There's hundreds of people reviewing lenses, but nobody tops your reviews! The captures and edits are spectacular! I wasn't even interested in the lens but saw the whole thing...
You have such amazing photography that you've inspired me to get my first actual camera and start shooting! So I just wanted to say thank you for helping me choose
Andy, your work is beyond inspiring! Every image feels almost divine - the light, the perspective, the emotion you capture is like nothing else. Your photos have completely changed how I see the world, opening my eyes to new perspectives and making photography feel alive and exciting again. You’ve reignited my passion and pushed me to explore and capture nature’s beauty in ways I never thought possible. Thank you for sharing your incredible talent. In regards to lenses, i think you can make any lens work, and that speaks to your insane ability to photograph and capture everything. Ps, hope to see you dabble in new forms of photography as well (macro/wildlife/street)
Thanks so much for the comment, I'm really glad you enjoy my work. The next video will be from Greenland, and there'll be a little bit of wildlife in there, and then next year there'll be videos on street photography and more wildlife
Very useful review, Andy, and, as usual, a great set of images! I've been using the 16-80 as my default mid-range for a few years now, including the last 2 years with my X-H2 (complemented with the 10-24 and 70-300). I agree with your balanced but overall positive assessment of the 16-80 in your earlier review. But I am curious to see reviews of the new 16-55/2.8 Mk II --- which promises better resolving power on the 40mp sensor; seems a bit lighter and more compact than the 16-80; and the 2.8 might be useful to complement (or in a pinch, replace) my Viltrox 13/1.4 for low-light/astro shooting. Hopefully you'll have a chance to review that one soon...
Hi. I've posted a reply to Andy suggesting the Tamron 17-70mm as an underrated alternative. Optical quality on a par or better than the original 16-55 though they render colour differently, light, stabilised and weather sealed, I've had mine for 18 months and it lives on my X-T5 unless I need greater reach. For simplicity I carry the XT and Tamron and the 70-300 plus 1 x ND and 1 x CPL filters (the thread size is the same). Not much else to say really. Oh, except the 16-80 is or can be a bit of a dog.
Really interesting comparison. My everyday lens is the Sigma 18-50 (sold my 16-55) on the XT5. Really happy with it. However when it comes to travelling the 16-80 is just so convenient, especially coupled with the 70-300.
This is great. I've been hoping for this exact comparison as I own a 16-80mm, but been feeling ever since I upgraded from my X-T3 to my X-T5, that some lenses, like this one do feel a bit soft. Like Andy mentions, I love the lens, love the focal range, still renders great colors and it's great at 26mp; but I was patiently looking forward to seeing a video review like this. Thanks Andy for the video!
That 16-80mm was a very nice lens. It was a F4 lens but had excellent sharpness and ex excellent in landscape photography. The 18-55 was an excellent lens as well.
Thanks so much for the comment. I've got the Sigma 10-18mm and the 100-400mm, both of which I really like, so I'm sure the 18-50 is decent. I've not had chance to try it yet though
Hi there, thank you for a great video. It’s so helpful to actually see images along with the settings. Your work is incredible. I’ve been trying to find comparisons of this lens along with the new XF16-55mm F2.8 R LM WR II before I purchase. Pretty please make a video comparing the 2! Thanks🤞
This was an awesome review! Well produced, and you took some fantastic images with the lens. And thank you for the comparison to the 16-80, I've been waiting to see one! I shoot the 16-80 and have been really curious how it would stack up, as the 16-50 looked like it had really great image quality. But I was surprised, the 16-80 typically held it's own (except in the corners at 80mm lol), and while it was definitely more blurry/smeary in general, it was still quite sharp! Definitely sharp enough for a hobbyist. And I am only using it on an X-S10 so I don't really need the extra resolving power, and not getting the 16-50 at the kit price is harder to justify. I also just prefer to shoot more telephoto, so would really miss 80mm! I used to shoot a 17-50 f2.8 on Nikon and while I loved the lens, 50mm was just never long enough. Especially as my current tele is a Canon FD 80-200 f4L, so there would be a decent gap in focal range.
Thanks for the comment. I'm not sure how much of an advantage you'd gain on the 26mp sensor of the X-S10, and I too love the flexibility of the 16-80mm
I don't need another lens, but... Last year I used the Fuji 18-135 & was happy with my European vacation photos. Will use it for 3 weeks in Albufeira Portugal in March 2025. I do have the brick , Fuji 16-55 & was about to sell it. Took it out for one last run, & it's been on my XT4 for over a month now, guess it'a keeper.
Nice overall review. Of note, this lens also has nice close focus Macro abilities. I had this lens for a few weeks and I definitely noticed the lack of a marked aperture ring. Ultimately my copy turned out to be defective and was returned. I noticed strange shaped bokeh at 2.8 and 16mm. Upon closer inspection the Aperture blades were not fully opening at 16mm 2.8. So if you do get this lens, check at 16mm 2.8 that the blades are opening all the way. It is a really nice sized lens for daily Carry. I think at this point I'm just going to wait for the 16-55 2.8 mk2
Hi Andy. A good review as always. I feel the need to throw a spanner into the works. The 16-80mm has a somewhat spotty reputation for build quality. The original 16-55 f2.8 was heavy and has now been replaced by a better lens in the V 2. There is another player in this segment. The Tamron 17-70mm f2.8. Optical quality on a par with the 16-55 V1. Stabilised, not heavy, brighter throughout the range than the 16-50, a cracking optic. It tends to get ignored, undeservedly. It is £20 cheaper than the Fuji 16-50 retail in the UK as well. IMHO it is a better buy and I won't be giving mine up.
I've not used the Tamron (there aren't many places that stock them here in Portugal), but there's also the Sigma 18-50 2.8 as well. I've got two other Sigma lenses which I'm really happy with, so I'm sure that's also a decent option
The comparison to the 16-80 does show that the 16-50 is a level up in detail and micro contrast but not such a stark difference that the 16-80 feels too compromised. The extra reach of the 16-80 is very nice and fun over the typical ~50mm of kit lenses.
I really enjoy internally zooming lenses. Sold the 18-55mm after only a month of ownership. Imagine what fuji can achieve with an updated 18-135mm. I hope they make it internally zooming.
Loving this lens so far, would probably stick to it until say fuji releases 16-80ii or second-hand 16-55ii drop to a reasonable price point. Really looking forward for a 16-55ii review too
Thanks for the comment. Not sure how close a 16-80mm is now Fuji have new versions of this and the 16-55mm. At some point I'll try and get hold of a 16-55 II to review
Hey there! Great comparison of these two lenses. I am fine with the weight of my 16-80 and the detail doesnt matter as much to me, so ill probably stay with my 16.80. Will you do a review of the new 16-55 f 2.8? Its lighter than the 16-80 and can hopefully creates even sharper images..
Thanks for the review, it does look to be a nice lens if you are getting it with the newer bodies. Will you be doing a review on the 16-55mm f2.8 mk2? I know you stop down so fast lenses aren't as important to you outside of astro but it's always been a sharp lens and the weight reduction is probably more important for you.
Thanks for the comment, glad you enjoyed the review. I'll probably do a review of the new 16-55 at some point....I liked the original, but never bought one because it was a heavy lens. The new one is much lighter, though, so at some point I'll take a look at it
Andy as always another great video! I do have a question. How does the 55-200mm resolve on the X-T5? I have that lens and I used to use it a lot on the X-T3 but to be very honest I haven't even tried it on the X-T5. Also I have the 16-50mm and I do love it. I'm currently awaiting the arrival of our 2nd grandchild and I'm hoping to use the X-T5 and the 16-50mm to get some great candid shots of her and her big sister.
Thanks for the comment. I've been happy with the 55-200mm. it's certainly very good up to around 120mm. I can't say how much of the resolution it resolves, but it's still very decent
I've3 been following your content for years now and you're one of the reasons I got into the Fujifilm ecosystem as my photography comeback. I'm going to Italy in 2 weeks, from Tuscany to the Dolomites, any lens recommendations? I have a wide selection :)
Thanks for the comment, glad you find the review useful. For Tuscany I would strongly recommend a telephoto lens, preferably a longer one like the 70-300 or 100-400, which will also be useful in the Dolomites. Then for the Dolomites I'd also say a wide angle for the lakes, and a mid range is also useful
Another great video Andy. Your work honestly the benchmark I aspire to. Out of curiosity, do you process your RAW files in DCO Pure Raw before process in Lightroom?
Thanks so much, glad you enjoyed the review. My images go straight into Lightroom, I've never looked at other software, although it's possibly something I could look into when I have a bit of time
I got this 16-50 lens coming for my T5 .....I never was satisfied with the 16-80 at the Far end at all and i had it twice in the past. 70-80 is Soft most shots.
Thanks for the comment. I think you'll be happy with the 16-50. I really felt a difference in my landscape shots, and was surprised it didn't show more in the side to side comparison..but I swear it's a sharper lens
I was just about to buy the X-T5 with this lens but wondering if I should get the 16-55 WRll instead and go on a waiting list. As my first camera in 40 years I’m thinking this one might be a good place to start? By the way love this video Andy, makes me want to go back to the Dolomites with a good camera 📷
I've not had chance to use it yet, but I own the Sigma 10-18mm and the 100-400mm, and both are excellent lenses, so I'm sure the 18-50 is also decent. At some point I'll see if I can test one
Not wide enough, not WR, and telescoping design. It may be a better value for some people but there are reasons to pick the Fuji. When I’m traveling and hiking during day time, I’m definitely picking the Fuji for the wider angle and WR.
I have the sigma 18-50 with my XT5 is excellent Value : light weight, good build quality, constant F stop with all zoom field of view, very Nice image quality with 40mpx, the only négatif point no aperture ring for Fujists people but no big issue
Thanks so much for the comment. I've got the Sigma 10-18mm and the 100-400mm, both of which I really like, so I'm sure the 18-50 is decent. I've not had chance to try it yet though
Hard to say. If you use Lightroom I suggest you use the metadata there to see how often you shoot in the 50-70mm range. If you shoot a lot there (I actually do) then you're probably better with the 16-80, particularly as with the XH2S, you don't have the 40mp sensor
Fantastic video as always, thanks Andy! Have you had a chance (or interest) to try the Tamron 17-70? I'm looking for a midrange for my X-T4 to compliment my 10-24, 18-55 & 70-300. The Fuji 16-80 or the Tamron 17-70 seem to be good possibilities 🤔
Thank you for this very interesting review. I shoot mostly handheld, so I wonder whether the stabilized 18-55 has any advantage (at say 1/50 to 1/250) over this lens? Or does the better resolution of the 16-50makes up for there lack of stabilization, again under reasonable shooting conditions?
Thanks for the great video and comparison with the 16-80. Do you think the difference in resolution would be as pronounced if you were shooting with an older body like the XT2 or XT3? I shoot with an XT1 currently buy will at some point upgrade to an XH1 or XT3 over the next coupleof years, with the 16mp of the XT1 I expect its harder to tell the difference between the image quality of them isnt it?
Thanks for the comment. For sure the difference wouldn’t be so pronounced as the lens is resolving all of the resolution on the 40mp sensor, which the 16-80 is unable to do, however an XT2 or XT3 that resolution is there to be resolved,so the difference would be smaller
@AndyMumford Perfect, thanks for getting back to me Andy, I'd take the extra focal range over absolute sharpness in that case. I was in Snowdonia last weekend and found I missed the focal range between the 10-24 and 55-200 quite often, I could probably just take the 16-80 in most cases and lighten my bag a bit too.
I tend to think that the distance to an object can affect sharpness. I have noticed this with Helios 44-2 lens. It is more or less sharp for close objects but gets very bad when you shot something in the distance.
Well, there's usually lots of stuff going on in the atmosphere (dust particles, haze etc) that affect the light and sharpness of distant objects. What I can't really figure though is why this lens felt so much sharper than the 16-80mm on distant objects, but that difference wasn't so noticeable on things close up
Appreciate the review. I noticed you use .RAF files in Lightroom though. Do you not bother to convert the files? I have noticed in my landscape shots there is a very noticeable lack of sharpness and detail compared to when I enhance or convert using DXO Deeprime. Keen to hear your thoughts or your usual workflow!
It's not something I've ever done, but it's possibly something I could look into. I don't really feel that the RAF images lack detail or sharpness though, and once I've worked them through Lightroom I've generally been happy with how they come out
@ there’s a 14 day free trial for DXO, which seems to be the best at converting Fuji files nowadays. I’ve been trying it for a few days and do see improvement, whilst the colors stay the same and I can still choose other film sims. I’d give it a go to see the difference for yourself.
Is it fair to compare the new 16-50 with the 16-55 f2.8 mk1? It is because of the weight of the gear I switched to fuji and I feel the red badge 1st generation is heavy and bulky . Was thinking of trading it for this new premium kit lens. What do you think of the switch?
I’ve not been able to compare the two directly, and the 16-55mm mk I was a very sharp lens. But it is very big and heavy, and for that reason (and because for me, the whole point of the X System is going light) I prefer the new 16-50
@@AndyMumford It would have allowed you to stop down a bit further and use base ISO. Using 640 you've basically underexposed 2.3 stops. Thanks for the review, the comparison with the 16-80 was interesting.
They are different images. One taken with the 16-80 and the other with the 16-50. The light was changeable when I shot the comparison images, and as I wanted to keep the ISO and aperture the same (as they can affect sharpness in a way that shutter speed doesn't) the shutter speed was changed when I switched lenses to maintain the same exposure (in the slightly different light)
@ yes, and that’s the main point, I agree. But earlier in the video you said something about the build quality for an inexpensive lens. It’s a small point and I wrote it before I had seen the whole video. I have to add that I’m envious of your lifestyle, although I’m sure there is a lot of hard work required.
For a landscape photog, Fujifilm is fine. But for everything else, the sub-par AF system which is generations behind everything else takes it off the table. Sold my XT-3 and went back to Canon. I now travel with an R3 and 24-105 f/4. Amazing AF and MUCH better dynamic range and low light/noise performance. A bigger camera of course, but bigger performance to match. When Fuji fires its engineers and hires ones on the level of those working for the big boys, I’ll look at the system again.
Not sure why you're posting this on a review of a Fuji lens...seems like you're in the wrong place. You are of course comparing a Fuji camera that's two generations older than the Canon you're comparing it with. I was just in Greenland shooting wildlife with an X-T5. My workshop partner uses Canon and we had participants there shooting Sony (no Nikon) and there was no difference at all in autofocus performance for the wildlife images we shot. Still, it's great that you're happy with your Canon. Enjoy your photography with it.
There's hundreds of people reviewing lenses, but nobody tops your reviews! The captures and edits are spectacular! I wasn't even interested in the lens but saw the whole thing...
Thanks so much for the comment, really glad you enjoy the reviews
Nevermind the lens... Your photos are amazing! Congratulations!
Thanks so much, really glad you enjoyed the video
Thank you for your reviews. You’re one of the few UA-camrs that prioritize mountain photography and hiking with lenses
Thanks so much, really glad you enjoy the videos
You have such amazing photography that you've inspired me to get my first actual camera and start shooting!
So I just wanted to say thank you for helping me choose
Thanks so much for the comment, really glad you enjoyed the videos and good luck with your photography
Great review! You always inspire me to shoot more! Thank you!
Thanks so much for the comment
Easily the best photography channel!
Thanks so much, really glad you enjoy the videos
Andy, your work is beyond inspiring! Every image feels almost divine - the light, the perspective, the emotion you capture is like nothing else. Your photos have completely changed how I see the world, opening my eyes to new perspectives and making photography feel alive and exciting again. You’ve reignited my passion and pushed me to explore and capture nature’s beauty in ways I never thought possible. Thank you for sharing your incredible talent.
In regards to lenses, i think you can make any lens work, and that speaks to your insane ability to photograph and capture everything.
Ps, hope to see you dabble in new forms of photography as well (macro/wildlife/street)
Thanks so much for the comment, I'm really glad you enjoy my work. The next video will be from Greenland, and there'll be a little bit of wildlife in there, and then next year there'll be videos on street photography and more wildlife
@ sounds like some fun changes! Looking forward to it :)
Very useful review, Andy, and, as usual, a great set of images! I've been using the 16-80 as my default mid-range for a few years now, including the last 2 years with my X-H2 (complemented with the 10-24 and 70-300). I agree with your balanced but overall positive assessment of the 16-80 in your earlier review. But I am curious to see reviews of the new 16-55/2.8 Mk II --- which promises better resolving power on the 40mp sensor; seems a bit lighter and more compact than the 16-80; and the 2.8 might be useful to complement (or in a pinch, replace) my Viltrox 13/1.4 for low-light/astro shooting. Hopefully you'll have a chance to review that one soon...
Thanks for the comment. I should review the 16-55 at some point.
Hi. I've posted a reply to Andy suggesting the Tamron 17-70mm as an underrated alternative. Optical quality on a par or better than the original 16-55 though they render colour differently, light, stabilised and weather sealed, I've had mine for 18 months and it lives on my X-T5 unless I need greater reach.
For simplicity I carry the XT and Tamron and the 70-300 plus 1 x ND and 1 x CPL filters (the thread size is the same). Not much else to say really.
Oh, except the 16-80 is or can be a bit of a dog.
Great shots and review. It is hands down the best travel lens at that focal range.
Thanks for the comment
I have the 16-55, and although I have many other lenses, I rarely need them. Probably the best zoom I've ever used in 50 years of photography.
It's a great lens
Really interesting comparison. My everyday lens is the Sigma 18-50 (sold my 16-55) on the XT5. Really happy with it. However when it comes to travelling the 16-80 is just so convenient, especially coupled with the 70-300.
Thanks for the comment, glad you enjoyed the review
Really helpful review, Andy. Thank you.
Thanks so much
This is great. I've been hoping for this exact comparison as I own a 16-80mm, but been feeling ever since I upgraded from my X-T3 to my X-T5, that some lenses, like this one do feel a bit soft. Like Andy mentions, I love the lens, love the focal range, still renders great colors and it's great at 26mp; but I was patiently looking forward to seeing a video review like this. Thanks Andy for the video!
That 16-80mm was a very nice lens. It was a F4 lens but had excellent sharpness and ex excellent in landscape photography. The 18-55 was an excellent lens as well.
i am in the same boat. Ill be waiting for some comparisons and reviews for the new 16-55 f2.8 :)
Thanks for the comment, glad you found the review useful
Your work is so beautiful!
Thanks so much for the comment
Great work as always Andy!
Cheers Nate, hope all is well with you
Thank you very mutch Andy for this video and all the effort to product it. If you can do a comparatif with the sigma 18-50 f2.8. Thanks
Thanks so much for the comment. I've got the Sigma 10-18mm and the 100-400mm, both of which I really like, so I'm sure the 18-50 is decent. I've not had chance to try it yet though
You could even pair it with the XF 70-300 f/4-5.6 R LM OIS WR. Just a 20mm gap. I plan on doing this. XT5 + 16-50 + Laowa 65mm 2:1 macro + 70-300.
Hi there, thank you for a great video. It’s so helpful to actually see images along with the settings. Your work is incredible.
I’ve been trying to find comparisons of this lens along with the new XF16-55mm F2.8 R LM WR II before I purchase. Pretty please make a video comparing the 2! Thanks🤞
Thanks for the comment. I don't actually have the 16-55mm II and likely won't be able to borrow one for a review for a few months
This was an awesome review! Well produced, and you took some fantastic images with the lens. And thank you for the comparison to the 16-80, I've been waiting to see one! I shoot the 16-80 and have been really curious how it would stack up, as the 16-50 looked like it had really great image quality. But I was surprised, the 16-80 typically held it's own (except in the corners at 80mm lol), and while it was definitely more blurry/smeary in general, it was still quite sharp! Definitely sharp enough for a hobbyist. And I am only using it on an X-S10 so I don't really need the extra resolving power, and not getting the 16-50 at the kit price is harder to justify. I also just prefer to shoot more telephoto, so would really miss 80mm! I used to shoot a 17-50 f2.8 on Nikon and while I loved the lens, 50mm was just never long enough. Especially as my current tele is a Canon FD 80-200 f4L, so there would be a decent gap in focal range.
Thanks for the comment. I'm not sure how much of an advantage you'd gain on the 26mp sensor of the X-S10, and I too love the flexibility of the 16-80mm
Very good review. Thank you.
Thanks so much for watching
I don't need another lens, but... Last year I used the Fuji 18-135 & was happy with my European vacation photos. Will use it for 3 weeks in Albufeira Portugal in March 2025. I do have the brick , Fuji 16-55 & was about to sell it. Took it out for one last run, & it's been on my XT4 for over a month now, guess it'a keeper.
The 16-55mm is a lovely lens
Nice overall review. Of note, this lens also has nice close focus Macro abilities. I had this lens for a few weeks and I definitely noticed the lack of a marked aperture ring. Ultimately my copy turned out to be defective and was returned. I noticed strange shaped bokeh at 2.8 and 16mm. Upon closer inspection the Aperture blades were not fully opening at 16mm 2.8. So if you do get this lens, check at 16mm 2.8 that the blades are opening all the way. It is a really nice sized lens for daily Carry. I think at this point I'm just going to wait for the 16-55 2.8 mk2
Thanks for the comment
Hi Andy.
A good review as always.
I feel the need to throw a spanner into the works. The 16-80mm has a somewhat spotty reputation for build quality. The original 16-55 f2.8 was heavy and has now been replaced by a better lens in the V 2.
There is another player in this segment. The Tamron 17-70mm f2.8. Optical quality on a par with the 16-55 V1. Stabilised, not heavy, brighter throughout the range than the 16-50, a cracking optic. It tends to get ignored, undeservedly. It is £20 cheaper than the Fuji 16-50 retail in the UK as well.
IMHO it is a better buy and I won't be giving mine up.
I've not used the Tamron (there aren't many places that stock them here in Portugal), but there's also the Sigma 18-50 2.8 as well. I've got two other Sigma lenses which I'm really happy with, so I'm sure that's also a decent option
The comparison to the 16-80 does show that the 16-50 is a level up in detail and micro contrast but not such a stark difference that the 16-80 feels too compromised. The extra reach of the 16-80 is very nice and fun over the typical ~50mm of kit lenses.
Thanks for the comment. Yep, I've grown to love the flexibility of the 16-80mm, and never really felt like it's let me down in the field
@@AndyMumford this is exactly what I wanted to know. Will wait to see if I ever go for a camera that is above XT5 before committing to the 16-50.
Thanks! very informative video. hope there will be a video for 16-55 mkii!😄
Thanks for the comment, at some point I'll probably review that lens
I really enjoy internally zooming lenses. Sold the 18-55mm after only a month of ownership. Imagine what fuji can achieve with an updated 18-135mm. I hope they make it internally zooming.
Thanks for the comment
great work!
Thanks so much
Great review !
i will take this lens this month but i hesitate between the XT50 and the XT5...
Thanks. They’re both great cameras, but I’d go for the X-T5
Ну наконец-то 🍷 Спасибо.
👍👍👍 Great shots 🙏
Thanks so much for watching
Loving this lens so far, would probably stick to it until say fuji releases 16-80ii or second-hand 16-55ii drop to a reasonable price point. Really looking forward for a 16-55ii review too
Thanks for the comment. Not sure how close a 16-80mm is now Fuji have new versions of this and the 16-55mm. At some point I'll try and get hold of a 16-55 II to review
Hey there! Great comparison of these two lenses. I am fine with the weight of my 16-80 and the detail doesnt matter as much to me, so ill probably stay with my 16.80. Will you do a review of the new 16-55 f 2.8? Its lighter than the 16-80 and can hopefully creates even sharper images..
Thanks for the comment. I've not doubt the new 16-55mm 2.8 will be great...the last one certainly performed well. At some point I'll test it
Thanks for the review, it does look to be a nice lens if you are getting it with the newer bodies. Will you be doing a review on the 16-55mm f2.8 mk2? I know you stop down so fast lenses aren't as important to you outside of astro but it's always been a sharp lens and the weight reduction is probably more important for you.
Thanks for the comment, glad you enjoyed the review. I'll probably do a review of the new 16-55 at some point....I liked the original, but never bought one because it was a heavy lens. The new one is much lighter, though, so at some point I'll take a look at it
Great video. Do you use auto focus or manual focus in your work and tests? Thanks! (I own a X-T2/4/5)
I tend to use manual focus most of the time
Andy as always another great video! I do have a question. How does the 55-200mm resolve on the X-T5? I have that lens and I used to use it a lot on the X-T3 but to be very honest I haven't even tried it on the X-T5. Also I have the 16-50mm and I do love it. I'm currently awaiting the arrival of our 2nd grandchild and I'm hoping to use the X-T5 and the 16-50mm to get some great candid shots of her and her big sister.
Thanks for the comment. I've been happy with the 55-200mm. it's certainly very good up to around 120mm. I can't say how much of the resolution it resolves, but it's still very decent
I've3 been following your content for years now and you're one of the reasons I got into the Fujifilm ecosystem as my photography comeback.
I'm going to Italy in 2 weeks, from Tuscany to the Dolomites, any lens recommendations? I have a wide selection :)
Thanks for the comment, glad you find the review useful. For Tuscany I would strongly recommend a telephoto lens, preferably a longer one like the 70-300 or 100-400, which will also be useful in the Dolomites. Then for the Dolomites I'd also say a wide angle for the lakes, and a mid range is also useful
@@AndyMumford Thank you so much!
Another great video Andy. Your work honestly the benchmark I aspire to. Out of curiosity, do you process your RAW files in DCO Pure Raw before process in Lightroom?
Thanks so much, glad you enjoyed the review. My images go straight into Lightroom, I've never looked at other software, although it's possibly something I could look into when I have a bit of time
Nice to see a comparison to the 16-80mm, but would have been nice to s a comparo shots vs the 18-55mm it replaces.
Thanks, but sadly I can only compare with lenses that I actually have.
Nice video 👍🙂
Thanks so much
@AndyMumford 👍🙂
I got this 16-50 lens coming for my T5 .....I never was satisfied with the 16-80 at the Far end at all and i had it twice in the past. 70-80 is Soft most shots.
Thanks for the comment. I think you'll be happy with the 16-50. I really felt a difference in my landscape shots, and was surprised it didn't show more in the side to side comparison..but I swear it's a sharper lens
I was just about to buy the X-T5 with this lens but wondering if I should get the 16-55 WRll instead and go on a waiting list. As my first camera in 40 years I’m thinking this one might be a good place to start?
By the way love this video Andy, makes me want to go back to the Dolomites with a good camera 📷
Thanks so much for the comment, enjoy your XT5
I think the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 is a more compelling and useful lens while presenting far better value for the money
And its sharper too
I agree with you!
I've not had chance to use it yet, but I own the Sigma 10-18mm and the 100-400mm, and both are excellent lenses, so I'm sure the 18-50 is also decent. At some point I'll see if I can test one
Not wide enough, not WR, and telescoping design. It may be a better value for some people but there are reasons to pick the Fuji. When I’m traveling and hiking during day time, I’m definitely picking the Fuji for the wider angle and WR.
I have the sigma 18-50 with my XT5 is excellent Value : light weight, good build quality, constant F stop with all zoom field of view, very Nice image quality with 40mpx, the only négatif point no aperture ring for Fujists people but no big issue
thank you! i see you have the wide zoom of sigma.
did you also try the sigma 18-50? and how do you think it compares to the fx 16-50 ?
Thanks so much for the comment. I've got the Sigma 10-18mm and the 100-400mm, both of which I really like, so I'm sure the 18-50 is decent. I've not had chance to try it yet though
Nice video as always Andy!
My 16-80 got stolen so I've to buy a new lens to pair to the 70-300 & X-H2s, what would you recomend?
Thanks!
Hard to say. If you use Lightroom I suggest you use the metadata there to see how often you shoot in the 50-70mm range. If you shoot a lot there (I actually do) then you're probably better with the 16-80, particularly as with the XH2S, you don't have the 40mp sensor
@@AndyMumford Thanks for the help, I think I'm going again for the 16-80! I really like the fact the 16-50 has the movement completely inside thought.
Fantastic video as always, thanks Andy! Have you had a chance (or interest) to try the Tamron 17-70? I'm looking for a midrange for my X-T4 to compliment my 10-24, 18-55 & 70-300. The Fuji 16-80 or the Tamron 17-70 seem to be good possibilities 🤔
Thanks for the comment. I've not had chance to test the 17-70mm, nor the Sigma 18-50.
Thank you for this very interesting review. I shoot mostly handheld, so I wonder whether the stabilized 18-55 has any advantage (at say 1/50 to 1/250) over this lens? Or does the better resolution of the 16-50makes up for there lack of stabilization, again under reasonable shooting conditions?
I think if you're shooting with a camera with IBIS then it really doesn't matter.
Thanks for the great video and comparison with the 16-80. Do you think the difference in resolution would be as pronounced if you were shooting with an older body like the XT2 or XT3?
I shoot with an XT1 currently buy will at some point upgrade to an XH1 or XT3 over the next coupleof years, with the 16mp of the XT1 I expect its harder to tell the difference between the image quality of them isnt it?
Thanks for the comment. For sure the difference wouldn’t be so pronounced as the lens is resolving all of the resolution on the 40mp sensor, which the 16-80 is unable to do, however an XT2 or XT3 that resolution is there to be resolved,so the difference would be smaller
@AndyMumford Perfect, thanks for getting back to me Andy, I'd take the extra focal range over absolute sharpness in that case.
I was in Snowdonia last weekend and found I missed the focal range between the 10-24 and 55-200 quite often, I could probably just take the 16-80 in most cases and lighten my bag a bit too.
Have you used the Sigma 18-50 F2.8? Would be interested in a comparison of these two lenses.
I've not used it, although I've been very impressed with the Sigma 10-18 and 100-400mm
@@AndyMumfordComparisons between the two are few and far between but they are direct competitors I'd say.
I tend to think that the distance to an object can affect sharpness. I have noticed this with Helios 44-2 lens. It is more or less sharp for close objects but gets very bad when you shot something in the distance.
Well, there's usually lots of stuff going on in the atmosphere (dust particles, haze etc) that affect the light and sharpness of distant objects. What I can't really figure though is why this lens felt so much sharper than the 16-80mm on distant objects, but that difference wasn't so noticeable on things close up
Appreciate the review. I noticed you use .RAF files in Lightroom though. Do you not bother to convert the files? I have noticed in my landscape shots there is a very noticeable lack of sharpness and detail compared to when I enhance or convert using DXO Deeprime. Keen to hear your thoughts or your usual workflow!
It's not something I've ever done, but it's possibly something I could look into. I don't really feel that the RAF images lack detail or sharpness though, and once I've worked them through Lightroom I've generally been happy with how they come out
@ there’s a 14 day free trial for DXO, which seems to be the best at converting Fuji files nowadays. I’ve been trying it for a few days and do see improvement, whilst the colors stay the same and I can still choose other film sims. I’d give it a go to see the difference for yourself.
Is it fair to compare the new 16-50 with the 16-55 f2.8 mk1? It is because of the weight of the gear I switched to fuji and I feel the red badge 1st generation is heavy and bulky . Was thinking of trading it for this new premium kit lens. What do you think of the switch?
I’ve not been able to compare the two directly, and the 16-55mm mk I was a very sharp lens. But it is very big and heavy, and for that reason (and because for me, the whole point of the X System is going light) I prefer the new 16-50
It's currently on sale in the States for $499
I noticed that yesterday. Sadly not the same in Europe
Where have been. I am sure lot's of your followers missed you?
Love your videos, but your title is wrong. Not about the 16-55.
Oops, missed that. Thanks for pointing it out, I've changed it now
@ no problem. I was actually hoping it was a video about the brand new 16 to 55 mm MK II.
10:20 this is an unnecessarily high shutter speed. At 30mm you could easily do 1/60 handheld with stabilization off.
It would have made no difference at all though
@@AndyMumford It would have allowed you to stop down a bit further and use base ISO. Using 640 you've basically underexposed 2.3 stops. Thanks for the review, the comparison with the 16-80 was interesting.
wait you not using the 70-300 or the mega zoomer? why still the older zoom?
No, I didn't use the 70-300 because the gap between this lens and the 70-300 is one I use a lot
12:57 you have different shutter speed (1/200 vs 1/400) with the same aperture and iso. How?
They are different images. One taken with the 16-80 and the other with the 16-50. The light was changeable when I shot the comparison images, and as I wanted to keep the ISO and aperture the same (as they can affect sharpness in a way that shutter speed doesn't) the shutter speed was changed when I switched lenses to maintain the same exposure (in the slightly different light)
@@AndyMumford Got it. Thank you.
Inexpensive lens, Andy?
I said it's "not" an inexpensive lens, but if you buy it as part of the kit, it's almost half price and represents good value.
@ yes, and that’s the main point, I agree. But earlier in the video you said something about the build quality for an inexpensive lens. It’s a small point and I wrote it before I had seen the whole video. I have to add that I’m envious of your lifestyle, although I’m sure there is a lot of hard work required.
For a landscape photog, Fujifilm is fine. But for everything else, the sub-par AF system which is generations behind everything else takes it off the table. Sold my XT-3 and went back to Canon. I now travel with an R3 and 24-105 f/4. Amazing AF and MUCH better dynamic range and low light/noise performance. A bigger camera of course, but bigger performance to match. When Fuji fires its engineers and hires ones on the level of those working for the big boys, I’ll look at the system again.
Not sure why you're posting this on a review of a Fuji lens...seems like you're in the wrong place. You are of course comparing a Fuji camera that's two generations older than the Canon you're comparing it with. I was just in Greenland shooting wildlife with an X-T5. My workshop partner uses Canon and we had participants there shooting Sony (no Nikon) and there was no difference at all in autofocus performance for the wildlife images we shot. Still, it's great that you're happy with your Canon. Enjoy your photography with it.