Fuji 16 55 f2 8 review
|
However, there is one thing I am starting to be confident about. The Fujifilm ecosystem is starting to increase in price and size, while their competitors are doing the opposite. (Especially the Sony ecosystem.) Show
With this in mind, one of the most important lenses for the ecosystem will be the 24-70mm F2.8 equivalent. So, let’s see if an almost ten year old lens is worth it. What other Fujifilm lenses cover the 16-55 (APS-C)/24-82.5mm (Full-Frame Equivalent?)Zoom Lenses
For the most part, I think people will be happy with the performance from the 17-70mm F2.8. However, I believe that video shooters will want to look elsewhere. I felt like the IBIS of the X-Series lenses and the OIS of the 17-70 fought against each other.
One of my least favorite lenses, the 16-80mm F4 always disappointed in regards to image quality. I think it’s the closest, direct competitor to this lens.
The standard kit lens. A used copy can be purchased for around $300.
I had high hopes for the 18-120, but there is one major problem for its intended video use.
Another direct competitor of the 18-120, this 18-135 is Fujifilm’s other one-stop lens. This lens does have OIS! However, it struggles in low light with an aperture of F5.6 Prime Lenses
An instant classic. The XF 23mm f1.4 is sharp, has beautiful sunstars, and it’s bokeh is magical.
Everything I said about the 23mm, but at the 33mm f1.4 ‘s focal length.
One of the few F1 lenses in the world that also has autofocus. However, with that 75mm FF focal length, you are going to have a very shallow depth of field.
A refresh of the original 56mm f1.2. This lens is now weather-resistant and has a closer focusing distance. (50cm) Dials, Switches, Buttons, and MoreThere are no dials, switches, or any special buttons on this lens. Additionally, the 16-55 is one of the few normal zoom lenses which lack optical image stabilization. (More on if this is actually helpful or hurtful, later…) Build QualityAs one of the professional Fujifilm zoom lenses, one should expect wonderful build quality. I am happy to report, it’s solid. There are noticeable, hard stops at each focal length. Additionally, the paint’s sheen is subtle, but it does not leave fingerprints like other Fujifilm lenses. The manual focus throw is not as loose as other Fujifilm lenses, but it does not seem like forever to go from the minimum focusing distance to infinity. As I read other various blogs and watched YouTube videos, one concern I noticed people had was the external zoom, rather than a potential internal zoom. However, after handling it, I don’t think I would be concerned about this. As long as you don’t move the zoom too fast, it really does not vacuum-in dust. Additionally, the extension is not too far. My only concern, prior to testing it out, was the lens creep. After all, it does not contain any switch to lock into place. I shook the lens a little bit to simulate general use, and I carried it around in my backpack for a while. This lens does not experience significant creep at 16mm or anything of that sort, but if the lens is already at 23mm or 35mm, it might slip a little bit. In relation to build quality, I have read a few remarks that because of the build quality, this does lead to some additional weight gain. However, I am happy to report that this lens does balance well with the larger, X-T and X-H series bodies. The center-of-gravity is in the middle of the lens, so we do have a pretty even weight distribution. I think a third-party grip (or in my case, the extra battery grip) does help. However, it is not necessary. Color FringingColor Fringing At F2.8 w/16-55 Color Fringing At F3.2 w/16-55 Color Fringing At F3.6 w/16-55 Color Fringing At F4 w/16-55 Color Fringing At F5.6 w/16-55 Green and purple fringing, often found on faster lenses such as the 56mm F1.2 WR, can always be found in the transition areas between the in-focus and out-of-focus background. However, I am happy to report that for the 16-55mm lens, the color fringing is almost minimal. There might be some at F2.8, but I don’t believe it is truly noticeable in 99% of the photographs you will take. Macro PerformanceThe 16-55mm is not going to be a favorite for macro-photographers, with a minimum focusing distance of 11.81 inches or about 30 centimeters. This does result in a maximum reproduction ratio of .16x. This does limit its usefulness for food photography. SharpnessBrick WallCenter
Corner
Real-World Sharpness TakeawaysFor the most part, I felt like I could use the Fujifilm 16-55 almost anywhere. But I had a few, key takeaways after using this lens in the real-world. First, the image quality is good…. enough. I certainly did not think it could even compare to the newer primes such as the 56mm F1.2 WR, 18mm, and 33mm. (Even at their minimum apertures.) However, compared to some of Fujifilm’s oldest lenses, it performed about the same. (To me, this is where this lens earned the nickname “a bag full of primes.” Second: The consistency across the entire frame, from corner to center, was honestly amazing. Even at the horrific F11 and above, the performance was similar enough. Third: Of the three red-badge zooms, I felt like this was the worst-performing lens in regards to sharpness. Finally, if I ever had to use a Fujifilm standard zoom lens again, I don’t think could use anything BUT this lens. Fujifilm’s corners are horrible in almost every option, but this performs noticeably better above the rest. BokehThe bokeh results of this lens are merely average. After all, you are really only getting an F4 equivalent lens. That being said, this lens does handle the foreground-subject-background transitions extremely well. I did not find that certain scenes like bushes or grass particularly busy, either. 55 mm @ F2.8 32.1mm @ F2.8 55mm @ F2.8 55mm @ F2.8 To me, this lens is only actually exemplary in environmental portraiture. There is just enough a blur where your subject stands-out, but enough where you understand the context of the photo. Bokeh BallsThe bokeh balls are less than stellar, as well. At all focal lengths, there is an onion-ring effect. Fujifilm 16-55mm 55mm at F2.8 Bokeh Balls Fujifilm 16-55mm 55mm at F4 Bokeh Balls Fujifilm 16-55mm 55mm at F5.6 Bokeh Balls Additionally, as you stop-down, the polygonal shape does become very apparent at F5.6. There was not a major cat’s eye affect in the corner, which is typically a problem with lenses that have faster apertures. Since this lens already starts at F2.8 or so, it wasn’t expected. Autofocus Test
For the most part, I was pleased with the autofocus of this lens. It was quiet, so I would feel comfortable putting a microphone such as the Rode VideoMicro or other shotgun mics. I also felt like it was much faster than some of Fuji’s other zoom lenses, and it did not hunt as much. Apologies for the missed focus. Did not realize I was in area-only, continuous tracking. Video ReviewMissing OIS? Not a big deal…Advocates for a MK II version of this lens also complain that this lens fails to offer any lens stabilization, and instead you must rely on image stabilization within the camera bodies. However, most people fail to understand almost every body since the X-H1 within the XF ecosystem has contain some form of stabilization. And if Fujifilm is not careful, you can actually have the OIS and IBIS working against each other at that 16mm focal lengths. (This is widely debated, but tends to be true. The 10-24mm is a prime example.) Now, the Fujifilm ecosystem does have a decent IBIS system outside of that. Here’s an example of a wide-angle panning shot, which can be very difficult for same ecosystems. Panning ShotBut all around, I am not going to complain. DistortionAt 16mm, the lens does suffer from major barrel distortion. The Capture One/JPEG/Light Room profiles correct for this, however. It does seem to have disappeared by about 35mm, and the longer focal length of 55 millimeters does have some minor pincushion distortion. 16mm Distortion W/16-55MM 16mm Distortion- Corrected 35mm Distortion- Corrected 35mm Distortion 55mm Distortion 55mm Distortion- Corrected Sunstars/Flaring/GhostingFlaring and ghosting is controlled remarkably well for a lens that has a 77mm front lens element. Additionally, the sunstars are very good. I found that they become usable somewhere around F14 or so. 16mm Sunstars at F4.5 w/16-55 Sunstars at F5.6 Sunstars at F6.4 Sunstars at F7.1 Sunstars at F8 Sunstars at F9 w/16-55 Sunstars at F11 Sunstars at F14 Sunstars at F16 Sunstars at F20 Sunstars at F22 It is rather unfortunate that we will not be able to get the better image quality and sunstars at the same time. However, I suppose that the Fujifilm ecosystem is a system designed with trade-offs. Fuji 16-55 Sample PhotosFujifilm 16-55mm F2.8 55mm @F5.6 Fujifilm 16-55mm F2.8 55mm @F3.6 Fujifilm 16-55mm F2.8 29.2mm @F8 Fujifilm 16-55mm F2.8 20mm @F5.6 Fujifilm 16-55mm F2.8 51.6mm @F2.8 Fujifilm 16-55mm F2.8 55mm @F2.8 Fujifilm 16-55mm F2.8 55mm @F2.8 Fujifilm 16-55mm F2.8 22mm @F2.8 Fujifilm 16-55mm F2.8 55mm @F2.8 Fujifilm 16-55mm F2.8 40.1mm @F5 Pros
It is consistent, I’ll give it that.
No Question in my mind. Cons
Both the average amount of background blur and onion-ring effect for the bokeh blobs create a sub-par experience. Unless in a pinch, I would not use the XF ecosystem for portraits.
Yes, there are numerous ways to correct it. However, you will need to think about your edges when composing in the wide-end. I am really thinking about architecture-types. My RatingPrice: 3.5/5 There’s a pretty solid tier system within the XF ecosystem. It will go 18-55mm, 16-80mm, and then the 16-55mm. It’s not that this is not a fairly-priced lens, but rather that it is much cheaper when there are discounts putting it in the 16-80 price range. (If you buy it used.) Reliability: 4/5 In regards to being able to stand-up to environmental abuse, I think that this lens will last a long-time. Functionality: 3.5/5 Style: 5/5 Total: 16/20 or about 80% Fujifilm 16-55mm F2.8Price (4/5)
Reliability: 3.5/5
Functionality: 5/5
Style: 4/5
On the larger X-H and X-T bodies, the 16-55mm F2.8 will balance well. However, on a majority of the smaller bodies such as the X-TXX, XPro, and XE lines, it will not. Total: 16.5 or 82.5% Most of the stylistic attributes of this lens can be worked around. For example, the size can be counteracted with a grip. The reliability concerns are situational based, for example bokeh balls are generally more of a concern with prime lenses. This is a pro-series lens. For the most part, I found it to be excellent, and I highly recommend if you can afford it. Fujifilm 16-55 vs 16-80mm F4The Fujifilm 16-80mm F4 and 16-55mm F2.8 are some of the most expensive “normal” zoom lenses that Fuji makes. Is the 16-80 so bad? And is the 16-55 better? Read More » Fujifilm 18mm vs 16mm F1.4Two of the best performing wide-angle, XF lenses made by Fujifilm, the 18mm and 16mm should be a comparison that most people think about. But why don’t they? Is 16 55 Fuji worth it?Finally, if I ever had to use a Fujifilm standard zoom lens again, I don't think could use anything BUT this lens. Fujifilm's corners are horrible in almost every option, but this performs noticeably better above the rest. What is the Fuji equivalent to 16 55?This is a tough metal lens, equivalent to Nikon's 17-55mm f/2.8 DX. It's also Fuji's DX-format equivalent to the Nikon 24-70/2.8 and Canon's 24-70/2.8 L. Does Fuji 16 55 have image stabilization?Image stabilization isn't included, but several Fuji X system bodies include in-body stabilization. If you're using a camera without a stabilized sensor, however, think about the optically stabilized XF 16-80mm or Tamron 17-70mm as a step-up option from the kit zoom. How much does a 16 55 f2 8 Fuji weigh?FUJIFILM XF 16-55 F2. 8 R LM WR LENS. |
