I own this zoom lens and I love it. I payed 600 euro for it and do not regret it one bit. The stabilization is out of this world, so good that this is a lens where I do not use auto iso, but the lowest iso. Even at F8.0 or higher even, the photo's will stay sharp. 1/2 a second is possible, incredible.
Try Olympus 12-100mm F/4 IS Pro, that lens lets you take a few seconds or more hand-held stabilized. More impressive is that 12-100mm on Olympus is equivalent to 24-200mm... and it's an F/4 constant lens. And it's RAZER sharp.
Since the Tamron 17-70 has just been released and some may watch this video to compare this two lenses, I have a few remarks concerning your test sample, Christopher. My sample (9CA040## number range) has a buttery smooth zoom ring, that perfectly works for video and with the latest firmware 1.05 it has only little issues with focussing while zooming on my X-T3. Only when zooming back from the far end (80mm) it seems to struggle to identify in which direction it has to focus. The rest (with AF-C preset 2) is nice and smooth. I'm very happy with the overall sharpness of this lens, although it seems I got a very good copy. It's at least as good as my 18-55mm kit-lens, wich is undeniably better for video. I also own the 18-135mm (3rd copy, had to send it back twice, because of decentration issues) and the 16-80mm is a world better. I only kept the 18-135 for use on the old X-T1, where the lower resolution isn't that visible and take that combo to harsh conditions like a sandy beach, when it's windy or if I want to take photos in heavy rain. Currently the 13mm f/1.4 and the 16-80mm f/4 and the 9mm f/2.8 are my to-go lenses. BTW: Thank you for your very professional and helpful reviews, Christopher! Your'e one of the most helpful resources on youtube.
A man with a shiny face and head was getting very excited about this lens the other day, I'm glad I watched this more balanced review...Thanks Mr Frost!
I've found it really strange how many people are publishing videos trying to claim that this is The Sharpest Lens In The World Ever Ever...as someone else in these comments has noted, my findings seem to correspond with Fuji's own published MTF charts. It's a pretty good lens but seems just a little over-hyped...
I bought this lens just this week. Since the firmware-updates are out, some of the weaker features are now really good. I love this lens, can't wait to go on the next hike with it! Thx for the review!
@@mskedarnath there are still soft, but in the meantime another firmware was released and honestly the quality is much better now, in my oppinion. I also have to say that I usually crop my pictures, so soft corners are my least concern.
Regarding losing focus when zooming, the 16-55mm does the same. Its because they are variable focus lenses, as opposed to parfocal, which are quite a bit more expensive.
@@7LiquidSnake Or you get the best of both worlds, Tamron 17-70 2.8. The sharpness and f2.8 like the 16-55, but with practically the same range as the 16-80, and it's cheaper than either of them. Only downside is lack of aperture ring, but it's quick to get used to if you set up the controls properly.
The only thing I'd love to see mentioned in your video Chris is comparison with similar lenses. In a vacuum, all the things you said are true. In reality, this lens is almost revolutionary, I've yet to see another zoom in this similar focal range that performs remotely close!
Olympus 12-100mm f/4, equivalent to 24-200mm on Full Frame and it's razer sharp. Also has IS, built like a tank, uses only 72mm filters and it let's you get as close as 15cm to your subject making it also an awesome light macro lens. I don't know how olympus pulled it off but this lens is incredible.
Your review is very consistent with the MTF chart published by Fuji. With this kind of long zoom, I don't expect much in term of corner sharpness. It is a good all-around zoom lens but at $800 the compromised sharpness is really a hard pill to swallow.
I think it would be very interesting to see how the 18-135mm's image quality compares to this one's, given the similar price points of the two lenses. They could both serve the purpose of a very convenient one-lens landscape photography solution, so it would be good to know how much image quality exactly the older 18-135mm gives up for the extra reach. There are a lot of subjective opinions out there, including opinions about how the softness people complained about on the older lens is from bad copies from when the 18-135mm was made in China and the newer ones made in Philippines have better quality control, so an objective review of the 18-135mm on your excellent setup would be very useful.
You can check Christopher's video review of the xf 18-135mm on his chanel. I tried both, the xf 16-80mm and the xf 18-135mm and find the xf 18-135mm a bit sharper and better value. Variable aperture of f/3.5 to f/5.6 (xf 18-135mm) is alright for still photography. I mean, you have to stop down both of these lenses to get at least some corner sharpness at wide angle and the telephoto end. I also find all the superzoom lenses perform the best in the middle of the zoom range. The xf 16-80mm at 80mm is much softer than the 18-135mm at 80mm. My copy of the xf 18-135mm is best between 30mm and 100mm, but whatever focal length you choose, the middle is always sharp, even at 135mm f/5.6 or 18mm f3.5. EDIT: My copy of the xf 18-135mm is from the Philippines.
Great review, thank you very much. Some things that come to my mind: - This lens will be a commercial hit for Fujifilm, good zoom range for general purpose use, good OIS, WR, price acceptable. It is already out of stock in most (online) shops. So there is a huge market and it's a smart proposition from Fujifilm. - It's still a 5x zoom, we all know that it means there will be compromises.
@@kobiocrypto1227 16 55 the best, 16 80 not far behind. Both these lenses blow my 18 55 away, this guy must have a bad copy. mmphotogandbike.home.blog/2019/07/29/new-fuji-travel-zoom-my-thoughts-on-the-xf-16-80mm-f-4-0-wr-ois-mtf-comparison/
Review that I've been waiting. Thank you so much for pointing out the zooming in / out behavior. Helped me a lot as videographer. Surprised it behaved that way. That makes me think twice. Currently using 18-55mm x-t3.
Ah, I don't know. Optically I think they're quite similar (the 18-55 might have a tiny edge) so I think it's down to personal preference - the 16-80 really does have a nice zoom range...I think I prefer the smaller size and higher build quality of the 18-55 though
Is this a pre-production version because mine is excellent. Not sure about this review because night and day from mine. The lens I received last week is not going to leave my X-T20 and my X-H1 will be used with my primes. Although video with my X-H1 and the 16-80 is stellar!
Chris, thanks for the review. I for one remain very happy with the so-called kit lens; the other zooms. Very happy with its performance and use primes when can, and have 23/1.4, 23/2 ( as its a more modern design), 35/2 and, to my mind, excellent 18-135 zoom 10-24 zoom.. Have read all the rave reviews on the stellar 16 mm, rented one for a week, but just didn't suit my shooting. Find I have the 23 and 35 primes on the most. We are all different.
Purely judging on the lens' image quality is not where this lens shines. I was reading and watching a bunch of stuff and one thing that many brought up is how 16mm is so important. Many also said that having 80mm gave them the extra reach so they don't need to carry an extra lens. The wider-aperture lenses and longer lenses in fuji's lineups are not cheap, and I can definitely see how 16-80 can be a good alternative to the kit lens if you need the extra reach. Also, since the IQ is very similar to the 18-55 and close enough in the 16-55, you really have a good balance between reach, IQ, aperture, and price. It's a good kit lens alternative, but definitely not the best of the best lenses fuji ever made in terms of image quality.
@@pherylihy58 I don't own one, but according to the reviews I've seen, they are mostly on par. The benefit of a 16-80 is that it's so much more versatile, it has WR, better OIS, and a static aperture (good for video people so the aperture doesn't change as you zoom).
I think the issue with wobbly focus while zooming during video is because the isn't parfocal, so the focus changes as you change the focal length. The camera is automatically adjusting focus as you zoom to try to maintain the same focus while zooming, but it isn't perfect. There's not much that Fuji can do to make this better. They could give an option to not auto-adjust and just have the lens go out of focus as you change focal length, but that option would only be useful for a very limited crowd of people.
As a pro photo video shooter who has owned this lens for over a year now, it is a really nice photo lens. The zoom range is very versatile, there are plenty of days where this is the only lens you need, and the OIS is quite helpful. However, this is a bad lens for video work. The issue with focus flickering was improved some with a software update, but the problem is that the lens is EXTREMELY not-parfocal. Zooming throws you way out of focus and the lens tries to autofocus to keep up but it just can't. You basically have to use it as a series of primes for anything that has a higher standard of quality than a vlog. It's also pretty soft, and doesn't always produce very pleasing images, at least to me. It's a very good utility lens, and I would definitely recommend it to photographers, but if you're doing anything video related, and already have some lenses in the fuji ecosystem, or an adapter, look at tamrons 17-70 f2.8 instead
So it could be considered a good 23/50 with decent/softer extra reaches to 16 and 80. Versatility, weather resistance, aperture ring... overall I think I'd prefer it to the 18/55, but anyway very honest and complete review. Instantly subscribed to the channel.
Thanks for testing. I could't resist and ordered the 16-80 with the intention of replacing my 18-55. Now i compared week for week and can't decide to sell my good 18-55 copy or the 16-80 lol.
Waited so long for this lens to come out, but it's honestly no that much better than the 18-55mm f/2.8-4, so I'll just keep the 18-55mm and save my money. Thanks for the review, Chris.
Good review, thanks. I was interested in the lens being with WR and longer than the 18-55. But some of the IQ criticism has put me off. As per someone earlier, how does this compare to the 18-55? Barring the obvious aperture hit and its weather proof!
Great review as always Chris. How do you think the 18-55 range compares to the 18-55 zoom? It would be interesting to do a detailed comparison of the two.
Oh dear, I nearly pulled the trigger on the X-T4 + 16-80 kit, but now I'm having second thoughts. My intended main use is travel and landscape photo- and videography, for which this lens seemed a perfect allrounder. What initially drew me to this lens over the 18-55 was my understanding of it being parfocal, its extended range and weather resistance. Out of these three advantages, only the last still seems to be standing: weather resistance; the lens clearly isn't truly parfocal and the lens is rather un-sharp in its extended range. But even then, I don't understand to which extend so-called weather resistance is effective, i.e. whether it contributes significantly to improving body and lens longevity when exposing them to humid environments. If it's not that much of a game changer, I might opt for the X-T4 + 18-55 kit after all, for its lower price point, even lower weight, higher speed on the wide end and apparent higher sharpness. Then, extend my range with an additional wide and tele lens in the future.
I wanted to buy a Fuji X-H1 with the 16-80 lens until I saw the reviews criticising the soft corners (which is not good for landscape photography). Would you say that the Nikon Z 24-70/F4 or the Sony 25-105/F4 would be a better choice for landscape photography? They seem to be better in your tests but not sure how big the difference in real world is ... The lens you tested that impressed me most was the Sony 16-55 but unfortunately I don't like the A6xxx series ...
So I don't get this to be honest because I'm not a lens Guy. All of the Fuji zoom lenses have terrible distortion. even if the price was 5 times less it would still be a bad performance distortion vise? But at the same time people live Fuji lenses so my question is is the distortion irrelevantenough for the people not to care or they just don't see it because of the software adjusting? thanks for these reviews by the way because to me they are the best since I don't know much about lenses and you spell out everything ,thanks.
Thanks Christopher! great review as always! perfect travel lens, but price is a bit much compared to the more versatile 18-135. I guess it depends which camera you would use this with that makes the difference. IMO, this is better suited for the non-IBIS fuji cameras. The 18-135 seems like a much better alternative if you have an X-H1 with IBIS to get those low light images with less noise. Other than that the 18-55 is still the winner for its cost and image output. just my two cents
Thanks for the review, Reason it’s slow in focusing in low light is due to your camera model XT20, the newer XT4 and Xpro 3 focus a lot better faster in low at -6ev
The 'wobbly focus zoom' likely is because the focus is changing when zooming (i.e. the lens is really not parfocal). And the focus motor compensates (a bit delayed) when you zoom. If the lens was a power zoom the compensation could work a lot better as the motors would be driven at the same time. But in this lens, the focus motor needs to follow the zoom ring position.
@@TackJorrance If you set the focus to for example 4 meters, and you zoom, it may be that the focus element needs adjusting. Even in manual focus mode. This, the focus motor could operate to compensate. The lens is focus-by-wire I think...
I think you've got it - that's the kind of thing I was thinking of, anyway, that the lens is not really parfocal but the focus motor tries to make up for it
Hi Chris, that focus mechanism is that the camera automatically re-focuses the lens after zooming so that it maintains the focal distance, which means this is a very much vari-focal lens, it might just be the only one to make use of the re-focus technique that I can think of.
Hi Chris, best of all for 2020. My brother would like to enhance the focal length of his XF18-55 and previously, according with your review, my advise was to hold the old lens. Now, after the firmware 1.02 upgrade, would you say the buy is a good decision?
That zooming behaviour is in all their zoom lenses. It is caused by being a non-parfocal lens, but the autofocus module refocusses the lens, despite being in Manual Focus. It happens in the 18-55, 16-55, 16-50, 15-45, 18-135 and 50-140mm (I owned every single one of them). In their short zoom lenses it just isnt visible, because of the increased depth of field. It also shoudnt be visible in this lens within the range 16-50 approximately, if it isnt an extreme example of a non parfocal lens.
I guess if they cannot correct this via firmware, they should at least give us an option to turn this refocusing off - it will at least look more cinematic :)
Chris, do you ever return a given sample of a lens on the basis that you have been provided with a "bad unit"? In asking this question, am aware that this could well be construed as giving the lens maker ( even your beloved Canon 50 1.2) ! The reason I ask is that is Fuji have an excellent name for lens quality and the lens has been generally well reviewed. As have said before, your video style is great and I'm certainly not the first of your loyal viewers to have made these observations. Also, it must be rewarding to have seen the significant increase in your viewer base.
If I had serious reason to believe there's a problem, then yes. But my results here correspond with other reviews who have actually tested the lens properly instead of just talking about it, and it also corresponds with Fuji's own published MTF charts.
hi Christopher, do you recommend this lens for fashion photography in studio? im considering also the 16-55mm which do you recommend? i currently have the 35 f2 and 23f2 on an xpro2. thanks in advance!
This is disappointingly average from an XF lens. I was talking with the Fuji sales rep today at Cinegear Atlanta and he gave the lens "top marks" for sharpness but clearly it is not worth the investment to me. Thank you for this insightful review!
@@christopherfrost Christopher...I own the 16-55 2.8, and to me though it's sharp, it has a ton of vignetting and very rough ugly Bokeh. I had the kit 18-55 and my COPY was horrible, like HORRIBLE- sold it. So is it not possible just maybe, your copy of this new 16-80 is not a great copy? I only say this because of my bad experience with both the superb?? Kit lens 18-55 and the 16-55 as I say..not great and both are supposed to be...Loved your review and style however!
@@xiongli6524 After watching/reading (too) many lens reviews that draw contradictory conclusions, I'm left wondering how much variance there is between "copies" of lenses from a given manufacturer. This would be an interesting experiment, but one that no-one in their right mind would put a lot of time and money towards. Also, I hope you gave the poor bastard that bought your 18-55 a good price ;)
@@xiongli6524 Yes, as Jed said, there is manufacturing variance between ANYTHING designed/built by Man. So, I think it's absolutely possible that another copy could perform better or worse in any category.
Hi Christopher, your jerky manual focus must be either an odd setting you have in camera or your lens is faulty. I have found that the Fuji lenses not made in Japan can vary in assembly and build quality. I had my copy before release and my findings with this lens give much better results both in sharpness and colour fidelity. I cannot replicate your odd focussing issue when set to manual focus and I can’t understand how the lens can be focussing when you have it set to manual. Surely it must be a faulty lens to do that. I have owned both the 16 f1.4 and the 16 f2 and this zoom doesn’t disappoint. The slightly poorer long end of the zoom is still far better than the 18-55 and the 10-24 at their 55 and 24 range. Colour fidelity on mine is superb and the weight and balance of the design makes for a beautiful setup on the X-T3 or X-T2. This is the lens I have been waiting for and am so happy with it. If anyone else has had the same results as I have then they need to let you know.
I don't think it's a fault with the lens. As a number of people have suggested below, I think the lens is probably not really parfocal, and that the focus mechanism is struggling to catch up as you zoom in and out
I have the original Canon 24-105 in combination with the 5DII and have been thinking of switching to Fuji. I've been interested in this 16-80 lens from Fuji. But when comparing it to the EF 24-105, both original and mark 2 and also the RF version, I notice a quite substantial difference in quality. By the way, I'm using your sample images from your reviews here on RU-vid. The FF lenses are much sharper and produce much more contrast. I'm wondering though if this is accurate. When you test these lenses do you have the camera set to standard settings? Another thing I noticed is that the Fuji samples are differently exposed and it seems there's an exposure difference between the upper left and right corner. It seems the right corner is brighter than the left corner, but maybe I'm mistaken. Anyway, if your tests are accurate then this Fuji lens is way overpriced. Not only because you're paying €850 for an f6 lens (FF equivalent) but also for much less image quality it seems.
Thanks for the demo of the corner sharpness issue. Have any firmware updates helped with this as we live in 2022. I've got one ordered, but I doubt I'll keep it given the corner sharpness issues. I have a 16-55mm. I guess I'll just lug that around instead, and carry a 50-140mm when I need more zoom.
Can I assume you prefer the lens XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 R LM OIS as far as overall image quality? I'm thinking of getting the XT3, with one or the other. Any advice or observations between the two?
Hey Christopher. I just did my own review of the 16-80mm and noticed the exact same wobble issue you mention. My full review is here and I link to your page from my description: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-JdMw9lQTNnc.html. Hopefully Fujifilm can fix/address this issue soon!
Well, today all eyes are on the Nikon Z 50. I would really like to know what you think of the camera and almost as important, the two kit lenses on offer. Thanks.
It's probably a good idea for Nikon to launch APS-C cameras using the Z-mount, I don't think they'd crack the market with a new, smaller mount. Canon EOS M cameras have taken that thunder by now
@@Defcon1702 Ich kenne das Objektiv nicht und kann da nichts zu sagen. Den Effekt habe ich so noch bei keinem Objektiv gesehen, ich stehe aber auch nie hinter der kamera wenn gefilmt wird :-)
@@StephanWiesner Hab es gestern mal am 16-55mm getestet (verschiedene Messmethoden und ISO Einstellungen) und das Problem selbst da. Gut - wie oft zoomt man wirklich? Trotzdem ein ärgerliches Problem.
I’m thinking about getting a Fuji camera for quite some time now. This lens looks great, but I’m used to having a 18-150mm lens with me on holidays. Could you try and review the Fuji 18-135mm lens for me, to see what’s the better choice?
WR my a**, so I got the lens 6 months ago, I took 2-3k photos in gorgeous weather. I always keep my lenses with caps, in sealed bags and those bags inside sealed pouches or backpacks (that are inside closed cabinets). And It has dust inside, just like the xc 35mm f2 :)
Very nice review, Christopher! I have the excellent Fuji XF16-55 f/2.8 Zoom, and have a major question...How does image sharpness on the XF16-80 (at 16-55) compare to that of the XF16-55 at say, f/8? The "Angry Photographer" rated the XF16-80 a "10", so I'm quite interested to see if it's even better than the XF16-55? Thanks!
Very nice review as always, thank you! I've ordered one as it fits a need for me. Just curious, how did you turn off OIS to show us it's capability in video at 2:25-2:28? I looked at the specs and don't see an on/off switch. Is OIS off when you put the focus in manual? I enjoy all of your lens reviews, thanks again for your hard work and thoughtful videos.
Hi Chris, thanks a lot for this review! I have the Canon counterpart, namely the EF 4.0/24-105mm L IS USM Mk. II. Purchased it via eBay from an UK seller. I’m very happy with it. Best wishes, Ralf
@@Magnetron692 of course. I think I there is some misunderstanding. How do you think, which Lens is better about image quality especially at longer end?
This lens seems to have the same pitfalls as the 18-135mm: quite soft when zoomed in or zoomed out to the maximum and an aperture of f/8 is required to take the sharpest pictures.
The zoom ring of every high quality Fujinon lens is sticky - its the same with the 18-135mm and the 100-400mm lens - and this is a reason why me and my wife want to drop Fuji cameras. Since spring we are using often our Canon lenses with adaptors on Fuji cams and getting often better results as wirth Fuji lenses. About 2 minutes in this video you mention that the 16-80mm Fujinon has focus breathing even in manual mode on a Fuji X-T20. In my opinion this can be caused by the X-T20 and not by the lens. Our X-T20 cams have sometimes very strange and similar Af problems with all Fufinon lenses.
Sorry, perhaps I overheared the DOESN'T. But in my opinion focus breathing is an issue of the camera, too. At least with Fuji X-T20s in some modes and especially in video mode. The X-T20s AF acts sometimes very strange. And never be sure you have experienced all. Summer 2019 was very hot in Germany. Our Fuji cams were three times overheated after shooting videos. Soon as we saw the overheating warning we switched the cams off of to cool them down. After that one of our X-20s had for some weeks AF problems with telezoom lenses and produced in this time much more outtakes as we got every time before.
Compared to the 18-135mm, is the IQ better on the 16-80mm and (finger in the air) by how much? Essentially, if I sacrificed the 18-135mm's range versatility am I getting back enough IQ to make it worth it? thanks
Is it possible that the result in your test was so bad because it was done before the firmware updates? I bought a Fuji and wanted to use it with the 16-80 when hiking but now I'm a bit uncertain if I should buy it. It is still very expensive and probably not worth the money. The Nikon Z 16-50 destroys this lens in your sharpness test.
You mean the optical tests? No - firmware upgrades will not improve optics (unless something completely bizarre has happened). It's worth bearing in mind that the Nikon lens would have been far easier design, as it has a smaller zoom range and a darker maximum aperture (and I only tested it on a 20mp camera, as opposed to this 24mp camera)
@@christopherfrost thanks! I know, nevertheless ... the 16-80 looks a bit disappointing. Don't understand why there are so many different opinions on that lens. Some Fuji bloggers and the "Angry Photographer" rated it with a 10/10 - others destroy it. Will think about it - perhaps I should have bought a A7III with the 24-105 :) Allegedly the X-H2 will be released in 2021 with a 40MP-ish sensor - that would make the 16-80 look even worse :(
@@timeout.in.nature It's not a bad lens at all, but yes, I'd agree it's a little disappointing. The Angry Photographer didn't bother to test it properly, that's why he sang its praises - every other serious review noted findings similar to mine
Fuji have issued a firmware update which is rumoured to have fixed most of the issues in this review. Is there any chance you could re-review this lens. It seems that you have reviewed it when it has been first released. If this lens is much improved then it would be nice to report it as such. This review puts me off buying this lens, however it is a lens I want and if it is ok now then I would like to know.
1:35 -- That was unfortunate that you had a problem with this lens back in 2019 because it is absolutely not the case with my lens, at all. It's really smooth and precise. Plus, the problem when we zoom in and zoom out was fixed a couple of weeks later, so, please, don't be so rude with Fujifilm who listens to their community a lot, and certainly more than other companies today.
There are, with all lenses, batch variations, I got this p/xd the 18-55 2.8/4. Mine, thankfully must be a “good one” sharpness is very good everywhere.
There are reports that mechanical shutter speeds between 100-180 is causing shutter shock, resulting in soft images. When they used ES, the softness went away. Can you confirm this?
@@pyroMaximilian I don't shoot a lot of video so that is one problem that doesn't affect me. I think Chris may have a bad copy but he doesn't think so. My image quality is very close to the 16 55 but Chris has computer generated graphs to dispute this. All I can say is there are a lot of reviews coming on line with more positive outcomes. Hope this is some help to you deciding
Hello Christopher! Thank you for the review. I guess for a lot of Fuji shooters this review is kind of a pull back to reality. A lot of people had really high hopes for this lens - maybe too high. As I see it the results you presented are fairly comparable to what a Canon 24-105 or a Nikon 24-120 would deliver on a full frame body. Could you comment on this comparison? Do you agree? Thanks in advance 🙏
A Canon 24-105 f/4 on full-frame will be far better, but it's not a perfect comparison for various reasons (slightly different focal length, the differences of APS-C vs Full-frame etc)
@@christopherfrost Hello Christopher, thanks for your answer. Please don't take this for trolling but your statement that the 24-105 would render "far better" results kind of makes me question your judgement a little - and this saddens me because during my Canon days you have been my go to guy for lens reviews. My issue is this: I am/I was a huge fan of the Canon 24-105 and I shot it on the original 6D, on the 5DIII and on the 80D. I very much love this lens but it is - in both versions - a lens with significant flaws. Basically every issue you have with Fujis 16-80mm (soft corners, lack of sharpness at certain focal lengths, heavy distortion) are also true for the 24-105. Plus, the 24-105 adds in parts brutal chromatic aberration to the list. All these issues are also true for the Fuji 18-55 - also a lens which I own (despite also owning the 16-55) and which I like very much. If you don't believe me, take a look at your reviews of the 18-55, the 24-105 by Canon and your comparison between the 24-105 MKI and MKII. Basically you are finding the very same issues for the 18-55 and the 24-105 but your tone is way more optimistic. In the 18-55 review you are even stating that it was "your kind of lens". Please don't get me wrong, I don't dispute your findings for the 16-80mm. I'm just irritated by your skeptical tone. With these findings I'd argue that the 16-80 is very much what one would expect from a lens like this and that the results are rather good given the problems the engineers had to overcome. And when I read through the comments here I got the impression that a lot of people got the same vibe from you: People understanding that the 18-55 is straight out the superior lens - which in my mind it probably isn't. Again, don't get me wrong. I like the 18-55. When I went to the US in June for three weeks the 18-55 was my main lens. I left the 16-55 and most primes at home. This is how much trust I have into this lens. Yet although a lot of people treat the 18-55 as if it was perfect it has a lot of issues. Soft corners, weak sharpness at the wide end, heavy distortion and diffraction creeps in pretty early (you are talking about above F11, I'm getting cautious when I'm at F8). But I'm rambling... My point is this: I like the systematic way you are metering the lenses and in which you present your findings. But how you analyze your findings seems to be very dependable on your mood or on your general position towards a certain lens. I hope I didn't get to crazy in my ramblings and I was able to explain my thoughts without getting offensive (I do that sometimes). If you have any questions you can reach me here or at pendaimonionpictures@email.de. And, of course, thanks for all the good work you are doing!
@@andreasschroder7880 That was a long response! I genuinely believe from all my tests and findings that that someone using a Canon EOS R and 24-105 will be far happier with final IQ than a Fuji shooter with this 16-80 (but as I say, it's not a perfect comparison)
Christopher Frost Photography Hello Christopher, I have to apologize. I was thinking of the two EF versions of the. 24-105. I completely forgot about the RF lens which I also don’t know.
Just a thought: If the corner softness is caused somewhat by distortion correction, can they be improved by using software that can turn it off on RAW files?
Thanks for uploading the video Chris. Interesting how the pictures that Chris uploaded look really nice in the center and the corners but the chart performance is just OK and not impressive. This is a good example where you shouldn't pixel peep so much and judge based on output especially if you don't print large.
Thanks for this video 😃. Can you do a review of the Fujifilm 18-135mm?. I hear IQ is slightly interior to other lenses. I am not convinced as all Fujifilm glass seen to be top quality. I would like to know you opinion.
I am thinking about getting a 100-400mm tele-lens (100-400 on full frame). What can you recommend me for my Canon 200d apsc Camera? Sigma? Tamron? Or an other zoom range?
