Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ychen

Anyone else is hoping for a 16-80 f4?

Recommended Posts

Hi All,

 

I just wanted to know if anyone else is missing such a lens?

 

I feel i need a walk-around lens that is:

wider than 18,

longer then 55,

Faster than the 18-135,

Not huge and heavy as the 16-55 F2.8

 

A 16-80 f4 seems to tick most of these points.

What do you think?

 

 

Thanks

 

YC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. Nikon has just released 16-80/2.8-4 lens that weights 500g. It's all plastic though. I'd prefer f/4 version with aperture markings, WR, same weight and suberb metal body like most XFs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I already have the extraordinary 16-55 2.8 and don't really care for such a lens but I definitely see additional value for the system in a 16-70 or 16-80 with WR LM R OIS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since Fuji's lenses are all made with the APS field of view in mind, 16-70 f/4 would be more realistic to match the 24-105 lenses that virtually every other manufacturer has.

If it was sealed, image stabilised and was plastic enough to keep the weight down, I'd be interested. Focal lengths between 50mm and 100mm at f/4-5 give a very filmic look, which I could see myself getting some use out of. And I am desperate for that 70mm focal length, though really I'd rather have that as an f/2 prime.

Canon are discontinuing their 24-105mm lens soon, presumably to be replaced by a new lens or a mark II. Sigma's 24-105 f/4 seems to be doing very well. It's been a very popular zoom and aperture combination since the original 5D launched. It would make sense for Fuji to make a 24-105 f/6 equivalent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also be interested in a WR, OIS approximately 16-70 or so. Good quality equal to the 18-55 2.8-4. 500 g would be too heavy for me. Less than 400g.

You're not going to get it under 400g. The 16-55mm f/2.8 WR is 655g, and though that is a stop faster, the extra glass to get to 70mm on the long end and the extra weight of image stablisation would weigh just as much as, if not more than, the f/2.8 of the current lens. The Canon equivalents weigh 525g (cheap plastic and not sealed) and 670g (better plastic and slightly sealed) and the Sigma version weighs 885g. The Canon 24-70mm f/4L IS weighs 600g, and that requires less glass than the hypothetical Fuji 16-70mm f/4 would need.

To get it under 400g, like the 18-55mm f/2.8-4 lens, you'd need to at least give up weather sealing. Even then it would be very close. Between your figures, 450g, would be the most likely result without weather sealing. If you want it sealed and built really solidly, you're definitely looking at over 500g, most likely close to 600g.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Sony zeiss equivalent is 308g. Don't know how much WR should add in weight. When I changed from canon 70-200 f4 L without WR to canon 70-200 f4 L IS with WR the weight went from 705g to 760g. I expect some of the increase was due to the addition of IS.

 

Fuji lenses seem to be heavy. The 90 f2 is 460 g. The canon 85 f 1.8 is 325 g and the canon 100 f2 is 350g. ( I think I have these numbers correct)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Such a lens could be wanted but I really do not think that the 18-135 is a slouch when comes to focusing speed, specially not since the new FW 4.0 update.

 

True, I would have loved if it was 16-xxx but most of the time, I can just take 2 steps back and emulate the missing 2mm on the lens.

 

All in all, such a lens could be nice but it would be second lens in the line up that will be full on compromises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

darknj,

I made no reference to the 18-135 not being good enough. My point was to get something the 18-135 doesn't provide.

I want something faster for the long end (the 18-135 get to f 5.3 at 70mm already)

As for the 16 vs.18mm -  two step back will not help you with scenic shots. only close objects will benefit from that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Sony zeiss equivalent is 308g. Don't know how much WR should add in weight. When I changed from canon 70-200 f4 L without WR to canon 70-200 f4 L IS with WR the weight went from 705g to 760g. I expect some of the increase was due to the addition of IS.

 

Fuji lenses seem to be heavy. The 90 f2 is 460 g. The canon 85 f 1.8 is 325 g and the canon 100 f2 is 350g. ( I think I have these numbers correct)

The Sony Zeiss 16-70 f/4 is, optically, a frickin joke. If you want a good 24-105 f/4 equivalent you should prepare for a bigger lens than what you wish for.

 

Performance comes at a price, and usually it is weight. Simply cant beat physics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Sony Zeiss 16-70 f/4 is, optically, a frickin joke. If you want a good 24-105 f/4 equivalent you should prepare for a bigger lens than what you wish for.

 

Performance comes at a price, and usually it is weight. Simply cant beat physics.

New Nikkor 16-80/2.8-4 for APS-C sensor is 480g and takes 72mm filters. That's definitely not much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New Nikkor 16-80/2.8-4 for APS-C sensor is 480g and takes 72mm filters. That's definitely not much.

480g vs the 300g of the Sony Zeiss lens, I'd say that 200g more is a lot, as the Sony/Zeiss was the first comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

480g vs the 300g of the Sony Zeiss lens, I'd say that 200g more is a lot, as the Sony/Zeiss was the first comparison.

But it's faster at shorter end too. I'd like to have f/4 version same weight but WR and internal zoom. That would be great all-around lens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had the excellent 16-85VR Nikkor when I was still a Nikon shooter. LOVED the lens. It was what I reached for on my D7100 almost always. That sensor was an APS-C. There is no reason that Fuji couldn't make a similarly compact kit lens 16-85...f/4 would be OK if it weren't too much larger than the 10-24/4. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The key for me is that it must be smaller and lighter than the 18-135mm, still with OIS. If it will fit somewhere in between the 18-55mm f/2.8-4 and the 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6, it would be great. Well. Like some said. At the size and weight of the 10-24mm. But give it 62mm filter diameter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People obviously have expectations when it comes to new lenses that... well, asking for stuff thats impossible is not getting us anywhere.

 

62mm filter size for a lens ging vom 16 to 70 oder 80mm is basically like asking for it to be below 100g weight. Just look at the 16-55 2.8 with 77mm. 72mm would be a much more sensible choice. Fits the line of 10-24 and 50-140. My guess is that the jump from 18 to 16mm wide angle alone makes 62mm impossible.

 

Making the new lens fit between the 18-55 and 18-135 is quite possible, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try to be a little more gentle, and a little less bastant, when laying down your words. It's an un-important discussion-topic on the internett. 

 

I think it's very possible to make a quality 16-70/80mm f/4 lens with 62mm filter thread. Do you think the biggest lens element on such a lens has to have the same dimensions as the 10-24mm f/4?

 

Comparing Mirrorless APS-C-size lenses with SLR APS-C-size lenses isn't fair. Mirrorless lenses can be built a lot smaller (with the same specs). The Fujifilm XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 OIS has 58mm filter thread. That lens is one stop brighter, way better optically, and way better built, than the typically APS-C SLR-kitlenses. For example Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS. But they have the same sized filter thread. 

 

I think decreasing the aperture to f/4 on the wide end + giving it the 2mm extra wideness, will even out each other. When Fujifilm can make a good quality 18-55mm f/2.8-4 OIS zoom lens with 58mm, I also think it's possible for them to make a good quality 16-55mm f/4 OIS with 58mm. And then they will have something to play with for the rest of the reach. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Fujifilm can make a good quality 18-55mm f/2.8-4 OIS zoom lens with 58mm, I also think it's possible for them to make a good quality 16-55mm f/4 OIS with 58mm.

Note there is 14mm f/2.8 prime lens with the same 58mm filter size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try to be a little more gentle, and a little less bastant, when laying down your words. It's an un-important discussion-topic on the internett. 

 

Just look at Fuji's lens philosophy, paired with the history of lens design and you'd come to the conclusion that it would be highly unlikely. Imo, a productive discussion (bear in mind that Fuji probably does read parts of the forum) contains sensible and realistic wishes. Fuji showed that they are willing to sacrifice filter thread size and, to a certain degree, size in order to maximize image quality.

 

I think it's very possible to make a quality 16-70/80mm f/4 lens with 62mm filter thread. Do you think the biggest lens element on such a lens has to have the same dimensions as the 10-24mm f/4?

 

The 10-24 does not even have such a big front element. The extreme angle of view dictates a larger filter size to counter vignetting from the filter itself. People always forget that designing a good standard zoom lens is very very hard, say, compared to a similar telephoto design (16-55 2.8 vs 50-140 2.8 e.g.). The standard zoom is expected to be more compact while covering a MUCH larger variety of viewing angles. Which is why, usually, the 70-200 designs are a lot better than the 24-70 designs. Different customer expectations.

 

Now, it is of course possible. Look at the Sony Zeiss 16-70 f/4 OSS with 55mm filter thread. But regarding image quality, this lens doesn't even come CLOSE to Fuji's requirements. To be honest: it's a turd. To create a better lens, a more complex optical formula is definitely required. Having a larger front element would certainly help. 

 

Comparing Mirrorless APS-C-size lenses with SLR APS-C-size lenses isn't fair. Mirrorless lenses can be built a lot smaller (with the same specs). The Fujifilm XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 OIS has 58mm filter thread. That lens is one stop brighter, way better optically, and way better built, than the typically APS-C SLR-kitlenses. For example Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS. But they have the same sized filter thread. 

 

It's a double-edged sword to say that mirrorless lenses can always be built a lot smaller. On the one hand, it is save to say in the area of focal lengths that do not require retrofocal designs with mirrorless but already to with SLRs. Thats roughly wide angle to standard territory. Look at Sony's lens system. In ultra-wide and telephoto territory there is hardly ANY benefit left of the mirrorless system.

 

Besides: do not underestimate the required effort to make a lens go from 18 to 16 mm and still keep the required level of image quality.

 

I think decreasing the aperture to f/4 on the wide end + giving it the 2mm extra wideness, will even out each other. When Fujifilm can make a good quality 18-55mm f/2.8-4 OIS zoom lens with 58mm, I also think it's possible for them to make a good quality 16-55mm f/4 OIS with 58mm. And then they will have something to play with for the rest of the reach.

 

Yes, the 18-55 is of GOOD quality. Personally, I would expect something in the league of the 16-55 2.8. The OIS in the 18-55 is outdated, as is its optical performance. Field curvature and wide open performance, especially at 55mm, are areas where the new lens would have to be a lot better. Just think about it: the 16-70 would be a lens that many people would have to buy NEW, without the kit benefit, because they already have the body. So it would have to offer a lot more compared to the 18-55, to be tempting to potential buyers. And this plus in performance will definitely cause the lens to be bigger, heavier and more expensive than the 18-55. While many say the 18-55 is awesome, I primarily use Fujinon primes and the 18-55 can't come close to these. And I would certainly expect a new f/4 standard zoom flagship to challenge prime level sharpness, due to the lack of aperture speed.

 

If you expect it to be a mediocre zoom, like the 18-55, then your expectation regarding filter thread and size/weight are definitely appropriate. But such a lens doesn't fit Fuji's philosophy in lens design. Bear that in mind.

 

Answers in bold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. I want a lens with the IQ and build Q of the 18-55mm f/2.8-4. You want a lens with the IQ and build Q of the 16-55mm f/2.8. That's the difference. 

 

You and I don't know the whole philosophy of Fuji's lens design, but the philosophy don't seem to be the same for every lens. Bear that in mind. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You want a lens with the IQ and build Q of the 16-55mm f/2.8.

No, I don't. I'm happy with my 16-55 and will take it over a slower zoom any day.

 

I expect a 16-70 f/4 OIS WR LM R lens (or a 16-80). Offering better OIS, WR and a wider focal length range (and a marked aperture ring hopefully) over the 18-55 kit zoom.

 

I do expect the 16-70 to be the new kit zoom for the X-T series then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been using the 18-135mm and do like the image quality, but the size and weight on my X-T1 is not much lighter than my APS Nikon.  I am really sick that the 16-55 did not have stabilization.  I would love anything with an F4 with an aperture ring and built in stabilization starting at 16mm and going as long as possible keeping the size at about that of the Fujifilm 18-55mm.  I keep trying other people's micro 4/3rd's cameras and unless some reasonable, smaller and stabilized lens come out soon from Fujifilm I will make the jump to a smaller sensor. With the good high speed quality of Fuji's at ISO 800 or even 1600, I could live with slower lenses to keep the weight and size down.  I do not like that Fujifilm has not upgraded the X-E2 for so long. I prefer a left eyed range finder without the useless "Mirror" Bump in the Middle.  Why can't they just take some of the good stuff out of the X-T10 and incorporate it into a rangefinder for $799 to $899?

In-Body Stabilization would be wonderful and can help keep the lens sizes smaller.  I would like a fully articulating LCD Screen, so I can turn it towards the camera body most of the time to protect it from scrapping on coat buttons - zippers.

Once and awhile I need that type of LCD to shoot over a fence or at "Doggy" Level.  So there you go, with my 2 Cents Worth!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×