In fuji land, the beeping sound doesn't necessarily mean 'focus nailed'. Hard to tell from yhe video whether AF was accurate or not but great to see some significant reduction in weight. Can't wait to see a full prod copy review.
Thanks for the review! Sounds like a cool upgrade from the first version. I love the first version, but for travel weight savings are always welcome. I really like the idea to declick the aperture. Would probably use that for photo as well. And having less focus breathing is also very welcome. If it's the same build quality I will definitely pick one up!
As the owner of Mark one, I don’t see any real reason to upgrade, as it didn’t seem any sharper to me, but it makes me feel like my old version is still quite good, just a little heavier!
I won't be upgrading it too. As I don't use much of this lens. I have a friend who is a professional and he own the MK I and he has decided to upgrade not because of the slight sharper glass. ( yes, its also sharper at the edges) But the size and weight is the main reason for him, as he uses this lens on a daily basis. Cheers and that make 2 of us holding on to MK I. I was joking to a friend that the reason why MK I is so heavy is because of the solid sliver ring. Haha.
@@simon359 i also own the mark 1. People complain about the weight of the mk1, but to me, it lighter and smaller than my canon 24-70mm 2.8 which i have been using for weddings for many years. Unless the mk2 produces an image that can justify the $$$ diff. In Australia, the mk 2 is price around 2k AUD. If i will be lucky to sell my mk1 for 1k AUD, i still need to spend another 1k which may not be justifiable for my use case.
You are a great reviewer. You identified the relevant points of difference and didn't use too many words to describe them. Almost like poetry. Maybe a happy side effect of having English as not your first language (although you speak it very well). Your visual examples also really show these differences well, and your recommendation makes sense. A+ video, subscribed to your channel.
Great lens and if I didn't already have the Mk i I'd be all over it. I'd love to see Fuji use the weight savings technology to release an f/2 or f/1.8 version with twin linear motors or whatever else it takes to make it a screamer in terms of AF. That's where I tend to shoot my primes so that would cover me for a lot of environments. Nothing better sometimes than a one-and-done lens.
If I didn't already have the 16-55mm MK1 I would be waiting for all the used MK1's to flood the market and pick up one very cheap. That's a no brainer!!
No point in upgrading really. The 16-55 is the best ever wide to mid zoom. If you have the Mk1 stick with it. If you're new to this by all means get the Mkii, only pixel peepers will tell the difference and even then they could get it wrong. The smart choice is to get the mki at discounted prices once the Mkii is established.
Good comparison, thanks. I love the MK1 lens, I call it the "Prime-Zoom" because it's so good. It actually beat out the small "Fujichrons" in IQ in my tests. There's actually less CA in the zoom somehow. The new one does look to be a tiny improvement, though that much weight loss concerns me. That's pretty extreme to find that much weight you can remove out of an already not heavy f/2.8 zoom.
Thanks. I own the MK I. Tempted to upgrade especially price of the old and new are the same price. Which is a rare sight these days. I can't really justified as I dont really use much zoom in my cause of work. cheers and have a great weekend.
@@kuroexmachina technically speaking, yes, none of them are truly parfocal. But in practice there is a huge difference between different fuji lenses. For example, XF 70-300 is notoriously bad in that aspect, 55-200 is much better. Sigma 18-50/2.8 loses focus during zooming completely, while Fuji 18-55 is much better. 16-55 mk1 was a mixed bag, so it's interesting to look at mk2.
At 2:55 what f-stop and focal length is being compared here? The mk1 in my experience was quite soft on the long end and also generally pretty soft wide open throughout the zoom range.
It's about 30% smaller and lighter. I've used the Sigma 18-50 more than any other lens, but I think I'll probably buy the new 16-55 and sell the Sigma. For me personally having one lens without an aperture ring is pretty annoying, and I'd like the extra range for sure. I found the first 16-55 too big, but this is small enough to be compelling.
Thanks for the few sample images. Just wish there were more samples. Will be disappointed if Fuji does not update older X-t3 and X-T30 firmware to use the adjustable.focus throw and declicked aperture. Some functions of the 18-120mm will not work on older camera bodies. I should be able to buy new lenses without having to also buy new camera. I was considering adapting Canon EF-S 17-55 but I would prefer this if IQ is better than Mk 1. It's only missing OIS but otherwise very promising for video. I think the Mk 1 version was over rated and did not like.
Bro not trying to be rude, can we go down to the action straight instead of talking. I come here to see the size difference and the output. Your opinion is very insightful but maybe leave it at the conclusion.
please, place the OLD thing on the left side and the NEW thing on the right side of the screen when comparing. That's a mind standard, another behaviour frustrates!
Still an oversized, overweight and overpriced piece of gear. I bet you Sigma can make a lens in this focal length, in the size and weight of the MK1 but F2 instead of F2.8.
It’s half the weight of any of the competitors’ first party standard 2.8 zooms and at almost half the cost, with features those don’t have, like the declicked aperture. Stop.
I just tested the tamron the other day and immediately returned it. The amount of distortion was insane and truly surprising, to the point where I had to double check with another friend who owned the lens. At 20mm~ it has a crazy amount of distortion in a donut pattern that is uncorrectable in light room. Shame as the rest of the lens is not bad. Also the vignetting is in a donut pattern. If using for jpegs it’s just okay (outside of that 20mm issue) but for video without those profile corrections, it’s a joke.
