Fuji 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 or the 16-55mm f/2.8 for Travel?

[KMLNewYork]

I am thinking about purchasing a zoom lens that I can use with my X-T2 when I travel.  I am deciding between the 16-55mm and the 18-135mm.  I owned the 16-55mm when I had the X-T1, but I sold it when I sold the camera.  I have never used the 18-135mm.   Does anyone have any experience using both lenses? 

[Guest welshkc]

I have the 18-135mm and up until 2 days ago it was my only Fuji zoom.

 

It is a slow lens that does not get along well in low light and presents image quality challenges at full zoom.

 

It has stabilization, but having recently experienced the OIS on the 50-140mm, I can say that the 18-135mm is not in the same league.  I've never been satisfied with the quality when zoomed all the way out, even with OIS and shutters above 1/100.

 

That said, it is a great lens for family style stuff when carrying more gear would be difficult.  When you just need to capture a moment and can be loose with image quality, it will get you there.  From group shots at 18mm to face close ups at 100mm, it gets it done because it will be on the camera when you need it.  This is the case for any supertelephoto in environments where changing lenses would be hard.  I have hiked with the 18-135mm dangling from the camera on a strap.  It has been rained on and frozen (-6F), but got the shot because it was on the camera when the time came.  Just be ready to accept the limitations.

 

If money, weight, and lens changing were not an issue, but quality of image is needed, I would double up with 16-55mm + 50-140mm.  That would cover you for everything including low light.  

 

I've been pining after the 50-140mm for over a year and finally got one this week.  It is lovely.  I hand held 1/4th second yesterday.  It came out crisp.  Amazing.  Also recently shot indoors at f2.8 and 1/60th hand held across the zoom range.  It is something to behold for sure and something I will never do with the 18-135mm.  The 50-140 is also heavy by comparison and not something I would leave on the camera for a hike without some consideration on how to hold it.

 

Let us know what you decide. 

[Warwick]

The 16-55 is MUCH bigger and heavier than the 18-55. If it's travel you need it for and you're set on a zoom, I'd go for the 18-55. Alternatively, the new f2 primes are small, fast, light and weather-sealed. You could do a lot with just the 23mm f2 on your camera and either the 35mm or 50mm f2 in your pocket for when you need something slightly longer

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[milandro]

I had the 18-55 and now I have the 16-55. A great lems but not an easy lens, you know that already

 

the 18-135 is too long ( for me) and I’d rather have a wider lens than a longer one.

[mdotson90]

I recently traveled for 3 months with my X-T2. I used the 18-135mm and XF 23mm f1.4 for when the light got bad, and the Samyang 12mm f2. As said, the 18-135mm is one of the lenses you pretty much have to use in the day time. That said, the focal length range satisfied just about everything I needed it for. The OIS does wonders especially if you like taking video and the weather resistance came in handy more than a few times.

 

Unless the goal of your trip is to take high quality Nat Geo photos, I can't see the benefit of carrying the size and weight of red badge zoom. Don't forget that the 16-55 is physically larger and heavier than the 18-135.

 

 

So basically,

 

--18-135mm--

 

Pros: More versatile due to zoom range, smaller and lighter than 16-55mm, OIS, slightly cheaper

 

Cons: Slightly lower IQ than 16-55mm, bad in low light

 

 

--16-55mm--

 

Pros: Slightly higher IQ, 16mm on wide end, 2/3 to 1 2/3 stop advantage through overlapping zoom range

 

Cons: Heavy and big as hell, no OIS, limited zoom range especially for travel, a little more expensive

 

 

What means the most to you?

[jlmphotos]

Neither.  I opt for the 18-55.  I've been using the 18-55 since February 2013 and have used it in EVERY type of weather.  No problems.

 

It's light, and sharp.  Done.

[Nick05]

The 18-135mm didn't interest me at all when it was announced and I said it is the one lens I'd probably never buy.. except then I did. I expected to use it about the same as I did with my Canon EF24-105mm. Just a casual walk around lens when image quality didn't matter much. After using the 18-135mm for a few weeks, I found myself never using the 18-55mm and eventually sold it. What I'm saying is the 18-135mm surprised me by being better than I thought. It is a little soft at 135mm. The aperture isn't the widest and it being variable is a bit annoying, but it is overall a decent performer. The 16-55mm should perform better, but it has different limitations. I'm hoping they release a 16-75mm F/4 or something close focal range that is great optically. Unless you need the F/2.8, I'd go with the 18-135mm for flexibility.

 

@welshkc The 50-140mm is optically fantastic. Not much compares to it. You are going to be spoiled and disappointed by most other lenses moving forward.

[bryanse1]

In March and April last year I spent 6 weeks driving around various parts of Europe and the UK, coming from the land of Oz I wasn't really sure what to expect so I had with me the 16-55, 10-24, 50-140, and 35 1.4, upon review of which lenses I used the most it was the 16-55 closely followed by the 10-24, I only used the 50-140 during a portrait session in the UK.

Obviously I can only speak from my experience, but I didn't find the 16-55 too big or heavy and the 2.8 certainly helped indoors. I've never owned or used the 18-55 or 18-135 so can't comment on those, but can certainly endorse the 16-55 without hesitation.

FWIW on my next trip I'll be taking the 10-24, 16-55, and 90 as a short telephoto.

You can check out some images by following the links at the bottom of my blog posts if you're interested (caution - I write this for family and friends so be gentle if you comment)

http://www.cattleclasstravel.wordpress.com

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[deminimis]

It depends on the type of traveling you're doing. OIS is great to have indoors, for example in a cathedral in Europe. So don't discount the 18-55. That's where it's the best all-around travel zoom, since you can handhold shots at 18mm you can't get with any other Fuji lens except maybe the 16mm prime.

 

But if you're going to spend time on a beach, then you want WR sealing. And between the 16-55 and the 18-135, you have to think about whether you'll want that extra 2mm on the wide end or the additional stabilized telephoto reach.

 

Overall, between those two lenses, I'd go for the 16-55 because the difference between 18mm and 16mm on the wide end is big when you need it. But I always travel with the 55-200mm because sometimes you need reach.

[Nero]

I can't really weigh in on the 16-55mm. I have used it and love the image quality, but I don't own it and haven't really traveled with it so I can't say how much the weight really bothers me over a longer period of time. What I can say is that I was disappointed in my copy of the 18-135mm. It was vastly better than the equivalent kit lens from Canon that I had used for a little while and I did take some excellent pictures with it, but the contrast wasn't nearly as good and anything in the distance needed some dehaze and clarity in RAW that my other Fuji lenses don't require, even at similar focal lengths and apertures. I ended up selling it and going with primes and the 55-200mm, which better fits my shooting style anyhow. My copy was a pre-order though, so it could have had some initial quality control issues that they've worked through by now, but I'm just not inclined to try another one.

[johant]

How about the 18-135 plus the Samyang 12mm?

[sababa123]

18-135. I used it almost exclusively in Vietnam and Cambodia a few weeks ago. I love the results, the flexibility and the one lens solution.

 

http://www.vinsonphotographs.com/vietnam.html

[MattXPhitographer]

Teo totally differenti lenses. For my personal style I really don't like equivalente 24-70 lenses. This is really helpful for wedding reportages but I used it only for this scope.. and so it is a useless lens for my style. Also the 18-135 is not One of my favourite lens.. but for a trip could bè a good idea to use a single lens without the necessity to change lenses for different shoot..

If you have two cameras, 18-135 for the first and a good prime lens fixed in the second camera is the best way!!

[deva]

If I were going traveling not sure whether I would take 2 bodies or not. For lenses... 10-24 is a must for me. I'd leave the 50-140 home (too heavy though such a pleasure to shoot with)... maybe I would take the 55-200 for reach... and I would for sure take couple primes. 16 or 23 and 56. It would be hard to leave the 23 1.4 home, but I think I'd pick the 16 because it can focus really close. 

 

So the 10-24, 16, 56 and 55-200... or instead of the 55-200, a point and shoot that had some telephoto reach... 

[Adam Woodhouse]

I have both and the 18-135 is my travel go-to.  It is lighter, has IS and of course the much greater focal reach for those times it is needed.

 

Don't underestimate the importance of the IS if you plan on doing any video capture as well.  And with having the XT2, you should do some video capture.  The video is excellent and fun to use to add value to the travel documenting.

[mostlyphotos]

I spent a long time evaluating the 16-55 and in the end decided to keep the 18-135 for travel. I did add the excellent 16mm f1.4 though which is an amazing lens.

[FoToEdge]

I have used the 18-135mm on my 2 different X-T1 cameras and also on m X-T10.  It was fast enough because of the stabilization and also because I shoot at 400 ISO and 1600 regularly. I think it is about the same quality as I have had experience with in the past with the Nikon 18-135mm and Canon 18-135mm.  I would not buy a non-stabilized Fuji Lens, so I have no use for the 16-55mm.  Also the 16-55 is very heavy.  I think I will stick with the 18-55mm kit lens which is brighter and sharper than any of these 18-135mm zooms.  I do not understand why Fujifilm is so deaf and blind to our needs for a mid-level walkaround lens in the range of 16-80mm F4 Stabilized Lens, which every other manufacturer has available at an affordable price.  I am thinking of jumping back to the Olympus & Panasonic Systems because of the choice and affordability of lenses.

[Kalle]

I prefer usually a pair of 23 mm + 56 mm when traveling. I don't use flash and in my opinion zooms don't have the low light quality I want.

[Lazydog21]

In June 2016 I spent a few weeks travelling in Italy.  For ease of use I took the X-T10 and 18-135 lens.  I have no regrets.  I returned home with around 10 000 photos (RAW & JPG).  I am very satisfied with the exposure, focus speed / accuracy and IQ of the images. Sure, some pics didn't work out, but that was largely due to my poor choice of subject, bad composition or timing.  

I had an exhibition booked at a local gallery to display my street photos but I decided to display some of my Italy travel photos instead. Around 32 images were selected and printed at 30 x 40 cm (11.8 x 15.7 inches). Another 6 images were printed at 50 x 70 cm (19.7 x 27.6 inches).  The prints were of excellent quality in all respects.  Yes, you may get better IQ with prime lenses, but you'll miss many great shots. The photos selected were all taken in Venice on 1 day.  Difficult to get many photos when you're constantly changing lenses.  And travel takes you to dusty locations, not a great time to be swapping lenses.  The light in Italy was amazing and I didn't find the slower lens to be a limitation at all.  Even in the alleys of Venice and the darkness of churches the lens coped admirably.  In the evenings when light levels were low I tried to steady myself against against a wall or pillar.  It was a great travel combo.  Those prints on my walls are a great reminder of a great vacation.

Edited May 14, 2017 by Lazydog21

[konzy]

Hi KMLNewYork,

 

I only own the 18-135, which I took recently for a trip to New York (as well as 35/2, 14/2.8 and an X100T). I haven't used it a lot, most of my pictures being street (X100T), landscapes (14mm), but I was happy to have it for detailed shots of skyscrapers or catching the cute squirrels in Central Park.

 

Here is my opinion about this lens:

- good IQ (if pixel peeping is important to you, of course there are better lenses)

- it's the most versatile lens from Fuji yet: from wide angle to tele, you cover pretty much everything

- image stabilization is truly awesome: I shot photos of the skyline and Statue of Liberty from a moving boat, in an uncomfortable position where I held the camera over a bunch of people, and it really helped getting sharp pictures. I was really impressed.

- weather sealed, so depending on where you travel, it can be helpful

- sits between the 18-55 and the 16-55 in terms of weight, size and price. It's definitely not light, especially as a "just in case" lens.

 

Bottom line: yes, it's not very fast, it's a bit bulky and heavy, the IQ is not perfect. But it gives you a great versatility. If I could have only one camera and lens for the rest of my life, it would be the X100T. But if I had to chose a camera with an interchangeable lens, that would be the 18-135, definitely!

 

Here are a few unprocessed JPEG from my recent trip, at several focal lengths: https://dropbox.konzy.me

 

Also, there is an interesting comparison of the lenses you mentioned, as well as the 18-55: https://www.fujivsfuji.com/16-55mm-f2pt8-vs-18-55mm-f2pt8-4-vs-18-135mm-f3pt5-5pt6/ 

 

Hope this helps!

 

Konzy

[andyfromboston]

I took a long trip to Europe with an X-T1, 23mm and 18-135. The 18-135 was convenient but otherwise not very good. I ended up eBaying it.

 

I don't think I'd want to carry f/2.8 zooms on a long trip. I think I'd opt for the 18-55. It has great image quality and is small and light. Maybe add one of the small WR primes since you have a WR body.

[stulevine]

I just recently acquired the 18-135mm lens.  And while, it's nice to have such a long focal length range, the lens is rather big and bulky and not very fast.  However, it's OIS capability is pretty dam good at 5 stops (so Fuji claims).  I've taken it with me while hiking about locally and it does produce some nice images on the X-T2.  And, even with all that said, I still prefer the kit lens, 18-55mm f2.8-4 with OIS over any other lens I have.  I just wish it was weather resistant like the 18-55mm f2.8.  Unfortunately, the latter has no OIS and while I like the idea of it, it's still bigger and bulkier than the kit lens.  The kit lens is so versatile and I can shoot water falls with it and the lens closed down to get that dreamy silky effect without a tripod.

[MrPolite]

if you are picky about image quality definitely skip the 18-135. It's decent but not razor sharp - I took it to NY on a trip and was unhappy with a lot of photos. It's much lighter and versatile than the 16-55 though. You could always use the lighter but optically excellent 18-55 during the day and switch to a small prime at night time

[ErikN]

I have both the 18-55 and 18-135, but not the 16-55. The reason I got the 18-135 is that I wanted a weather sealed lens (it was the only one at the time), and something a bit longer.

 

I have very mixed feeling about this lens. It has good image quality in some situations, but often produces images that are slightly soft (especially at 135. Forget using apertures larger than f/8. 5.6 is very soft at the borders and edges at 135). It's decent to good up to about 100 mm, but it lacks the microcontrast and clarity that is present in other Fujifilm lenses.

 

It's good for a superzoom I guess, but it's not up to the Fujifilm XF standard in my opinion. I would very much prefer something like a 16-70 or 16-80 WR lens and a separate telephoto zoom.

 

It hasn't seen much use since I got my X-T2. I feel that it can't really handle the extra resolution over the X-T1. I want to like it, and I sometimes do, it just comes a bit short of my expectations most of the time.

[spongeee]

Hi,

 

I have both the 18-135 and the 16-55. (And the 18-55 for that matter too).

I dont envy you having to make your decision as I usually take both 16-55 &18-135 on holiday with me and then I dont regret leaving one at home! I then alternate each time I go out depending on my anticipated shooting needs.

I'd take the 18-135 if I had to choose only one though. For me the IS, extra reach and great bokeh when up close and wide open wins the match. I shoot RAW and upping the contrast and lowering the highlights works well on the 18-135. The 16-55 is naturally more contrasty but I find it produces heavier shadows which I often need to lift.

Ultimately the better lens optically is the 16-55, but the 18-135 is no slouch and also best in class compared to anything else available IMO.

I notice that the 18-135 is not easily available to buy in the UK at the moment which makes me wonder if Fuji may be regretting making such a high quality one solution lens.

Good luck with your decision making but ultimately go for the one which fits your shooting needs the most. I doubt either will disappoint you but youll always be curious about the other one.

I hope that helps.