The 16-55 because of the constant aperture and sublime sharpness. I was never really impressed with the 18-55's image quality, but it renders beautiful colors and the OIS is really good on it. I think the 16-55 will go well with the X-H1 and the forthcoming X-T4 (assuming that's what it will be called.)
These days, I’m covering this focal range with small primes: 16/2.8, 23/2, 35/2, and 56/1.2. I also just added the Laowa 9/2.8 for ultra wide. I had the 18-55 kit, but lent it to my daughter along with my old X-E1. She won’t give it back. I tried the 18-135mm for a year, but sold it due to the weight and balance and some softness. But soon I might buy the 16-80mm. For me, it seems perfectly situated between the two lenses you reviewed, except it’s f/4 across the range. It can still generate decently shallow DOF when zoomed to 80mm, I’m sure. And when it’s on the camera, I will still carry the 9mm in my pocket. My only reservation about the 16-80mm is that I might neglect my primes too much, and I really love them.
You are missing one big issue. The way these lenses handels direct light. I shoot concerts and art shows with lots of spotlights. Here The 16-55 is out of this world. I tried both lenses and the handling of flares is just fantastic in the top lense.
I agree, it's a great lens in low light, I shoot in dark scenes with lights glowing in the dark and they're perfect even at 2.8, very defined, bright and not ghosting. Almost invisible CA in sunny days also. The only think I can't stand with is the 16mm distortion and the fact it loss focus during the zoom Action in video mode.
I dont do that sort of photography as I said travel and landscape thats why I made a comparison like this, but good to know that you people will get a lot of info from this :D
@@nerdMike If you are doing lots of high end video, you should go for the Fujinon Cine T-stop lenses. The FUJINON MK18-55mm T2.9 or the Fujinon MK 50-135mm T2.9. They will cost you 4.000 Euro each,- but boy do they do a great job. I have shot with both on a Sony A7 and this was so awesome.
Great review. I appreciate you speaking about these two lenses from a photographer and videographers perspective instead of being an armchair expert who never shoots. That seems to be what most RU-vid reviewers are these days. Honestly, for what I do professionally, food photography, the 18-55mm f2.8-4 is more than enough. Lighting is everything in my business, especially when it comes to natural light. This lens performs flawlessly and weatherproofing is not necessary for me. I'm always inside. I've held and used the 16-55mm f2.8 on my X-T2 and X-H1 and it's just too heavy and not worth the cost for what I do. I shot primarily manual with primes both new non-Fujinon lenses and adapted vintage ones. The 18-55mm is the only Fujinon lens I own. Food doesn't move on the plate so I don't really need autofocus. Hell, I've even done street photography with the 18-55mm and had a blast using it. Keep the reviews coming.
Love this. You know what suits your needs. Thats why you respect this review because you know what you need and want from a camera. You're a bloody good person I respect you!!
I own the 16-55 & my friend owns the kit lens and I can tell you that for the extra $$ it's worth it. Weather sealing, f2.8 constant aperture and sharper images especially at the corners it's an amazing pro lens. The kit lens is certainly no slouch and will more than satisfy most users.
18-55mm is a fantastic lens. Holding back on the 16-80mm..it is sharp up to 50mm then falls off the cliff with corner softness and vignetting. It is also on the third software update I believe but still has that focusing shudder problem. Good video..thanks.
I had the 16-55 but almost never used it: First because it is so heavy and bulky, and second because in low light (spell: stage performances etc.) f2,8 is too slow as well, I then prefer a fast prime which makes me gain up to 2 ISO steps. As for sharpness, the differences in your samples are - IMO - so small (on my iMac 5k screen) that you can easily compensate them with a bit more sharpening on the 18-55 lens without seeing anything in the final images or prints. For me, the drawbacks of the big one did not justify it's advantages over the "kit".
I have both, and only use the 18-55 for travel and hand held video. They are both great lenses, but the pro lens has more of a 3D quality that you only get from the best glass. I’m glad it doesn’t have OIS. I find that ruins more shots than it helps if you forget to turn it off. I’m pretty steady - have worked hard at that both in technique and watching shutter speed - and find I often get sharper shots without it. I even turn OIS off on the 50-140 unless the shutter speed is really slow. Having said that, you really need to use a grip in order to balance out this lens on smaller Fuji bodies.
Hi Matthew, You absolutely nailed it with your comments about these two lenses. Stating and emphasising how it depends on what your real passion is for and what you want to do with it while giving a short tutoring as you go. The features you mention for my favourite the 16-55mm used with X-T3 is exactly why I bought it but I can see why the 18-55 mm is versatile and a go to for travel and video. I bought the Samyang for extra width for Astro photography after seeing your video comparing it to the Fujis one. I do have the 100-400mm for wildlife and love it and my 60mm macro . It all comes down to what ones priorities are when it comes to the cost. Thank you for all your effort and great help Matthew ! Keep up the good work !! Paula Klavins - Outdoor Nature is My Passion
I just picked up the 16-55mm and a 23mm f1.4 while selling the 16-80mm and a Viltrox 23mm f1.4. I wasn't happy with the image quality of the lenses I had before, especially the 16-80 on the far ends of the range. The OIS was nice to have, I got the X-T4 so figured I don't need it with IBIS anyway. So far, loving the 16-55 as my all purpose lens for photos and video!
Hello, I have a question about the stabilization in 18-55, regardless of whether it is turned on or not, the viewfinder does not show that the image is stabilized, it does not eliminate micro movements. It's supposed to be, the effect of stabilization is not visible in the viewfinder when framing? The photos themselves are rather stabilized because there is a difference in sharpness with and without stabilization.
many times I wanted to change to 16-55 f2.8 but when I go on a 20km trekking trip, and the camera hangs around the neck, it turns out that the 18-55 is lighter and the better than other expensive lenses :)
Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts on these two lenses! I am (was?) debating on whether to switch out from the 18-55 to either the 16-55 or 16-80, but now I'm not sure again and may keep using the 18-55 for now. I'm really aiming for versatility-in particular, being able to go from travel and landscape to more low-light and astrophotography-which from your review it sounds like the 18-55 will work. I was initially wondering if I was better off looking for a lens that would allow me a bigger aperture and constant one too. But I am also thinking about the weight, because travel. So, I might stick with the 18-55 for longer and see where I get. Thank you again! This was a really helpful review!
Beautiful comparison. I purchased the 18 to 55 kit lens with my camera and decided to get the 50 mm F2 prime to compensate for the weakness of the kit lens at 55mm. This combo is still cheaper than the 16-55 and you get iOS in the kit lens and better bokeh and image quality with the prime
The 18-55 isn't really a 'budget' kit lens. It's noticeably more expensive than other crop sensor kit lenses (due to its better build and larger max aperture). Fujifilm's budget kit lens is currently the XC 15-45mm.
It’s all about the 16-80mm! - the 16-55 has no OIS, doesn’t work well for video (shaky and poor autofocus) and it’s not fast enough for low light. I find a better combo of 23mm F1.4 and 35mm F2 for low light + 16-80mm F4 for video/versatility.
Now I am in a dilemma which one to choose 16-55 f2.8 or 18-55 f2.8 kit lens. Each one have advantages like IS/WR/Weight/cost. Please suggest which is more useful. If 16-55 need to use tripod always. If 18-55 need to be careful during bad weather's.
When the Fujinon lenses get to that size and cost, it's tempting to just bring a full frame camera with an f 2.8 zoom that's a real f2.8 rather than the f4 that this one is in terms of crop. A big part of the APSC and Fuji is the small size and weight with excellent sharpness. Once it gets bigger there are maybe better options esp for low light.
Yeah I understand that. The sony G master is 200grams more heavy and just a fraction larger. But its also the price, double to price and little heavier and size. I find for me personally this is the best system for me that fits in the size, weight, price and quaility bracket- remember for me :D Thanks for your input I totally see where youre coming from :)
Disagree. If you’re a pro, you want the best quality glass for your body. Shooting APS-C doesn’t mean you have to get pancake primes. That’s fine if it’s your preference, but there’s advantages over a FF and unless you need the extra stop or so and shallower DOF it ain’t worth it.
16-55 is now under 1000euros, 24-70 f2.8 for Nikon Z is over 2000euros, for instance, so not so easy to just go FF because it's a little bit bulky lens.
Cheers, Matt! I hope you, and your lady, had an awesome Christmas and New Year! I want to say thanks for this video as I only used my 18-55 when I was in London for two weeks. I JUST bought an XH1 and sold my X Pro 2. You helped me make that decision with your comparison video a while back. I truly hope you are well and give me a shout when you find time for your biggest fan. Sean
Hi Matthew I have both the 18-55 and the 16-55 lenses, I use the 18-55 on my XT1 when I go on holiday because if it was to get damaged lost or even stolen, the cost is not to great, and I find the quality of the pictures to be very pleasing. I use the 16-55 for my landscape photos when it is usually mounted on my tripod, so the weight and lack of stabilization is not an issue.
If you need 2.8 at longer reaches, get a prime and do it properly for the particular focal length you need (56mm for portraits as an example) and have the 18-55 for all other uses :) . The 2.8 zoom is huge and not practical on a fuji body designed to be ergonomic and usable. Better spend your money and get the right gear for the job.
56mm f1.2 @ 69.7mm x 73.2mm 405 grams 16-55mm f2.8 @ 83.3mm x 106.0mm 655 grams One prime doing one focal range. A zoom lens at 1/3 extra size and weight doing a versatile job... should have looked into it more Pete. Btw did you even watch the vid? When did I even mention that I done portrait? Totally understand where you are coming from, but doing landscape and Travel Photography this DOES suit my need. Thanks for the input btw
@@matthewstorerphotography my point is that when I want to be mobile for travel or landscapes, which I photograph most myself too then the smaller, lighter lens is perfect. Any other scenarios then I use a prime which will be sharper and better resolution. For me the 2.8 zoom was too big and cumbersome for the smallish xt-2 body. Of course I'd not hike with a 56 1.2.... I have noticed that my and others 18-55 isn't amazing at 55mm, but back at 50mm it seems a lot better.
@@meme4one fair point and taken. For me I am happy to take the extra weight as its my job. If it wasnt I probably wouldnt bother as much either. Or just go straight to the 16-80mm
@@matthewstorerphotography that 16-80 has had some savage reviews. Focus issues with video. OIS issues. Sharpness issues...mostly in corners but sadly at most apertures and apparently very average at 80mm. BTW I own both 16-55 and 18-55 and love them both but I have to say that 16-55 is one of best zoom lenses I have ever used. Sharpness and contrast are awesome.
I have both. The 16-55 has clearly higher contrast and better looking colours. But the 16-55 is bigger and heavier, so you have to make a decision... It also has weather resistance, a bigger and consistent aperture and aperture markings for those that need them. I use my 16-55 with an XT4 so no need for lens stabilisation. I use my 16-55 with a Peak Design strap which means you don't notice the weight or bulk or need a case/bag. I haven't used the 18-55 since buying the larger lens. As for size when doing street, anything bigger than a Ricoh GR is going to get noticed so get over it and adapt !
For me, the lack of IS on the 16-55 is a non-issue, because the camera I would be mounting it on (X-T5) has IBIS. Size and weight would be the primary considerations.
The Nikon 50/1.8D is a solid little lens, but if you have a D3x00 or D5x00 camera, it won't autofocus (so get the YN). If you have a D7x00 or one of the FX cameras, get the Nikon.
For me the WR of the Red Badge is a huge factor for me. For nature and astro photography a big saver..... working with the 16-55 on a X-T3 you look like Arnold Schwarzenegger. This lens is big and havy. But what a great tool it is. Pin sharp..... I love it. But for my alround work I will stick with the 18-55. Great review.....
I'm no senior yet but I'm getting close and do a lot of wildlife from a FAR FAR distance because I can't run around anymore. I'm using the 100 - 400 and holy moly it hurts. Cry.
I am confused. On the product page of XF16-80mm F4 R OIS WR it is stated that the lens has OIS. Did they add this feature to these lenses after the date this video published? These are newer than your product then....Is that so?
Thanks for the video ... I am hopimg to someday soon get into the Fujifilm line of cameras and lenses. I will be doing so on a budget, but Im thinking the new X-S10 and this kit lens will be a great start. This will be used for general hobby photography of all sorts, and also hopefully some video content creation. Eventually I'd love to add the red badge lens, the big 50-140/2.8, 56/1.2, and even possibly the 10-24mm or a wide prime, alo.g with am X-T4. However, to get started I think this "kit" lens is probably the best I have ever seen in that category. Thanks again for the video. I'll have to check out more of your channel now...
Hi Matthew, nice review, thank you for your hard work. I wtb the Xt4, however, the Panasonic S5 too comes at around the same price range with more to offer.(except maybe the dfd focus system) What are your thoughts if you had to choose either between the S5 or the Xt4?
Thanks for the info! mhmm really hard choice, I also looked at the Pana system but was put off by their lens choice and also how expensive they are. I am invested with Fujifilm gear now and really happy with it. Size, weight, price and quaility is superior!
I have the 18-55 but am a bit disappointed … image quality beyond 45mm isn’t great and occasionally (rare) seems to lose focus or something leads to a lousy image (seems to be at long end of the range ….. it’s the uncertainty that worries me. Otherwise have some super images from it. All said I don’t use it much as I tend to use my 10-24 or 55-200mm anyway. I saw Ian Worths review of the 18-55 and he concluded that optimum sharpness is at f11 …… very unusual as most lens are best in F5.6 - f8 range
Yeah very interesting - I dont own the 18-55mm anymore as you said a little soft. But good lens for the price, but think the 16-80mm blows it out of the water now days!
Maybe it is because of RU-vid, but whenever you said "clear advantage" i didn't really see a significant differencebetween the two, except once at the widest. For me it is the 18-55. Smaller, lighter, cheaper, OIS
Yeah I agree, RU-vid compresses the files so much it becomes hard to do comparisons on here. But over on my website, it's more visible. Totally understand that the 18-55 would suit your needs being smaller lighter OIS etc. great choice
There isn’t that much of a difference in image quality. The 16-55 has constant f/2.8, it’s sharper in the corners and it’s better with flaring. But it doesn’t have OIS. And it’s way heavier. So it’s just a case of knowing what’s a priority to you.
Is the X-T4 bundle xf 16-55mm ($2,199) lens on amazon the same lens in this video? As well as the xf 18-55mm ($2,099)? Which is the better deal? It will be my first camera. 📷 So sorry for the noob questions.
I own the XF 16-55; XF 18-55 and the XC 16-50 OIS II and a XT 20 and and a X-H1. If weight doesn't matter I m using always the X-H1 and the lenses of the red badge series - XF 16-55 2.8 or the XF 55-140 2.8. I would never sell the XF 16-55. Thats my most beloved and used lens. If weight is an issue I always go for the XT 20 with the XC 16-50 and the XC - 50-230. Shouting outside you can always use your lenses at their sweetspots for instance in-between F6 and F11, thats sharp enough. I don t like the combination of the XF 18-55, XF 55 - 200 with the XT20 at all. It makes the camera to front heavy and the lenses are in between F6 and F11 not that sharper.
I love the primes they feel great on the camera and I. The hand don’t like the loss of control with the variable appetite of the 18-55 I would prefer to swap over a lens as for the 16-55 I will sell mine it feels wrong with the smaller body it way to heavy and throws the camera out of balance
hi Matthew... here in my place (India) along with 18-55, 16-80 f4 is also a kit lens.. did you came across this 16-80 lens by any chance?? if yes could you please review it... i am really confused which one to go for while buying xt3
Hi Awy, I recently ordered the 10-24 and the 16-80 from Amazon; the 16-80 to replace my 18-55. I kept the 10-24 ... but I returned the 16-80: I was disappointed with the 16-80 being so bulky; the 18-55 is way more compact (camera hanging over the sholder, carrying it around) and it is less intimidating. My recommendation : 1. compare them yourself (-> handling). 2. ask yourself the question : would the 16-80 make your images so much better to justify price and weight/size difference ?
Good review but disagree 16mm is that big of an advantage over the 18mm though focal length wise. If it’s too tight to use 18mm, it’s probably just as tight to use 16mm in most cases. It’s like shooting landscape in Alaska when the mountains are usually miles away, arguing 50mm is better than 35mm is really pointless, it is true but what you need is really a 120mm zoom.
Thanks for your video. I guess both lenses from 16(18) mm to ca. 35mm can be used to take landscape shots as you have tested, however, starting from ca. 45mm and especially at 55mm they would be more for taking portrait shots. So it would be interesting to compare them at 55mm in this respect (generally, a model in the center of the frame). This would make your video a real FULL comparison.
Thanks for your great review! ive been thinking about upgrading my kit to the 16-55. I thought about the 16-80 and watched your comparison on those which was also great. I already have the 55-200 i love for backpacking so I think buying the bag of primes is the next upgrade since i have an XT4 with built in OIS
@@matthewstorerphotography In my case when using inbuilt mike, I can hear even the 16-55 focusing in quieter environments. So I think external mike is needed.
Hi. Thank you. I bought the 18-55 to pair with my X-H1 for video. Shooting at f4, 24 FPS, 48 SS, and CAF I’m getting some AF noise. Normal? How can I minimize it?
The best portrait lens you can get within the kit lens' budget (if you actually buy it as a kit, or used) is the Samyang 85mm or 135mm (135mm is best but I would tell most people to only use it with an IBIS body like the X-T4 or X-S10) 56mm Fuji is also an alright option.
I like your video but there is one aspect that I think deserves further discussion. How much of a drawback is not having image stabilisation on the 16-55mm, especially if it is being used on an X-T3? Using it on a tripod is not an issue but what if you intend using it for handheld photography?
Yeah great question. I answered that myself with buying the X-H1 to combat this. For me its the perfect combination. A backup camera and video camera. With the image stabilisation i use this as my pro camera for paid clients. With the X-T3 its hard without good lighting.. totally agree
16-55 is the perfect match for XH1, it is if Fujifilm designed them like that, I have both, balance is good. Now try and put the 16-55 on an XT10....... Its a bit like having an elephant on 1 side of the seesaw and an ant on the other!🤣
Great video mate. I use the 16-55 for all my videos, but I have it on a tripod 99% of the time. Would have also been great to see how C-AF works between these lenses in video, as the 16-55 has Dual Linear Motors as I've read in a few places.
Yeah it was more a video about the photography as that is what most of my audience is, try and stay away from the professional video aspect many other youtubers out there that are better than me at it
Great review! I’m really not sure anymore what to get, the 16-80 seems a bit disappointing for that price, the 16-55 has always been great but is heavy. I really want the 16-80 to be good, especially because it has the same filter thread as the 10-24, but those reviews so far are holding me back :( Awesome location, where was this shot? Looks a bit like Austria oder southern Germany to be honest :D
Thanks so much mate. Mhmm hard one I think I will be grabbing a 16-80mm when I have the money. Great travel focal range. Its in Slovenia very similar to those locations but just without the price and as many tourists ;)
I have a question, I am getting into artistic/abstract photography and desperately want the 16-55mm since it is the true high quality multi-purpose lens and am willing to save up my money to buy that along with the X-T4. But I am very chronically sick, I will never get better, and I have weak arms and hands as well as too-stretchy ligaments in my wrist/hand/finger joints. I can manage alright in every day life and learned to manage daily with my heavy smartphone+armored case but have trouble lifting heavy objects with one hand, like dinner plates full of food. Is there a way for me make it work with this heavy lens? Would it be heavy enough on the X-T4 that it's a deal breaker for me? Does it balance well enough on the X-T4 that I wouldn't have to use my own strength in my upper extremities to keep it from flopping over? Anyone who could help me would be much appreciated
What I would suggest is to head down to Best Buy and try it out, or jump on Fujifilms website and add the two weights together and get something around the house because I am certain that it's around 1.2kgs
Good review that buddy. 👍 Many low cost zooms fall short on the image quality at the long end of the zoom. You do get what you pay for. I'm lucky enough to own the fuji red badge 100-400 and I absolutely love it... when the light is good enough. All the best buddy.... regards... Steve
@@matthewstorerphotography Hi buddy.... The 100-400 for me has been great .... but... I'm always trying to shoot something small a long way away and then cropping in on the image and being disappointed.. 😄🤪 Not really how it's supposed to work.. 😄 For the most of it though it really is a great lens at that price point. Long end wont disappoint when used over more moderate distances. Some of my best dog portraits came off the 100-400 when shot in good light and at a reasonable distance.... very sharp images with great blurred out background. I've used it also with the 1.4x extender but wasnt that impressed with images... so instead I just get closer by a few steps and crop a fraction... gives me better image. I think youd do well investing in the 50-140.... I think you would get good use of its range and f2.8 . Heard good things about that lens..... it's on my wish list.... once my lottery numbers come up. 😄 All the best buddy.... regards... Steve
Not yet! I will try it out shortly, but I used it for capturing the Northern Lights on my recent workshop, was very impressed with it there! Will do a vlog about this coming up in next couple of months :D
Great video lens comparison. Thanks for sharing. Just check on your wrong info but correct on the text. Wrong mentioning filter thread 55mm (18-55mm lens) supposed to be 58mm and 72mm (16-55mm) supposed to be 77mm.
Not sure about all the stabilization fuss, at events (which this lens is made for, let's be honest) you won't go under 1/100s anyway and any possible IS lag to settle so much glass would make it more annoying than useful.
Very useful and complete comparing and in detailed review. Thank you. I wish you explained in a slower rate of speech because many of viewers are not native English speakers.
Think it is when you compare it to every other Fujifilm lense lol, they're in the thousands so a £300 lens that comes with the camera that you can pickup for about £150 on eBay is probably considered budget in this category. For the record I love the 18 to 55, that and the 35 1.4 is nice! I do wish I had the 8 - 16 🤤🤤🤤 buuut I need my kidney right now!
To be fair, fujifilm's budget line is the XC series, which are still amazing for the price. The XF series is what I call pro-sumer and the red badges are the full on professional lenses.
I've had my 18-55mm for a week now. I was getting frustrated with soft and inconsistent pictures. It LOOKS like the issue is that I needed to change my IS (image stabilisation) setting in my X-T30 menu from Continuous to Shooting Only. I'd read a couple of posts online where people had tried that, compared pictures, and found it better. Something to do with continuous creating a build-up of vibration that doesn't matter when filming so much but hurts still pictures. I've only tried the difference today and THINK I can spot a benefit. My pictures are really clear today, perhaps helped by the bright weather outside ... or by this potential fix. Will see. UPDATE: Eventually I upgraded to an X-T4 with big 16-55mm lens, and must admit it's SO much nicer for me (especially the more reliable sharpness and less fiddly non-variable aperture).
I've now upgraded to an X-T4 16-55mm combo and it is VASTLY more fun than the X-T30 and 18-55mm. Vastly more reliable on sharpness, and without the hassle of variable aperture.
I did include it? I spoke about it at the end of the video? lol also hard to speak about it when I dont have it... Good to see you worked out that it suits your needs though
Matthew Storer, my bad. You are correct. I was getting tired and didn’t pay close enough attention. You clearly mentioned it. As such, I’ve modified my comment to remove my unfair criticism. Thanks for the good review!
I wanted so much for the 16-80 to be my choice as well. I just couldn't come around to its performance at 16mm. I had the "luxury" of pitting it against the 16-55 (which I already owned) and the 16-55 was demonstrably better at the wide end. You needn't squint to see the differences at 1:1 -- clear as day. Perhaps the fault is my own, I'm an irredeemable pixel peeper. But, I could (many times) see the differences without having to do so. At 35mm and 55mm, the lens are a lot closer. Everything about the 16-80 is perfect except for its performance at 16mm, whih gave me no other choice but to return it, as I shoot at 16mm a lot for my landscapes. By the way, I owned two different copies of the lens and the performance was consistent between the both of them.
I used my 18-55mm during a hike and it was raining. The lens got wet and I still carried on my shooting as I thought it was WR. I got great result and carried on shooting for the rest of my trip. I later realised it wasn't WR and I was amazed that nothing happened. Even my sensor is clean. So does WR really make a difference?
I'll never understand the 16-55 being a better choice. Um... NO. The 18-55 o.i.s. more than makes up for the aperture. The difference between 2.8 & 4 is really nothing. I've seen alot of comp videos between them and there is almost no difference, and alot of the time the 18-55 looks better
The 18-55 can give decent results but only from f5.6. At f2.8 and 18mm it is quite bad and not sharp at all. To rule out sample varation I tested 4 other copies and every time the same story. This lens is highly overrated!
