I think the 16-55 F2.8.... and use my 55-200mm for for the long end . The 16-80 just falls that bit short at the long end ..The Fujifilm XF 16-80 F4 is a "Jack of all trades, master of none"
I bought the 16-55 along with my XT-3 because along with the IQ, with that combo I also got the battery grip with 2 batteries free. If 16-80 was available a year earlier, would have gone with that as I do miss OIS on that lens for a lot of video work, where carrying a gimbal for long hours really tire me. Not resenting my 16-55 purchase though as the extra batteries with grip have been a saver. Saving for 50-140 now.
I brought the 16-55mm F2.8, it's a bit front heavy like you say with my X-T2 but it sort my style love the quality don't really shot any video bar the odd family clip. But I got it for under £600 in mint condition, thinking about get the Viltrox 33mm F1.4 heard lots of good things about it. I need to get the Samyang 12mm F2 at some point.
Great review :) I got the X-H1 and the 16-55 F 2.8. Great combo! Would keep the 16-55 as I do concert photography. Thinking about getting the 55-140 though, instead of my 55-200.
I own 2 18-55’s and the 16-55. I love them all. I own all Fuji 1.4 primes the 55-200 and the 50-140. In addition I own the 50r medium format and several lenses. When I went to Iceland for a couple of weeks the 16-55 was glued on my XH1 and the 50-140 on my XT2. Those two were my go to machines. Now I also spent 3 weeks in Costa Rica and I took my 18-55 and my 55-200 ad I knew that trip included lots of jungle trekking and wanted to keep my pack light. I gave up weather sealing for weight and had no regrets.
I bought the 16-80 a little over a month ago after going back and forth between it and the 16-55. Your comments are spot on regarding the 16-80; It is fantastic in every way.
Good review. Picked up the 16 to 80, even though the 16 to 55 was on sale. Versatility, range OIS and light weight. No contest. Will post samples on my channel soon.
Good summary review, thanks. Both lenses have their place. Both are great for their design purpose. In December 2019, I went with the 16-55/f2.8 for IQ. Yes, the 16-80 was available, but the 16-55 was in the Black Friday sale and had an additional Fuji cashback, making is far cheaper than the 16-80. Furthermore, I was anticipating the XT4 with IBIS. Yes, the XT4/16-55 will be a tad heavier than a XT3, which I currently use, and a 16-80, but not materially so for my hiking and travelling. Now that the XT4 with IBIS is out, I am looking forward to receiving mine and having a play.
I own both. I use the 16-80mm f4 along with the 10-24mm f4 (WR) on the X-T1 while hiking and travelling because they are lighter than other comparable lenses and use the same filters. I use the 16-55 mm f/2.8 when I want a better lens for landscapes and weight isn't an issue (I hope to get an X-T4 soon so they lack of OIS isn't an issue with the 16-55 mm f2.8).
I own the 16-55 2.8 and the X-T4. Lack of OIS on the lens doesn't matter to me since the camera has it. The 16-55 an amazing travel option because you don't need to bring a bunch of other lenses. It's a great travel lens, but it's not a great walking lens. I really do start feeling the weight of the thing after awhile. It gets tiring to carry and hold after awhile. It's not unbearable but it's not pleasant. I think for me the 16-80 might be my answer for a personal travel lens. It's got the range I want. I think f/4 is still plenty wide enough considering you've got a OIS to help with low light. It's also lighter, by a good amount. It's it optically the same to the 16-55? No not at all imo, but if someone's picking apart corner sharpness then your subject was boring or the viewer is an a--hole.
Spot on! As Ansel Adams--he knew a bit about photography, IIRC--wrote, "Photographs are meant to be looked at, not looked into." I've just watched, not for the first time, Otto Preminger's _Anatomy of a Murder._ Even when Lee Remick wasn't on screen, I didn't find myself checking corner sharpness or analyzing Preminger's bokeh. For me, I think the 16-80 wins. The camera's always in my hand, I walk a lot, and I can see how the X-Tx bodies would feel unbalanced with the 16-55. But the 16mm f1.4 is on order, so I'll probably stick with the 18-55 for now. The way I think of variable aperture zooms, I see the 18-55 as an f4 lens that sometimes can go as wide as f2.8. I returned to Fujifilm last year, with a used X-T3 and 18-55. I bought the 16mm 1.4 because I learned to enjoy the 24mm perspective on a Nikon F100 with a 24mm f2.8D Nikkor lens: the first image I ever licensed came out of that combo, shot on Kodak Tri-X 400 pushed to ISO 1200. My family and I drove out to South Lake Tahoe in July, and I kept seeing compositions for the 24mm angle of view. I also can make good use of the 1.4's close focus ability, which, at 6", is half the minimum focus distance of the 24mm Nikkor.
Thanks for the comparison! I've been debating on selling my 23, 35, and 55 F2 lenses since I've been looking at OIS lenses. My right wrist hasn't been the greatest these days for run and gun so the OIS should help with shaky and/or slightly blurred photos. I mostly shoot in daylight so F4 would be more than enough with the 16-80. I still have an X-T1 so no need to spend the money on a new camera when this one still works great. I do plan to get an X-T4 in the future and maybe go with primes again or just the 16-55 F2.8.
Yes, this 16-55mm is a little heavier for run and gun style especially lacking the OIS. I love the 16-80mm. Can becoming annoying for low light, but with the OIS is ideal for photography, its mainly low light video. If you dont do that, no issue for you really.
The 16-55 is the best choice, provided you can pair it with the IBIS provided cameras XT4 or XS10 to compensate for the lack of stabilization, and where extra weight is not an issue for you… extra range can be easily offset with a slight crop…
Really helpful review. I am about to upgrade from XT2/18-55. Very happy to bring in the 16-80 based on what I see here. I have the 16f1.4 and 23f2.0 for low light situations. The XT4 body will also be a big step forward.
i think i need the 16-80 mate as well as my 16-55, so i have a one trick pony lens for long walks and the quality for local work. or when i take my camel
Great honest review Matt. Moving from Nikon to Fuji and totally agree with your assessment of the lenses. Hybrid. Versatile. Stills. Video. We need tools that get it all and are cost effective while doing a professional job.
Great review Matthew! Personally I don't mind a little blur in the corners and I usually add some vignetting, so Im all over the 16-80. I love your videos but I need to use close captions and the space bar to watch them. Any chance you could leave one second between paragraphs? (Yes, everyone's a critic.)
Great tip! Sorry about that is it me speaking to fast or my accent thats really hard to understand. Sorry about this blame the bloody Aussie in me! hahaha
the 16-80 is a no brainer when you get it with a camera body. I ordered the 16-80 with my XT4, but I don;t know if I'd buy it full price as a stand alone lens, but I'm sure it will be perfect choice for many fuji shooters who have had a camera body for a few years and want some of that new fuji mojo. I do have the samyang/rokinon 12mm on my sony and am thinking about getting that version for the XT4 however I may really want that 10-24 instead!!!!
Great review I completely agree with your review. I have both the 16 55 and 16 80 and had planned to sell the 16 55 but it is such a great lens I am going to keep it even though the 16 80 is on my xt3 70% of the time. As you know I use Freewell filters ( brilliant product ) ND64, CPL, Night Filter all 72mm so when I travel my bag has 16 80, 10 24 which are both 72mm and I usually chuck in 35 f2 if I want a light day with no camera bag. I have sold my 18 55 which came with my xt3 as it doesn't "cut the mustard" with either the 16 80 or 16 55.
Have used both extensively on every XT body including my xT5 and have come to the same conclusion every time. That if I could justify the cost I would keep both but having a £1000+ lens in my bag and using it for about 20% of the time can it be justified? Also the 16-55 is not only very heavy but also is unbalanced on the X-T bodies. As for sharpness I have found despite the 16-80 not being on the 40mp list by Fuji. It performs better with the new sensor whereas I can see no improvement in the 16-55! When comparing identical shots with each lens for most situations I have to check the exif file to see which one is which. Regarding the softness at the extremities then use the lens like the majority of zooms and use it from 17mm to 75mm. Still a fantastic range and with the crop-ability of the 40mp sensor it can even look fantastic when heavily cropped then you have a 17mm to 150mm or more. The comments regarding corner sharpness annoy me as if someone else examines your enlarged print and mentions this then your composition is not very good. So learn to be a better photographer and blow them a way with the story that is in your picture. Just a thought😃
Thanks for sharing your experience. 95 % of the time i'll never use f:2,8 because i like my subjects to be part of the scene. Not just a blink of sharpness in an ocean of blur.
You know you can get a mostly sharp image with 2.8 right? There should be plenty of occasions where your subject is in the same focus range with its surroundings.
I am looking to purchase my first 1 ( or 2 ) zoom lens. I want one lens for travel so the range of the 16-80 is a big advantage over the 15-55. Money is not the issue and neither is the aperture. I have a XS10 with IBIS so either lens will work in most situations. I really love the image quality of the 15-55 but will in the end buy the 16-80 along with a 10-24. When in the mountains I will consider renting the 55-140 to get more compression or the 55-200 for extended reach and lighter weight.
I so wish I had listened to you and bought the 16-80 when I first saw this video some time ago. I now have it and love it! Its going to be my carry around lens from now on replacing my 18-55, 18-135 and maybe even my 16-55,! Great video Matthew. Thank you! Jason
Good comparison. Similar confusion when I had Sony A7III - Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 vs Sony 24-105 f4 😀. Just holding on for another couple of months if Sony's new camera matches this before deciding a camera system.
I'm lucky enough to own both. You are right Matthew, there is overlap, but I can't bring myself to sell either. The 16-80mm has become my everyday walkabout lens. The versatility is excellent, covering most random opportunities, both photo and video. The 16-55mm is more specialised and the lens I chose for say, wedding day guest or social event stills photography. I have X-T4 and X-H1 bodies, so image stabilization on the 16-55mm is not an issue. However, my favorite combination is the 16-55mm F/2.8 on the X-H1. I feel comfortable, the ergonomics are perfect and the camera feels part of me. With this combo I always feel confident that my images will meet expectations. The X-T4 with the 16-80mm f/4 is the run and gun, day out, opportunity shooter. In truth, I love both and will be buried with them, one in each pocket.
I know exactly how you feel, I said that I would sell the 16-55 because of the 16-80. I still have it 16 months later haha. Both stunning lenses in their own way!
I’ve had the 16-55f2.8 for years and it pairs well with my XH2 but not so much on the XT3. I love my XT3 a hell of a lot more than the XH2 and am reluctant to go to the XT5 so now I’m considering the 16-80 to go with the XT3 for a lighter weight travel lens. If only the XT3 had ibis, it would be perfect.
Remember the Fuji XC, 16-50mm has image stabilization, but the more expensive XF 16-55mm does not. Around 11:27 you make a combo statement about it AND the XT in regards to image stabilization, which kinda sounds like you're saying the lens has I.S. It's a little hard to hear right, and I played it back five times.
The 16-55 is also good for portraits. I wouldn’t even think about doing a portrait shoot with a f4 which is a 5.6 on full frame. That’s the difference! It’s way more versatile than the 16-80
Portraits don't always require super shallow depth of field, especially at wider focal lengths where you probably want to include some of the environment. Studio portrait shots are regularly shot at f5.6 to ensure nice sharp images. At the longer focal lengths you can actually get quite a shallow depth of field even at f4, just zoom in and get close. Have a look dofsimulator.net/en/?x=EMgBQQDNIAAIJEwgw9jDhzw
I wouldn't say one it's better than the other for portraits. I'd say it depends on your like, in terms of subject separation I think 55mm f/2.8 should be near to equal to 80mm f/4
I have a video question for you! So I realize that pulling focus with the 16-80 is pretty fast (even at the lowest speed setting.) Is that because of the lack of Linear Motor? Would the 16-55 pull slower in a more cinematic way? Thanks again for the awesome video!
Great review! This is helping with my next lens purchase decision for a midrange landscape lens, plus occasional portraits and indoor events: the 16-55mm f2.8, or the 16-80mm f4 plus a 23mm prime. I already have the 10-24mm f4, Rokinon 12mm f2, and 55-200mm. The 16-55 @ 55mm/2.8 is good enough for me for portraits, as is the 16-80 @ 80mm/4.0 (from what I’ve seen). The cost of the 16-55 or 16-80 plus a prime is about the same, so this is a tough choice!
After thinking about these lenses and watching your presentation it seem to me that the question is not which is the best lens IMO. I personally shoot X-H1 and 16-55 f2.8 so none of the 16-80 f4 attractive features (in isolation to themselves) surpass or attract from my current kit. However if I shot vid and X-T3 as you do a case can be made, shooting events and 16-55 f2.8 on sale (i got my f2.8 for similar price to the f4) then a differing combo is in the frame. What you have and when you buy seem to the bigger question rather than any IQ. difference. between the two lenses.
Totally agree! I would love to know my option if I didnt do any video, I think it would change to the 16-55 to be honest. They are 100% aimed at a totally different market in my opinion
For landscapes i prefer the 16-80 cause I usually close down to f5-8. For regular travel I prefer the 16-55mm f/2.8 cause I need the lower light and bokeh. Thanks for the review!
I choose not to review them as people have already done a better job online than I ever will. But both are crazy good, they are so fast and silent throughout the entire focal range. I wouldnt have ANY complaints about either of the lenses with AF
@@matthewstorerphotography lol, sure, look at the size of the thing, also the weight. But yes, it's not the gargantuan Sigma 105 f1.4. But for a travel lens, which is what it's touted as, you'll have to very dedicated to your travel pics. Even just carting it around the countryside it's going to be a weight. Or imagine bringing that to an event (as a non-pro).
Thank you for the comparison. After downloading the .raf files and doing some pixel peeping. The conclusion I came up with is that there identical accept in the corners and it’s not that much different even then. So if you print there will be no difference what so ever.
Yeah I pretty much agree, the 16-55mm is sharper all the way through the image and in different situations for sure. However, youd ONLY notice in print and it would have to be fairly big.
I sold my XT1 and really regret it . Because it has no ibis ,plus the lens I bought had none either , I would go to quick menu and set the shutter to 2 second delay , that way pushing the shutter button wouldn’t cause any camera shake . I don’t remember getting any blurry pics
This is video I was looking for, thank you Matthew! Do you think for a start, 16-80mm f4 and 23mm f2 will be fine? 80% are gonna be videos, some in traveling but maybe some in my room for recording myself as well. I'm taking DJI Ronin SC for sure but I'm wondering if some lenses are not to big for this quite small gimbal (like these which you reviewing here). Currently is quite nice discount because XT3 with a kit lense (18-55mm) is just 100 euros cheaper than with a 16-80mm. So I assume better investment is picking the 16-80mm?
I can’t decide. I’ve been debating for two weeks about it. The 16-80 seems ideal but what is the image quality like? Is versatile and great still picture image quality? Or is it just versatile?
Eric, I understand mate but I would never worry about quality out of many lenses these days they are all great. Its what you do with it. If you selling your images for billboards yeah go the 16-55 or maybe even a medium formatt. But I have sold more images using the 16-80. Why? Because I use it more because its an amazing lens....
Oh, Matt. I put my xt3 on a tripod today to get a family shot and I don’t know about this camera. Brought the photos in Lightroom and they looked like cartoony could computer people. Very strange.
"If you're just after superior image quality..." I'm hoping that's what all photographers are aiming for. But often we trade image quality for our own convenience. Somebody should've told Ansel Adams he was lugging around the wrong camera.
Matthew this is my first video of yours so thank you mate. Just a query for you. I have the XH1 and am looking at one of these two lenses primarily for video. The question is i have purchased a good gimbal setup so do u think i would need the IBIS in the 16-80 or do u think if its mainly for video play safe and grab the 16-80? What would u do mate? Thanks.
Thanks mate I appreciate it. If you use the Gimbal all the time I could suggest the 16-55mm or if you're more interested in both handheld and gimbal work I would suggest the 16-80mm :D
If I mount this 16-80 on a gimble, will the stabilization automatically be turned off? If yes can I manually turn it on? Thank you for this informative video.
The lens probably detect motion so it will turn stabilisation off when there is no motion. On a gimbal, which you are moving around, it would probably keep the stabilisation on.
Everybody who used Fujifilm camera + lenses knows for sure the 16-55mm f2.8 is the clear winner, it is heavier but sharper than the 16-80mm . The common physics rule applied to any good zoom is X 3 ( multiplied by 3) So, 16mm x 3 = 48mm, therefore, the XF 16-55 is a good lens in physics. You can calculate the 16-80mm! it won't fit this physics rule, it has to sacrifice some areas.
Firstly, the 16-80 is an XF lens not an XC lens. I’ve recently hocked in a 10-24, 18-135 and a 100-400 and have gone for a 16-80 and a 70-300 twin lens kit for 95% of my photography. For low light and Astro I have a Viltrox 13 f1.4. Job done and I don’t leave half my lenses at home because my bag’s too heavy 😉
I switched from the 18-55 to the 16-55 when I moved from X-T2 to X-H1, since I didn't want to buy it before I had a stabilized body. I do mostly landscape-ish kind of photos - but the 16-80 seems really interesting as a walk-around lens. I often feel that I lack some reach when I use the 16-55 on walks in the forest and similar :)
I own and love the 16-80 mm f/4 for its weight, image quality and versatility. I use my camera and lens array primarily for travel and the 16-80 is my new all-rounder. I have not considered the 16-55 because of weight and lack of a longer focal length. I am sure it is a fine lens.
To be honest, I have never used the 16-55, so no criticism of it from me but I would say that 90% of the time the 16-80 is on my XT-3 and I love using it. I travel with 3 lenses, this one, the 10-24 and the 55-200 and I have never looked back. It really boils down to your style of shooting.
no one disputes zooms are versatile. i’ve got quite lots of experience traveling with big cameras and zooms and i’ll tell you it’s not fun. nowadays i run a two small body two small prime lens setup.
Recently there was a 5,5 R magnitude earthquake in my city. After the initial shaking stopped, the first things I grabbed is my dog in one hand and the X-H1 with the 16-55/2,8 in the other, and run out. Enough said...
UPDATE (12-2021) The 16-80 is made in the Phillipines, not Japan, and there are quality control issues. In case you get a bad one, make sure the retailer has a good returns policy. If you don't need OIS or the extra reach, go with the made in Japan 16-55. It's worth the extra money.
I shouldn’t make any difference, because they wouldn’t take more or less care on every copy. If you expect your lens is completely checked by a employee, you better switch to Leica or Hassleblad. Some of the most advanced tech will be made in China and not every of this company came from Europe, Japan, Korea or US.
Thank you for the informative video! I'm about to buy the X-T4 and was wondering which of these two lenses to get. The camera with the 16-80 is actually $100 more expensive but I'm going with that one anyway.
Great video and while I agree with you about the 16-80mm being more versatile due the increased focal range and OIS, in my copy of the lens unless in good light, the images have a tendency to be a little soft and very soft at the 80mm end. In fact, I have decided to purchase a 16-55mm to replace it and thankfully found one on offer for £539. I know it will be heavier and have a reduced range without OIS but I am also confident that the images produced will be noticeably sharper.
please!! Where did you get that price for 16-55, I guess it's in the UK, for the £ sign, right now I'm trying to buy one in London, but I don't see those offers
ALREADY OWE Fujifilm 16-55 F2.8 with xh1 and also have fuji 50-140mm and also have fuji 8-16mm. all holy trinity lens no need to buy anything alse???? and for night skies i use fuji 16mm.1.4 if i change it would be some prime maybe?? WITH MY FUJI XH1
I bought the TX-4 kit with the 16-80mm and it has been a fantastic lens. I recently bought the much hyped 23mm f/2 and honestly can't see much difference when I use the 16-80 in open position. This lens will cover you well.
I have the XS10 with IBS and the 23f2 as well and it is very versatile takes excellent photos. Now looking to purchase the 16-80 because of that extra reach makes me think it will be on the camera 80% of the time until I get the 10-24 also.
@@wesleylow3632 "Open" meaning fully opened wide at 16mm. I nearly forgot about this comment. I have since bought the 23mm 1.4 (older version) and dig it. It has more character than the newer model that I returned. The 16-80 is still finding good use in my arsenal. What do you mean by "crip". You mean "creeping"?
I have an X-H1 so I have the OIS covered. Picked up a clean 16-55 2.8 WR for $600 on Offerup. I use it for everything from landscape and portraiture to street and architecture. It's a beast of a setup.
I went from the 18-55 (got it as a kit with the X-T2) to the 16-80 and I am very satisfied with the performance, I’m still holding on to the 18-55, it’s not worth selling it.
Thank you Matthew for this review. I recently tested both lensen myself. What i noticed; the 16-55 is sharper all over, 16-80 lacks same sharpness in the corners. But what is also noticed, and i can also see it in your comparison photos too, the 16-55 is quite 'darker', is it the contrast? in dark areas i'm missing some details and those areas almost turn to black, with the 16-80 i can see far more details in those areas. Is this an exposure thing and correctable?
I started out with the kit lens. Then I quickly realized I needed a boost in IQ. Got the 16-55 and will never go back. It rivals the primes in its rendering. I'll get an xt4 eventually for the IBIS.
Nice detailed comparison Matthew! I was planning to buy the X-T200 as a replacement for my Sony A6000, but holding back because the X-S10 is just on the horizon. One of the reasons I'm choosing to go with the S10 is IBIS and the great choice of kits lenses. I usually do one video per month and occasionally shoot images. Would the 16-55 or 16-80 make a big difference over the 18-55 f2.8-4 for my use case? Appreciate insights. BTW, I have an option to pick the T200 with the 18-55 too for ~ $950
Yeah I 100% agree - I am informing many people to wait and purchase it, even after the new year when Fuji offer rebates for the cameras. Although it is crazy cheap right now!
Great comparison Matthew- I recently just purchased the 16-80 f4. I mainly shoot seascapes so I opted for the 16-80 for the range and image stabilization for hand holding and video. Great Work
If you shoot movement and low light, get 16-55/2.8 for everything other than that, get 16-80/4 obviously! I shoot real estate, so I'd go 16-80/4 or something similar. II'd get primes for low light.
I split my efforts into photo and video equally, which means I only have one lens, the 16-80mm F4. Fuji, for the love of god, create some stabilized primes.
How's the noise from the 16-80mm OIS? I just bought the 16-80 and the optics are great but the OIS creates very noticeable hum that my shotgun mic picks up. Wondering if I got a lemon or that's just part of the deal with the 6 stop OIS...
Just compared your raw images, thank you very much, very useful! Honestly, I didn't notice much difference.. 16-80 seems soft at 80mm, however at wide angle- only if pixel peeping can tell difference. I guess for high end professionals it is important, but for overall user- not much of a difference! Maybe different conditions would show different results. Probably will have to rent those and compare in real life. Thank you!
What lens would you own the Fujifilm 16-55 F2.8 or the Fujifilm XF 16-80 F4?
I think the 16-55 F2.8.... and use my 55-200mm for for the long end . The 16-80 just falls that bit short at the long end ..The Fujifilm XF 16-80 F4 is a "Jack of all trades, master of none"
I bought the 16-55 along with my XT-3 because along with the IQ, with that combo I also got the battery grip with 2 batteries free. If 16-80 was available a year earlier, would have gone with that as I do miss OIS on that lens for a lot of video work, where carrying a gimbal for long hours really tire me. Not resenting my 16-55 purchase though as the extra batteries with grip have been a saver. Saving for 50-140 now.
I brought the 16-55mm F2.8, it's a bit front heavy like you say with my X-T2 but it sort my style love the quality don't really shot any video bar the odd family clip. But I got it for under £600 in mint condition, thinking about get the Viltrox 33mm F1.4 heard lots of good things about it. I need to get the Samyang 12mm F2 at some point.
Great review :) I got the X-H1 and the 16-55 F 2.8. Great combo! Would keep the 16-55 as I do concert photography. Thinking about getting the 55-140 though, instead of my 55-200.
Yeah I sort of agree on many parts love it for my use!
I own 2 18-55’s and the 16-55. I love them all. I own all Fuji 1.4 primes the 55-200 and the 50-140. In addition I own the 50r medium format and several lenses. When I went to Iceland for a couple of weeks the 16-55 was glued on my XH1 and the 50-140 on my XT2. Those two were my go to machines. Now I also spent 3 weeks in Costa Rica and I took my 18-55 and my 55-200 ad I knew that trip included lots of jungle trekking and wanted to keep my pack light. I gave up weather sealing for weight and had no regrets.
Perfect, sounds like an increable lens lineup you have there sir!
I bought the 16-80 a little over a month ago after going back and forth between it and the 16-55. Your comments are spot on regarding the 16-80; It is fantastic in every way.
Totally agree Mike! Underrated!
I own the 16-80 after owning two 18-55. I love it. I think the best travel kit for me is 16-80, 70-30 and a 35f2.
Same for me except I'd want my 23mm instead of 35mm
Good review. Picked up the 16 to 80, even though the 16 to 55 was on sale. Versatility, range OIS and light weight. No contest. Will post samples on my channel soon.
Really cool to hear. Think people overlook how versatile the 16-80mm really is
Good summary review, thanks. Both lenses have their place. Both are great for their design purpose. In December 2019, I went with the 16-55/f2.8 for IQ. Yes, the 16-80 was available, but the 16-55 was in the Black Friday sale and had an additional Fuji cashback, making is far cheaper than the 16-80. Furthermore, I was anticipating the XT4 with IBIS. Yes, the XT4/16-55 will be a tad heavier than a XT3, which I currently use, and a 16-80, but not materially so for my hiking and travelling. Now that the XT4 with IBIS is out, I am looking forward to receiving mine and having a play.
how much did you pay for the 16-55 at black friday and with the Fuji cashback? Amazon doesn't let me track Fuji prices :-/
WOW Jules I am jealous, sounds perfect and similar to what I am wishing to do!
Probably an absolute steal haha!
I own both. I use the 16-80mm f4 along with the 10-24mm f4 (WR) on the X-T1 while hiking and travelling because they are lighter than other comparable lenses and use the same filters. I use the 16-55 mm f/2.8 when I want a better lens for landscapes and weight isn't an issue (I hope to get an X-T4 soon so they lack of OIS isn't an issue with the 16-55 mm f2.8).
I own the 16-55 2.8 and the X-T4. Lack of OIS on the lens doesn't matter to me since the camera has it. The 16-55 an amazing travel option because you don't need to bring a bunch of other lenses. It's a great travel lens, but it's not a great walking lens. I really do start feeling the weight of the thing after awhile. It gets tiring to carry and hold after awhile. It's not unbearable but it's not pleasant.
I think for me the 16-80 might be my answer for a personal travel lens. It's got the range I want. I think f/4 is still plenty wide enough considering you've got a OIS to help with low light. It's also lighter, by a good amount. It's it optically the same to the 16-55? No not at all imo, but if someone's picking apart corner sharpness then your subject was boring or the viewer is an a--hole.
I totally can agree with these comments
My opinion exactly. The 16-80 as allrounder and some primes, when bokeh and minimal depth of field matter.
Spot on! As Ansel Adams--he knew a bit about photography, IIRC--wrote, "Photographs are meant to be looked at, not looked into." I've just watched, not for the first time, Otto Preminger's _Anatomy of a Murder._ Even when Lee Remick wasn't on screen, I didn't find myself checking corner sharpness or analyzing Preminger's bokeh.
For me, I think the 16-80 wins. The camera's always in my hand, I walk a lot, and I can see how the X-Tx bodies would feel unbalanced with the 16-55. But the 16mm f1.4 is on order, so I'll probably stick with the 18-55 for now. The way I think of variable aperture zooms, I see the 18-55 as an f4 lens that sometimes can go as wide as f2.8.
I returned to Fujifilm last year, with a used X-T3 and 18-55. I bought the 16mm 1.4 because I learned to enjoy the 24mm perspective on a Nikon F100 with a 24mm f2.8D Nikkor lens: the first image I ever licensed came out of that combo, shot on Kodak Tri-X 400 pushed to ISO 1200. My family and I drove out to South Lake Tahoe in July, and I kept seeing compositions for the 24mm angle of view. I also can make good use of the 1.4's close focus ability, which, at 6", is half the minimum focus distance of the 24mm Nikkor.
Yeah, i do absolutely agree with you!
Thanks for the video.
I been shooting with my Fuji XT-2 and 16-55 lens for the past 2 years and I love it it’s a very nice lens .
Totaly agree, beautiful lens
Thanks for the comparison! I've been debating on selling my 23, 35, and 55 F2 lenses since I've been looking at OIS lenses. My right wrist hasn't been the greatest these days for run and gun so the OIS should help with shaky and/or slightly blurred photos. I mostly shoot in daylight so F4 would be more than enough with the 16-80. I still have an X-T1 so no need to spend the money on a new camera when this one still works great. I do plan to get an X-T4 in the future and maybe go with primes again or just the 16-55 F2.8.
Yes, this 16-55mm is a little heavier for run and gun style especially lacking the OIS. I love the 16-80mm. Can becoming annoying for low light, but with the OIS is ideal for photography, its mainly low light video. If you dont do that, no issue for you really.
The 16-55 is the best choice, provided you can pair it with the IBIS provided cameras XT4 or XS10 to compensate for the lack of stabilization, and where extra weight is not an issue for you… extra range can be easily offset with a slight crop…
Thank you! :D
Really helpful review. I am about to upgrade from XT2/18-55. Very happy to bring in the 16-80 based on what I see here. I have the 16f1.4 and 23f2.0 for low light situations. The XT4 body will also be a big step forward.
Yes Chris that will be a beautiful setup X-T4 with those lenses
i think i need the 16-80 mate as well as my 16-55, so i have a one trick pony lens for long walks and the quality for local work. or when i take my camel
Yeah I have to agree mate, the 16-80mm is an amazing lens, knew id be good, but not this good!
Great honest review Matt. Moving from Nikon to Fuji and totally agree with your assessment of the lenses. Hybrid. Versatile. Stills. Video. We need tools that get it all and are cost effective while doing a professional job.
Thanks for watching! Couldnt agree more Tom, lenses are more than just being sharp! So much more behind it
Great review Matthew!
Personally I don't mind a little blur in the corners and I usually add some vignetting, so Im all over the 16-80.
I love your videos but I need to use close captions and the space bar to watch them. Any chance you could leave one second between paragraphs? (Yes, everyone's a critic.)
Great tip! Sorry about that is it me speaking to fast or my accent thats really hard to understand. Sorry about this blame the bloody Aussie in me! hahaha
the 16-80 is a no brainer when you get it with a camera body. I ordered the 16-80 with my XT4, but I don;t know if I'd buy it full price as a stand alone lens, but I'm sure it will be perfect choice for many fuji shooters who have had a camera body for a few years and want some of that new fuji mojo. I do have the samyang/rokinon 12mm on my sony and am thinking about getting that version for the XT4 however I may really want that 10-24 instead!!!!
In a bundle the 16-80 is a real steal! The 10-24mm is AMAZING!
@@matthewstorerphotography you mean 16-80 with body combo pack is not good as separately buy ??
Great review I completely agree with your review. I have both the 16 55 and 16 80 and had planned to sell the 16 55 but it is such a great lens I am going to keep it even though the 16 80 is on my xt3 70% of the time. As you know I use Freewell filters ( brilliant product ) ND64, CPL, Night Filter all 72mm so when I travel my bag has 16 80, 10 24 which are both 72mm and I usually chuck in 35 f2 if I want a light day with no camera bag. I have sold my 18 55 which came with my xt3 as it doesn't "cut the mustard" with either the 16 80 or 16 55.
Yeah 72mm is handy with 10-24 also. Lovely setup you have Tony - hard to sell the 16-55 right lol
Really enjoyable watch, now I am googling the 16mm-80mm for deals 😁
Good choice! Love that bloody lens, mmhmmm camera shopping haha the best!
Have used both extensively on every XT body including my xT5 and have come to the same conclusion every time. That if I could justify the cost I would keep both but having a £1000+ lens in my bag and using it for about 20% of the time can it be justified? Also the 16-55 is not only very heavy but also is unbalanced on the X-T bodies. As for sharpness I have found despite the 16-80 not being on the 40mp list by Fuji. It performs better with the new sensor whereas I can see no improvement in the 16-55! When comparing identical shots with each lens for most situations I have to check the exif file to see which one is which. Regarding the softness at the extremities then use the lens like the majority of zooms and use it from 17mm to 75mm. Still a fantastic range and with the crop-ability of the 40mp sensor it can even look fantastic when heavily cropped then you have a 17mm to 150mm or more. The comments regarding corner sharpness annoy me as if someone else examines your enlarged print and mentions this then your composition is not very good. So learn to be a better photographer and blow them a way with the story that is in your picture. Just a thought😃
Thanks for sharing your experience.
95 % of the time i'll never use f:2,8 because i like my subjects to be part of the scene.
Not just a blink of sharpness in an ocean of blur.
You know you can get a mostly sharp image with 2.8 right? There should be plenty of occasions where your subject is in the same focus range with its surroundings.
Yeah agree you ether need 2.8 or you dont - everyones different
Exactly, just to see if you need it or not :D
Great video! Never knew the OIS turns off when the camera recognizes it’s on a tripod.
Thanks so much mate :D
Both. 16-80 is a bit slow indoors and the 16-55 not quite enough reach at times outdoors...so I have both!
Agree!
I am looking to purchase my first 1 ( or 2 ) zoom lens. I want one lens for travel so the range of the 16-80 is a big advantage over the 15-55. Money is not the issue and neither is the aperture. I have a XS10 with IBIS so either lens will work in most situations. I really love the image quality of the 15-55 but will in the end buy the 16-80 along with a 10-24. When in the mountains I will consider renting the 55-140 to get more compression or the 55-200 for extended reach and lighter weight.
Yes, absolutely
I so wish I had listened to you and bought the 16-80 when I first saw this video some time ago. I now have it and love it! Its going to be my carry around lens from now on replacing my 18-55, 18-135 and maybe even my 16-55,! Great video Matthew. Thank you! Jason
Hope you enjoy it! Great to hear mate - really pleased that this could help you as much as it did :D
Good comparison. Similar confusion when I had Sony A7III - Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 vs Sony 24-105 f4 😀. Just holding on for another couple of months if Sony's new camera matches this before deciding a camera system.
Yeah totally agree, finding what is right for you is ALWAYS the hardest haha. Hope it works out for you
I'm lucky enough to own both. You are right Matthew, there is overlap, but I can't bring myself to sell either. The 16-80mm has become my everyday walkabout lens. The versatility is excellent, covering most random opportunities, both photo and video. The 16-55mm is more specialised and the lens I chose for say, wedding day guest or social event stills photography. I have X-T4 and X-H1 bodies, so image stabilization on the 16-55mm is not an issue. However, my favorite combination is the 16-55mm F/2.8 on the X-H1. I feel comfortable, the ergonomics are perfect and the camera feels part of me. With this combo I always feel confident that my images will meet expectations. The X-T4 with the 16-80mm f/4 is the run and gun, day out, opportunity shooter. In truth, I love both and will be buried with them, one in each pocket.
I know exactly how you feel, I said that I would sell the 16-55 because of the 16-80. I still have it 16 months later haha. Both stunning lenses in their own way!
I’ve had the 16-55f2.8 for years and it pairs well with my XH2 but not so much on the XT3. I love my XT3 a hell of a lot more than the XH2 and am reluctant to go to the XT5 so now I’m considering the 16-80 to go with the XT3 for a lighter weight travel lens. If only the XT3 had ibis, it would be perfect.
Remember the Fuji XC, 16-50mm has image stabilization, but the more expensive XF 16-55mm does not. Around 11:27 you make a combo statement about it AND the XT in regards to image stabilization, which kinda sounds like you're saying the lens has I.S. It's a little hard to hear right, and I played it back five times.
I am really sorry about that must had made a mistake. Thanks for clearing it up:D
Literally great review. You cover all the aspect. Thanks mate
Thanks buddy glad I can help ;)
The 16-55 is also good for portraits. I wouldn’t even think about doing a portrait shoot with a f4 which is a 5.6 on full frame. That’s the difference! It’s way more versatile than the 16-80
Yeah true, just depends what you use it for. For me I wish for versatile so its works perfectly :D
Portraits don't always require super shallow depth of field, especially at wider focal lengths where you probably want to include some of the environment. Studio portrait shots are regularly shot at f5.6 to ensure nice sharp images. At the longer focal lengths you can actually get quite a shallow depth of field even at f4, just zoom in and get close. Have a look dofsimulator.net/en/?x=EMgBQQDNIAAIJEwgw9jDhzw
I wouldn't say one it's better than the other for portraits. I'd say it depends on your like, in terms of subject separation I think 55mm f/2.8 should be near to equal to 80mm f/4
@@zolen3046 exactly, the 80mm compensates for the 55mm's 2.8
@@bt82 Agree. I just did some outside portraits with the 16-80 and I'd say they are my best ever. The client was very happy to say the least. TBC...
I have a video question for you! So I realize that pulling focus with the 16-80 is pretty fast (even at the lowest speed setting.) Is that because of the lack of Linear Motor? Would the 16-55 pull slower in a more cinematic way? Thanks again for the awesome video!
Ahhh maybe not in a cinematic way, I honestly generally manual focus when I want it to switch slower, every other time I need it to focus fast
Finally what I was waiting for! Great video
Hahaha you and multiple other people - sorry it took so long!
16-55 2.8 because sometimes a stop of light is everything. Paired with an X-H1, 10-24, and 50-140.
Yeah well said Lyndon can understand that :D
your absolutely right! thats my lenses
Great review! This is helping with my next lens purchase decision for a midrange landscape lens, plus occasional portraits and indoor events: the 16-55mm f2.8, or the 16-80mm f4 plus a 23mm prime.
I already have the 10-24mm f4, Rokinon 12mm f2, and 55-200mm. The 16-55 @ 55mm/2.8 is good enough for me for portraits, as is the 16-80 @ 80mm/4.0 (from what I’ve seen). The cost of the 16-55 or 16-80 plus a prime is about the same, so this is a tough choice!
100% it's just all about getting the gear that you need and works for you :D
After thinking about these lenses and watching your presentation it seem to me that the question is not which is the best lens IMO. I personally shoot X-H1 and 16-55 f2.8 so none of the 16-80 f4 attractive features (in isolation to themselves) surpass or attract from my current kit. However if I shot vid and X-T3 as you do a case can be made, shooting events and 16-55 f2.8 on sale (i got my f2.8 for similar price to the f4) then a differing combo is in the frame. What you have and when you buy seem to the bigger question rather than any IQ. difference. between the two lenses.
Totally agree! I would love to know my option if I didnt do any video, I think it would change to the 16-55 to be honest. They are 100% aimed at a totally different market in my opinion
For landscapes i prefer the 16-80 cause I usually close down to f5-8. For regular travel I prefer the 16-55mm f/2.8 cause I need the lower light and bokeh.
Thanks for the review!
Good choice! Totally get you there!
What about AF performance? Is one quieter than the other for video? Which one tracks better, etc...
I choose not to review them as people have already done a better job online than I ever will. But both are crazy good, they are so fast and silent throughout the entire focal range. I wouldnt have ANY complaints about either of the lenses with AF
Matthew Storer thanks for the reply!
Loved your video Matthew 👍
Amazing Russell super glad you enjoyed it :D
I have the opportunity to buy a used XT4 with the 16-80 for $1500 US. Never bought w camera before. First go at photography. Think im going to buy it.
Both heavy, beast lenses. Give me a small 18-35mm f2.8 and I'd be a lot happier. And 56/1.2 for portrait stuff.
16-80mm beast of a lens? interesting...
@@matthewstorerphotography lol, sure, look at the size of the thing, also the weight. But yes, it's not the gargantuan Sigma 105 f1.4. But for a travel lens, which is what it's touted as, you'll have to very dedicated to your travel pics. Even just carting it around the countryside it's going to be a weight. Or imagine bringing that to an event (as a non-pro).
A compact 18-35 f2.8 would be amazing. My most used focal length range
Thank you for the comparison. After downloading the .raf files and doing some pixel peeping. The conclusion I came up with is that there identical accept in the corners and it’s not that much different even then. So if you print there will be no difference what so ever.
Yeah I pretty much agree, the 16-55mm is sharper all the way through the image and in different situations for sure. However, youd ONLY notice in print and it would have to be fairly big.
Thanks for that info Matthew.
No worries!
im on the fence on both and after this video i think im leaning more toward the 16-55 f2.8 since i have the xt1 and dont shoot video at all
I sold my XT1 and really regret it . Because it has no ibis ,plus the lens I bought had none either , I would go to quick menu and set the shutter to 2 second delay , that way pushing the shutter button wouldn’t cause any camera shake . I don’t remember getting any blurry pics
This is video I was looking for, thank you Matthew! Do you think for a start, 16-80mm f4 and 23mm f2 will be fine? 80% are gonna be videos, some in traveling but maybe some in my room for recording myself as well. I'm taking DJI Ronin SC for sure but I'm wondering if some lenses are not to big for this quite small gimbal (like these which you reviewing here).
Currently is quite nice discount because XT3 with a kit lense (18-55mm) is just 100 euros cheaper than with a 16-80mm. So I assume better investment is picking the 16-80mm?
Yeahp that is an amazing combo, really love both lenses!
@@matthewstorerphotography thank you :)
I am new to photography and I am looking to pick up the Fujifilm X-S10 with either the 16-80 or the 18-55. Which one do I go for?
I would go with the 16-80mm more versatile!
I can’t decide. I’ve been debating for two weeks about it. The 16-80 seems ideal but what is the image quality like? Is versatile and great still picture image quality? Or is it just versatile?
Eric, I understand mate but I would never worry about quality out of many lenses these days they are all great. Its what you do with it. If you selling your images for billboards yeah go the 16-55 or maybe even a medium formatt. But I have sold more images using the 16-80. Why? Because I use it more because its an amazing lens....
Oh, Matt. I put my xt3 on a tripod today to get a family shot and I don’t know about this camera. Brought the photos in Lightroom and they looked like cartoony could computer people. Very strange.
"If you're just after superior image quality..." I'm hoping that's what all photographers are aiming for. But often we trade image quality for our own convenience. Somebody should've told Ansel Adams he was lugging around the wrong camera.
Or some people do versatile work - photo/video or can not afford multiple lenses mate
Matthew this is my first video of yours so thank you mate. Just a query for you. I have the XH1 and am looking at one of these two lenses primarily for video. The question is i have purchased a good gimbal setup so do u think i would need the IBIS in the 16-80 or do u think if its mainly for video play safe and grab the 16-80? What would u do mate? Thanks.
Thanks mate I appreciate it. If you use the Gimbal all the time I could suggest the 16-55mm or if you're more interested in both handheld and gimbal work I would suggest the 16-80mm :D
I mean is 2023 and fuji dosent have standart zoom lens 2.8 with IBIS or im missing something
For the video and to use lens with XT4, which one would you recommend?
I love the XF 16-80mm for video - more run and gun vlog video however.
If I mount this 16-80 on a gimble, will the stabilization automatically be turned off? If yes can I manually turn it on? Thank you for this informative video.
I believe so
The lens probably detect motion so it will turn stabilisation off when there is no motion. On a gimbal, which you are moving around, it would probably keep the stabilisation on.
i cant download raw images...why ?
The xt 4 or a xs 10 have IBIS in body, therefore the difference in stabilization is neglectable, isn't it?
Yeah bang on the money, only notice a slight difference
thank you but I cant download raw file. What wrong ?
matthewstorerphotography.com/downloadable-content-optin
Can't find the RAW images at the link given?
sorry changing over website - will come shortly!
i went 2.8 never thought about changing .... so people it's your choice ..
100% agree
I've got the xt4 with ibis so ..I happy
Nice!
I tried to get the raw's from your site to compare but I was unable to found them! :( Are those links actually actives?
Yeah sorry I am currently changing over website - pretty annoying sorry
Can't able to download raw images .page not found
Sorry fixed - link is not broken anymore. Sorry about that!
@@matthewstorerphotography great
Could you please re-upload the raw files and let me know?
Thank you!
www.matthewstorer.com/fujifilm-16-55mm-vs-16-80mm/
XF16-80mm Can take star trail or milky way ? Thanks in advance
Yes you can - but wouldn't be the best for low light.
The main subject starts at 1:50.
Thanks :D
Please recommend two lenes for videography for fuji x s10.
Thank you so much 😀 I would say 16-80mm and 16mm 1.4
Everybody who used Fujifilm camera + lenses knows for sure the 16-55mm f2.8 is the clear winner, it is heavier but sharper than the 16-80mm . The common physics rule applied to any good zoom is X 3 ( multiplied by 3) So, 16mm x 3 = 48mm, therefore, the XF 16-55 is a good lens in physics. You can calculate the 16-80mm! it won't fit this physics rule, it has to sacrifice some areas.
so beautiful video~
Thank you 🤗
You say TONEH. 😃
Ahh...Thanks!
Why do camera reviewers say"price point" ?
Not sure sorry
@@matthewstorerphotography Ha. A good review though
Cheers mate.
18-55mm x-t3 or 16-80mm xs10 ??
budget issue so confused between above kit lense combo
Firstly, the 16-80 is an XF lens not an XC lens.
I’ve recently hocked in a 10-24, 18-135 and a 100-400 and have gone for a 16-80 and a 70-300 twin lens kit for 95% of my photography.
For low light and Astro I have a Viltrox 13 f1.4.
Job done and I don’t leave half my lenses at home because my bag’s too heavy 😉
OIS may be solved by the X-T4 :)
Agree, I unfortunely can no afford the X-T4 and some people many not want to upgrade for just that reason. But what a pair X-T4 + 16-55 2.8
in terms of image quality there is no comparison whatsoever....
Yeah I think so also, ones pure quality and the other one is versatile
Hi from türkiye
You are testing lenses with a raised centre column?! Total amateur!
You're so cool!
Thank you!!
You're welcome!
I switched from the 18-55 to the 16-55 when I moved from X-T2 to X-H1, since I didn't want to buy it before I had a stabilized body. I do mostly landscape-ish kind of photos - but the 16-80 seems really interesting as a walk-around lens. I often feel that I lack some reach when I use the 16-55 on walks in the forest and similar :)
Yeah the 16-80mm is crazy versatile - lovely lens!
I own and love the 16-80 mm f/4 for its weight, image quality and versatility. I use my camera and lens array primarily for travel and the 16-80 is my new all-rounder. I have not considered the 16-55 because of weight and lack of a longer focal length. I am sure it is a fine lens.
Yeah totally understand James!
How do you like the 16-80 for shooting video? Is autofocus good?
@@hepgeoff I am too old to do video (seems to me to be more a young person's passion). The autofocus, however, is very good. Jim
@@jamesstrain6797 Thanks, I'm older, too. I'm also concerned with weight, so I'm leaning towards the 16-80 over the 16-55.
To be honest, I have never used the 16-55, so no criticism of it from me but I would say that 90% of the time the 16-80 is on my XT-3 and I love using it. I travel with 3 lenses, this one, the 10-24 and the 55-200 and I have never looked back. It really boils down to your style of shooting.
I totally agree, I can see myself going the same way you have! :D
no one disputes zooms are versatile. i’ve got quite lots of experience traveling with big cameras and zooms and i’ll tell you it’s not fun. nowadays i run a two small body two small prime lens setup.
100% agree that used to be me 2 years ago, hated it so moved to a smaller lighter setup so much better! :D
I find the 16-55 is sharper, better made, bigger and heavier. Lack of stabilisation is no loss on a XH1. Id own both which I do..
Nice, totally agree own both also and understand why they both stand
Did anyone else have anxiety watching that camera on the tripod as he swayed talking to camera, that did not look stable! ;-)
Hahaha never in doubt Tom :D
@@matthewstorerphotography that was the out-take we didn't see 😂
Weather sealed - ✓
Front element rock hitting resistance - X
Recently there was a 5,5 R magnitude earthquake in my city. After the initial shaking stopped, the first things I grabbed is my dog in one hand and the X-H1 with the 16-55/2,8 in the other, and run out. Enough said...
haha nice!
I grabbed my X-H1 and 50-140 :)
@@zeljkomihalic55 🤣👍
UPDATE (12-2021) The 16-80 is made in the Phillipines, not Japan, and there are quality control issues. In case you get a bad one, make sure the retailer has a good returns policy. If you don't need OIS or the extra reach, go with the made in Japan 16-55. It's worth the extra money.
Thank you! :D
My 16-55 is made in the Philippines.
I shouldn’t make any difference, because they wouldn’t take more or less care on every copy.
If you expect your lens is completely checked by a employee, you better switch to Leica or Hassleblad.
Some of the most advanced tech will be made in China and not every of this company came from Europe, Japan, Korea or US.
Thank you for the informative video! I'm about to buy the X-T4 and was wondering which of these two lenses to get. The camera with the 16-80 is actually $100 more expensive but I'm going with that one anyway.
Good choice!
Great video and while I agree with you about the 16-80mm being more versatile due the increased focal range and OIS, in my copy of the lens unless in good light, the images have a tendency to be a little soft and very soft at the 80mm end. In fact, I have decided to purchase a 16-55mm to replace it and thankfully found one on offer for £539. I know it will be heavier and have a reduced range without OIS but I am also confident that the images produced will be noticeably sharper.
Thanks for sharing
please!! Where did you get that price for 16-55, I guess it's in the UK, for the £ sign, right now I'm trying to buy one in London, but I don't see those offers
ALREADY OWE Fujifilm 16-55 F2.8 with xh1 and also have fuji 50-140mm and also have fuji 8-16mm. all holy trinity lens no need to buy anything alse???? and for night skies i use fuji 16mm.1.4 if i change it would be some prime maybe?? WITH MY FUJI XH1
WOW Ultimate lens lineup!
Matthew Storer manythanks
I bought the TX-4 kit with the 16-80mm and it has been a fantastic lens. I recently bought the much hyped 23mm f/2 and honestly can't see much difference when I use the 16-80 in open position. This lens will cover you well.
Yeah the 16-80mm is great versatile lens!
I have the XS10 with IBS and the 23f2 as well and it is very versatile takes excellent photos. Now looking to purchase the 16-80 because of that extra reach makes me think it will be on the camera 80% of the time until I get the 10-24 also.
I love my 16-80 but it has started to zoom crip. What does "open position" mean?
@@wesleylow3632 "Open" meaning fully opened wide at 16mm.
I nearly forgot about this comment. I have since bought the 23mm 1.4 (older version) and dig it. It has more character than the newer model that I returned. The 16-80 is still finding good use in my arsenal. What do you mean by "crip". You mean "creeping"?
@@Tyrell_Corp2019 Yes creeping.
I own the 16-55 and love it but looking to add more lens to my group so the 16-80 with is is appealing
Yeah nice, what do you mainly shoot? Then maybe I can help recommend some lenses this way :)
Awesome mate, great to hear a G'day on UA-cam. You've helped me choose the 16-80 as I need handheld video primarily
No problem mate, always good to have a Aussie on a big platform like UA-cam! Glad I can help
I have an X-H1 so I have the OIS covered. Picked up a clean 16-55 2.8 WR for $600 on Offerup. I use it for everything from landscape and portraiture to street and architecture. It's a beast of a setup.
Yeah nice setup!
I went from the 18-55 (got it as a kit with the X-T2) to the 16-80 and I am very satisfied with the performance, I’m still holding on to the 18-55, it’s not worth selling it.
Great work. I agree the 18-55mm is fantastic for it was just the 18mm not being wide enough :D
@@matthewstorerphotography add the 14mm :-) 16mm is not wide enough either!
Thank you Matthew for this review. I recently tested both lensen myself. What i noticed; the 16-55 is sharper all over, 16-80 lacks same sharpness in the corners. But what is also noticed, and i can also see it in your comparison photos too, the 16-55 is quite 'darker', is it the contrast? in dark areas i'm missing some details and those areas almost turn to black, with the 16-80 i can see far more details in those areas. Is this an exposure thing and correctable?
Yep totally agree roger!
I started out with the kit lens. Then I quickly realized I needed a boost in IQ. Got the 16-55 and will never go back. It rivals the primes in its rendering. I'll get an xt4 eventually for the IBIS.
Yeah totally get that Robert, the 16-55 + X-T4 would be a killer combo!
Nice detailed comparison Matthew! I was planning to buy the X-T200 as a replacement for my Sony A6000, but holding back because the X-S10 is just on the horizon. One of the reasons I'm choosing to go with the S10 is IBIS and the great choice of kits lenses. I usually do one video per month and occasionally shoot images. Would the 16-55 or 16-80 make a big difference over the 18-55 f2.8-4 for my use case? Appreciate insights. BTW, I have an option to pick the T200 with the 18-55 too for ~ $950
Yeah I 100% agree - I am informing many people to wait and purchase it, even after the new year when Fuji offer rebates for the cameras. Although it is crazy cheap right now!
Great comparison Matthew- I recently just purchased the 16-80 f4. I mainly shoot seascapes so I opted for the 16-80 for the range and image stabilization for hand holding and video. Great Work
Yep totally understand your decision! Couldnt agree more with you!
If you shoot movement and low light, get 16-55/2.8
for everything other than that, get 16-80/4 obviously!
I shoot real estate, so I'd go 16-80/4 or something similar.
II'd get primes for low light.
Yeah I agree the primes are the best for low light and sharpness!
I split my efforts into photo and video equally, which means I only have one lens, the 16-80mm F4. Fuji, for the love of god, create some stabilized primes.
HAHAHA, maybe the X-T4 is your solution, or still prefer lens stablised ?
Matthew Storer unfortunately I don’t like the flip out screen, plus I just bought the xt3 this Xmas.
In Switzerland the price difference is minimal (870,- to 780,-).
Ohh wow that is crazy good! Lovely switzerland :)
I own both. If I need to photograph in low light, I use the 16-55. Coming from heavy Nikons, the weight is no issue for me.
How's the noise from the 16-80mm OIS? I just bought the 16-80 and the optics are great but the OIS creates very noticeable hum that my shotgun mic picks up. Wondering if I got a lemon or that's just part of the deal with the 6 stop OIS...
In all honesty, I hardly ever shoot images with it, if I do they are happy snaps and dont print them or use for portfolio sorry
@@matthewstorerphotography I was referring to sound...
Just compared your raw images, thank you very much, very useful! Honestly, I didn't notice much difference.. 16-80 seems soft at 80mm, however at wide angle- only if pixel peeping can tell difference. I guess for high end professionals it is important, but for overall user- not much of a difference! Maybe different conditions would show different results. Probably will have to rent those and compare in real life. Thank you!
Yeah totally agree, not that much difference hey!
Great video, thank you.