Hands-on with Fujifilm's new XF 16-55mm F2.8 R LM WR lens

Not sure can be small for fast zoom tele lens on m43?

Re: You state that you have never seen a small APS-C wide angle at f2.8. Might I respectfully suggest taking a look at the Sony SEL16F28 SEL-16F28 16mmじゅうろくみり f2.8? Pancake lens indeed.

I bought a second-hand XT1+grip+18mm f2 prime (27mm equivalent) and checked it against my D600 +24mm f2.8 prime. If there were differences in image quality, it was in the lenses. Both systems seemed equally sharp at 100% in the middle but the Fuji 18mm I have looked very slightly softer at the edges (which is maybe why I was able to pick up this cheap Fuji lens for even less—I'd like to see Fuji produce a high-end 24mm equivalent prime with min aperture of at least f22). With the D600+24lens/filter/cap weighing at 1124g and the XT+grip+18mm lens/filter/cap at 672g, the XT is definitely better for traveling lighter. I cannot wait to look at this 16–55 f2.8 as the WR and OIS should make this the lens to hike with, never mind size and weight. I tried the Oly OM5D + M43 system but did not like it, though many others get great results with M43. The Sony offerings look tempting, but I don't do video and have no pro need for full-frame quality.

I second ryan2007 because I have the 18-135 and am tired of switching to my 56 or even 16 in low light .Was thinking of selling the 18-135 but hope it distinguishes itself from the 16-55 2.8 and the 50-140 2.8 (both of which I am going to purchase).Right…I know…which one are you going to leave at home when you travel tscholent?

tscholent .. 18-135 has a great OIS and awesome range and very well weather sealed. It's perfect as a walk-around lens.
otherwise i agree you may like to get the f/2.8 combos, or at least 50-140 as otherwise you already got some nice primes for even better low light performance.

the 18-55mm is well made. the 18-135mm is over priced for it's cheap built quality. Yes, it feels cheap... when you rotate the zoom from extreme wide to tele. it feels catchy. the sales guys say its' the WR seal but I have Canon L lens and it's smooth. All the fuji lens are good value accept the 18-135mm. It's over priced. Go for the 18-55mm (2.8-4f). it's an excellent lens.

You conveniently forgot the EF-M 11-22

But then that's pretty easy given the "love" canon gives to the EOS-M.....

@keeponkeepingon :)

- it's not beyond 2X
- it's not constant apperture
- and and it's not WR

:)

ohh but how incredibly small and pretty it is .. wow!!

As far as I know Fuji 10-24 doesn't have any weather sealing. Where did you get the idea that it's weather-sealed?

a-flying-wuss

Thank you for the correction for "Fujifilm XF 10-24mm F4 R OIS" is not a WR lens.

It could be done, but it would be huge. And then many including myself will question the usefulness of a mirrorless system.

Dof applicants should rely on primes anyways.

No Sigma 18-35 is clearly not equivalent in terms of focal length and
* is not Weather sealed
* is not Nano-GI (or whatever coating for flare reduction)
* and still considerably heavier 810g vs 655g

and no it doesn't matter if it's for DSLR or mirrorless as such as much, in terms of overall size and weight.

The closest you are asking is new Samsung 16-50 kit, but again its slightly shorter on focal length and still not constant f2 as it also ends on f/2.8.

So again, for normal Dof applications you wont gain huge difference on this and a full-frame f/2.8 24-70 and where you really need extremely shallow Dof all these zoom lenses will lack including the new Sony Zeiss f/4 constant 24-70

and Canon 24/70 f/2.8 is huge for a mirrorless camera and a lens with the double the price of Samy f2-2.8.

so if its something you can carry, I do sincerely suggest you to carry Canon or Nikon fullframe in that boat of yours !! because by the looks of it size doesn't matter for you!!

oh well actually why don't you get the Canon 24-70 and put it on Fuji camera with metabone speedbooster.. this will give you all the advantages of shallower Dof and even 1-stop more brightness :)

http://www.metabones.com/products/details/MB_SPFD-X-BM2

no thanks

I'm not believing that lenses have to be huge, just because they have large apertures. The 50mm f1.4 lenses from Nikon and Canon are not huge. A zoom doesn't have to be huge either. I have no doubt that someone could make a 15-70mm f2 for APS-C size sensors, with image stabilization, which would be less than 500 grams. They might have to use a couple of titanium parts or some carbon fiber stuff, but it could be made ultra-light and produce great image quality in the center of the image at f2, good image quality all the way across the frame at f4 and very good image quality all the way across the frame at f8. Sigma could do it, but they're selling plenty of 18-35mm f1.8 and 50mm f1.4 lenses as is, so why would they make such a beast to eliminate a bunch of their sales of those two lenses? Tamron should do it.

very well said buddy cjhwang ..

precisely the point I was trying to make, its nice to have biggest possible aperture and focal length range in a lens, but then you dont wanna take the compromises. Every lens is made according to the intended system and market.
like adhal and other friends here wanted to get fullframe euivalent dof but don't wanna mount a fullframe lens with an adapter or spend that much money for this system. all the benefit without sacrifice .. all i can say .. wishful thinking!

also the big apperture zoom for even smaller formats are very expensive to produce and are very heavy .. anybody remember Oly 35-100 f2?

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/43/cat/15

its tack sharp across the frame, and ultra bright :)) but how many remember anybody buying it?

@Scottley
You clearly not following the thread mate, Sigma 18-35 is limited in focal range compare to this one and is still considerably heavier and longer than this already heavy lens (810g vs 655g)

Do you have any other example of an APSC lens .. either from Nikon, Canon, Pentax. Except a samsung one that starts at f/2 but then quickly dropped to f/2,8

F2.0 ?adhall how much would that lens be? $2400?

Yes. it would be a comparable price to the current generation of Canikon 24-70 lenses. This is the kind of lens that professionals are looking for and this is the price professionals currently pay for such a lens... The point of f/2.0 is that it gets much closer to the DOF (and light gathering capability) of the equivalent FF f/2.8 lenses.

Fun thing is that 18-35 is a DSLR lens (with long flange distance)
A mirrorless-specific version can be designed even smaller and better.

Currently there is a NX 12-24mm f4-5.6 lens which is very good and sharp.
Rumors there will be a S grade lens 11-24mm f2.8 OIS coming this year for the NX line.

"S grade lens 11-24mm f2.8 OIS" will be great.

Now if it was a 14-55 2.8, I'd not care how much it cost or weighed.
That would cover all of my Fuji primes in one optic.
I don't need the WR spec as my 18-55 got soaked daily for almost a week and never skipped a beat. It's small size meant less glass to catch stray drops. I was very impressed with it and the X-T1's resistance to mechanical/electrical faults due to moisture.

+1,

None OIS Lens should be much cheaper than with OIS.

BTW: I like Sigma Art line, and it worth the money.

For years, I only have one Sigma had issue, lost sharpness in one corner after heavy use.

Correctly the Sigma's UVP is 999EUR, not 700EUR

You still have your point - but don't over-exaggerate the argument, by comparing street-price of a year old lense against a just released ones UVP.

Conrad: they are of course different, but the shorter FL of Sigma is outweighed (construction-wise) by much better luminosity (which is an optical challenge noone has repeated by now). Btw. the Sigma build quality is top-notch, easily on par with my all-metal Limited Pentax.

Thorsten: the Sigma´s MSRP at launch was 799 USD, so the difference to Fujinon launch price is still considerable 400 USD. In different words: Fujinon is 50% more expensive then the (groundbreaking) Sigma.

Iudex: The sigma lens is a VERY different lens. It has a VERY limited zoom range, and is unusable as a primary lens for portrait work, where as the new Fuji will zoom plenty long enough for that. When the Sigma came out I was intrigued, and the reviews I read gave serious props for image sharpness. The bokeh in my opinion is a little nervous looking...borderline fuzzy wide open. Again that is my opinion. All in all it is a lens I would pass on because it only zooms to 35mm. It is what I would call a novelty or travel lens. But given it's size I would still opt for the Fuji 18-55mm f2.8-4.
My point is that it has it's strengths; sharpness, price. It also has it's weaknesses; bokeh, very limited zoom, and lack of weather sealing. It is like comparing a Ferrari to a Yacht. Both serve their purpose, but neither are designed to do the same thing.

Conrad: The Sigma is of course limited due to the short focal range, however it still covers the most used focal lengths.
Re: "is unusable as a primary lens for portrait work..." which short standard zoom is a PRIMARY lens for portraits? None. For portraits you need much longer FL, ideally between 85 and 150mm (I use 100mm), so whethet the standard zoom reaches 35 or 50mm is from this perspective irrelevant.
Anyhow these standard zooms are all competitors since they cover the most used focal lengths and none of them can serve as the only lens, they are not long enough, nor wide enough and need to be accompanied by other lenses (UW, portrait, tele). So for me they are alternatives (and I actually changed from 17-50 to 18-35).
You can also look at the Sigma as a great substitute for couple of prime lenses: it offers prime lens quality (sharpness wide open is even better than some primes) and prime lens speed... (cont.)

... so instead of e.g. 18mm, 27 mm and 35mm primes you have only one lens covering it all and - most importantly - with comparable outcome and quality.
Anyhow I do not by any means want to bash the Fujinon, on the contrary, I like the Fujinons useful focal range and if I had to choose only one single lens, it would be this 16-55/2,8.

Iudex, I went to Disneyland last summer with my kids. I carried a 23mm 1.4 one day and the 18-55mm 2.8-4 the other. There is no doubt that the two lenses took very different looking photos. I actually own the 14mm, the 23mm and the 35mm, but generally use them for "artsy" type photos, or for walkaround lens on the street. I prefer the zoom for vacation photos for obvious reasons. The 18-55 is equivalent to 27-84mm on the FUJI, so it works as a portrait lens as well, not a great one as out of focus blur is limited, but it does the job. The Sigma is of course equivalent to 27-53mm which is a wide to normal length. Like I said, it is a great travel lens, but not if you intend on taking portraits. The out of focus blur might be great with the 1.8 rendering, but image compression would be severely lacking, making for an unpleasing looking close up of people.
Anyway last I checked, Sigma isn't making lenses for the XF mount anyway.

Iudex, I also own the 55-200, the 50-140, and the 60. All of them are stellar lenses and some of my lenses double up what I already own for my FF 5D iii. I love how the Fuji's perform and as I have said many times on this site, the colors are awesome. Especially skin tones right out of the camera. Sometimes, like when I shoot a wedding for example I have to use the FF camera or even my Hasselblad MF. They are heavy and expensive but they do what my FUJI just can't do. I wish their was a "perfect" system so that I didn't have to have 3 different systems, but their just isn't. The laws of physics won't allow it. But not everyone can afford 25K in equipment like I have, so kudos to FUJI for making lenses that will work better for different situations. They won't work the same, but I will guarantee that the 16-55 2.8 will work better for a wedding than the 18-55 2.8-4. But I am glad that the 18-55 is made because I would never want to carry the 16-55 around all day at Disneyland.

"Samsung's 16-50mm F2.0-2.8 with OIS is looking pretty good right now..."

Shame it won't fit on my Fuji....

Besides, you don't need IS on a wide lens. I never had any trouble before, the likelihood of camera shake is irrelevant if you are shooting people because they will move before you've finished taking the shot. And if you shoot landscpaes get a tripod and do it properly!

EricWN,

Peter Bendheim will help you for "I have no idea what you want to express here, not a single sentence of your post makes sense to me.".

Timmbits. I had a 18-55mm lens with my first Nikon and didn't need IS. When I broke it and brought the new version with IS I thought it was a hindrance rather than a help.

Unless you've got Parkinsons disease I would buy the new Fuji lens with confidence and just not worry about the stabiliser. Never had them on any lens when I were a lad...

The artificial rage about so called trolling with the Parkinson comment is so far of the topic. Just don't call people trolls if their opinion differs and move on.
We don't all run after you to try to fix your "Apple-Xerox" rip-of theory, even if it's a tired old cliche.

And Mike FL, again your comments do not make sense in this conversation. Just stay on topic, which is this lens and not what you read somewhere that somebody else used.

HowaboutRAW;

Not sure about "So Apple should do some stealing", but Apple is being sued by Monster as now.

http://www.cnet.com/news/monster-sues-apples-beats-over-headphones-acquisition/

Mike FL - I have no idea what you are on about at all. I have two Fuji cameras, and a few Canons. I don't own any Leica's. You comments just make no sense. I just have no idea what the relevance of Samsung lens are on a topic about a specific Fuji lens. It's like someone is on a very specific thread about a baseball team and you and the dude before you come on and try have a discussion about swimming. Really, its beyond any logical comprehension. I'm on here because I am a Fuji user. That doesn't mean I won't and don't criticise the brand. Using a product does not mean I'm blindly wedded to it. but really what you say just makes no sense to me at all.

Yeah nikon is largely neglecting their DX line, but again they have very affordable and capable FX bodies so why bother. D610 plus 50mm 1.8 is the same price as X-T1 with 35mm 1.4 (which is almost two stop slower to boot)

HUh? Canon just released the excellent and cheap 10-18mm EFS lens not to mention the range of new stm lenses now available. Oh yes the 200-400 with 1.4 x converter, the 100-400mkII etc

@ Dougbm
Canon has a great range of lenses but their APS-C camera lineup is pretty poor.

@nerd2
Nikon FX systems are great, especially the new 750, but compare a Sony A7 to a D610?
There is a big size difference between the Nikon DX and FX bodies, not to mention the lenses.
Again, other makers are thinking outside the box, while Nikon and Canon are stuck in the past

Mirko123:

And Canon + Nikon APSC DSLRs sell, in quantity.

Sony has taken a very scattered approach after acquiring the Konica-Minolta photo division.

Panasonic and Olympus have taken a more thorough, steady, approach once they settled on the m4/3s mount.

Both Fuji and Samsung have made good lens choices for their respective APSC systems. But both have shipped bodies with unusual limitations. (This is being worked out slowly.)

So unless you know you want an m4/3s system, or only one or two lenses with your new body, a Canon or Nikon makes a lot of sense. Then there's the OVF thing--which is better, and will remain so, in many circumstances.

Oops, nerd2 your math is off. Think again.
Also, since the large majority of Canon DSLRs have a 1.6x crop factor, the Fuji (1.5x crop factor) in your way of thinking is a faster lens! :)

if you want a high-quality, sealed, silent focus short zoom note the Pentax 16-50/2.8 weighs 565g (unlike the Fuji, it weighs less than the body, so it balances fairly well, but it was still too heavy for me)

mind blowing AF...mind blowing IQ...its close to the same

Why do those deluded people still comparing FF 2.8 zooms to APS or MFT 2.8 zooms? They are NOT equivalent.

You may be right that a D610 with a 24-85 is more versatile and may get better shots at some apertures and focal lengths, but what makes the Fuji more desirable than a nikon is that it just looks WAY cooler Plus, that 24-85 is a variable aperture zoom, while this one is the same f-stop througout the zoom range.

But mainly it's that the Fuji is so beautiful. It looks like something David Bailey would use to shoot Jean Shrimpton or that Eddie Adams would take with him to Vietnam.