Am I the only one who likes the XC 16-50?

[dickbarbour]

I was looking for something a little wider than my X100T and X-T1 with the 18-135. I didn't want a wide-angle prime and didn't want the expense/no OIS/size/weight of the XF 16-55, so bought a used XC 16-50 for $199 including hood and caps, in "like-new minus" condition in KEH's rating system. I thought it might serve for occasional use when I wanted the 16mm length, but was pleasantly surprised to find this little guy is a very nice lens in general once you get past the plastic and lack of switches and aperture ring. I believe it is substantially better in every way except build quality than the 18-55 I sold when I got the 18-135. The sharpness and color/contrast for landscape work is outstanding, and the OIS seems to work very well. I don't see much in the way of comment about this lens; maybe everybody who got it as a kit lens sold theirs? 

Dick

[abjurina]

Yep. You might just be the only one in the whole world.

[Bobitybob]

I like mine.  

 

Brought it for my X-E1 originally, but still use it on my X-T1.  I use it in preferance to my 18-55 for landscapes where its slightly smaller aperture is less important and its light weight is an advantage.  Image quality seems very acceptable to me.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

[dickbarbour]

I like mine.

 

Brought it for my X-E1 originally, but still use it on my X-T1.  I use it in preferance to my 18-55 for landscapes where its slightly smaller aperture is less important and its light weight is an advantage.  Image quality seems very acceptable to me.

 

 

Bob,

Nice pic and my sentiments exactly. Here's a sample of my first day trying this lens on my X-T1.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Rieke]

I shot this photo on my first walk with X-T10 – the XC 16-50mm OIS II as a bundle, the exifs show „P“, as it was preset in the shop, where I have bought it.

At 16 mm you may get close up to even 15 cm (0IS II)! For green landscape however I prefer the XF 18-55 OIS or even XF 16mm f1.4.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Kind regards Rieke

[Rieke]

Hi Jacek,

 

at first sight I thougt XC16-50 OIS II is wonderful! It is a light weight and as such in the city e.g. I have been happy about.

I did not do any pixel peeping, but please have a look at this:

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

There is fringing between the horizon and the woods, the woods at larger distance themselves are somewhat „muddy“ with the XC16-50mm OIS II.

When having a look at the following picture taken with the XF18-55mm at another location you will clearly see what I mean: the picture hase more depth, a better solution and the green colors are natural and differentiated.

 

 

You may decide by yourself – I decided in favour of the XF18-55. In my appropriate city bag it is not too heavy for walking around...

Kind regards Rieke

[tom burke]

Walking around Hong Kong in the heat and humidity I certainly appreciated it light weight, and given the cramped conditions I also loved the abiltity to shoot at 16mm.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Paulo 307]

Thanks for the post! I'm using the xc-16-50 with the same results as my prime lenses, and have the same conclusions as you.

Now i'm trying to be a better photographer looking for better light and composition instead of buying lenses.

[Paulo 307]

 shot with XC-16-50  at  16mm,   f/3.5,   1/50s,   iso 3200.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[benherrmann]

Yes, I'm definitely with you with regards to the 16-50 XC lens.  All too often we become influenced by appearances - that is, feel and build quality - and that tends to cloud our perceptions (in advance) as to how a lens may perform.

 

I received the 16-50 XC as part of both the XA-1 and X-M1 kits (yes, have 2 of 'em - one black and one in silver).  I was not prepared for the optical results I was achieving with this particular lens model.  And other than the plastic lens mount, the lens doesn't feel (look) bad at all.  It certainly is one of the finest kit lenses out there and the welcomed 24 MM equivalent wide end makes a world of difference.

 

The best way to describe the IQ capabilities of this 16-50 XC lens is to first visit some of the other typical "cheaper" kit lenses. Their IQ capabilities may seem pleasant overall, but there often is something missing - that is, the ability to look through to the image and experience that certain (often elusive), "you are there" gut feeling.  Great glass, on the other hand, allows for the viewer to experience that palpable "you are there" feeling as you look at the images.  In a way, the 16-50 XC lens also allows for this - it's uncanny at times. It's kind of like lifting the last remaining veil between you and the image.  And that to me that is one measure of a great lens (regardless of cost).  A few other really nice entry level zoom lenses (great optical quality) are made by Panasonic (14-45 IS, 14-42 II IS, and the 12-32 IS), and by Samsung (their 16-50 PZ).

 

Would I consider using this entry-evel 16-50 XC lens on higher end Fuji X cameras?  Hell yes, I would!  Without hesitation...

 

I sooooooo wanted the more expensive 16-55 XF to have OIS, but when Fuji released it without that feature, I balked.  I need OS (plus great optical qualities of course), so the 16-50 XC will serve as the go-to lens within this genre.  I still don't understand how Fuji could justify putting IS on their high end wide angle XF zoom lens - but rationalized that having it on the 16-55 XF would hurt IQ or make it too large.

 

I'd love to see Fuji release some other XC lenses to fill that gap, but I doubt that will happen.

 

 

 

[MSW]

I have 12x18 prints on my wall, one taken by an E-X1 + XC 16-50mm and one by a Nikon D7100 + Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 DX.  Both on a tripod with good lighting.  The subject is different but still with your nose close to the glass studying at the details the Nikon shows no advantage.   The XC series is highly under rated in my opinion.  I have a fantasy that Fuji will make a XC 16-105 someday.

[Rieke]

This tiny little "bean herb" blossom was taken with X-T10/XC16-50mm at 17.5 mm, f3.6, 1/125s.  

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Kind regards Rieke

[frod]

[Blacksheep]

Hi Jacek,

 

at first sight I thougt XC16-50 OIS II is wonderful! It is a light weight and as such in the city e.g. I have been happy about.

I did not do any pixel peeping, but please have a look at this:

 

DSCF2054 1.jpg

 

There is fringing between the horizon and the woods, the woods at larger distance themselves are somewhat „muddy“ with the XC16-50mm OIS II.

When having a look at the following picture taken with the XF18-55mm at another location you will clearly see what I mean: the picture hase more depth, a better solution and the green colors are natural and differentiated.

 

DSCF2094 1.jpg

 

You may decide by yourself – I decided in favour of the XF18-55. In my appropriate city bag it is not too heavy for walking around...

Kind regards Rieke

 

Exactly what I noticed between the two lenses--for green landscapes I noticed a big color difference between the two lens and prefer the 18-55 for those type of shots. 

[Hermelin]

This tiny little "bean herb" blossom was taken with X-T10/XC16-50mm at 17.5 mm, f3.6, 1/125s.  

 

DSCF0546 XC16_50.jpg

 

Kind regards Rieke

Ouch

[Yoan]

I also like it. I found a great deal on it, got it for just about $90 used with no hood and with a bit of dust inside. It's pretty good optically, I love the OIS and the 16mm it provides.

First shot is handheld, the second and third are on a tripod.

 

Station by Yoan Mitov, on Flickr

 

Reflecting Fountains by Yoan Mitov, on Flickr

 

Lions' Bridge at Sunset by Yoan Mitov, on Flickr

[Phil]

I got one for my X-E2 because my wife prefers zooms. It's really not bad, but the deal-breaker for me is the lack of an aperture ring. I'm so used to having an aperture ring now that it really throws me off.

[EdricBF]

I consider my 16-50 II images a tad better than the ones taken with my 18-55, but when I am going to shoot something important (i.e. travel) I always reach for the latter. The 18-55 aperture ring, IS on/off button and construction makes it feel way more reliable and useable to me...

[Hermelin]

I got one for my X-E2 because my wife prefers zooms. It's really not bad, but the deal-breaker for me is the lack of an aperture ring. I'm so used to having an aperture ring now that it really throws me off.

OT question, but I noticed you have both the 16 and 18. Which one do you use the most and in what situation do you use resp.?

[Phiggys]

I have a couple of XC 16-50 OIS II lenses purchased with my XA2 & XM1 cameras.

The image quality is superb as is the XC 50-230mm

They are the first lenses I recommend to fellow photographers looking to dip there hand into the Fuji X system as they offer exceptional image quality for the price you can pick them up for.

[Safari]

 

I also like it. I found a great deal on it, got it for just about $90 used with no hood and with a bit of dust inside. It's pretty good optically, I love the OIS and the 16mm it provides.

First shot is handheld, the second and third are on a tripod.

 

Station by Yoan Mitov, on Flickr

 

Reflecting Fountains by Yoan Mitov, on Flickr

 

Lions' Bridge at Sunset by Yoan Mitov, on Flickr

 

No pixel-peeping, but I don't see anything wrong with these.

I got some great pictures with this lens (first edition, not II) on my X-M1.   Haven't used it much recently but might put it back in circulation to take advantage of its size and weight.

I've seen some pretty good macro images in another forum using this lens with the MCEX-16 Extension Tube.