and beautiful. And you can focus so close with it. The only real flaw is that it’s quite big and heavy for Fuji’s little cameras. I remember loving it when I used Fuji. But I didn’t love it as much as the 56f1.2. Another lens that will probably fail these stupid tests.
Thanks for reviewing this lens Christopher! I’ve heard so much YT hype over this lens that it’s been hard to find actual reviews. With Sigma’s new 16mm 1.4 coming out soon, I’m glad to have this review for comparison.
@@austingarland4346 It’s the current one for Sony & Canon M mounts coming to the Fuji X mount in April-ish. Chris did a video on the announcement yesterday: ua-cam.com/video/zyHX0CBewwM/v-deo.html
I own this lens. Colours, versatility and overall rendering are really something else. Sharpness wide open is not that great and the focus motor isn't quiet enough for video work imo. Fujifilms new lenses (18,23,33mm 1.4) are much sharper but also look a bit more clinical in rendering. So it remains personal preference. This XF 16 1.4 and the XF 35 stil are my two favourite lenses, despite their flaws. They just produce special images.
I have it, and hearing it from Chris I would never buy it, but man would I be fooled, tech is not everything, this lens produces some magical images, I would say it like this when you sum up all the bad parts Chris mentioned you get magic that no one else has. People who do not own it will never know and I understand.
Agreed. I deeply respect and love Chris' videos and reviews, but this lens is also my favorite lens, the character, versatility, and sharpness are perfect for me.
@@luxdalet This lens is very soft wide open, sigma 16mm is much better. The difference is more noticeable on x-t5. This is why objective review is good rather than some fanboys who find everything magical.
Hey thanks for the review! Must say I'm a bit surprised by the results. I bought this lens when the 18mm was already out, but I preferred the results of this lens more. And some of my favorite pictures are taken with this lens. I really like shooting with it.
Test charts don’t matter much. The lens is magic. This is why some may be surprised because what they see with their eyes is magical. Just goes to show you 🤷🏻♂️ .. thing is, some of the most magical lenses wouldn’t do very well in these lab conditions.
Awesome review once again Christopher! If you are able to get your hands on a Fuji 100-400 lens I would love to see that review in the future as well! Particularly with Fuji's teleconverters.
My edge to edge with this is so far above any lens I've used..but looking forward to the 18 review. As I understand it, many Fuji users say the 90 is the killer. Then again, I've looked at XY charts of the 16's lens characteristics, and the results are killer.
…one category that is missing here is that this lens is so much fun to shoot with! Thanks for the review though. Good to know it’s technically lacking now in 2022!
This was one of my favorite Fuji lenses, mostly because of close focus capabilities, but the new Sigma 16mm 1.4 looks like better optics (at least when it comes to sharpness) for less than half the price. However, it's still lacking close focusing capabilities of this lens, which might be a reason enough for many to stretch to Fuji 16mm 1.4 and forgive mediocre sharpness.
I did some amateur testing of this lens (before I sold it) against my Fuji 18mm 1.4 and 23mm 1.4 (original version) and found it sat in between them. The 18mm 1.4 is definitely the best optically, but the 16mm showed less CA and was sharper wide open than the 23mm 1.4. Once I stopped things down things were more even but at f1.4 the three were very different. The 16mm probably was one of their better lenses in 2015 but now it can’t compete as well with the newer lenses.
Hello Christopher. We are really interested in review of 16mm f1.4 on a xt5 or xh2 camera. Some people said that on the 40mpx cameras don't deliver like it used to do on previous cameras. I really hope you can do this review for us. Best regards!
I’ve been waiting for this review for a long time now! I have this lens and I love it! Out in the real world I don’t notice the softness or flaws but I like hearing what are the shortcomings of this lens just to keep in mind while using it. Thank you for the review!
I have it also, and hearing it from Chris I would never buy it, but man would I be fooled, tech is not everything, this lens produces some magical images, I would say it like this when you sum up all the bad parts Chris mentioned you get magic that no one else has. People who do not own it will never know...
This is the best lens i have ever used, and only one of the very few it reminds me of fullframe lol. I dont think there are mixed reviews of this there a couple videos claiming it was the best of the best, ( until 18 and 33 new lenses came out )
Are you processing Fujifilm RAW files in Lightroom? It looks like your images are getting the classic Fuji wormy artifacts that result from this workflow.
Hi Chris. Thanks for all your work during the years. I'm wondering if your working distance when testing sharpness in wide angle lenses use a worry, ie to close? Best wishes, Thorbjørn
It is a fair review. But hey, the pictures I made with it have some magic that lacks on those "Fujicrons". Only the new XF18 seems to generate a sililar magic especially the bokeh. Will I change my XF16 to the XF18? No. I like the focus clutch. Have you ever been out in the dark night trying to focus on something that is barely visible? The pseudo-manual-focus is a great help then.
As a fuji shooter, who previously shot on nikon full frame with sigma glass, I get the impression a lot of fuji shooters firmly overrate the lenses. Some of the glass is quite good, but far too many of the supposedly higher end lenses are badly out of date (to the extent that the lower end lenses, e.g. the 35mm f/2.0, actually outperform their higher end equivalents in many ways), and the majority of first party lenses have noticeably soft & dark corners, while the centers are still pretty mediocre when compared to modern offerings from Nikon/sigma/canon at similar price points. That said, I still love every fuji lens I own, because they are more than good enough for the sort of work I do, and a pleasure to use. I'm just not about to pay for their wider-aperture lenses at their current price point. Which is why I'm so excited about Sigma putting out lenses for the system, their first 3 lenses blow fuji's offerings away, and there's likely a lot more coming. I hope Fuji rises to the challenge and comes out with some higher spec glass though, competition is good for all of us, and I like aperture rings on my lenses.
I'd disagree on that, also there's no need to pay full price when they are almost always available used for about €550 I've owned both and had much more fun using the 16 1.4, opinions here are very subjective and depend on how much you care about pixel peeping. Also allow for copy variation. My 16 was sharper than the 16-55 everywhere from 2.8 on and I never found it soft enough to matter wide open. The zoom just loses out completely when it comes to close focusing too, which is a good chunk of the fun and usefulness of the 16 1.4
@@Cagey7531 I can’t disagree with your assessment. I should clarify that “at current new prices” it’s a no brainer between the 16 and 18 IMO. Where I live, you can find a used copy of the 16 mm for $750 to $800 CAD. I would be more inclined to buy it at reduced cost, but, objectively speaking, the 18 mm is future proof with a new sensor on the way. Absolutely agree that the 16 mm is one of Fuji’s best lenses for close up photos, but as an all-rounder the 16-55 is more versatile and can be had for just a couple hundred dollars more. By no means are any of the 3 perfect, but the new Fuji lenses are setting a bar that the old glass is going to be hard-pressed to match.
@@Cagey7531 The same can be said for the 16-55, you can buy it used. What would you rather have, a mediocre prime with size its only advantage, or the best kit lens ever made by humans? I'd rather have the Samyang 12mm F2 than this 16, at least it's sharper in the center.
It’s OK, but don’t expect to do pixel peeping at 400% in Lightroom wide open, because it look very soft and has heavy CAs. It’s quite good at f/2 and very good at 4 or 5.6.
I have it and a I mostly love it, but you're spot on with it's weaknesses. I basically avoid shooting it wide open unless absolutely necessary. I'd love the 18's performance but it's just a bit too tight for my landscape style, so if anything I'm hoping for an updated 14mm prime. Thanks for the honest review.
I find the review a little harsh, no? Like... comparing the 16/1.4 directly with the 18/1.4 is almost abuse! The 18/1.4 is not just good... it might be the most perfect optic ever made! So for me (a content 16/1.4 user), I am happy to gain a little more FoV over the (excellent) 18/1.4 and knowing that a lot of issues are cleaned up fairly nicely from shifting down to f2. If some of those issues are not a concern then it is still more than acceptable at f1.4 (I have yet to have a wedding client upset with its softness...). I would love the 18/1.4, but I can't afford both, and I keep thinking to myself the 16/1.4 is the more versatile lens of the two, especially with its close focusing capabilities. If I grabbed the 18 I think I would still need something wider for those entire wedding party group shots, whereas right now I can get away with the 16/1.4. And all the kinda shots I would use the 18/1.4 for I can still use the 16/1.4 (and crop in a tad if I don't need the additional framing, though typically I find it always welcome and add to the shot rather than be surplus).
sharpness is not everything, it has a certain character about it that makes it great for editorial style work. The lack of resolution won't be noticed in 90% of most applications. It is the right tool for a job kind of situation. maybe not the best choice for astro shooting but a great choice for reportage. That said I am a guy whose favorite lens is a 60 year east german lens that is far from sharp in the corners.
Imagine reviews on all the lenses for Fuji based on shooting in the early 60's film format 1:1.37. (cropping in post or even shooting square format) This came to me after watching the stunning footage compilation The Cranes Are Flying here in youtube. Obviously shooting with wides.
It looks that I have pretty good copy of this lens.Anyway, tested against Sigma 16 f1.4 on Sony 6500 and Fujinon beat Sigma in IQ department.According to the Sigma Sony owner his Sigma is a good copy.
Dear content creator. I really enjoy your videos, however today i have a suggestion: Usually when you describe vignetting, i really miss some numbers, like how many stops of darkening there is at mid distance from corner to center, and at the corner itself. I think it could be a nice addition to your reviews. Thank you for your work!
7years ago this lens set the IQ benchmark in XF mount along with the 80mm macro and 90mm F2. Now bring on the 13mm or 14mm F1.4 and set UWA IQ benchmark again.
Somehow my experience with all lenses completely different from Chris. Have the lens and to me sharpness is over the top as well as magical rendering. I’m also have Fuji 56 and 35 and few zooms to compare. But the lens is heavy and 24mm doesn’t serve well for my daily use. Which is street and documentary.
Yeah, at new this isn't really worth the price, but you can get them used at around the $600 mark which is what I paid, and I think it's excellent value for money at that price point.
I love what this lens tries to do, but the softness & purple fringing are problematic. I was tempted to sell it for an 18mm f/1.4, but I'm holding out for a 16mm f/1.4 mkii. :)
it's a cool and charismatic lens i'd like to own, but the price is outrageous, especially after all these years. too bad most fuji lenses are really expensive despite all their weaknesses and age etc. - annoys me a bit.
Just get them second hand, where the price tends to be about half for these older Fuji lenses. You can get them in excellent condition with warranty and after a year of owning it you forget whether you bought a lens new or second hand anyway.
Defo a bad copy of the lens you got there Chris sorry…..it’s an amazingly sharp and astoundingly beautiful lens !….many serious reviews say it’s one of the very best lenses Fuji have ever produced…I have to agree, having owned it for 3 years. Are you sure you had your glasses on when you tested it !! 😂
I had the XF16 F1.4, but I like the XF14 F2.8 more, the 14mm is lighter and smaller and the picture quality is just as good, if not better. With an open aperture, the 16mm shows a clear coma at the edge, very bad for astrophotography. The XF14mm doesn't have these problems.
I actually bought a few days ago for that price, knowing that the sigma would come out with better image quality and a cheaper price. My main reason was this doubles as a macro lens but I also love the popout focus and the aperture ring. Also this lens has real character. The photos of seen from the 18mm look amazingly sharp but just too clinical for me to want it over this lens.
This is a really interesting review. My copy is definitely different. Sharpness is about the same - although as others have noted sample variation may be a problem with this lens. But where it is definitely different is my lens is terrible against bright lights, dropping a lot of contrast and washing out. Really I'm thinking about ditching it (and the 23mm) and getting the new 18mm, which is my preferred focal length anyway
It's such a trash for a $999 lens. Sigma 16mm is such an awesome lens with lens than half the cost .This is why I like objective review from Chris. The fanboys find everything magical.
The thing about these older lenses from Fujifilm is although they have an extremely tough exterior, the sample variation is quite large. This lens should perform much better wide open, as it’s regarded as one of the sharpest lenses ever made for x mount. It seems here he got a bad copy. I’ve owned multiples of everything from Fujifilm so I’m extremely familiar with each lens separately and individually. I’ve owned a couple of these 16s as well and I can confirm a good copy is extremely sharp. This lens as shown in these tests does look like it performs poorly. I know from experience a good copy is way better. (I now own the superior 18 1.4) Same with the 23 1.4s, I’ve experienced sample variation all over the place.
What are these APSC sensor cameras and lenses used for? Architectural, archival, or space photography? I am surprised we all tend to lose the objectivity of appraisal. Sharpness charts, fringing, chromatic aberration, sun stars .. all for 1K .. well, is the price the real issue or the lens or still grave.. our need to have a PHASEONE quality result from a purely enthusiastic level performer?
Great review! Fujifilm has their head in the right place when designing a lenses character, I usually agree with their decisions there. I do wish they had better QC though, some of their more premium (expensive) lenses have crazy sample variation. In the case of the 60mm 2.4 Macro it can ship with a coating defect straight from the factory, truly mind boggling.
As a Fuji shooter, I knew this was the case. I posted about it in the Fuji Forums, and got crucified for offending the die-hard fanboys. In my opinion, I think the lens does render nicely, but it ain’t tack sharp like some may claim.
@@djstuc Or maybe they took it to heart, because some people just take their gear way too seriously. Like every time I bring up a genuine concern about anything Fuji related, people like you come out of nowhere with pitchforks at the ready.
@@djstuc 1- If you do not own the lens, why are you defending it so fiercely? Seems like we had a back-and-forth argument when Tony Northrup compared the Fuji against the Sigma. 2- As far as I’m aware, I did not use any offensive language to describe the lens. If the fanboy part offended you then you got some serious issues to work on. 3- Stop replying to my comments if you do not like my answers. It’s that simple. This isn’t the first or second time I get a reply from you which was completely unsolicited. Don’t engage with me, and that will solve your problems. 4- If you wholeheartedly believe that you are the “grown up” then stop following me every time I comment on a video. That’s actually petty and childish of you.
seems to me you really like to tell people that you are smarter then them :D you know, no one loves that kind of people I have this lens and it is great, I would buy it again, if someone is into sony or canon or whatever and their clinical lenses I am ok with that, but this lens as most of fuji lenses has soul, most of the people do not get that
@@arond331 In no way, shape or form did I ever insinuate to anyone that I was the smartest guy in the room. I know that I am not. With that said, I’ve encountered many Fuji shooters that have a cult-like mentality, and those are the people I’m referring to. For instance, the DJ guy has been an unpleasant fellow, and has been firing back at my comments for no apparent reason other than the fact that he doesn’t agree with my comments. I have nothing against him or you personally. Also, I want to make it clear that I quite like the 16mm f/1.4 as just as much as any Fuji shooter, but it is perfectly acceptable for me to point out that it is optically inferior to the Sigma. For my personal work, I am 100% happy and content with the images it produces. I’m not an IQ snob. Now, when you are working professionally with clients, there are better options out there, and I would have no qualms using the Sigma 16mm f/1.4 for a paid shoot, whereas the Fuji would only be used for my personal photography.
This review is 5 years or so late!!! Did you miss the bus? Great review as always and yes it’s a bit soft compared to my 18mm f.14 but still a great buy used at around £480
I returned this defective lens back for a full refund. Why? Lenses focus beyond infinity (1:47). Do no buy lenses that will not stop dead-on at infinity. Many reviews don't even know about today lens flaws
Love the experience of shooting on fuji but a lot of their native lenses really are overpriced with terrible value, also the cult-like mentality of fuji fanboys is really offputting. thank you sigma for finally coming to fuji, cant wait!
I have it. It depends what you're using it for. While there certainly are better lenses out there for sharpness, many people will normally be using this lens stopped down. Or, in situations where you need a fast wide angle like events, the corners won't be in sharp focus anyway, so in practice, the lens performs well. That doesn't excuse a high price compared to mediocre sharpness, but you do get outstanding build quality and quite unusual close focus distance for a lens like this. I think if you didn't *really* want 16mm, you're better off with the 18mm f/1.4 instead.
yeah I did, and watching this review I never would and I would be wrong, this lens is magic, sharpness is not everything, but people who do not shoot fuji will never know
@@AyeBeAPirate It seems that some people also qualify wine by the alcohol content and not by the taste or how it fits with the meal.Same is with lenses.There is nothing more easy then to make sharp,sterile aberrations free lens (a.k.a microscope or macro lenses), but to make an eye pleasing lens is whole another story.Think that most of modern day users do not get that.
A quick view of the 16 mm review seems to confirm that. But the Fuji may be better stopped down in the extreme corners. The Sigma also has a bit more CA and needs to be stopped down more for close ups. But it is much sharper centrally wide open. (That said with the Fuji, the distortion chart is not sharp in the corners, field curvature?)
My judgement is based on sigma's E mount lens. Sigma used same optics for x and e mount. If you compare both fuji and sigma lenses, you'll see the difference. Sigma is much Sharper at it's widest aperture.
As a Fuji user, I'm glad Chris is finally reviewing more Fuji lenses. 👍
Yes, accurate review as opposed to the Angry Phony Photographer.
Fujifilm*
Fair review. For those of us shooting landscape with it, it's sharper than the 16-55mm red badge when stopped down to f5.6-f8. Shooting wide open for up-close subjects, the out of focus rendering is pleasing enough to accept a little softness.
I got back into photography with the X-series cameras because they were fun to use and (at least comparatively speaking) don't break the bank when it comes to lenses. I've since acquired a Canon FF camera and comparable RF lenses. The latter system may yield better overall sharpness and image quality, but it really is prohibitively expensive for some. I just can't bring myself to sell the Fuji system yet. In fact I may still buy the X-H2.
Do you have any difference in enjoyment?
Wouldn't the 16-55 still be a better pick because the 16mm f/1.4 is technically a 17mm. In that regard, the newer 18mm offers much better image quality at barely any difference in field of view right?
@@professionalpotato4764 The 16mm is a 16mm, that rumor sprung up when comparing with the 16mm F2.8 came out it was slightly wider than the 16mm, making it look like the 16f1.4 was tighter than 16, when in reality, the 16f2.8 is actually wider than 16.
@@SP1CEANDW0LF The 16mm f/1.4 is also tighter than the 16-55mm. So that's 2 16mm lenses wider than the 16mm f/1.4, which leads me to think it is the 1.4 that's wrongly labelled or wrongly engineered.
@@detectivejonesw The Fuji system *was* more fun for me to use (I like the aperture rings on Fuji lenses, the tactile knobs, etc.), until i started doing more video. The autofocus just isn't up to Canon level. I don't depend on autofocus on either system altogether but the Fuji video is kind of annoying in some ways. Again, I really like both systems.
Can’t argue with the objective nature of this test, and the usual fair and dispassionate review from Chris, as always. Excellent. But there is still something distinctive, interesting and satisfying about this lens, even on the latest Fuji sensors, perhaps because of the close focusing distance. Some stunning night and black and white photography can be achieved with it, if that’s your thing. It’s maybe not worth the retail price new nowadays, but to my mind definitely worth looking at second hand if you’re already invested in the Fuji X system.
My favourite Fuji X lens. I don't use it wide-open for the reasons you showed, but shot at 5.6/8 I get great corner to corner sharpness for landscape/fishing photos. I also like the close-up look @f2 where, if handled properly, it can produce a very unique look. That said, I think it's time Fuji updated it like the 18 and 23. Thanks for the review.
The problem is the new 18 1.4 set the bar really high for any fast, wide lenses... the 16 1.4 is a classic in spite of its flaws
This is so interesting. This lens happens to be one of my favorites out of all my prime lenses. The lens is not perfect by any means but the versatile of it makes it worth it to me. I especially like that you can get really close to your object, almost working it as a micro lens. I'm not a technical person, but the majority of my shots come out super sharp when I take them. Then again, I don't zoom in and pixel peep either. So that could be it?
I agree with you, i have the 16 1.4, the 33 1.4 and the 18-55 2.8-4. I do notice that the zoom lens is softer than the primes, but the primes are both very sharp, at least not as big a difference this video would suggest 😮 Could it be a difference in copies?
@@Tenne1988 I’m curious about that too. I tested this lens against my 23mm 1.4, and 16mm was way sharper than the 24mm.
@@happymelanin The 16 is sharp in the center at 1.4, and really sharp across the frame stopped down. It's not sharp across the frame at 1.4 like some of the newer lenses (18f.14 is crazy), but normally if you are going for a landscape type shot, you're not gonna wanna shoot at 1.4 anyways so those appear sharp. And portrait shots, you are generally blurring out the background anyways, so you aren't gonna notice corner softness in those instances. So in most ways you will use this lens in reality, it is very sharp. The biggest downside would be in low-light environmental or landscape work, especially handheld, but that's a fairly niche usecase.
@@SP1CEANDW0LF okay. I see. I don’t use this lens for any portrait shots. Majority of my shots are landscapes. The most that I use it’s for micro shots, and I’m intentionally trying to blur those background’s.
It means you take photos and look at them like a normal person. The most magical lenses are ones that wouldn’t do very well in these lab conditions. This isn’t real life. These aren’t real pictures. They’re just photos of test charts and brick walls. Every lens that is magical has a lot of optical “flaws” and it’s those flaws that give you the look you’re seeing when you take real pictures in the real world. The more optically perfect you make the lens, the more soulless and bland it becomes, and this guy would rate it very high on his lab tests.
The truth is this lens at f1.4 is very sharp and beautiful. And you can focus so close with it. The only real flaw is that it’s quite big and heavy for Fuji’s little cameras. I remember loving it when I used Fuji. But I didn’t love it as much as the 56f1.2. Another lens that will probably fail these stupid tests.
This lens is absolutely amazing to me, especially for landscapes and building shot at F8!
Wow, how convincing - it‘s sharp at f8
Why do you need this Xf16mm f1.4 if you shoot at f8? There is Xf16mm f2.8 which is a lot cheaper.
@@BlockChain09 I never said I did not shoot at 1.4.
Thanks for reviewing this lens Christopher! I’ve heard so much YT hype over this lens that it’s been hard to find actual reviews. With Sigma’s new 16mm 1.4 coming out soon, I’m glad to have this review for comparison.
Is there a new sigma 16mm 1.4 coming out or is it just the existing one coming to x mount? I can’t find a source for a new 16mm 1.4 🤔 just curious
@@austingarland4346 It’s the current one for Sony & Canon M mounts coming to the Fuji X mount in April-ish.
Chris did a video on the announcement yesterday: ua-cam.com/video/zyHX0CBewwM/v-deo.html
I own this lens. Colours, versatility and overall rendering are really something else. Sharpness wide open is not that great and the focus motor isn't quiet enough for video work imo. Fujifilms new lenses (18,23,33mm 1.4) are much sharper but also look a bit more clinical in rendering. So it remains personal preference. This XF 16 1.4 and the XF 35 stil are my two favourite lenses, despite their flaws. They just produce special images.
I feel the same way. I love the results from these lenses the most among all of the Fuji lenses I’ve used.
I have it, and hearing it from Chris I would never buy it, but man would I be fooled, tech is not everything, this lens produces some magical images, I would say it like this when you sum up all the bad parts Chris mentioned you get magic that no one else has. People who do not own it will never know and I understand.
Agreed. I deeply respect and love Chris' videos and reviews, but this lens is also my favorite lens, the character, versatility, and sharpness are perfect for me.
@@luxdalet This lens is very soft wide open, sigma 16mm is much better. The difference is more noticeable on x-t5. This is why objective review is good rather than some fanboys who find everything magical.
Hey thanks for the review! Must say I'm a bit surprised by the results. I bought this lens when the 18mm was already out, but I preferred the results of this lens more. And some of my favorite pictures are taken with this lens. I really like shooting with it.
Test charts don’t matter much. The lens is magic. This is why some may be surprised because what they see with their eyes is magical. Just goes to show you 🤷🏻♂️ .. thing is, some of the most magical lenses wouldn’t do very well in these lab conditions.
I was looking for this one ! Thank you Christopher!
Awesome review once again Christopher! If you are able to get your hands on a Fuji 100-400 lens I would love to see that review in the future as well! Particularly with Fuji's teleconverters.
Umm..why is the thumbnail with the 18mm?
Check now.
My edge to edge with this is so far above any lens I've used..but looking forward to the 18 review. As I understand it, many Fuji users say the 90 is the killer. Then again, I've looked at XY charts of the 16's lens characteristics, and the results are killer.
…one category that is missing here is that this lens is so much fun to shoot with!
Thanks for the review though. Good to know it’s technically lacking now in 2022!
This was one of my favorite Fuji lenses, mostly because of close focus capabilities, but the new Sigma 16mm 1.4 looks like better optics (at least when it comes to sharpness) for less than half the price. However, it's still lacking close focusing capabilities of this lens, which might be a reason enough for many to stretch to Fuji 16mm 1.4 and forgive mediocre sharpness.
I did some amateur testing of this lens (before I sold it) against my Fuji 18mm 1.4 and 23mm 1.4 (original version) and found it sat in between them. The 18mm 1.4 is definitely the best optically, but the 16mm showed less CA and was sharper wide open than the 23mm 1.4. Once I stopped things down things were more even but at f1.4 the three were very different. The 16mm probably was one of their better lenses in 2015 but now it can’t compete as well with the newer lenses.
i dont like the 18mm focal lenght. Fuji should have better made a 16mm MK ii or a 14mm 1,4.
How does this compare to the 16mm f2.8?
Hello Christopher. We are really interested in review of 16mm f1.4 on a xt5 or xh2 camera. Some people said that on the 40mpx cameras don't deliver like it used to do on previous cameras. I really hope you can do this review for us. Best regards!
when are we going to see the Tamron 35-150?
Thanks for reviewing!
I’ve been waiting for this review for a long time now! I have this lens and I love it! Out in the real world I don’t notice the softness or flaws but I like hearing what are the shortcomings of this lens just to keep in mind while using it. Thank you for the review!
I have it also, and hearing it from Chris I would never buy it, but man would I be fooled, tech is not everything, this lens produces some magical images, I would say it like this when you sum up all the bad parts Chris mentioned you get magic that no one else has. People who do not own it will never know...
Thanks for the review, but why you did not convert f stop, you convert only focal length?
This is the best lens i have ever used, and only one of the very few it reminds me of fullframe lol. I dont think there are mixed reviews of this there a couple videos claiming it was the best of the best, ( until 18 and 33 new lenses came out )
Are you processing Fujifilm RAW files in Lightroom? It looks like your images are getting the classic Fuji wormy artifacts that result from this workflow.
which one should I get if I want to take some photos of the galaxy
Hi Chris. Thanks for all your work during the years. I'm wondering if your working distance when testing sharpness in wide angle lenses use a worry, ie to close? Best wishes, Thorbjørn
I can’t believe you still haven’t made a review on the Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8. I love the lens 👌🏽
Brill review as always! Very helpful!
It is a fair review. But hey, the pictures I made with it have some magic that lacks on those "Fujicrons". Only the new XF18 seems to generate a sililar magic especially the bokeh. Will I change my XF16 to the XF18? No. I like the focus clutch. Have you ever been out in the dark night trying to focus on something that is barely visible? The pseudo-manual-focus is a great help then.
Hello Christopher. Would be really great if you reviewed the new xf 23mm wr and xf 33mm wr.
As a fuji shooter, who previously shot on nikon full frame with sigma glass, I get the impression a lot of fuji shooters firmly overrate the lenses. Some of the glass is quite good, but far too many of the supposedly higher end lenses are badly out of date (to the extent that the lower end lenses, e.g. the 35mm f/2.0, actually outperform their higher end equivalents in many ways), and the majority of first party lenses have noticeably soft & dark corners, while the centers are still pretty mediocre when compared to modern offerings from Nikon/sigma/canon at similar price points.
That said, I still love every fuji lens I own, because they are more than good enough for the sort of work I do, and a pleasure to use. I'm just not about to pay for their wider-aperture lenses at their current price point.
Which is why I'm so excited about Sigma putting out lenses for the system, their first 3 lenses blow fuji's offerings away, and there's likely a lot more coming. I hope Fuji rises to the challenge and comes out with some higher spec glass though, competition is good for all of us, and I like aperture rings on my lenses.
Fuji lenses have character - that's the best thing about alot of them. Feel good too.
My favourite is the 27mm 2.8 pancake, just works well for me.
At the current price, the 18 mm 1.4 is a no brainer when compared to the 16 mm. Heck, the 16-55 is better value despite the slower aperture.
Your correct the brick 16-55 is the best value
I'd disagree on that, also there's no need to pay full price when they are almost always available used for about €550 I've owned both and had much more fun using the 16 1.4, opinions here are very subjective and depend on how much you care about pixel peeping. Also allow for copy variation. My 16 was sharper than the 16-55 everywhere from 2.8 on and I never found it soft enough to matter wide open. The zoom just loses out completely when it comes to close focusing too, which is a good chunk of the fun and usefulness of the 16 1.4
@@Cagey7531 I can’t disagree with your assessment. I should clarify that “at current new prices” it’s a no brainer between the 16 and 18 IMO. Where I live, you can find a used copy of the 16 mm for $750 to $800 CAD. I would be more inclined to buy it at reduced cost, but, objectively speaking, the 18 mm is future proof with a new sensor on the way. Absolutely agree that the 16 mm is one of Fuji’s best lenses for close up photos, but as an all-rounder the 16-55 is more versatile and can be had for just a couple hundred dollars more. By no means are any of the 3 perfect, but the new Fuji lenses are setting a bar that the old glass is going to be hard-pressed to match.
@@Cagey7531 The same can be said for the 16-55, you can buy it used. What would you rather have, a mediocre prime with size its only advantage, or the best kit lens ever made by humans? I'd rather have the Samyang 12mm F2 than this 16, at least it's sharper in the center.
@@Cagey7531 yes very valid points 👍
I hope you compare this directly to the sigma 16 1.4
Hello, love your reviews :). In your opinion how will it work on the new XTrans 5 Sensor from Fuji (the 40M resolution one)?
It’s OK, but don’t expect to do pixel peeping at 400% in Lightroom wide open, because it look very soft and has heavy CAs.
It’s quite good at f/2 and very good at 4 or 5.6.
What about a battle with the new Sigma 16mm 1.4 ? I remain the Sigma lens came in intrest at f4 in the center
I have it and a I mostly love it, but you're spot on with it's weaknesses. I basically avoid shooting it wide open unless absolutely necessary. I'd love the 18's performance but it's just a bit too tight for my landscape style, so if anything I'm hoping for an updated 14mm prime. Thanks for the honest review.
I find the review a little harsh, no? Like... comparing the 16/1.4 directly with the 18/1.4 is almost abuse! The 18/1.4 is not just good... it might be the most perfect optic ever made!
So for me (a content 16/1.4 user), I am happy to gain a little more FoV over the (excellent) 18/1.4 and knowing that a lot of issues are cleaned up fairly nicely from shifting down to f2. If some of those issues are not a concern then it is still more than acceptable at f1.4 (I have yet to have a wedding client upset with its softness...).
I would love the 18/1.4, but I can't afford both, and I keep thinking to myself the 16/1.4 is the more versatile lens of the two, especially with its close focusing capabilities. If I grabbed the 18 I think I would still need something wider for those entire wedding party group shots, whereas right now I can get away with the 16/1.4. And all the kinda shots I would use the 18/1.4 for I can still use the 16/1.4 (and crop in a tad if I don't need the additional framing, though typically I find it always welcome and add to the shot rather than be surplus).
sharpness is not everything, it has a certain character about it that makes it great for editorial style work. The lack of resolution won't be noticed in 90% of most applications. It is the right tool for a job kind of situation. maybe not the best choice for astro shooting but a great choice for reportage. That said I am a guy whose favorite lens is a 60 year east german lens that is far from sharp in the corners.
Imagine reviews on all the lenses for Fuji based on shooting in the early 60's film format 1:1.37. (cropping in post or even shooting square format) This came to me after watching the stunning footage compilation The Cranes Are Flying here in youtube. Obviously shooting with wides.
It looks that I have pretty good copy of this lens.Anyway, tested against Sigma 16 f1.4 on Sony 6500 and Fujinon beat Sigma in IQ department.According to the Sigma Sony owner his Sigma is a good copy.
Dear content creator. I really enjoy your videos, however today i have a suggestion: Usually when you describe vignetting, i really miss some numbers, like how many stops of darkening there is at mid distance from corner to center, and at the corner itself. I think it could be a nice addition to your reviews. Thank you for your work!
Thats it, i'm buying xf 18 1.4 for the sharpness
7years ago this lens set the IQ benchmark in XF mount along with the 80mm macro and 90mm F2. Now bring on the 13mm or 14mm F1.4 and set UWA IQ benchmark again.
Man I’d love a 14mm f/1.4 with quality as good as the f/2.8, but it would surely be massive. I’d accept an f/2
Somehow my experience with all lenses completely different from Chris. Have the lens and to me sharpness is over the top as well as magical rendering. I’m also have Fuji 56 and 35 and few zooms to compare. But the lens is heavy and 24mm doesn’t serve well for my daily use. Which is street and documentary.
Why does the focus clutch is clunky? Sorry...
Yeah, at new this isn't really worth the price, but you can get them used at around the $600 mark which is what I paid, and I think it's excellent value for money at that price point.
Oh god Fuji users really are a different breed
@@ArteUltra1195 Try it. The lens edge to edge is amazing.
Thanks😊
I love what this lens tries to do, but the softness & purple fringing are problematic. I was tempted to sell it for an 18mm f/1.4, but I'm holding out for a 16mm f/1.4 mkii. :)
It IS about time.
it's a cool and charismatic lens i'd like to own, but the price is outrageous, especially after all these years. too bad most fuji lenses are really expensive despite all their weaknesses and age etc. - annoys me a bit.
Just get them second hand, where the price tends to be about half for these older Fuji lenses. You can get them in excellent condition with warranty and after a year of owning it you forget whether you bought a lens new or second hand anyway.
Isn’t this 18mm based on the thumb nail? So 27
Thumbnail is the 16.
Defo a bad copy of the lens you got there Chris sorry…..it’s an amazingly sharp and astoundingly beautiful lens !….many serious reviews say it’s one of the very best lenses Fuji have ever produced…I have to agree, having owned it for 3 years. Are you sure you had your glasses on when you tested it !! 😂
Its about time....😊
I had the XF16 F1.4, but I like the XF14 F2.8 more, the 14mm is lighter and smaller and the picture quality is just as good, if not better. With an open aperture, the 16mm shows a clear coma at the edge, very bad for astrophotography. The XF14mm doesn't have these problems.
FINALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Seems like £500 on secondhand may be worth it but the Sigma 16mm 1.4 will almost certainly give better IQ for less.
I actually bought a few days ago for that price, knowing that the sigma would come out with better image quality and a cheaper price. My main reason was this doubles as a macro lens but I also love the popout focus and the aperture ring. Also this lens has real character. The photos of seen from the 18mm look amazingly sharp but just too clinical for me to want it over this lens.
Nice to remember this lens can be had for around 600.
My copy of the lens is sharp at 1.4 🙂
Also the wrong lens is used in the thumbnail. You used the 18
What! They make Crystal Pepsi still?
This is a really interesting review. My copy is definitely different. Sharpness is about the same - although as others have noted sample variation may be a problem with this lens. But where it is definitely different is my lens is terrible against bright lights, dropping a lot of contrast and washing out. Really I'm thinking about ditching it (and the 23mm) and getting the new 18mm, which is my preferred focal length anyway
It's such a trash for a $999 lens. Sigma 16mm is such an awesome lens with lens than half the cost .This is why I like objective review from Chris. The fanboys find everything magical.
Was waiting for this video for the last 5 years
Similar to sigma, edge to edge sharpness at f4
Yesssss
Canon 800 and 1200 mm when
I will get the new 18mm f1.4 instead.
The thing about these older lenses from Fujifilm is although they have an extremely tough exterior, the sample variation is quite large. This lens should perform much better wide open, as it’s regarded as one of the sharpest lenses ever made for x mount. It seems here he got a bad copy. I’ve owned multiples of everything from Fujifilm so I’m extremely familiar with each lens separately and individually. I’ve owned a couple of these 16s as well and I can confirm a good copy is extremely sharp. This lens as shown in these tests does look like it performs poorly. I know from experience a good copy is way better. (I now own the superior 18 1.4)
Same with the 23 1.4s, I’ve experienced sample variation all over the place.
Yeah I’m trying to sell this lens, the new 18mmf1.4 is heaps better wide open and has much faster and more accurate AF.
What are these APSC sensor cameras and lenses used for? Architectural, archival, or space photography? I am surprised we all tend to lose the objectivity of appraisal. Sharpness charts, fringing, chromatic aberration, sun stars .. all for 1K .. well, is the price the real issue or the lens or still grave.. our need to have a PHASEONE quality result from a purely enthusiastic level performer?
Great review! Fujifilm has their head in the right place when designing a lenses character, I usually agree with their decisions there. I do wish they had better QC though, some of their more premium (expensive) lenses have crazy sample variation. In the case of the 60mm 2.4 Macro it can ship with a coating defect straight from the factory, truly mind boggling.
So, you need to stop it down 3 stops to get good corner sharpness? And that's a $1000 lens. Thanks, but no thanks.
As a Fuji shooter, I knew this was the case. I posted about it in the Fuji Forums, and got crucified for offending the die-hard fanboys. In my opinion, I think the lens does render nicely, but it ain’t tack sharp like some may claim.
its also copy varation, i had 2, the first wasnt very good, the second is great.
@@djstuc Or maybe they took it to heart, because some people just take their gear way too seriously. Like every time I bring up a genuine concern about anything Fuji related, people like you come out of nowhere with pitchforks at the ready.
@@djstuc 1- If you do not own the lens, why are you defending it so fiercely? Seems like we had a back-and-forth argument when Tony Northrup compared the Fuji against the Sigma.
2- As far as I’m aware, I did not use any offensive language to describe the lens. If the fanboy part offended you then you got some serious issues to work on.
3- Stop replying to my comments if you do not like my answers. It’s that simple. This isn’t the first or second time I get a reply from you which was completely unsolicited. Don’t engage with me, and that will solve your problems.
4- If you wholeheartedly believe that you are the “grown up” then stop following me every time I comment on a video. That’s actually petty and childish of you.
seems to me you really like to tell people that you are smarter then them :D you know, no one loves that kind of people
I have this lens and it is great, I would buy it again, if someone is into sony or canon or whatever and their clinical lenses I am ok with that, but this lens as most of fuji lenses has soul, most of the people do not get that
@@arond331 In no way, shape or form did I ever insinuate to anyone that I was the smartest guy in the room. I know that I am not. With that said, I’ve encountered many Fuji shooters that have a cult-like mentality, and those are the people I’m referring to. For instance, the DJ guy has been an unpleasant fellow, and has been firing back at my comments for no apparent reason other than the fact that he doesn’t agree with my comments. I have nothing against him or you personally.
Also, I want to make it clear that I quite like the 16mm f/1.4 as just as much as any Fuji shooter, but it is perfectly acceptable for me to point out that it is optically inferior to the Sigma. For my personal work, I am 100% happy and content with the images it produces. I’m not an IQ snob. Now, when you are working professionally with clients, there are better options out there, and I would have no qualms using the Sigma 16mm f/1.4 for a paid shoot, whereas the Fuji would only be used for my personal photography.
This review is 5 years or so late!!! Did you miss the bus? Great review as always and yes it’s a bit soft compared to my 18mm f.14 but still a great buy used at around £480
omg FINALLY
But the character!!!
I returned this defective lens back for a full refund. Why?
Lenses focus beyond infinity (1:47). Do no buy lenses that will not stop dead-on at infinity. Many reviews don't even know about today lens flaws
this reviews is the opposite of just about everyone elses🤔
Love the experience of shooting on fuji but a lot of their native lenses really are overpriced with terrible value, also the cult-like mentality of fuji fanboys is really offputting. thank you sigma for finally coming to fuji, cant wait!
Neat
I can take shelter behind my 16mm in the impending nuclear war
Review in a nutshell: Buy the 18mm F1.4 instead.
Why review this lens now? It just got effectively replaced by a lens you already covered
An 18 is not a 16.
Ahhh that was a bit to soon for the nuclear war comment… keep to lens reviews thank
🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦
But still, Fuji users will still buy it.
I have it. It depends what you're using it for. While there certainly are better lenses out there for sharpness, many people will normally be using this lens stopped down. Or, in situations where you need a fast wide angle like events, the corners won't be in sharp focus anyway, so in practice, the lens performs well.
That doesn't excuse a high price compared to mediocre sharpness, but you do get outstanding build quality and quite unusual close focus distance for a lens like this. I think if you didn't *really* want 16mm, you're better off with the 18mm f/1.4 instead.
yeah I did, and watching this review I never would and I would be wrong, this lens is magic, sharpness is not everything, but people who do not shoot fuji will never know
@@AyeBeAPirate It seems that some people also qualify wine by the alcohol content and not by the taste or how it fits with the meal.Same is with lenses.There is nothing more easy then to make sharp,sterile aberrations free lens (a.k.a microscope or macro lenses), but to make an eye pleasing lens is whole another story.Think that most of modern day users do not get that.
Wow this review is rather late! My favourite prime lens that I own.
I wont pay even 300 usd for this
For 300 usd I'd buy it in a heart beat
@@scottallen6172 sigma 16 1.4 is comming to fuji its way better than this
@@BeZRules Without an aperature dial.
Maybe you don't have 300.
Considering what just happened in Ukraine, i guess i buy it as a protector in case of a nuclear war 😅
Wow only 7 years after its release...
Sigma 16mm is much better. Sharper and cheaper.
Bullshit
A quick view of the 16 mm review seems to confirm that. But the Fuji may be better stopped down in the extreme corners.
The Sigma also has a bit more CA and needs to be stopped down more for close ups. But it is much sharper centrally wide open.
(That said with the Fuji, the distortion chart is not sharp in the corners, field curvature?)
My judgement is based on sigma's E mount lens. Sigma used same optics for x and e mount.
If you compare both fuji and sigma lenses, you'll see the difference. Sigma is much Sharper at it's widest aperture.
@@Ashraf0182 i had the Sigma 16mm for the Sony 6300 and it was trash compared the Fuji 16mm 1,4
@@Ashraf0182 Is sharper better though?
First
Oh, I've noticed the colours of Ukrainian flag. Unsubscribing. I don't like when people get into politics.
ok, Putin Troll
You just did. There's politics, and there's murder.