16-80 or 10-24

[XFGPhotography]

Hi,

Just got back into photography and currently using a 33mm f/1.4 and a 56mm f/1.2

I used to shoot with just a single lens back then when I had a Canon 7DMK2 with a 24-70 F2.8

I'm loving both the 33mm and 56mm from fuji as the image it creates is just wonderful, i'm planning to travel again and was wondering what are your guys opinion on the following lenses that I could add to my kit.

• 16-80 F/4 R OIS WR
• 10-24 F/4 R OIS WR

My friends keep suggesting to get the 10-24 F/4 since their reasoning was i already have a 33 and 56 focal length and the 16-80 might get redundant. But from a traveler's perspective especially when you only have a single lens what would your choice be?

I was thinking a 16-80 might be better since there are times the 56 during travel is never used especially in cities with tight space but i still change to the 56mm when i need to shoot something far.

[BobJ]

If you want to travel with one lens, in my opinion, the 16-80 is preferred.

[Astigmatism]

I understand your friend's logic. And I have the 10-24 and like it. The ability to go wider is important -- you can always crop narrower afterwards, but if you can't fit the whole subject when shooting, it's lost.

However - you are clearly asking about "when you only have a single lens", and the 16-80 does sound better for that (I've never had it). For what you say you want, I think the 10-24 plus the glass you already have isn't much of an option.

I do have the 18-135 and I really like it. There's so much it can do. I guess it's pretty big and heavy. It may or may not be worth your consideration. Again, you can always crop -- maybe travel photos don't mind cropping?

[XFGPhotography]

Yeah I think you're right with the going wider part. I realized that I almost never use the 56 when I go abroad and just leave it at home since its too tight at times. I might get the 10-24 as a walk around lens since the x-h2 has digital zoom which might be viable as I rarely shoot long. 

[RedDogUSMC]

I may be super late for this post, but if you shot and liked the 24-70 f 2.8 then get the Sigma 18-50 f2.8.  Better image quality than the 16-80, much lighter, less expensive, and a good focal range.  If you want more focal range the Tamron 17-70 is a good option, but bigger and heavier than the Sigma.

I had 2 copies of the 16-80 (good ones) and was not impressed (it's okay), but I REALLY like the Sigma.

Edited March 27, 2023 by RedDogUSMC

[Edp]

12 hours ago, RedDogUSMC said:

I may be super late for this post, but if you shot and liked the 24-70 f 2.8 then get the Sigma 18-50 f2.8.  Better image quality than the 16-80, much lighter, less expensive, and a good focal range…..

this has my vote too.  If I were to invest in a zoom for Fuji for a one lens only experience that biases towards light and compact, that’s the lens.  
 

This may help…

 

Edited March 28, 2023 by Edp
Add a video.

[David01]

The 16-80mm could be the better option for you since it covers more focal lengths and eliminates the need for swapping lenses. However, if you're interested in wide-angle shots, then the 10-24mm would be the way to go. While the latter may not be the most versatile for travel photography, it's the perfect match for cramped indoor venues, architecture, and landscapes.

[Eileen]

Not to mess you up but here is my experience. I owned the 16-80 and while good on sunny days etc and lightweight it is not great in low light & i just thought the quality at the zoom end was soft and not very good. But I did like the extra reach. 

I traded it in and bought the 16-55 2.8  -MUCH better quality - Red Badge (but heavier) and more money. As I have read "it is a bunch of primes in one lens." So true! 

It all depends on what you want. The wider lens does offer a perspective we don't usually see, but background will be pushed back - mountain ranges smaller, etc. 

Though not part of the discussion - I LOVE the 50-140  zoom but heavy. 

 

[SGinNorcal]

I think it depends on what and where you are traveling and what you plan to photograph.  I have the 10-24, 16-80, and 33f1.4.  For straight up image quality, the 33mm is in another league, I'm blown away by it.  But when I'm hiking and shooting landscape, I really like the 10-24.  When the shot is about the scene rather than the details, its really nice.  I feel like the 16-80 is similar in optical quality to the 10-24 maybe slightly better.  I bought it as an all-around lens for traveling in cities and mixed use when a larger range of focal length is nice.  I don't like changing lenses on the fly so I put one on for the day and usually leave it.  I like the 16-80 more than most it seems and it is more versatile than the 10-24 unless you are shooting large scale landscape.  The 16-55 is maybe the best of both worlds but too bulky for me.

[Blue Zurich]

You could be happy with your primes. Zooms and travel never seemed to work that great for me (40+ years of experience) Your framing, the venues and scenes will dictate but with an equivalent of 50/85mm you just need a wide and a Fuji 18 or 23 will be far better suited to serve you than a mediocre zoom. Fuji primes are a gift from heaven, 1/3 the cost of Canon or Nikon and 1/4 the weight. 

[bergat]

The 10-24 zoom is an  execellent lens. 

Lastr month I has been at Newyork.

Coming from Italy i brought with me the 10-24  f4 the 35mm and 55-200.

I used only the 10-24. It is the right lens and you can see a my image made with this lens.