XF 16-55mm f/2.8 WR Lens

[kmleffler]

I am seriously considering the purchase of the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 lens and would like to know what the experience of forum members is with this lens.  I have read a number of reviews, but I would like to hear from users who are not professional reviewers.

[Maurice]

I don't think bloggers are (necessarily) any more professional than forum users. We are one people, some just happen to know how to use Wordpress.

 

From what i hear, you get what you pay for, but gaining one stop at 55mm only, and a bit more wideangle at 16mm, is not worth the increase in size and weight over the 18-55 F2.8-4. End quote.

You even lose the OIS. But of course there's WR, and stellar corner performance, probably. Don't take my word for it.

[citral]

Well what is it that you're shooting?

 

If it's cycling events in pouring rain, animals in the rain forest or pictures from a boat I'd say go for the 16-55.

 

If it's for walking around and shooting still stuff in ok conditions grab the 18-55 and enjoy the OIS when you're inside buildings or generally handeld in low-light. For outside keep in mind that if you want to shoot sharp with plenty DOF you'll be around f/8 and thus the 2.8 doesn't matter at all, and they'll probably be extremely near in terms of quality well stopped down.

[JCP]

I have this lens and love it.

I used to have the 18-55, maybe I had a bad copy, but I find the 16-55 is a huge step up in performance and image quality.

[Marc G.]

The 16-55 is a beautiful, albeit heavy lens. I like it a lot, though I reach for for the primes for personal shooting. I can certainly recommend the 16-55. Fast, sharp, well made, weather sealed.

[bulgoki78]

I just got my 16-55mm lens today. Like everyone said the quality is no question about it. Its build to last, heavy but in a good way. I like the rubber on the zoom and the "clik" feeling on the aperture ring. Haven't had a chance to try it but once i try i will share it with you guys. I've done research before buying that lens, and decided to buy after that. Some minor chromatic aberration and distortion in some point of focal range but easily corrected.

[lysander]

I just got mine, a minty used copy from a dealer for $960 in the original packaging. Looks like new. 

 

I have used only primes with the X-T1 until now, but have wanted a top tier general purpose zoom to avoid lugging a bunch of lenses around.

 

Fast focus, very sharp, as a good as a prime for me.  BUT, a bit heavy at first, then you don't notice. Much lighter than the equivalent Nikon gear I sold ;-)

[demubckma]

I use my X-T1 kit (23mm and 16-55mm) primarily for shooting pics of my family on outings and indoors. Even from someone coming from a pretty compact camera (Lumix LX7), I got used to the relative bulk of the X-T1/16-55 combo pretty quickly and don't feel as though it feels unbalanced, and I don't use any additional grips.  The ergonomics for me personally are very comfortable, and I don't have the largest hands.  The combination feels solid but not "brick" heavy.

 

I may have had a less than stellar copy of the 18-55, but I feel the 16-55's images are on a different level.  I'm just an everyday shooter who uses Fuji purely as a hobby, and my lack of skills probably has something to do with why I didn't feel as though the highly reputable 18-55 didn't seem all that fantastic to me, but I didn't change anything with my technique and still feel as though my results are dramatically different, despite what some review say regarding a negligible difference in image quality between the two.  The extra 2mm at the wide end is a nice bonus.

 

I personally don't mind the lack of OIS since I use it primarily for shooting people pictures. (It would have been nice to have of course and for others that use the lens in different scenarios, it could represent a deal breaker)

 

The lens is not as big in person as it may seem in pictures online, but it IS a big lens.  It makes for a combo comparable in size to your typical Nikon/Canon APS-C DSLR (like a 5300/5500) and telephoto zoom.  Rent it first and give it a try, though.  If you're contemplating getting one at all, you owe it to yourself to give it a go.  This is coming from someone who swore he would never tote around a DSLR-sized package to snap pics of family.

[lyncher]

I have purchased and been using the 16-55 2.8 with my X-T1 for about a month now and in my opinion its worth every penny

 

Pro's

- fast focusing even in very dim lighting (its faster focusing than the 18-55 2.8-4)

- prime quality

- the feel and build is outstanding

 

 

I would buy this lens again without any hesitation if i didnt already own it

[FearTheXNoob]

- fast focusing even in very dim lighting (its faster focusing than the 18-55 2.8-4)

How big is the difference? I currently own the 18-55 and one of the main reasons to consider the 16-55 would be AF speed...

[russw]

Quite a bit sharper and heavier so just depends on how important sharpness is to you.

I don't think anyone has mentioned the extra 2mm you get at the wide end. That's significant and a reason I bring it with me on travel now

I do miss the OIS though

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sluw]

From what I've read it's not particularly faster in daylight, but it's way faster in low light (but unfortunately I don't own the lens). And keep in mind what russw says! You miss 4 stops of OIS so it'll be harder to get sharp images in lower light. 

[Marc G.]

From what I've read it's not particularly faster in daylight, but it's way faster in low light (but unfortunately I don't own the lens). And keep in mind what russw says! You miss 4 stops of OIS so it'll be harder to get sharp images in lower light. 

4 stops is bollocks. Only the OIS in the 18-135 and 50-140 give you 4-5 stops of benefit. The 18-55 has the older OIS generation built into it which barely delivers 3 stops, if at all. I found the older OIS to be unreliable and sometimes blurring shots when faster shutter speeds are use while OIS is turned on.

 

The OIS does give a slight benefit but if you photograph people this benefit is neutralized by the need to shoot with a faster shutter speed anyway.

 

I found the 16-55 to be a reliable and strong tool.

[Noah]

Hi there, first time poster!

 

I've had my 16-55mm for a few weeks now. Shot with it for day long trips and a couple of events. I'm not a pro, but I do love photography .

 

I agree with the general sentiment that others have said here, that the "it's sooo big" feedback from initial reviews is way overblown. Granted, it depends where you're coming from. I came from Canon a year ago, first with the 550D + 17-55mm f2.8 EF-S, then the 5Diii + 24-70 F2.8 ii. Let me tell you, the X-T1 with the 16-55mm is laughably small and easy to handle vs either of those Canon setups. As far as fixed f2.8 mid-range zooms go for APS-C or FF, this has to be one of the most compact (albeit, not by much).

 

Focusing is fairly fast and silent. I'm patiently waiting for v4.0 firmware where I think this lens will really shine.

 

I'll admit, my first event I was a bit perplexed. It was in a large room with plenty of sunlight pouring in from 10 foot windows along a wall, and in aperture priority set to f2.8 the whole time, my X-T1 kept wanting to give me 1000+ ISO with my minimum shutter speed of 1/30. A LOT of those pictures came out slightly blurry, esp. on the long end. I had to manually set SS to 1/60 and keep ISO at 800 for hand shake to stop being an issue. Not sure if the X-T1 was having a metering issue or what, but it was a little annoying.

 

As for the picture quality, images are definitely sharp. Pretty damn close to prime, if not prime sharp. I compare side by side with images I took with my 24-70 ii, and they're easily on par, but for a total of $3,000 less for glass+body .

 

That all being said, I'm still evaluating if I want to keep it. I used to be a zoom shooter, but after switching to Fuji, I've really enjoyed the performance of primes. Currently I own the 23mm, and decided to give the 16-55mm a shot. I'll admit, I'm pretty tempted by going the 56mm f1.2 route for the long end, and maybe picking up a wide angle. I found myself reaching for my 23mm yesterday at Disneyland because I really needed the f1.4. I've been spoiled with the bright primes. Takes a lot to make f2.8 feel slow..lol. I'll probably wait for the v4.0 firmware with the new AF tracking to see if the 16-55mm will work for me. 

 

I'm in a position where I wouldn't mind at all to just rock primes, but having 2 kids running around, sometimes a mid range zoom is required.

 

these are all jpegs SOOC

 

https://goo.gl/photos/Ls1S1bDWHSkV3b7o9

 

https://goo.gl/photos/3tXxqe3mWR6aZK6y7

 

https://goo.gl/photos/p9176iR3Nbzfkmq9A

 

https://goo.gl/photos/7DBVvMM6YgduLqFo6

 

https://goo.gl/photos/Pqc8FG5HUbY7sCH8A

[lyncher]

How big is the difference? I currently own the 18-55 and one of the main reasons to consider the 16-55 would be AF speed...

I cant really put my finger on how fast it is in comparison to 18-55, but from what i see in my testing, the focus is snappier, it definitely focuses faster in dim light and im talking about very dim lighting, it just has the "IT" factor. I bet this lens is going to be special when the firmware 4.0 comes out, like somebody is saying in this thread.

[Antony]

Hi there, first time poster!

 

I'll admit, my first event I was a bit perplexed. It was in a large room with plenty of sunlight pouring in from 10 foot windows along a wall, and in aperture priority set to f2.8 the whole time, my X-T1 kept wanting to give me 1000+ ISO with my minimum shutter speed of 1/30. A LOT of those pictures came out slightly blurry, esp. on the long end. I had to manually set SS to 1/60 and keep ISO at 800 for hand shake to stop being an issue. Not sure if the X-T1 was having a metering issue or what, but it was a little annoying.[/url]

Well, if the camera was giving you 1000 ISO at f/2.8 and 1/30 sec and the pictures were correctly exposed then it was the correct exposure. Based upon your later comment that you shot at 800 ISO and at 1/60 sec I believe you actually meant the camera was at 400 ISO and 1/30 sec. The issue was with your implementation of auto ISO - 1/30 sec is too slow for critical sharpness. You need to increase your minimum shutter speed to a level you can comfortably handhold.

[plasmolbio]

Exactly the question I was asking myself - I'm going to get an X-T1 + 23mm (daily use) + a zoom (travel) combo for my 40th birthday and was undecided between the 18-135 and the 16-55.  The weight and size differences between the 2 zooms are not huge (price difference is!)...there's something very appealing about a high-quality constant aperture zoom (not least the marked aperture ring with hard stops) which is why I was leaning towards the 16-55.  After reading these posts, especially those from demubckma and Noah who look like they're using the lens for the same things as I will, I might just have fallen over for the 16-55! 

 

Now should I get the MHG-XT as well.....???  

[Antoine B]

Interesting reading, but I'm still not sure between the 18-135mm and the 16-55mm...

Probably need to rent both to decide! One is longer, the other wider, one is stabilized, the other faster (and constant aperture): why do I have to choose between such criteria?

 

If anyone has tried both, is there a real difference in IQ (I'm not a pro)?

Isn't it a bit bothersome to have a non-marked aperture ring on the 18-135mm? It feels I'll have to check the screen every time...

[michel]

Hello

I think  the 16-55 is far better than the 18-135 ( construction and faster aperture, and also IQ )

For an additional grip, the IShoot one is more comfortable than the 2 Fuji grips, and over all, is half the price of the less expensive one. You find it easily on the bay.

[coma]

I once had the 18-135 and sold it rather quickly.

It can't compete with the 16-55 IQ wise even if it's not perfect (no stabilization).

The 2mm wider angle surely makes a difference for me which comes in handy quiet often.

 

If you absolutely need the longer reach, there are plenty of better choices.

[darknj]

I don't understand how this suddenly became a comparison between the 18-135 and the 16-55.

 

Both lenses were made with different ideologies.

 

The18-135 is an all prupose lense that will do good in most situations, it's a lens of comprise. You trade quality for practicability. True they are better options if you need to go far, but would any of them allow you to go from wide to close up without changing lenses ? Or take that shot at 135mm at 1/10 of a sec handheld ? Not many can do that, so yes, they had to cut some coners here and there and IQ took a bite. 

 

The 16-55 on the hand was made to be a high IQ zoom lens, no VR because it would have made it even bulkier than what it is now, but still has WR to please a certain crowd. It's more targeted at the "Pros".

 

Both lenses are very good in their own expertise area.

 

The right tool for the right job.

[Guido]

4 stops is bollocks. Only the OIS in the 18-135 and 50-140 give you 4-5 stops of benefit. The 18-55 has the older OIS generation built into it which barely delivers 3 stops, if at all. I found the older OIS to be unreliable and sometimes blurring shots when faster shutter speeds are use while OIS is turned on.

 

The OIS does give a slight benefit but if you photograph people this benefit is neutralized by the need to shoot with a faster shutter speed anyway.

 

I found the 16-55 to be a reliable and strong tool.

I fully agree, the OIS in the 50-140 (that I own) is much much better than the one on the 18-55 (that I used to own).

With the latter lens, I also found sharpness issues with OIS turned on and shutter speed around 1/125 - 1/250 so I often kept it turned off.

Some say it is obvious, you should always turn the OIS off with faster speed, but this is not the case with the 50-140.

So the lack of OIS is not an issue for me, and I would never go back to the 18-55. The heavier lens is sharper and micro-contrast is visibly better, to me at least.

[Naddan28]

Hi is anyone using this lens with a lee seven5 or hitech 85mm filter kit? I'm curious as to whether you'll get any vignetting at 16mm.

[papedo]

as far as i know the maximum filter holder size is 72mm for the lee (xf16-55 is 77mm), no idea about the 85mm formatt hitech. i use the 100mm hitech system and it works good. 

[val]

I really like the 16-55mm F2.8 but its not for me.

Try before you buy!