Fujifilm XF 16-50mm f/2.8-4.8 (vs 18-55mm f/2.8-4) 

Thank you very much

Thank you very much glad you like the review

Glad it was helpful!

Glad you enjoyed it!

Oh thank you so much!

Thanks for watching!

Thanks for watching

Thanks for the sub!

Agreed! Very comprehensive, cheers.

I'm facing the same dilemma, which one did you choose? Sharpness, bokeh and min focus distance is more important to me than the extra 2mm (sigma has macro capabilities)

thanks for watching Luis :)

Depends. If you shoot brick walls for a living, you might notice the field curvature. For most normal purposes, the 18-55 is amazingly sharp. It was razor sharp on the first generation sensors, kept up really well on the 24-26mp sensors, and even today on extremely demanding 40mp sensors you have to zoom to 200% to see any real difference in sharpness. It completely deserves its status as best kit lens ever.

@@mdvp123 Sorry but I disagree, and I do not shoot brick walls for a living. Field curvature is also important when focusing and recomposing, though. I have a copy of it for video on my X-T3 but for pictures any Nikon kit lens, the 18-105 for example is sharper and with less field curvature. I guess if you believe it can keep up with the 40mp sensors, your image quality standards are lower than mine, for sure. Cheers.

thanks for your always support Bayonet!

Glad you liked it!

Not 'the first internal zooming lens Fujifilm ever made' though. There is XF 18-120 F4 power zoom lens

@@OMURFERAHCAN thank you I've checked that lens. interesting, I hope that this 1650 is going to be much better lens.

This lens will come as a kit for the xt5 as well so you might want that instead of the xt50 combo

I haven't notice any difference. But I do need to do some proper side by side test to tell if there is and how much

Thank you very much

I bought weeks ago the 18-50 for my XT5 and I’m impressed. Fuji not having a constant aperture is a huge miss.

That would be a nice comparison! The challenge for me is to get access to both lenses at the same time :(

The sigma is super soft at 50mm 2.8, so that’s the compromise there. To me this defeats the 2.8 constant aperture advantage and I would stop that lens down to f4 anyway at 50mm, for photos at least. Just too soft. But 4.8 on the Fuji is very slow. I’m impressed with the sharpness though. Really a different level than the sigma.

Can that elephant shoot at 16mm? It's also got rather soft not pleasant corners and no aperture ring, no WR, zooms the wrong way if you've got other Fuji zooms, and the IQ quickly deteriorates focussing at that MFD. It heavily relies on in camera corrections, the RAWS reveal the heavy distortion (why it has that corner performance) and vignetting. It also doesn't give a very solid impression. I sold my sigma after not very long using it. I hoped it could replace the 16-55, but it just falls behind in too many ways. It cost me more, too. Compared to the 18-55, well it depends on the body, because OIS is worth more than 1 stop for lowlight work. And for separation and portrait, a faster prime is preferable anyway. But the sigma is priced much better for lens only buyers. If you don't crop, pixel peep, shoot at MFD and will just be sharing on social media or friends and family, the sigma is absolutely good enough. But the same can be said for many cheap kit lenses. As a kit, this new lens makes a lot of sense. The added value of a wider field of view on a camera cannot be understated. It makes a big difference. Internal zoom on a lens like this? Unnecessary perhaps, but again adds to it's use anywhere purpose.

Dustin Abbot has been checking some recent lenses on the 40MP sensor, including the Sigma compared against the XF 16-55mm.

Thanks for watching

thank you, enjoy your new lens!

no sorry i don't think i have test it for this lens

In your case, since your camera doesn't have IBIS (inbody image stabiliser) , I might suggest a lens with OIS like the 18-55 OIS

Or maybe the xc 15-45mm if you shoot more on the wide side.

Hi there :). in this review, I've explained the soft corner I got from the 18-55 initially when I focused at center, then if i focus at corners, the corner is sharp, but then the centre is soft

@@TheRealRichardWong Ah, I thought it was mentioned for 55mm only ;)

@@opalyankaBG oh sorry i miss read "18mm" as "55mm". No I didn't notice field curvature at 18mm with the 18-55mm. My test photo were shot with focus at centre and it was sharper than the 16-50mm lens

This lens is a good choice I think?

@@TheRealRichardWong thanks! I am thinking if i need another prime lens probably a 23mm f1.4 to compliment this lens (for portraits, streets, low light)

So that you are more likely to buy their primes , i mean i guess..

@@breeze7403 At least they put a 16mm at the wide end.

Fuji literally has a constant f2.8 zoom lens, their 16-55mm.

The Sigma has no aperture ring, no OIS and is not an internal zoom. And I believe is not advertised as weather resistant either. The Sigma is a better value for money at pure retail price, specially if you have a body with IBIS.

We need Sigma to produce a 16-50mm for any real comparison. Getting these wider angle zoom lenses optically perfect is not so easy.

I have a feeling the new lenses (at least the wide to standard) won't have OIS from now onwards. It's the same for most other brands as well.

@@TheRealRichardWong I think you are correct. They appear to be moving stabilisation into the camera bodies. If we get an X-E5 I'll have to start saving and swap my X-E4 for one.

Fair enough! Thanks for watching

I 100% agree!

The XC 15-45 has poor image quality, and the XC 16-50 is also not great. The XC lenses lack the same corrections as XF lenses (both in-body and in most RAW converters). To me, the XC lineup feels like kit lenses from other brands. The XF lineup is a cut above.

@@henrikhelmers1412 I have compared directly the 16-50 with the 16-55 F2.8, they are very very close. Yes, very very close. Even at the far corners, even at 16mm, which is generally poor with small lenses.

Thank you no. 1 :D

0.5 stop darker = worse, get good dude

@@yellow-pill f4 lets in less light than f4.8, what are you talking about?

@@Wordsalad69420 so we're just gonna ignore that it has internal zooming, that it's lighter, has weather resistance, that 16mm is more interesting wide angle than 18mm, that 16-50 has better image quality in many aspects (especially for the new 40mp sensor) and 18-55 had quality control all over the place with many soft copies. But it's darker by f0.8 on one end, what's why it's worse, right? Because you lose like a few minutes ability to shoot in the sunset or what? Or your bokeh balls become smaller by 2%? Fujifilm made sure we have a better overall lens and experience with it, and if you care about f0.8 difference you're just wrong

@@yellow-pill Well when you put it that way lol. Maybe I should have spent more than 30 seconds looking into this lens.

Did you look at the test photos at 55mm? Cmon you’re lying to yourself if you saying those corners were sharp.

My 18-55 doesn't have much field curvature, bit surprised here. I also think that new lens despite being a tad sharper is actually cheaper and completely overprice. Because of inflation the quality in general among all brands is going down unfortunatly.

I noticed the 18-55 was sharper in the corners at the wide end, and also had more contrast in all the shots. The blacks were blacker, and the colors were more punchy.

@@paulthomas8986 for me this new lens is unusable. Fuji engineers should be ashamed of themselves. Their hi-tech development is far behind other brands. And these prices... Its a comedy.

Why the old 18-55 is a trash? I just received mine on a kit yesterday and a haven’t tried yet