As a travel photographer, where weight is an important factor, and one of the key reasons for me moving to Fuji in the first place, it has been my mainstay lens. Covering key focal lengths from wide angle to modest telephoto it is a perfect “walk around” lens.
So when Fujifilm launched the XF16-55mm f/2.8 R LM WR I dismissed buying one pretty quickly, mainly because of the increased size and weight and lack of Optical Image Stabilisation. Fujifilm apparently decided not to incorporate OIS as it would compromise image quality and add to the size, weight and cost. It should be noted that the major DSLR competitors equivalents do not include this feature either.
However, when Fujifilm offered me the opportunity to try out the 16-55 I jumped at it, intrigued to see for myself how it performed and if it could justify its premium price point versus its smaller sibling.
There was no image stabilisation but the lens did feel reassuringly solid. The weight is a result of the sheer amount of glass Fujifilm have used to construct this lens. With 17 elements in 7 groups and a metal body it has a real “pro / workhorse” feel. I should declare at this stage that I also own a Canon DSLR and some L lenses including the 24-70 f2.8 mkII – the full frame equivalent of the Fuji lens. Though consigned to the cupboard and waiting for the inevitable eBay listing, it was interesting to compare the two lenses. Suddenly my “new” Fuji lens felt like a nimble lightweight and I was eager to test it out.
Mounting the lens onto my X-T1 meant that I had a weather resistant pairing, really useful for any photographer shooting outdoors. The aperture ring has definite clicks in 1/3 stop increments, there is a red marking on the lens to denote its position as a premium lens and I noted that the filter thread was metal, important with frequent use of filter systems like Lee and Hitech.
Although this lens is wider by only 2mm versus the 18-55 for me this is important as I quite often find that 28mm equivalent is not quite wide enough and I have to swap to my 10-24mm. Not a big issue but having a 24mm – 85mm equivalent is much more useful.
I had the perfect opportunity to test it out on a trip to Cinque Terre where I wanted to not only check out the image quality but also how it felt to manage the increased size and weight.
I was determined to use the lens as much as possible and to do a direct comparison with the 18-55. So what were my findings?
Using the lens was a dream, uncomplicated, reassuringly solid and a quality feel. If I’m honest I think that the lens looks just about OK when mounted on the X-T1, it certainly looks better and feels more balanced when using the VG X-T1 battery grip – a pity I sold mine as I didn’t want the extra bulk! The petal shaped lens hood worked well too.
A slight downside for me was using filters. As a Lee Seven5 filter system user on the smaller lenses I had to use my 100mm filters on this lens which duplicated the filters and added slightly to the weight and bulk of my kit.
Of course an f2.8 lens throughout its zoom range means that you can achieve some pleasing bokeh particularly at the longer end of the zoom range when close to your subject. Though on a crop sensor you get the equivalent of roughly f4 on a full frame. The autofocus was fast, quiet and accurate and internal so that the front element doesn’t rotate, again important for filter users.
However, ultimately what’s most important is image quality and here the 16-55 didn’t disappoint. It is an extremely sharp lens throughout the focal lengths with very little fall off or distortion and the contrast and colour rendition, in common with all Fujifilm lenses, was stunning. Several images were shot into the sun and I was impressed that the ghosting and flare was minimal due to the nano GI coating on the front element.
As for testing there are various websites that show detailed performance MTF charts but for my field test I shot comparison images of Vernazza, Cinque Terre on an X-T1 body, tripod mounted at 23mm. I shot the same view at f2.8 – f11 on both the 16-55 f 2.8 and 18-55 f2.8/4.
I then ran a further test photographing Southwell Minster on an X-Pro2 using both lenses at a range of popular focal lengths 16 / 18mm, 23mm, 35mm and 55mm and at apertures of f2.8/4, 5.6, 8, 11 & 16.
In summary both lenses produced excellent results though, no surprise, the 16-55mm delivered stunning image quality at virtually every aperture.
The 18-55 performed best, looking at centre and edge sharpness, at f8 at 18mm and 23mm and f11 at 35mm and 55mm. When shooting landscapes I use a tripod, selecting f11 or f8 for many of my shots, so it is not a surprise therefore to see why I have been so pleased with its performance. As you might expect that performance falls away a little at f4 particularly in the corners. That is where the 16-55 comes in. The 17 elements and lens coatings combine to deliver a performance that is superb with amazing sharpness in the centre and edges especially at apertures of f5.6 and f8. The lens is not quite as sharp in the corners at f2.8 and diffraction starts to set in at f16, in common with most lenses, though still acceptable.
Directly comparing the two lenses I would say that at their optimum apertures they perform similarly but the extra quality in the 16-55 delivers better results at the wider apertures and extremes of focal length in both the centre and at the edges.
Here are some results showing 100% crops of the RAF file with no processing, though it should be noted that Lightroom automatically applies lens correction for chromatic aberration and distortion.
So which one should you choose? That’s perhaps a tricky one as it really depends on what’s important to you and what you shoot.
If weight, bulk, image stabilisation, smaller filter sizes and very good image quality (excellent at certain apertures) and not forgetting of course the price is important to you, then the 18-55mm will serve you very well.
However, if it’s ultimately all about image quality and you would benefit from weather sealing and don’t mind the extra weight and lack of OIS then the 16-55mm is a stunning lens. A zoom that performs like a prime, it is well worth the extra money.
To see more of Chris’ work, visit www.chrisuptonphotography.com
thanks for a timely review.
I just sold my 18-55 in favour of this 16-55 and while i wait for it to arrive I have been having second thoughts. especially as there is no IS.
Also, rumours say there is a patent now registered for an IS version of this lens.I want it mainly for the constant aperture and WR.
I can live with the weight.
I will shoot it quite a bit for landscapes and use a tripod.
Nice images. thanks for the review.
David.
David, I believe that patent was registered almost two years ago. Before the launch of the current 16-55 which suggest that Fujifilm considered adding OIS initially but dropped it before production.
would have been a much more usefull review to show comparison shots from both lenses
Cool shots!! Regards
Very good review. Thanks.
One BIG difference between the two lenses, at least for me, is the way the 16-55 – works.
I love shooting with the primes, but when I switch to a Fuji zoom the ‘fiddly’ switches and ‘ever-turning’, unmarked aperture ring are always sources of frustration. I grab the camera for a shot – what’s the aperture? What mode am I in? I have to wake the camera up and look at the the info on the LCD to figure things out. Then I must flip a switch – or not – to get where I want to be. Not to mention having to remember which switch to flip. Slow, fiddly, frustrating.
The 16-55 works just like a prime. One glance at your camera and you know exactly what’s going on. The difference may not seem like much to some people, but it makes a huge difference for me when it comes to the shooting experience the lens provides compared to other Fuji zoom lenses.
Nice review, I’m very much a happy prime lens user with almost all of the focal lengths covered with the exception of 16mm. However, I keep wondering if the 16-55mm would cut down on carrying all those lenses in one neat zoom. Maybe this has just made my mind up…. if only it has image stabilisation!
Honestly? The lack of OIS isn’t noticeable imho. I’ve used the 16-55 handheld with low shutter speeds and have had no issues. It’s build quality is fantastic and I much prefer it to the 18-55. I wanted one excellent lens over a multitude of primes (kept my 35mm though) and I do not regret it!
Interesting, although some comparison images would have been useful. I thought about this when I bought into the Fuji system, but in the end I went for the 18-55 as to me it maximised the advantages of the system ie small, light and high quality. I borrowed a 16-55 for the day and there are differences in IQ, but they are small and some can be compensated for in post. I have just got back from a road trip around the USA and carrying the 18-55 around was breeze compared to my old Nikon gear. I am very pleased with the results from the lens and if I needed wider, I used my 10-24mm which is truly excellent. I will stick with the 18-55 for now – it will be interesting if the increased resolution of the new bodies coming out expose greater differences between the lenses :o)
Good read! I’ve found myself a little conflicted with the 16-55, its a great lens from an image quality point of view but I found it a little too bulky on the X-Pro 2 body form, it really is a better handler on an XT1 with the grip really. I also find that at some of the common focal lengths that I use are 16, 23 and 35 and I find that the primes (especially the 16) are better then the zoon at those lengths, its a great zoom though!
ive been looking to buy a great lens for travel with the xt2, thanks for this review.
ultimately i think ill look around for some image samples but stick with the 18-55 lens, its lighter and therefore much more suited to backpacking etc, not to mention possibly a little more inconspicious?