Optically, the 16-55mm lens is better than the 18-55mm, especially at 55mm wide open. However, I've used both, shoot professionally (editorial stock), and much prefer the smaller, lighter 18-55mm kit lens. You are right in calling the 16-55mm a "beast". It definitely is. I've made a lot of money with the kit lens and because of its size, people don't pay much attention to me when I'm out shooting. The resulting images are certainly good enough for my stock agency. The two biggest advantages to the kit lens are cost and size / weight. I shoot a lot of editorial travel images and am out for up to 8-9 hours per day. Believe me, you feel the difference between the lenses at the end of the day. The difference in image quality is not noticed when published in a travel magazine. Fine art and landscape photographers will probably have a different opinion.
I’ve used the Fuji X (and GFX) system quite a lot over the past 11 years. Also professionally for a while. My recommendation for travel is still the 18-55 combined with the 14/2.8. They’re a versatile combo with great IQ and share the same filter size. Never mind the weather sealing. It isn’t much of a difference to begin with and some TLC will go a long way. I’ve had to replace several 16-55s with issues, while my first 18-55 (Japanese version) still performs flawless, even after some severe wet conditions. While the 16-55 has some IQ issues on the 16mm end (esp. wide open), the 18-55 is quite soft on the 55mm end. If you must, you can combine it with a 50/f2 and still have a small kit for travel.
I have the 18-55 that came as a kit and later had the 16-55. The 16-55 is top notch in terms of image quality and very versatile as a 1-do-all travel lens. I then sold the 16-55 as the size is too big and very noticeable shooting on the streets at this day and age, and settle with primes only.
I have both lenses. The 16-55mm was one of the first lenses I bought when I got into the Fujifilm system. I routinely use this lens on my X-T3 and X-H1 bodies. Like you, I have bought, sold, and re-bought the 18-55mm. Current use is primarily with a pair of X-T20's. This lens is ideally suited for daily walkabouts with any of the smaller Fujifilm bodies.
I have the XF16-55mm on my X-H2 (previously used on an X-H1 & X-T4) and my XF-18-55 on my E-X3. Both lenses fit their respective bodies perfectly in terms of size and balance. With the 18-55/E-X3 combination the stabilisation is on the lens and with the X-H2/16-55 combo the stabilisation is 'in-body'. The XF16-55mm renders the detail of the 40 megapixel X-H2 sensor well and the XF18-55 is more than adequate the 24 megapixels of the X-E3. I've been a photographer since the 1980's and since digital was with Canon up until the 5D Mk III, at which point I tried a Fujifilm X-T2 when it was released and never looked back. Fujifilm rejuvenated my love of photography and I found myself wanting to get out with the camera more. If anyone wants a low budget lightweight camera system, or starter gear, I always suggest an X-H2 or X-E3 and an XF18-55mm lens and this gives you a fantastic kit. At £300 used/good condition the XF18-55mm is simply the best value lens in the world. Small, exceptionally well built with optical stabilization, versatile zoom range and fabulous image quality. No other 'kit lens' comes anywhere close. You can upgrade your body and lens beyond this, but you really only get marginal image quality improvement and camera features for substantial additional investment. Great video Gareth.
I have just traded in my 10-24 and 18-135 for the 16-55. Found I rarely shoot wider than 14-15mm and almost never longer than 50mm. Feels well balanced on the XT3 with battery grip. But have also owned the 18-55 and TBF it is a cracking lens considering it's a "kit" lens.
I watched this to see what you thought, as I am fortunate enough to have used both on an X-H1. I am glad you clarified about rendering detail, as that is where the 18-55 falls over, especially at the long end. I have seen several reviews online which confirms my experience. At the long end and with distant subjects especially, it goes muddy, losing that detail which it manages to pull out with close up subjects. So it all depends on what you plan on doing with the 18-55 and whether you know and can shoot within the strengths/limitations of your lens. I am extremely fortunate to have a couple of friends with Fujifilm systems, and being able to test before buying is invaluable - otherwise I would have an 18-55 in my kit instead of deciding it wasn't for me and going without for now, saving for a 16-55 down the road. Assuming someone watching knows what and how they shoot, great info in the video to work out if either is the lens for you. Nice work.
I got my 18-55mm by selling my 16-80mm, I was hesitant at first, cause I've never used a "kit lens" before but I am so satisfied with it. It is an amazing lens for its size and price.
I was very happy with my 18-55 and am only separated from it by cruel Covid circumstances. But I didn't opt for the 16-55, it's too heavy, in the interim - I went with the 16-80 which is weather sealed and is a great replacement for my old Canon 24-105 L. I don't want heavy from Fuji, it's why I changed systems, so the 8-16, 16-55, and the 50-140 are just not for me. It's not that I can't afford them, I just don't want the weight. Nice overview of the strengths and weaknesses of these two, though :-)
Great video, and a good honest comparison. Interesting, if not zooming in and pixel peeping, there really isn't anything in it from the sample shots. Definitely if you're someone that doesn't need the faster aperture throughout the zoom range, it's a no brainer. Was great seeing you at the Photography Show yesterday and getting to have a chat. The content you're making is excellent, and my wife and myself enjoy the videos you're creating. Keep up the good work! (PS: my eldest lad was spot on when I asked who I'd got a selfie with at the show, the youngest 3 failed!) Right, time to get subscribing to f8 magazine.
I love my 16-55 but it broke and I had to send it to Fuji for repair. I borrowed a 18-55 to hold me over. I really didn't care for it and was super-eager to get my 16-55 back. I got it back and the difference was really noticeable. I can't imagine going back. I'm used to the size and weight. It doesn't bother me.
It's a no brainer I would go for the Yashica 124G.....other than that if I had a unlimited income which most RU-vidrs have I would buy the very best lenses and cameras, but I dont have a unlimited income so I would be quite happy with the kit zoom! or the inexpensive zoom, I use mine quite often but on a different kit!Thank you for you side of the story I found it quite interesting!
Another common sense video Gareth. I don't have the 16-55 due to cost but would certainly like one for the weather sealing alone. Also I use an XH1 which negates the lack of OIS. I do use the 18-55, but not a great deal to be honest, the 55-200 gets much more use for isolating the subject. I also use the tiny 23mm and 50mm f2.0 lenses a fair bit. Plus a Samyang 12mm occasionally. Spot on video again, always look forward to these.
If I get an XT4 or XT5 when it comes out I would consider getting the 16/55, till then the 18/55 with OIS suits my purpose. Kit lens, it is way above anything you would consider as a kit lens, quality construction, and optics.
@Noé André Semi retired these days, I worked in Portraiture and model portfolio work (fashion). Now I photograph what I like. so the 18/55 and the 55/200 works for me, both have IS, they are smaller and lighter than the 16/55 and the 55/140. The only other lenses I use are a 56mm velvet lensbaby and a fuji 14mm f2.8. Mind you I have an X100V which gets used quite a lot. I don't photograph wildlife, astro, and very little sport. Not all of my gear goes out with me, O go out to shoot specific things so I only take what I need.
I've found that the cheap 18-55 (and similar) kit lenses almost always deliver surprisingly good bokeh. That's been true with Canon, Fuji and Nikon in my experience.
Thanks for the video. I agree the 18-55mm is a very good lens but the AF- as you correctly mention- can be unreliable and that´s the reason I no longer use it at weddings. I just can´t afford to lose shots due to missfocusing. Glad to hear the 16-55 is better in this respect but I´ve never been tempted by it and instead use primes.
Thought Apple had bought Fuji when you kept mentioning IOS Gareth :). Jokes aside that 18-55 is a fantastic lens for the price. Quality content as usual mate. Look forward to the next upload
You hit the nail on the head (albeit subtly) - the main problem with the 18-55 is AF reliability / speed (particularly for those chasing moving subjects). As a people shooter I find I miss too many "easy" shots that are well lit even when I put that point right on the eye, use high shutter speed, stop down etc. In low light / indoors it slows down quite a bit, and it typically has a noticeable lag when acquiring / showing green "lock" (by which time the moment has passed/subject has moved). Obviously OIS is irrelevant if the AF precision just isn't there, and I think that is the case here. It is a shame because otherwise, when this lens nails it, I think the images are gorgeous and keep up just fine with my way more expensive lenses. In strong outdoor light, the AF performs good-to-very good, IMO. Indoors it is almost a crap shoot. In theory it is a perfect travel lens, but because I don't trust it, I tend to use something else - unless I'm truly in a "who cares" kind of mood. If Fuji ever decided to do a mk2 of this lens and improved the AF performance, it would be such a killer lens. I'd even accept a constant f/4 aperture. Alternatively, I'd like to see them make a mk2 of the 16-55 that is an f/2. If they did that, I know I wouldn't be able to resist it. Or just something to justify the gaping price difference besides AF reliability.
Had the 18-55, replaced with the 16-80. With the firmware updates the issues with the 16-80 are gone. It is a cracking lens now. Each of these three Fuji lens have pros and cons over each other. For those worried about the F4 of the 16-80, consider that the DoF at 80mm at F4 can get you a blurred background that will rival 2.8 at 55mm. The 16-80 is weak in the corners at 16, but still very usable, and it is weakest at 80mm overall. For the most part is really sharp in the center and imo, in the 18-55mm focal range is even sharper than the 18-55mm which makes sense. The overall rendering of the 16-80 is lovely, great contrast and colour with smooth bokeh. The F4 will hinder shooters looking to capture subjects in motion in lower light. However, the OIS is so good that even on an older body will allow you to take handheld night shots that are very crisp and with a larger depth of field.
@@michaelxwhite the 16-80 is an excellent photo lens. For video, providing you are not zoom it would be very good. I recently sold it as on the long end I have my 70-300, covering the mid range a 35 1.4 and now a 16 1.4. The wide end of the 16-80 was great and I miss the flexibility of the zoom sometimes. At the same time the close focus, fast aperture, sharper corners and feel of the 16 1.4 brings other advantages. Fuji is coming out with a new dedicated video zoom but until then both 18-55 and 16-80 are worthy
I’m a photographer and use Canon professionally. I got the xt4 as a compact. As a photographer I automatically went with the 16-55 when ordering it but changed it to the 18-55 because i wasn’t planning to use it on a pro level, wanted to do more with video and the aperture wasn’t a priority for me. After a year of using it I do have a minimal aversion towards the variable aperture but I really like the results that the 18-55 has been giving me. On a video level, the 18-55 and the stabilization is awesome. My priority was travel photography and video so the size and weight played a big role as well. I just got a viltrox 23mm 1.4 for photography and its been a great addition to the package.
I have a love-hate relationship with my XF 18-55mm, I absolutely love it’s versatility considering it doesn’t have a fixed aperture, I mainly use it for video and even though I’ve been hunting for a faster, affordable lower focal length (25mm down) I still haven’t found one that blows my mind, what I hate about the 18-55 it’s the lack of sharpness, don’t know if it’s my copy but it’s been unusable for portrait work for example, but comparing it to 16-55 video wise I’d go for the 18-55 just for its size and OIS, try using the 16-55 on a medium size gimbal and you’ll go nuts, anyway great video comparison, thanks and cheers 🍻
MTF charts back up your experience. If we ignore sample variation in the 18-55, the 16-55 only performs better wide open, at the wide end. The 18-55 not only holds up to the 16-55 everywhere else, it wins out edge to edge in a lot of cases. At f/5.6 - f/8, it's a better lens almost all around. I know people who own the 16-55 want to argue it's not true but it's actually quantifiable with the charts. The big knock with the 18-55 is there appears to be a lot of sample variation. Mine is perfect edge to edge. I considered "upgrading" to the 16-55 until being told it might not be an upgrade. The only "evidence" it's a better lens from an image quality standpoint are people's anecdotal comments that it is. The majority of instances where people make a fair comparison come to the same conclusion, the 16-55 is not in fact optically superior.
16-55 looks awesome but until I start making money from photography I just can't justify the expense, that said I am planning on upgrading next year from the XT30 TO XT4 or XH2 when it comes then it would be worth wile and would compliment the 55-200 that I love. I would probably keep the XT30 and 18-55 for vlogging.Saying that I have been having trouble on some subjects with the dreaded Fuji worms which is putting me off the system. Thanks for sharing Gareth.
The Japanese version of the 18-55 is incredible. Far more consistent copy to copy than the newer versions. I tested 3 when they first came out and there was virtually no difference. Something that I could NOT say about Cannon L glass where I've seen horrible variation and QC (10 plus years ago).
I have a pretty small but versatile setup. XT-1 + 18-55mm and XT-10 + 14mm, both with with the original Arca-compatible handgrip. So I never have to change lenses and am quick and cover the for me important focal range. Sure sometimes a tele would be nice, but mostly I find tele photos less interesting. One has to work harder for a good shot with shorter focal lengths, but the results are more rewarding often IMO.
I thought this video might help me out, as I’ve been contemplating trading in a prime (that I don’t use) and my 18-55 and getting the beast. I was getting a bit peed off with the autofocus missing shots. I’m still none the wiser. But good video thank you! Even with this lens, I don’t feel it’s any bigger than all my old Nikon stuff. X
@@djstuc yeah thanks. I might revisit or see if I can find some good videos. I’ve tweaked a lot trying to find best situations with no joy on some lenses. Then other lenses, it’s not a concern that I have to think about. I’d rather not have to think at all if I’m honest. 😂😂.
Thanks for the good review I downloaded the images and checked them out using capture one (appreciate you offering your images for testing ) It seemed contrast was about the same in both sets of images nice deep blacks rather than the grey-ish black Lightroom was rendering the 16-55 images on piano possibly capture one rendered them better. If there is any sharpness issues at any aperture I will just return and try again but I'm going to get this beast :)
I'm a self-confessed fuji fanboy but was very surprised by how underwhelmed I was with the 18-55. Maybe I have a lemon but I have no idea what all the hype is about.
I had the same reaction, and found my canon 18-55 stm 4.0-5.6 is was every bit as sharp if not better because i can adjust the canon raw files in LR for sharpness much more effectively than i can the fuji raw files.
That was great. Your manner and way of explaining is refreshing and easy to get along with (so the speak)....anyway I have the 18 to 55 - as my first purchase. I want to use my xt4 for landscapes....wont be now thought!....I'm keen on the Fringer II adapter. Have you tried it?
You were moving with boost mode. It’s not designed for movement. It’s meant for when you are standing still. That made you footage with 16-55mm jittery at the beginning.
6:46 it does not have less contrast, its just a brighter exposure. The black looks darker on 18-55, but so do the white keys. The keys actually look dull, that indicates less contrast. Also on 18-55 the dark keys blend in whereas on 16-55 they do not blend in so much...
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.
gutted i forgot to mention this in the vid! a valid point.. continuous ibis is almost guaranteed to give probs.. tho i havent compared yet.. maybe ill do that soon.. let me know how you get on mike :-)
@@GarethDanks Yeah it's still taking great shots since I went to Shooting Only. So I'm now pretty confident it was the Continuous IS setting that was the problem before. Really loving the 18-55mm now. My 14mm and 56mm primes are sharper, but pretty much only when I'm pixel-peeping or maybe in lower light. Sometimes I miss not having wider than f4.0 at longer focal distances (on the 18-55mm), but it's no major worry. Cool stuff.
Cheers Gareth just got an email my 18-55mm coming in the next hour by post, only just getting into Fuji gear I have swapped from Sony full frame kept a A7R2 to use my vintage lenses on but loving the Fujifilm gear.......
Agreed, Having both used both for paid food photo sessions the 18-55 struggles to acquire focus in flat lay images. It struggles with AF-C and its focus distance on the LCD is always way off. I can be focused at 5m and the back LCD will have the blue focus range at 10m. It is more contrasted in the centre and lighter. It just doesn't handle focus on moving subjects or video with reliable results
I love my 18-55mm and never will change it. The 18-55mm is not a kit lens, it's a very good quality all-round lens. This pixel peaker search is nonsense.
Haha. I knew I’d get this. I hated the ergos and the colours. Plus I couldn’t hold my 35mm 1.4 for more that 20 mins as it cut into my fingers. Cameras too small and the evf was terrible. Amazing focus and high iso tho. Editing video from it was a pain too. Fuji is so much easier as colours are right from camera after set up. 😊
At 7:23, bottom right hand corner reveals the corner of the piano isn’t in the same spot on the shot. this making it harder to read on the 16-55 as it’s a flatter angle….
great video - its definitely hard to understand this "upgrade" from time to time over a prime lens. though hearing that tarmon has a 17-70 f2.8 lens coming to the x-mount do you have any thoughts on it?
Might also be the effects of diffraction setting in a little bit earlier, or better light transmission leading to slightly higher exposure values. If you look at the whites of the keys, they look brighter than the 18-55 rendering.
Have both but must say that the 18-55 has some serious problems wide open at f2.8 with landscape pics. Sharpness is just not there. At f5.6 it is acceptable but not stellar.
Both lenses are good in image-quality - but I had problems with OIS in two of the 18-55 , both had issues after about 6 months of using - the center of the image was a little bit unsharp , the outer area sharp .Sent both back for repair , and sold both after they repaired it . Maybe it´s to cheap build ......so I have now the clunky 16-55 , and no more problems with OIS anymore (because there is none ...) I use it not for video , only for pictures . Use it on an X-PRO2 , and it´s heavy but works perfect
Interesting to hear your view on these two lenses. I've read so many conflicting reports on the 18-55, some say it's great and other say its soft, even Mr Heaton seems to have problems with his at the telephoto end. I'm tempted to pick one up second hand and see how it is, can always sell it back on for not much less if I dont get on with it. I was really interested in the 16-80 but again I've seen a lot of people reporting its not that great which is a shame as I much prefer the range. Did you find all of your copies of your 18-55 to be similar or do you think some have been better that other in terms of image quality? All the best
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.
If I remember correctly, Fuji had a prototype of 16-55/2.8 with OIS. However, IQ suffered course of OIS greatly, so they dropped it in the end. Yep, have that lens too and I'll never sell it...
I've had horrible background foliage with the 18-55, as opposed the 16-55, which is why I tend not to use it as I'm primarily a natural world photographer. Also I've heard resolution is far worse on it at 55 than the 16-55. I haven't tested this though. Thanks for mentioning the 16-80 which I had been considering and will now rule out.
Hi Gareth You mentioned the XT4 and 16-80 where fighting each other. That is exactly what’s happening with my 70-300 and xt4. I have to use the 70-300 on my xpro3 or xt3 to get a sharp image. Do you or anyone know how to fix this very disappointing issue? Thank you.
That higher resolution Fuji sensor you mentioned, if the rumours are true that it will be a 42MP X mount sensor in the tba. X-H2 then Fuji will sell a s*$t load of those cameras.
Sony cameras are like operating a microwave, powerful and efficient - but very clinical, terrible ergonomics, and the colour that comes out of it isn't always what you expected.
is there anyway for me to weather seal my 18-55. asking for an idiot friend. 18-55, non-constant aperture aside, would be the perfect lens if it had WR. argh..
No, it’s not worth it. I have had both at the same time. No sense. 18-55 gives you 80% of results with a much lighter weight. For landscape, just take 14mm f.2.8.
Of course, one could use just a single prime lens and create art, but the same can be said for a zoom. There are plenty of reasons to use a zoom. Zooms allow for rapid alteration of the field of view. This can be critical in situations where there is no time to change your lens. For weddings, travel, landscape and street shooting, you can quickly alter your frame and perspective. Also, many photos do not require shallow depth of field and the image quality of zooms can rival primes in this regard. At the super telephoto range, framing of the subject is critical, and often "moving with your feet" would not make sense. If you get a chance to try Fuji's 70-300mm, that is an incredible lens.
