18-135 Vs 16-80 Vs 18-55 Vs 16-55 - FujiX-Forum

• Home
• What's new Unread posts New media New media comments Latest activity
• Forums Latest posts Forum list Search forums
• Media New media New comments Search media
• Buy/Sell

Log in Register Back What's new Search

Search

Everywhere Threads This forum This thread Search titles only By: Search Advanced search…

• Latest posts
• Forum list
• Search forums

Menu Log in Register Install the app Install

• Forums
• X Camera Gear & Lens discussions
• Native X-Mount Lens Forum

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.You should upgrade or use an alternative browser. 18-135 vs 16-80 vs 18-55 vs 16-55

• Thread starter colonel
• Start date Jul 8, 2020

• 1
• 2

Next 1 of 2

Go to page

Go Next Last

colonel

Well-Known Member

Ok, I admit, I need a mid range zoom occasionally Even though its not a main lens, as I am a prime shooter, I am sensitive to sharpness and contrast/micro-contrast This is my take, and I am drawn to the 16-80, but you guys correct me 1. 18-135: >100 not so good, sharp in the middle across the range, sharpest at 18mm, borders not reasonable until f8 2. 16-80: 24mm equiv., very sharp in the middle across the range, borders at the wide and telephoto soft until f5.6/f8, good contrast, weather sealed 3. 18-55: actually not bad across the range, edges need to be f8 for sharp, contrast not great 4. 16-55: 24mm equiv., great optics across the range, heavy, no OIS an advantage for me (X-H1), cost, weather sealed 16-55 is obviously best on everything except weight and cost. 16-80 gives me extra range and I dont need the light as i can pop on a f1.4 for the dark. Am I missing something ? best regards

Mr SMW

Triple Platinum Member

Nope, missing nothing, go with the 16-80 and we can now close this thread, no further comments needed or allowed

Mr SMW

Triple Platinum Member

But being serious, for the most 'serious' use, the 16-55 is arguably the top dog. Actually, I don't think there is any argument, it just is. The 18-135 and 18-55 arguably the weakest. For what you describe which is also my needs and use, the 16-80 is a clear winner.

colonel

Well-Known Member

Thread starter

Mr SMW said: Nope, missing nothing, go with the 16-80 and we can now close this thread, no further comments needed or allowed Click to expand...

LOL point taken

spudl

Well-Known Member

I have the 16-55 on an XH-1, I might as well glue it there.

Kirstybell

Well-Known Member

The 16-55 is impressive, and has its own character. I think especially good at 16mm. I thought I'd struggle without OIS but even in gale force wind I managed mostly. W

WINN

Well-Known Member

You’re considering a significant investment regardless of which lens you choose. People on this forum want to demean the 18-135. Before you do, look at what RonH has been able to accomplish using this weak lens. What about renting each lens, try it out doing the photography you like to do, and make an informed decision? L

Lumens

Well-Known Member

I suffer from GAS BIG TIME!! I own all four. The 18-55 was always my choice over the 18-135 for image quality. The 16-80 replaced the 18-55 and is the lens that lives on my camera now. The 16-55 is the best image quality wise, but I shoot an XT-3 so it is HIGHLY dependent on a tripod without adequate light. Thus the reason the 16-80 wins out every time for me. You say you shoot an XH-1, so with the IBIS the 16-55 is likely the best choice, but considering price - the 16-80 is DEFINITELY in the running. The image stabilization on the 16-80 is hard to believe - it is absolutely incredible! You need to be really picky to see the image quality difference in 16-80 vs 16-55. They say the 16-80 is soft in the corners, I really don't see it, but then I shoot mostly in aperture mode so the corners are always bokeh anyway. I doubt you could go wrong with either the 16-80 or the 16-55.

Narsuitus

Well-Known Member

I have no first hand experience with the Fuji 18-135, 16-80, or the 18-55. Based on the 18-55mm f/3.5 to f/5.6 Nikon lens that I own, I knew that I liked the focal length range and the image stabilization feature; but I also knew that I did not like variable aperture lenses. Based on the 28-200mm f/3.8 to f/5.6 Tamron lens that I own, I knew that the 18-135mm f/3.5-f/5.6 would be a good travel lens but I did not need a travel lens. Based on the 28-70mm f/2.8 Nikon lens that I own, I knew that I would like the 16-80mm focal length range; however, in spite of the image stabilization, the f/4 maximum f/stop was too slow for my shooting style. The 16-55mm f/2.8 Fuji was the perfect lens for me. I liked the f/2.8 constant maximum f/stop. I liked the focal length range of the zoom lens because it could easily substitute for my 16mm, 23mm, and 56mm Fuji prime lenses or my 18mm, 21mm, 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 55mm adapted prime lenses.

Wivo

Well-Known Member

colonel said: Am I missing something ? Click to expand...

Yes, the 18-135 is weather sealed, and has good contrast < 100mm. The 18-55 has also good contrast in my experience.

SRHEdD

Well-Known Member

You’re not going to want to hear this, but you left out a serious contender. The 16-50 is also OIS and only $169. Pixel peep and you’ll not see a difference between this and any of the others except maybe the 18-55. I know it is a plastic mount, and I hate those, but it is fast and sharp. Buy it and another prime, it’s a great value.

Alice

Well-Known Member

The 18-135 is my workhorse for stock. Buildings, wheat fields, and many things when I can’t zoom with my feet or my car. Leaving Tennessee for Kansas, an 925 mile trip, the lens I put on my X-T2 was the 18-135 for anything I spied from the road. I have several great primes, and the 12-24 (or is it 10-24?) 18-55, 100-400. If I don’t need wide, my 50-140 is magical. When I’m driving down the road, I have an eye peeled for old, falling down rustic barns and farmhouses. I need more reach than those you mention. Just sayin’. But this is my needs, not yours.

John Yong

Well-Known Member

I recently sold my 18-135 as I hardly use it, preferring it to primes. However I traded in my XPro2 for the XT4 with the 16-80 as a kit and have been using it more than when I had the 18-135 FWIW.

johant

Well-Known Member

SRHEdD said: You’re not going to want to hear this, but you left out a serious contender. The 16-50 is also OIS and only $169. Pixel peep and you’ll not see a difference between this and any of the others except maybe the 18-55. Click to expand...

Since I hardly use zooms, and WR was not important for me, the only zooms I kept were the XC 16-50 and the XC 50-230. The biggest difference is that they don't have an aperture ring. X

xcel730

Well-Known Member

I'm a prime shooter, but I've owned all four lenses at one point. Now I have only the 18-55mm and 16-80mm. * 16-55 - I sold it. It's a phenomenal lens, but just too big and heavy for me. It throws balance off and I personally rather carry two cameras, one with 50mm f/2 and my X100F, instead of one camera with this lens. * 18-135mm - I sold it too. It's not a bad lens per se. This was my travel lens when I don't feel like changing lenses or when I'm in places where I prefer not to change lenses (e.g., the beach). For me, 18mm is not wide enough for an all purpose lens. I'm also not in love with the size/weight and variable aperture. I only got rid of it after I got the 16-80mm. Again, I mostly shoot with primes, but the 16-80mm is my default travel lens. I'm keeping the 18-55mm since it's so lightweight. It will be used for times when I want to travel light. It hasn't been used since getting the 16-80mm.

LionSpeed

Well-Known Member

I have the 16-55 on an X-T4, I believe the super glue should be cured by now. I also have the 16-80, but it's now a paper weight. Not much use for it. Sad!

Mr SMW

Triple Platinum Member

Has the OP bought that 16-80 yet?

colonel

Well-Known Member

Thread starter

Mr SMW said: Has the OP bought that 16-80 yet? Click to expand...

not yet i am slow for me its the 16-55 vs the 16-80 the 16-80 would win it except I take alot on f2.8 indoors. I am thinking that perhaps the 16-80 and the 23mm f1.4 would be a good two lens kit, with perhaps a Samyang 12mm or Fuji 14mm for interiors

Mr SMW

Triple Platinum Member

I have both but yes, don't use the 16-80 indoors at all. Actually, not having any requirement for a fast wide, I just bought back a Viltrox 85mm f1.8. I have a big church wedding (as in the church is big) next week and have been having the wobbles for the last few weeks in regard to being potentially stuck at the back with an f4 @ 80mm. I didn't get on with the Viltrox outside very much as I shoot into the sun a lot and it's not great in that regard and funds at this time won't support the 90mm f2, so pushed the Amazon button. I no longer have the 23mm f1.4 but it's a great lens for photography and the f2 version in my opinion, a better all rounder for photo & video. I'm not actually much of a zoom fan but kind of 'stuck' with them this year for financial reasons, the 16-55 being my workhorse I thought I had got away from. Can't really criticise it however other than it's bigger and heavier than I'd ideally like, but is my current best option.

Narsuitus

Well-Known Member

colonel said: I am thinking that perhaps the 16-80 and the 23mm f1.4 would be a good two lens kit, with perhaps a Samyang 12mm or Fuji 14mm for interiors Click to expand...

I am very happy using the Fuji 16-55mm f/2.8 and the Zeiss 12mm f/2.8 for interiors. Fuji Kit by Narsuitus, on Flickr

Angus

Well-Known Member

If the 16-55 had an indoor shoot out with the 16-80 would the image stabilisation of the 16-80 help it to stand a chance? The best lens I’ve had for low light in door use is the 23 f1.4. My 18 isn’t great inside on low light.

LionSpeed

Well-Known Member

@Angus, the glass of the 16-80 is no match for the 16-55 (indoor and outdoor). With the future looking more and more in favor of IBIS bodies, OIS will become less and less important, if not, would even be forgotten. I've used the 16-80 twice, regret getting it, thought I could use it more, but the 16-55 sure got me hypnotized. YMMV

hectorlektor

Well-Known Member

IMHO the 16-55 is worth the hefty pricetag, it's not perfect but extremely good!

BugA

Well-Known Member

For whomever might find it useful, I did some (simulated) field of view / size comparison recently for my own purposes. #1, 16mm frame with 18mm, 55mm, 80mm and 135mm framelines: #2, Same size, left to right - 55mm (with 80mm and 135mm framelines), 80mm (with 135mm framelines) and 135mm: #3, Fuji X-T3 with XF 18-55 vs XF 16-80 vs XF 18-135 vs XF 16-55, source: camerasize.com

BugA

Well-Known Member

Eventually, I went with XF 16-80mm, hoping it to replace XF 18-55mm I already owned - I prefer 16mm at wide end, and weather resistance is a more than welcome addition, lens being paired with X-T3. I was thinking about XF 18-135mm, too, being weather sealed as well and with an even more noticeably longer reach (over XF 18-55mm), but it seemed just a bit too big (long), and "only" 18mm at wide end still. In contrast, supposedly a bit better image quality and marked aperture ring are still appreciated on XF 16-80mm. I didn`t consider XF 16-55mm at all - no doubts in its quality, but I find it just too big/heavy for me, making no sense to go that route after downsizing from full-frame Canon 5D Mark IV and accompanying (big and heavy) glass... though I still occasionally use some of that glass on Fuji, too, with Fringer adapter or Viltrox speed booster, but that`s only because I already have it, and it`s quite usable for specific purposes. Plus, lack of stabilization makes it a no go for occasional movie recording. Heck, even XF 16-80mm is pushing it a bit size-wise, yet to see if weather resistance and wider/longer reach will be worth it...

colonel

Well-Known Member

Thread starter Ok, so change of plan. The Fuji shop in London has just reopened so I went to look and compare all the lenses. As a prime shooter, and mostly street, I appreciate not zooming as it’s less activity. Having a zoom is a way of replacing many primes, nothing more. So what I discovered is that the 16-80 almost doubles in size at 80. Lets say I want to shoot at 60mm, I need to carry around the lens extended quite a lot, which worries me as perhaps the plastic barrel might be more likely to break on impact, also does dust get sucked into the gap between the inner and outer barrel ? and also makes the lens very long and draws attention to it. I preferred the 16-55. Firstly it feels much more solid, but it also extends much less relative to its size. If I like this I also get f2.8 and perhaps can do daylight walks without any second lens. Lastly I have a X-H1 and don’t need OIS on the lens. Finally, from all the reviews and tests I have seen, the 16-55 is sharper across the whole lens/picture, which perhaps seals the deal So now I think I will go for the 16-55.

BugA

Well-Known Member

You`re entitled to your opinion, of course, but this part got me thinking:

colonel said: So what I discovered is that the 16-80 almost doubles in size at 80. Lets say I want to shoot at 60mm, I need to carry around the lens extended quite a lot, which worries me as perhaps the plastic barrel might be more likely to break on impact, also does dust get sucked into the gap between the inner and outer barrel ? and also makes the lens very long and draws attention to it. I preferred the 16-55. Firstly it feels much more solid, but it also extends much less relative to its size. If I like this I also get f2.8 and perhaps can do daylight walks without any second lens. Click to expand...

Should I start by saying that XF 16-55mm can`t go to 60mm to begin with...? But joking aside, as I don`t have XF 16-55mm, I`ve did a bit of Googling, and Ken Rockwell lists[1] its length as "83.3 mm diameter x 106.0mm (at wide) to 129.5mm (at tele) long" (I`ve underlined the tele part). Now, I`ve extended my XF 16-80mm to ~55mm (I was actually taking pictures each time, checking the reported focal length in image review until I got to 54.5mm), and the quick measured length is around 116mm (between 115mm and 120mm, at least) - still being less than XF 16-55mm at its long end (129.5mm). Otherwise, of course XF 16-80mm extends more in total, as it goes all the way up to 80mm - but the pont I`m trying to make is that your remark of it being "very long and drawing attention" will be even more true with XF 16-55mm (which is also bigger in diameter, too). And I don`t really get the "XF 16-55mm also extends much less relative to its size"... well, of course, it`s ~3.5x zoom, in comparison to 5x of XF 16-80mm - but considering 16-55mm range alone, XF 16-80mm is still smaller/shorter, going from 88.9mm to ~116mm (in comparison to 106mm to 129.5mm of XF 16-55mm). All this said, I repeat I have no doubts in XF 16-55mm being a better lens - it`s faster, bigger, heavier, with less zoom range... and pricier (vs XF 16-80mm in kits especially), but if you prefer it still, it will be a good choice for sure. -- [1]: Fuji 16-55mm f/2.8 Review

BugA

Well-Known Member

p.s. Just measured XF 16-80mm at its long/tele end (80mm), and its ~130mm - being (almost?) exactly the same length as XF 16-55mm at its longest focal length of "only" 55mm

Mr SMW

Triple Platinum Member

No one will pay any more or any less attention regardless of which one of these lenses you use, only how you act in general and whether you try to take pictures of them without their permission if spotted. But generally, the larger the combo of your chosen weapon, the more likely they are to notice you and act accordingly. D

dlvr

Member

Angus said: If the 16-55 had an indoor shoot out with the 16-80 would the image stabilisation of the 16-80 help it to stand a chance? The best lens I’ve had for low light in door use is the 23 f1.4. My 18 isn’t great inside on low light. Click to expand...

For static subjects, in theory yes OIS would more than make up for the lens being 1 stop slower. OIS won't help with moving (or potentially moving) subjects like people and pets though (and the wider aperture is often preferable for these subjects for the increased bokeh). The extra stop in shutter speed the 2.8 aperture grants you can be the difference between a keeper and a blurred subject. Yes, you can also make up for this stop of light via higher ISO or under exposing, but you're probably already pushing the ISO up and/or under exposing a bit in many indoor lighting situations even at f/2.8, so pushing the ISO even further @ f/4 may be quite noticeable from an image quality standpoint.

• 1
• 2

Next 1 of 2

Go to page

Go Next Last Post reply Insert quotes… Share: Facebook Twitter Email Share Link

• Forums
• X Camera Gear & Lens discussions
• Native X-Mount Lens Forum

Top Bottom