I currently have the 16-80 which I deemed acceptable in terms of sharpness on the X-T2 body. I recently got the X-T5 and am a bit disappointed with how the 40MP sensor accentuates the softness of this lens. I'm therefore considering buying the 18-55 kit lens instead. Christopher Frost's reviews (www.youtube.com/@christopherfrost) suggest that the 18-55 is sharper compared to the 16-80 but reading online forums yields mixed results.
Does anyone own both and is able to comment on their sharpness?
(1) both lens were not designed for 40mp sensors
(2) consider using a proper raw converter - it matters ( we do not know what you use , so it is a general recommendation )
(3) consider just getting 16-55/2.8 and call it a day
PS: nobody, repeat - nobody, except @ lensrentals does test multiple copies ( as in like 10 ) of lenses so copy-to-copy variations are barely accounted for ( except a fine print - in rare cases testers test 2nd copy if the first is way-way-way out of hand , but that's about it ) and then you might get either a good copy or a bad copy ... even a bad copy of otherwise top tier lens
It could easily go either way. The sample variation is all over the place with both of those lenses. Be prepared to test and return until you get a good one (either can be quite good or quite bad). If you want significantly better (and faster), you really want the 16-55 f/2.8 or maybe the Tamron 17-70 f/2.8.
If your 16-80 looks good at 26MP but not 40, make sure you have optimized your (RAW) processing for the higher resolution files, and that you are comparing at the same viewing size. It should never look worse at 40MP than 26.
I've always been under the impression that especially for the 18-55 as the original XF kit lens, there is so much sample variation that any report on an individual copy's sharpness is of very little value. You might be lucky enough to get a unicorn, but don't count on it.
I am curious here.. how do you optimize your RAW processing for the higher resolution files? By changing from LR to Capture One or DXO?
My 16-80 only struggles at the wide end in the corners, but still acceptable to me. It’s actually very good at 80mm.
As for the 18-55, my copy is just outstanding through the entire range, and has the edge on the 16-80 at all common focal lengths. That’s why I’ll never get rid of it.
It’s nice to have both, so I can plan accordingly for the day. FWIW,
In Lightroom it often means setting significantly higher "Detail" settings (both Sharpening and NR) than you normally would for a 24/26MB file, and preferably using something other than the standard (not so great) X-Trans demosaicing.
Thanks for all the input! I think the true reason my 16-80 looks worse on 40MP to me is because it is just so much easier to fall into the trap of pixel peeping with the new sensor. I will wait with the decision and try to use my current setup for a while.
PS. I would love to get the 16-55/2.8 but size and weight are a deal breaker for me as my current lens serves as a do it all kind of lens when traveling.
There are already a number of good replies here. To chime in, I owned two copies of the 18-55 and one of the 16-80. The second 18-55 was better overall. My copy of the 16-80 was best between 33mm and 58mm. It was slightly soft on the edges at both ends, but worse at 80. Since I'm primarily a landscape shooter, it was always a slight annoyance at 100%. For people and family events it was fine, and very enjoyable to use. I hope you come to a happy solution. It looks like you're on your way.
Thanks Howard! Sounds like sample variation is a consistent theme in this thread. I too have a "love-hate" relationship with the 16-80; very enjoyable to use but not as sharp as I would want in certain scenarios.
Could you elaborate on what looks actually soft on your images? Usually, I'd expect any modern lens to be perfectly sharp outside of the image corners at the focal range extremes. (Which, incidentally, should make the 16-80 a tremendously good 18-55).
According to lenstip the 16-55 is only marginally sharper than the 16-80 in the center and about the same or worse at similar focal lengths in the corners. I'm hesitant to try the 16-55 because its an expensive lens and may not be any "better" than my 16-80. That said, everyone seems to love the 16-55 and the 16-80 not so much.
I find the 16-80 to be pretty decent on my 40mp. Yeah if you pixel peep there is some softness compared to a prime lens, but at normal viewing sizes there's no issue. If I knew the 16-55 would be considerably better, I might spring for one....but its alot of money for potentially a negligible gain.
Personally, I'll take the 16-80 over the 16-55 any day. I own both, but don't own an IBIS body.
It’s a significantly better lens than the 16-80 (LensTip must’ve gotten a dud), especially around the periphery at wider apertures. Unlike most lesser zooms, you aren’t giving up any significant image quality by shooting wide open, making it an excellent choice for low light situations.
Here’s a full-size (24MP) example of the 16-55 wide open at 16mm (not in low light)..
www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67021931
But both will work perfectly fine on 40mp sensors.
sure... a pinhole will work just fine on any sensor !
they were tested on different sensors... 16mp vs 24mp - can't draw parallels ( more so - Lenstip was using different raw conversion for testing Fuji lenses on X-Trans CFA sensors historically , so in general that affects results too - may not in this case of course )
I've owned all of those lenses: the 18-55, the 16-80 and the 16-55. In the end I stuck with the Tamron 17-70mm f2.8, which is the sum of all the virtues of the other three lenses. Versatile focal length, f2.8 throughout the range, image stabilizer and good image quality, both in the center and in the corners. I use it with the X-T4 and I don't need a 40 Mpx camera.
I have the 16-80 and the tamron 17-70 (no experience with the 16-55). I’m finding that the tamron 17-70 is a bit sharper than the Fuji 16-80. Can’t really notice a difference at normal viewing size but when I pixel peep the tamron appears sharper and with better contrast/less haze. Haven’t really tested it but the IS appears to be better on the Fuji and I think the Fuji is a bit better for “macro”. Reproduction size is similar, Fuji maybe a bit better, but to achieve it the tamron is at 17mm where as the Fuji is 80mm so more working room. Focusing speed and accuracy is similar. The tamron has no aperature ring but is f2.8 vs f4 of the Fuji. The Fuji is shorter and better built but a tad heavier. Tamron takes 67mm filters vs 72mm of Fuji. Not sure I could recommend one over the other. For pure image quality the tamron wins and it’s a stop faster…. But the Fuji is better built, better IS, better macro, shorter, better range and it has an aperature ring.