FUJI 18-55 V's 16-55 - 40 Megapixel Showdown !

📷 Level up your landscape photography game with my composition ebook - www.iworthphotos.com/store/co...
Join me on a photography adventure - Check out my workshops and tours - www.iworthphotos.com/workshops
Check out my Zine & Print packs👉 www.iworthphotos.com/store
Today I'm comparing the fuji 18-55mm f2.8-f4 lens with the 16-55mm f2.8 lens on the 40 megapixel Fuji x-h2. During the video, I take some photos at the coast and make a couple of prints.
Let me know your thoughts in the comments 📸
The BEST plugin for Fuji raw photos - Try it for free - DxO PureRaw2: tidd.ly/3wFxKIP
The best music, sfx & templates - get 2 months free: bit.ly/Artlist-Ian_Worth
Best stock footage around - get 2 free months: bit.ly/Artgrid-Ian_Worth
Awesome VFX/Motion graphics assets: bit.ly/Motion-Array-Ian_Worth
Free video editing software: bit.ly/FX-Home-Ian_Worth
Support the channel & Join my Photography club
www.iworthphotos.com/clubhous...
MY WEBSITE - www.iworthphotos.com/
MY FREE NEWSLETTER - Don't miss a video! - bit.ly/2Y7uDZN
----------------------------------------------------------------
VIDEOS YOU MIGHT LIKE -
Build your own camera bag - • MAKE your own Camera B...
Tripod review - • Using my NEW TRIPOD in...
Geared tripod head video - • SUNWAYFOTO GH-PROII Ge...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CAMERA GEAR
Awesome multi-tool - geni.us/UQEk
Vlogging camera - geni.us/xkFOB
Main camera - geni.us/FmDh
Tripod head - geni.us/8F1UKB
Microphone - geni.us/0fdep
Drone - geni.us/Uz0Idwk
Sd cards - geni.us/7Nn60
Awesome filters - kasefilters.com/ref/IanWorth/
As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.
Check out all of my camera gear www.iworthphotos.com/my-gear
---------------------------------------------------------------
CONNECT -
Web site: www.iworthphotos.com/
Email: [e-mail]
Vero @ian_worth
Instagram: @ian_worth / ian_worth
---------------------------------------------------------------
00:00 intro
01:55 fuji xf 18-55mm f2.8-f4 specs
02:36 fuji xf 16-55mm f2.8 specs
03:37 photography with the 18-55 and 16-55 fuji lenses
#fuji #fuji18-55 #fuji16-55f2.8

[@mervynmarshall7115]

Great comparison - every time I get the itch to upgrade my 18-55 a video like this comes out and I simply remind myself that it is more than enough for my needs.

[@ian_worth]

I think they made the 18-55 to good 🤣🤣

[@jsav3562]

It really seems like they did!

[@carlreid4161]

Second that the 18-55 is fantastic

[@screamstation]

The fact that is so difficult to differentiate between the two lenses, tells you everything about 18-55. It’s a winner

[@ian_worth]

it really is 👍👍

[@henrysiegertsz8204]

The difference is Ian can see the images in native resolution, for us viewing on imperfectly set up monitor screens and subject to KZbin image compression. It's no wonder we can't tell any difference. I was thinking this exact thing watching Kirk Williamson's 23mm F1.4 and the 23mm F2 comparison, in these instances the reviewer is in a privileged position to judge as he/ she can see what we can't!

[@photoipster]

This is the first of your videos I’ve watched. Seeing you let your dogs get so dirty, playing in the sand, warmed my heart and made me subscribe. You are obviously someone that has similar values, so you probably can bring that same perspective to photography too!

[@ian_worth]

Thanks so much,i'm glad you enjoyed the video 👍👍

[@GregSewellTRFC]

Would be great to see a comparison of all the standard zooms: adding the 16-80/4, the Tamron 17-70/2.8 and most interestingly the Sigma 18-50/2.8 - they all seem to have one amazing thing about them, but its different for each!

[@eelpern5123]

Very nice comparison coverage - thank you for putting this together for the rest of us. Also... very beautiful sweater...I want one.

[@wyrdedwurd]

Thank you for being that rare lens reviewer that actually includes prints in your review. People have become too focused solely on what images look like on a screen.

[@ian_worth]

My pleasure!

[@tomleo4670]

Another great video, Ian! Thanks for this thorough comparison. I do have both lenses too and can relate to your findings and usage pattern. Best, Tom

[@ian_worth]

Thanks for sharing! 👍👍

[@juleshorse9056]

Thanks, interesting comparison. I have both lenses and use the 18-55 when I want to go light and the 16-55 for everything else. We are off to Vienna this Winter (Dec 23) for the Christmas fayres and I have decided to take the 18-55 for convenience (photography will play second fiddle to the family's fun) and will tale a Fuji 23/f2 for low light.

[@Mr7Poz]

I have both, I notice a huge difference between the two, probably for the reasons that you've mentioned: overall sharpness in the 16-55mm. It's my go to for video. Only thing I don't like is the slight distortion at 16mm.

[@alfredogarza6864]

Excellent video, Ian! I have both lenses and alternate between them in my portrait work. I like both. Congratulations, I really like your videos, and I watch them every time I can. Greetings from Mexico.

[@ian_worth]

Awesome, thank you! 👍🙏🙏

[@tonyjones99]

Great Video Ian. Many Tanks.

[@colinhoward2200]

I have had a journey from the X-S10, to the X-T4 and now to the X-T5. I got the 18-55 as the kit lens with my X-S10. Every time I think of upgrading my 18-55, with each camera I just can't justify it. I mainly use mine for travel photography so need something versatile and more importantly small and light. The 16-80 sounds good until I realise it is F4 (I can get F4 on my 18-55 and in low light go down to F2.8). The 16-55 is just to heavy. I do of course miss out on reach esp compared to the 16-80. But that is not a massive issue esp at the long end though as I actually also carry around a 55-200 for extra reach. I used to have a 70-300 which was meant to blow everything away. But not for me in two senses. 1 the 55-200 it is lighter and smaller. 2 and the most important for me actually was the auto-focus seemed a lot slower and worse on the 70-300. This was particularly noticable for taking videos - the 55-200 is almost parfocal in its behaviour but the 70-300 was way off that as it did a LOT of hunting around. Again the 55-200 is not on Fujifilm's list for the 40M sensor- but so far the results have been really good for me with it on the X-T5. So I think I am done and good to go :)

[@gregturner_awod]

A great review, and a very helpful comparison between both lenses. I use an XT5 (in far away Australia) and once owned an 18-55. I love the 16-55 for clarity and ruggedness, the lens and build quality are truly excellent and it’s my lens of choice at the current time. Thanks for the review.

[@ian_worth]

Thanks for sharing! 😊👍

[@robtaylor8816]

Brilliant. Thank you for letting me know that the 18-55mm lens is perfectly adequate and does not need to be replaced with the 16-55mm or 16-80mm. I have found the autofocus on this lens on the X-S10 much more difficult compared to my older Nikon D5100. I'm not really sure why, but I end up with a lot more blurry images. My feeling is zone just isn't very good on the Fuji and focus tends to jump around a lot.

[@1962Jivatone]

Thank you, very helpful. I'm looking to buy the 16 to 55 but I am worried that it may be due for an update. Would you expect an update soon please?

[@remco2777]

Thanks for the video. Great detail. Would be interested to see the (newer) 16-80 compared to the 16-55 with the same detail.

[@malcolmgibbs5826]

Good stuff Ian. I have both lenses too and use the 16-55 on my x-h2 and tend to keep the 18-55 on my x-pro3 due to size. It also add’s stabilisation to the pro3 which can be helpful.

[@ian_worth]

Good stuff! 👍👍

[@tTLM823]

Thanks for this excellent video comparing lenses! I am considering the Fuji 18-55mm versus the Fuji 16-80mm and wonder for landscape photography which you’d recommend. The woodland near my home in North Carolina that I walk have trails so a medium zoom lens would be ideal. I have the Fuji 10-24mm and the 55-200mm but I think a medium zoom would be very helpful for many shots. I see the quality of the Fuji 16-55mm but it’s price is a bit high for my budget. I have the X-T3 which I love. Anyway, your thoughts would be most welcome. Thank you.

[@ryobdqui5307]

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!! Really the best video comparison about this two lenses that I've watched. At this point I think I will buy a secondhand 18-55, that is more than 3 times cheaper than a new 16-55. Using it for a little bit ofeverything. Maybe for something more specific, prime are in any case better than the 16-55. I will think about it later on.

[@RichardBriggsLeanSoftware]

Hello Ian, do you know if the Fuji lens converters (2x,1.4x) support 40MP as well as I am thinking of buying them. Cheers and thanks for such a great educational ride here!

Thanks for share or analysis

[@ian_worth]

My pleasure! 🙏👍

[@GeoffGrant2010]

Unfair question, can you compare them with the 16-80WR, which has gotten to be one of my go to lenses? Thanks!

[@zathraspersonal]

Nice review Ian. This pretty much confirms a number of other reviews - barely anything between them optically for real life work so you are paying for the constant aperture and perhaps better build quality in the 16-55 though the 18-55 is half the size and adds OIS for 2/3 of the price and - even lower if you buy 2nd hand. I've used the 18-55 since I've been shooting Fuji and it has always done me proud - even on my new XT5. So I won't be changing. btw - Amroth I believe!!

[@ian_worth]

Thanks Dave, i think Fuji made the 18-55 too good 😁👏

[@findermanimages]

I have recently bought the 18-55 (£220), 55-200 and an X-H1. I have to say, I am completely happy with the results I'm getting, and do not feel I'm missing out. There are always work arounds for not having the extra 2mm at the wide end and I usually shoot for a centre-focused shot. I don't worry too much about the edges. Great comparisons and another superb video 👍

[@ian_worth]

Cheers Darren 👍🙏

[@nickgoogle4525]

The "workaround" is buying the 14 mm ;-) For landscape this is mostly better than 16 mm IMO.

[@findermanimages]

I was thinking a small pano-stitch. I can't keep buying lenses!!! 🤣🤣

[@kaneclements7761]

Hi Ian. Another really good video. It is great to see the 18-55 perform so well. I have that for my X-E4, though if I wanted to save weight I wouldn't hesitate to use it on my X-T5 now. So a an uptick for that, ta muchly. I have the Tamron 17-70 for the X-T5 in everyday use. f2.8, stabilised and wether resistant. A bit lighter than the 16-55 and price falls between the two Fuji lenses particularly if there is a rebate running. No aperture ring but hey ho. Having previously owned the 16-55 I think it gives that lens run for its money and goes out to 105 FF equivalent. If you could get hold of a copy for testing it would be really interesting to see how they compare. Thanks once again.

[@ian_worth]

Yeah I would like to compare the tamron, I owned the 18-300 tamron for a while and had a number of issues with it so its kind of put me off but I've heard good things about the 17-70 👍

[@GarretGrayCamera]

I dropped my camera recently and my 18-55 broke right off the mount, leaving the mounting ring behind in the camera. I'm waiting for the repair verdict from Fuji but I'm debating whether to buy another 18-55 or go for the 16-55. Used it'd be $400 more here in the US. I was really happy with the 18-55 and the difference is so negligible it seems. I mainly use it for video where you're not really pixel peeping as much.

[@leemartin2978]

Looks like a new ones coming ? Fujifilm XF 16-50mm F2.8-4.8 R LM WR Lens , expected early ish 2024 .

[@philippemariloussian5218]

Patiently waiting for XH2 or xt5 vs GFX50. Btw still love my 18-55 despite its grungy noise of 9y old, always wonder why I still keep my 16-55 😂.

[@psndsh]

Fuji is the goat for making this kit lens with such powers.

[@ian_worth]

I agree 👍👍

[@ElCid_86]

Thanks. I’ve been on the fence. I think I’d go 18-55 and save $$

[@nickgoogle4525]

The 18-55 should be sharpest at F10. This was found in someone testing all the focal lengths and the results were clear. Do not have the link at hand right now, but you should try at F10.

[@9Mtikcus]

Really good video, i think Fuji's recommended list is 2 things, A list which shows which are recommended wide open, (sure that was officially said somewhere) but mostly it is a marketing device to make you buy the more expensive lenses. I think the real price difference though is closer to £600/$/€ as most people will be choosing to buy a body only + 16-55, or buy the Kit with the 18-55 (which is only £250 more than body only). The question for new buyers, is Body only, Body + 18-55, or body +16-80 This video sort of confirms to everyone with an X-T1 or later that if they upgrade to an X-T5/H2 their 18-55 is still good enough :)

[@danielschmaderer]

Couldn’t agree more on your point when you say it’s a marketing device. The conversion would still be relevant with the 26MP cameras. It’s not like you drop in megapixels when you use lenses not on the list.

[@PhotogAbby]

Glad to see my 18-55 will still be usable now that I have upgraded to the XT5😅

[@ian_worth]

I think it looks great 👍👍

[@danielschmaderer]

As an owner of both lenses, the 16-55 is the best lens I’ve ever used. When the mount broke off the back, I ended up getting the 18-55 as a temporary solution for that range. I was not disappointed in what the 18-55 could dish out.

[@emperorofrats]

I´ve used 3 different 18-55-lenses , and on all 3 the OIS-Unit inside the lens made big problems after not more than 3 years of using each. So now I use an quiet old 16-55 , without OIS , but also without problems , on me X-H1 and X-Pro2 , with great results . I feel save during travelling , that nothing " happens" inside the lens and makes it unusable because of a defect

[@DigiDriftZone]

I used to have the 16-80 and now the 18-55 and 15-45 - also a few primes, Viltrox 13, 23 and 56mm, Fuji 35mm F2. I hated the 16-80 as the F4 just isn't fast enough and it's so heavy. Right now the Viltrox 13mm is my favourite but also the 15-45 largely replaced the 18-55 for me, which I was very surprised about! - being able to go wider is so useful in so many situations, 18mm is just too limiting, especially indoors. As for the 16-55, the weight/price just to get F2.8 (F4.2 equivalent on full frame) doesn't seem that worthwhile? - even going to F2 on the Fuji 35mm prime is such a drastic improvement and that lens is so insanely small and light compared to the 16-55. I'm now thinking to sell my 18-55. What are your thoughts of the dirt cheap 15-45?

[@subramoniams9850]

Great comparison and it killed my GAS to get a 16-55 to replace what is termed "that awesome kit lens" when I bought it in 2013 - XF18-55.

[@itsacookie1]

How does a firmware update improve resolution? Is this like "just download more ram"?

[@menkassio]

Thanks for this clarifying video, Ian! Do you believe that with modern software like PureRaw the differences you pointed out between these lenses (and even others) become even smaller??

[@ian_worth]

pure raw2 definitely helps improve noise and how the IQ looks in lightroom. 👍

[@droneview-Berlin]

Well done, Ian

[@ian_worth]

Thanks buddy 👍👍

[@TarrelScot]

Useful comparison Ian. Interesting to note that Fujifilm suggest that the 18-55 will not make optimum use of the 40MP sensor's resolution, but the 16-55 will. Your test appears to show very little difference. A marketing ploy to push owners to upgrade their lenses, I wonder? From a personal point of view, in my clumsy hands after too much coffee, I wonder whether the 16-55's lack of IS would negate any improvement in sharpness!😂 (I shoot with a non-stabilised X-pro2).

[@ian_worth]

Hey mark, if you're shooting with a non stabilized body, I would stick with the 18-55 every day of the week 👍👍 I do think its a clever marketing strategy from fuji. It now gives them a reason to make a new line of lenses that perform well on the 40mp sensor which will entice people to upgrade.

[@rocketmanab]

Great vid...I own both of these lenses...I keep thinking I should sell the 18-55, but it really is great for a 'kit' lens.

[@ian_worth]

It really is! 👍👍

[@CianMcsweeney]

Both need an update, not really optically, more in terms of weather sealing for the 18-55 and OIS for the 16-55

[@robertlegge7766]

Nice video. I would be interested in your views about the XF16-80 as well. It seems like it's sort of in-between these two in most respects.

[@ian_worth]

Thanks Robert, I've never tried the 16-80 but if I do in the future, i will be sure to do a video about it 👍

[@findermanimages]

When I had an X-T4, the 16-80 was my only lens for a very long time. I have to say that it was a very capable lens indeed.

[@dylangarcia3696]

Me also

[@tTLM823]

Thank you for this KZbin Video! wonder what you would suggest with my particular setup for shooting landscape photographs? I own a Fujifilm X-T3 and two Fuji lenses: 10x24mm and 55-200mm and would like to add a mid-zoom. The three Fuji lenses I’m considering are the 18-55mm, 16-80mm, and the 16-55mm. Given my camera which I have no interest in upgrading which of these three lenses would you recommend? Thank you for your thoughts!

[@ian_worth]

Hey Tom, I would probably go with the 18-55 its a cracking little lens. The 16-55 is only very marginally sharper but much heavier and a lot more expensive. I've never tried the 16-80 but you already have a lot of that focal range covered in your other lenses so the 18-55 makes more sense to me 👍

[@tTLM823]

@@ian_worth Thank you for answering this... much appreciated. And thanks again for all you provide.

[@Hikebike365]

The 18-55 is what got me on board with Fuji 10 or 12 years ago with the xe1. I had just tested 5! Of the same Canon L lens to find a "keeper". 3 of them were unbelievably bad. Like they never heard of QC

[@mipmipmipmipmip]

I was recently checking if canon M6ii would be fun. Many M lenses with quality variations, users buying a few copies. Then there's Canon's low pass filter making their high res sensor as unsharp as a low res sensor. Every brand fan has to drink the kool-aid I guess

[@brunoeberspacher7026]

Could you tell us more about the printer you are using, what are your experiences (Quality, costs of printing material)?

[@ian_worth]

its the canon pro10s it prints up to A3+ printing is expensive though. A set of inks will set you back just over £100 I think its worth it, i just love seeing my photos on paper 👍

[@andretim75]

nice comparison just on the first one at 18mm it was clear that the photo on the right did not have quite the same part of the image and also seemed to have a little more magnifying factor - so perhaps not the perfect comparison here. Also the question is , whether you should have added a shot with the 16-55 taken at 16mm , and compare corner sharpness to 18mm for both lenses.

[@ian_worth]

Yeah, it's fair to say that when swapping lenses its likely that the camera moves a bit, its also very difficult to get the exact focal length. Even if you look at the image in the exif data after the image is taken they can still be slightly different. Best I could do though in the 3 days it took to make the video 😊👍

[@warricksmith5178]

Interesting comparison, Ian. I bought my X-S10 with the 18-55 and was very satisfied with the results for landscapes, street photography and the occasional portraits. Within a year I upgraded to the 16-80, mostly for greater versatility and WR, and have been very pleased with the results. I moved to the X-H2 when it was released last year and have found the 18-55 and 16-80 are almost identical in image quality (although I note that I do not make large prints). I have kept the 18-55, mostly because its smaller size and lighter weight are valuable for street and also for long hikes when I want to travel as light as possible. I have considered the 16-55 on several occasions, but have never been persuaded that any modest improvement in IQ would justify its much greater size and weight.

[@ian_worth]

Great comment and thoughts 👍👍

[@tonyelsom]

I personally think the 16 55 is a way better all-round lens and I sold my 18 55 long ago. I was not keen at all on the variable aperture of the 18 55. I have just added the Sigma 18 50 f2.8 as a lightweight option for the same reason you have the 18 55 Ian . The Sigma is most impressive, maybe you could consider the Sigma for yourself, I think you would benefit greatly. I shoot xh2 another reason the 16 55 is a keeper. Thanks for another interesting video.

[@ian_worth]

Thanks Tom, yeah i have been considering taking a look at the sigma, but i think i will stick as i am for now 👍

[@912582]

Very interesting to hear your point of view as always. Can you now do another Video pleeesa - "why every photographer needs a dog and their spouse should take anti-histamines for the alergy." Incidentally I'm A Canon 5Ds user so 50Mp. I have the 16-35 f/2.8, my son the 17-40 f/4. Like yours the weigt and size is very different as is the cost of the filters, but when I need a bit more aperture in town or darker conditions it's worth the extra flexibility, but 80% of the time the 17-40 doesn't have any drawbacks at all. In the end I'll stick with the f/2.8 and keep going to the gym in between.

[@rogermuggleton8127]

It is easy to compare lenses with test charts, but my photos are so very different. While a test chart may be 2 metres away from the camera, my photos may feature edges and corners that are 5 metres away and the centre may be 500 metres from the camera. Or the other way round. The test chart corners may be a few millimetres further away than the centre but it's hard to compare that with a landscape photo. I once took some shots to commute the Fuje 18-55 with the 16-80. Imperfections in the latter are well documented on KZbin and elsewhere, but with real photos of the natural world it's more difficult to see the differences. Matters of lens flare, chromatic distortion etc are more noticeable than sharpness, but these too are largely invisible to most viewers, especially if they are looking at my shots on their phone, which is most likely. I haven't compared these two lenses on my X-H2, but I am already more confident when cropping my photos to change the aspect ratio. And I have other compositional factors to struggle with. I live near the coast where horizons are rarely level and due to the wind trees are not always vertical. Making these things 'look right' in a photo is a greater task than worrying about sharpness! Also I have to think about whether the photo will look good on a phone screen while editing on a big screen. Composition seems far more important than lens performance.

[@waldzauber5074]

Hello Ian . I found your nice channel here randomly . Great stuff you have there and excellent skills in landscape photography - compliments for that !! I use also Fuji ( X-T20 , X-T2 , X-S10 and X-H1 ) but in wildlife ( field & forest ) . I see you have there an amazing landscape in your country and nature . Is it not a little bit plus to spread out your skills ? I think you can also make great photos in combination landscape with wildlife in it . You go out there into nature a lot of times and you dont see any animals there ? Or are they scaring you a little bit ? Keep up this good channel and your work ! Hope to see and hear more here . Greets : Harald

[@ian_worth]

Cheers buddy,🙏🙏 I love my wildlife but i don't own a very long lens which is needed for this type of photography.

[@yuidfbse]

PS - These tests need to be done at each lens' maximum aperture. That's were you notice the differences and the flaws come out. Closed down all lenses are good.

[@benoitstichelbaut3927]

I sold the Fujifilm XF 16-80mm f/4 R OIS WR - to buy the sigma 18-50 f/2.8 DC Contemporary. The pictures look much sharper! The lens has more character. This is also an option.

[@bigd7696]

Same experience. I had two perfect 16-80 copies and always thought the images were a bit soft (usable though). The 18-50 is MUCH nicer.

[@ian_worth]

Yeah i would like to give the sigma a try, looks very light 👍

[@jan-martinulvag1953]

why does diffraction kick in earlier when stopping down when using a 40 mp sensor? And...watch this video: Fujinon XF 18-55 mm f/2.8-4 is a VERY special lens!

[@mipmipmipmipmip]

A low mp sensor is like integrating over the surface area of a high mp sensor, and evens out light flaws smaller than the pixel pitch

[@REMY.C.]

Nice comparison. I've been waiting for years for an updated 16-55 with OIS to go with my xt4.

[@alethom_]

Why? You have a very good IBIS on the X-T4

[@REMY.C.]

@@alethom_ it's good but not that much, I tried it with the 23mm non ois and micro jittering is present. Plus at that price, like 1.1k€, it's too expensive and old , at that price or 1250€ I'd like OIS and internal focus.

[@chrisjames1924]

IS in such a small lens cannot not be underestimated. It's smaller than all the Fuji 1.4 primes ffs! It basically means l can shoot at night on my XT3 and go as low as a second if l'm really careful - same with 10-24 btw. I've noticed prices creeping up over past 6 months and l suspect they will continue to rise.

[@mnnizam1276]

Video i'm looking for

[@EdwardMartinsPhotography]

My 18-55 is my weakest Fuji lens. It's still very good, but it's not great like most of my others. I was hoping to add the 16-55 as an upgrade and I still might. I was expecting your 16-55 to trounce your 18-55. My only guess is you got a great copy of the 18-55. I think there was/is a bit of sample variation in the 18-55's. Thanks for the review.

[@matej.spiryt]

Same opinion. My 18-55 is super underwhelming. Noticeably worse than any other lens I own. Probably a bad copy, which I find unacceptable for such an expensive piece of gear.

[@anonymousl5150]

@@matej.spiryt Zoom lenses tend to have the highest variation due to the number of elements

[@gmuk101]

I wish I can see some comparison between zoom lenses and prime lenses on each focal length somewhere.

[@ian_worth]

Check out this video, its a few years old but i compare some primes with my zoom lenses kzbin.info/www/bejne/hJTRq6CKfZuhhc0

[@grantnewton5705]

Great video again Ian …. I find the 18-55mm disappointing…. I notice that focusing towards infinity at the longer end can be poor whereas closer subjects or wider focal lengths seem better….. this may be an AF issue though …… need to do more testing …. But never had a lens before that gives random results (this makes it hard to test)….. I think there is plenty of copy variation with the 18-55 …. And I didn’t get lucky🙁 I’m interested to try a Sigma 18-50 to compare (16-55 is too heavy for my uses on long hikes)

[@ian_worth]

yeah i think the sigma could be the best option for you if you are looking to save weight 👍👍

[@matej.spiryt]

Same opinion. My 18-55 is super underwhelming. Noticeably worse than any other lens I own. Probably a bad copy, which I find unacceptable for such an expensive piece of gear.

[@jmpattillo]

Can you compare images from the kit lens taken with the 40mp camera to those taken with the same lens on a 26 mp camera? I’ve seen some reviewers suggest that non-recommended lenses may perform worse with the higher pixel density. It would be disconcerting to think that some of my favorite lenses would produce worse results with a better camera.

[@ian_worth]

I think the 18-55 performs as well on the 40mp sensor as it does on the 26mp. It is true that some lenses do not preform as well, but I wonder if the firmware update the 18-55 has had helps this lens on the 40mp sensor 👍

[@jmpattillo]

@@ian_worth I was thinking the same thing. Fuji could also approach any problems like this from the camera body. Maybe you could have a mode that bins sub pixels when the raw file is created to covert to fewer, larger pixels.

[@andrewbaker7854]

I have had both, currently the 16-55. The 16-55 is more contrasty, the pictures really pop. The 18-55 is extremely good but the 16-55 is just better enough that it is my choice between the two. A bit like turning up the contrast on your tv - not much of a difference but it makes a big difference. Camera is an XT4. The 16-55 is heavy and large. I use a wrist strap for short trips or a Peak Design over the shoulder strap for any more ambitious trips. With the latter, you don't really notice the weight. My wife hates the weight of the XT4 and 16-55 so won't use it. She needs an XT30ii and an 18-55 which we used to have.

[@Bob71650]

Fuji's recommended list of lenses for the X-T5 is a maketing ploy, because if you look at this list, it has Fuji's most expensive lenses.

[@davidligon6088]

Why not the 16-80 for your walkabout lens? Just curious.

[@mipmipmipmipmip]

I don't own one but checking all usage reports it is not as good as 18-55, while adding weight+size+cost to the setup

[@balboa0621]

Wait, what? How would they improve resolution through firmware?

[@ian_worth]

I have no idea, but that's what they say on their website and i definitely noticed a difference 👍

[@sophietucker1255]

Most of this is just academic at best. Most people aren’t make huge prints or even doing professional work where these things could make a difference. Most images are never seen or only end up in emails and social media websites. I’ve never have had a person ask if I was using a “kit lens” or a professional lens or one that could even tell the difference or know the difference. Also most spec sheet masturbators are looking at images blown up to 300% or more. In the end use what you want or can afford and have fun secure in the knowledge that most folks will never know the difference or even care.

[@ian_worth]

Very true Sophie.

[@ovidijuspocius6336]

so guys for woodland photography go with 70 300 or 50 140 ?

[@gbcb8853]

70-300 every time (with tripod)

[@ian_worth]

For woodland, I think for me the 50-140 is better suited. Most of my woodland photos are shot between 35mm and 90mm 👍👍

[@vickychristopoulos8614]

Hi, I find the f5.6 is the 18-55mm sweet spot

[@ian_worth]

interesting, wouldn't be that helpful for landscapes though 👍

[@a9udn9u-vanced]

The 18-55 is good enough for 99% of the people.

[@bamsemh1]

My 5dmk4 came with 24-105mm F4L as kit lens 😅

[@ian_worth]

great combo 👍👍

[@josephfinkleman8358]

When I ask my wife about 'sharpness' she is so tired of that question that she rolls her eyes, and then huffs and walks out of my office.

[@ian_worth]

So true haha 🤣

[@dibakarsingh4404]

😂

[@marcobutz3950]

she is right. sharpness is overrated and from some point on not supportive for good pictures

[@bamsemh1]

Sounds like you should buy her a butcher meat axe 😉 but then you would lose the sharpness battle 😅

[@diba4645]

You‘re getting sharp wrong

[@djxcel23]

They needed a mark ll version of the 18-55mm straight 2.8

[@ian_worth]

Yes, but then nobody would buy the 16-55 haha

[@opalyankaBG]

Looks like one of your lenses' optics are decentered. Also, an important point to mention about the 18-55 at 18mm is that it has a large field curvature - this why you're seeing worse corners there. If you take another shot to focus in the corners, they'll be sharper but then your center will be weaker.

[@anonymousl5150]

Most lenses have at least some decentering

[@opalyankaBG]

@@anonymousl5150 Not as bad as what we saw in the video though.

[@austerepotato3159]

Easy.. take 2 photos and blend in PS..

[@opalyankaBG]

@@austerepotato3159 Good luck doing the same with hundreds of photos. Or with moving subjects.

[@austerepotato3159]

@@opalyankaBG True, but sharpness from edge to edge is only an issue with, for example, landscapes or product photography

[@jeg569]

My 18-55mm on the X-T4 is best at f9, very soft below that.

[@ian_worth]

That's interesting

[@mixeddrinks8100]

need to put the 16-80 in this lineup for testing as well imo

[@ankpako3520]

Fujinon xf 16-55mm f2.8 r lm wr A lens of remarkable quality in optical and mechanical terms, excellent brightness but a very big flaw: the rubber of the zoom (ring grip) is worn and detached when using the lens in a non-intensive way and for short periods. Considering the cost of the lens, I expected the best in everything, also because it is sold as a "tropicalized lens" that is resistant to bad weather, dust, etc.; for the replacement it must be sent only to the assistance center in Milan at your expense, the cost of the tire change between 100 and 150 euros. An old zoom lens used for over 20 years on an analog SLR the tires are practically undamaged. BIG DISAPPOINTMENT (video available)

[@user-ww2nd4co2p]

18-55 best kit lens

[@ian_worth]

i agree 👍👍

[@abbydees8612]

And...where is this ancient low-tide woodland?

[@alexeipg]

16-55 still looks better at 55mm in top left corner to my eye

[@Gundolf300]

8:40. Nope. Thats not odd at all. Thats pretty much Fujifilm production tolerances right there ;)

[@didierpetre4490]

16-55 = relatively expensive, bulky and intrusive

[@sayeemahmedshanto5083]

18-55mm is very disappointing even in slight low light, hunts a lot.

[@jonnyfarmer]

WELL! I have definitely got the WORST copy of the Fuji 18-55. Unusable at 18mm from 2.8 to 3.5 and still bad at f/4 then about after a year I got "Turn camera off and on again" I updated the firmware on the camera (X-S 10) and the lens but that made no difference. Eventually the lens started making some weird noise and then died. My old Canon EFs 10-18 mm was WAY sharper using the Fringer adapter, especially in the corners. I now have the Sigma 18-50 on order. For the costs and performance of the third party lenses I will no longer be using Fuji's expensive and slow focusing lenses and if Canon ever open the doors to third party manufactures that's when I jump ship!

[@mipmipmipmipmip]

Considering how the lens failed you likely had a bad copy. It happens. Doesn't seem to be a structural flaw based on more than a decade! of user experiences!

[@henrysiegertsz8204]

Why do all you Pro's make exactly the same error in your reviews? When the answer should be screaming at you. If you want to compare centre and edge, sharpness/ colour/ contrast/ optical distortion of a lens, shift your framing. Take a shot first with the subject in the centre, then a sequence of four more at the same distance, each with the subject framed at the corners, then compare each subject, like with like. The scientific approach of a control image at the centre and four corner images of the same subject for a more objective comparison. (assuming lighting conditions remain constant throughout the test). Obviously this method cannot be applied at wide open apertures due to vignetting, but at landscape apertures such as this example the issue is avoided.

[@frankartale1026]

It's crazy. ALL these videos are the same. The 16 should wipe the floor with the 18 without an explanation. Its a joke... not to mention the 18-55 has stabe and is a 3rd the price. I would get the 18-55 allday.

[@yuidfbse]

Lens variation and poor quality control.. you can try 10 or 1000 of sets of both these lenses and each will give you a different result down to abhorrent picture quality in one sample or up to a perfect 5 star all round on another. Buying a lens is a Russian roulette of luck and chance.