SGinNorcal

The newer version has WR, better stabilization, a numbered aperture ring (original had ring but you had to look at screen for f-stop), and a lock for the auto setting on the aperature.

I bought the kit with the 16-80 and I freaked out when the lens did not appear on their "optimized" list for the improved sensor.  I was upset because, if I would have known about the "list" when I purchased the camera, I would've purchased the camera with the 18-55, which is on the list........ugggghh!  Now I'm looking at the 16mm 1.4 for the brightness, sharpness, astrophotography, etc. and I've read sooooooo many great reviews on the quality of this lens for the Fuji system.  But this lens is not on the list either.  I called Fuji and they told me that the vast majority of lenses that are not on the list take advantage of new sensor at 99%, but because they weren't at 100%, they couldn't be on the list........but would still perform very well.  He could not provide data on the 16mm 1.4.  I was wondering if any of you have the 16mm 1.4 on the X-T5 and have an opinion on its performance.  I am still looking to buy the lens and I'm trying not to let the list or my purchase get me down........because, before I heard about the list, I've been EXTREMELY  happy with the camera and the images I've been able to take.

Don't own and haven't used the 16mm.  But I wouldn't take to much stock in "the list".  The only two I have on it are the 33f1.4 and 23f2 and they do produce sharp images.  I also have the 10-24, 16-80, 55-200 and they are excellent lens as well.  Also, while the 18mm1.4 prime is on there, the 18-55 is not and most people find the 16-80 to have equal or better detail than the 18-55.  Its usually safe to assume that a compact zoom is going to have slightly lower IQ at the same focal length as a prime.  I haven't seen anything the disrupts that simplification.  For me the bulky zooms, 16-55 and 50-140 don't fit the form factor I am after and I'm not going to lug them around so I don't have them.  The compact zooms fulfill a need when you know you will be shooting with a variety of focal lengths or simply don't know what to prepare for and don't want to be constantly swapping lenses.  In my case, the 10-24 is the most extreme example.  If I pixel peep, its not that impressive.  But shoot a beautiful wide scene at 10 to 12mm and it can provide an awesome shot you wouldn't get with a more general purpose lens.  Maybe find a used f2 lens with the 18-55 range that suits you and play around with it.  You will see what I am referring too.  Picking a lens is always a compromise. 

XH2 with XF 33 wr

I love the 16-80 lens.  Its a super versatile range, has great build quality, weather sealing, great OIS, is reasonably compact, and has constant aperture.  I have primes at 18f1.4, 23f2, 33f1.4, 50f2 and yes, I would agree that ultimate image quality on those prime lenses are better.  If that wasn't the case, prime lenses would be pretty pointless.  For outdoor, landscape shots in good light, when I'm not sure what focal length I'll need next, its hard to beat the 16-80mm and its my most used lens.   Bad light, indoors, go to a f1.4 or f2 lens.

I have the Gfx50S and XT5.  Its surprising how close the XT5 can get to the Gfx.  I just uploaded some shots from the North CA coast, I was shooting both.  Capture One lists the shots by time of day so going through them alternates for each camera.  At times it was easy when I had the 70-300 on the XT5.  But when shooting with a shorter focal length on the XT5, its not as noticeable without zooming into the photo.  The Gfx will hold much more detail once you punch into the shot.  While the Gfx has higher IQ, if I had to own just one, it would be the XT5, its just much more versatile.

You realize M is manual focus mode?  Also, the min focus distance has to be met or no focus.  I believe the min focus is longer with the 1.4 attached.

I have the XT-5 and I can assure you the menu system has a MF Assist with an option to turn it off.  When you go to the Menu, are you first going to the AF/MF category and scrolling down to the second page, you will see MF Assist.  Go into that and one of the options is OFF.  This is the same menu where you change the color for Focus Peaking.
You seem determined to not see this and complain about Fuji.  The functionality hasn't changed just the default setting.  With this tiny bit of customization, you can control it yourself rather than it automatically shutting off.  I think this is inline with the nature of the camera, program what you want and don't have things fixed a certain way that can't be changed.

I dont think its a bug, just a change in default.  Have you guys tried setting it up as I suggested?  To me, having control of when focus peaking is on is better than the camera deciding.  I switch it on and off as I need it with the F2 button, its very responsive.

Hey John,  you can assign it to fn2, I just did.  First you have to set a custom button setting.  Go to the IQ menu, scroll to Edit/Save Custom Setting, select the number you want, C1, C2, whatever, then pick MF, focus assist Off.  Then go back to the Custom Button menu, hold down Disp/Back until it comes up.  You can now assign your custom setting to button Fn2.  It works perfectly as a MF Focus Peak on/off button and reacts immediately.  Thanks for bringing this up, it is nice to have and I didn't think about it before.

You can build your own custom setting under the IQ menu, Edit/Save Custom Setting.  As far as I can tell, any camera function can be saved as C1, C2, etc.  Then you can assign the setting you created to a button, like the Fn2.  Pretty cool.

I initially use uncompressed then switched to Lossless when I heard there was no degradation in quality.  I never noticed a difference in processing speed.  There might be one but not enough for me to notice.

Ok, I freely admit my sense of humor stop developing at 12 y/o so I found this funny as hell, even if it was just and accidental mis-spell.

Sorry, fat finger.  Meant AF-C - auto focus continuous

Ok, I freely admit my sense of humor stop developing at 12 y/o so I found this funny as hell, even if it was just and accidental mis-spell.

1) I'm no expert at the focus modes but I believe "bird" is just a fine tune to help it track birds.  I would still expect you would need ASPC to track a moving bird.
3) Keep in mind that Image Stabilization is for camera movement only, not subject movement.  I would use to help steady your motions but you still need the appropriate shutter speed to get the motion blur or not that you want.

Ok, I freely admit my sense of humor stop developing at 12 y/o so I found this funny as hell, even if it was just and accidental mis-spell.

That is exactly what it looks like and adjusting white balance and tint helps, but I don't feel I can match the original for richness of color.  I downloaded a trial of Affinity, recreated this Pan and export from Affinity, imported to C1.  It does seem to bring the color more neutral but not with the weird tint.  Just played with color a little and it does seem to be an improvement.  If C1 can't fix the issue, this may be my solution.  Thanks Jerryy!

I'm attached two screen shots to show the problem better.  This was a simple two shot Pano with 121726 as one of the originals, 122713 is the Pan.  Both originals have similar color with ISO, aperture, SS, exposure, all the same.  The preview of the stitch looked great, but when processed has the weird tint.  The sky and the soil in particular, just doesn't look right.

I don't there is an answer for this question that works for all.  Either are good multi-purpose lenses and aren't miles apart.  You could look for a good, used example and give it a try. Or buy both used and resell the one you don't like as well.

Given the inverse rule, a stable shot at 1/8 second not even including IBIS, there aren’t many compelling reasons for needing faster than f/4 on this UWA lens.    Astro maybe, but nearly every other use case it’s not really there.  You aren’t going for subject separation on 8mm, nor “bokeh balls”. 

I have not yet ordered it but doing so is probably inevitable.  Maybe you guys will say its crap and save me some money!  I love the 10-12mm range on the 10-24 so pretty curious about this lens.  I've heard some complaints about the f3.5 but I rarely have my 10-24 at f4 so I doubt it will be an issue.  Although double duty as an Astro lens would have been nice. 

I have not yet ordered it but doing so is probably inevitable.  Maybe you guys will say its crap and save me some money!  I love the 10-12mm range on the 10-24 so pretty curious about this lens.  I've heard some complaints about the f3.5 but I rarely have my 10-24 at f4 so I doubt it will be an issue.  Although double duty as an Astro lens would have been nice. 

Don't own and haven't used the 16mm.  But I wouldn't take to much stock in "the list".  The only two I have on it are the 33f1.4 and 23f2 and they do produce sharp images.  I also have the 10-24, 16-80, 55-200 and they are excellent lens as well.  Also, while the 18mm1.4 prime is on there, the 18-55 is not and most people find the 16-80 to have equal or better detail than the 18-55.  Its usually safe to assume that a compact zoom is going to have slightly lower IQ at the same focal length as a prime.  I haven't seen anything the disrupts that simplification.  For me the bulky zooms, 16-55 and 50-140 don't fit the form factor I am after and I'm not going to lug them around so I don't have them.  The compact zooms fulfill a need when you know you will be shooting with a variety of focal lengths or simply don't know what to prepare for and don't want to be constantly swapping lenses.  In my case, the 10-24 is the most extreme example.  If I pixel peep, its not that impressive.  But shoot a beautiful wide scene at 10 to 12mm and it can provide an awesome shot you wouldn't get with a more general purpose lens.  Maybe find a used f2 lens with the 18-55 range that suits you and play around with it.  You will see what I am referring too.  Picking a lens is always a compromise. 

As a follow-up, I just purchased a new version of the 10-24 and it has none of the issues I found on the older version.  I know they are supposed to be the same optically but between these two copies, the new version is better.