If You Could Only Have One Lens For Fujifilm...

Like the way the photos look in the video? They were edited with my new preset pack!
rudermanphoto.com/shop/ruderm...
The idea of having just one lens is a daunting one for people suffering from GAS. But in this case, I think you would be hard pressed to find any real issues using the Fujifilm 16-55 f2.8 for anything!
It's remarkably versatile, sharp, well made and its autofocus performance for both photos and video make this the best all rounder lens you can buy for the Fujifilm XF mount.
Do you have this lens? What do you think of it!
Be sure to give the video a like if you enjoyed it, it really helps me out!
Thank you for watching,
Have a great day!
Follow me on Instagram:
/ rudermanphoto
My website is www.rudermanphoto.com
Gear I Use!
Main Video/Photo Camera: geni.us/GvSFt
Photo Camera: geni.us/ABZG
Main Video Lens: geni.us/DwAq
One Of My Favourite Lenses: geni.us/Os5w5S
Beast Telephoto Lens: geni.us/OXSI
Amazing Portrait Lens: geni.us/WvRAO
First Microphone: geni.us/kPWBrx0
Second Microphone: geni.us/Cyp6
Audio Recorder: geni.us/jxB0l
ND Filter: geni.us/A1K0v
Secret Sauce Filter: geni.us/HuYo
Action Camera: geni.us/nY8J
Flash: geni.us/nQNd
Smaller flash: geni.us/EhCK23
The above links are Amazon Affiliate links. They don’t cost you any extra but I may or may not earn a small commission if you buy using them, this helps keep this channel alive!

[@drakeydrake1076]

Fujinon lenses are truly one of a kind. Even the old 18-55mm f2.8-4 is sharp and has nice bokeh. Couldn't sell it because I still use it in portraits and wedding shoots.

[@justinguzman-fq6vs]

I just sold mine 18-55mm for 350usd and saving up for my next lens just I don’t which one maybe this one !!

[@briankavo]

Agree, this is a fantastic lens. I use to overlook it in favour of my primes but began using it again recently and was reminded of just how good it is. I especially love the versatility...

[@edc5338]

Great video. This is my go-to lens on the X-T5 and X-S20.

[@bill3117]

Internal Zoom mechanism and IBIS would be incredible! I do love my copy! I do use it on my XPro3 with leather grip and have a wood grip with larger hand grip to supplement the XPro3's on body grip.

[@juleshorse9056]

Yup, as an amateur, wanting a general purpose, hiking and (near distance) sports lens, it is my most used lens (also on a XT5).

[@SteveMcClanahan]

I would tend to agree with you on picking this lens. I originally had it on my X-T3 without IBIS, only used it in well lit and tripod situations but with the acquisition of the X-T5, I now use if for a lot more.

[@erik6678]

Had the 16-55mm. Please Fujifilm bring a Mark 2 version

[@fadiheterjag]

Totally agree! I love my primes but looking at what lens has made me the most money the 16-55 wins by a LOT. I shoot primarily in the studio and in that setting that lens is unbeatable. Boring but hella effective lens!

[@JackieDElia]

Awesome review, Matthew. I don’t have this lens, so thanks for sharing your thoughts.

[@rudermanphoto]

Thank you!

[@ozuidema]

Agree. If I could have only 1 lens, it would be the 16-55 f/2.8. Prime-like IQ, snappy focus, built like a tank. Even the sunstars are perfect! As you say, a bag of primes.

[@randyk1919]

Great video! I have a handful of vintage and modern primes that, given enough time to switch between lenses without feeling rushed, I'll often use. But if the pace is fast or I'm the least bit unsure of what my lens choices are going to be -- undoubtedly I end up shooting primarily with the 16-55 and have always loved the results.

[@rdtstudios]

I was goin to pick one ,but since I got the wr primes 23mm,33mm and 56mm, I rather complete my kit wit a wide angle zoom and a telephoto zoom. Maybe adding the Sigma 10-18mm and the Fuji 70-300 or 100-400mm. Great content,keep it up!

[@rudermanphoto]

Also a great idea! The 70-300 I hear is really good value for money! The new sigma 10-18 looks great too, I just hope they have sorted its AF inconsistency out as it would make a great little travel lens too.

[@rdtstudios]

recently got the viltrox 13mm to try out,AF seems slow and sometimes it does not focus. I downloaded latest firmware and seems better now. Have you try the 13mm?@@rudermanphoto

[@kalistratov_photos]

Hello, Matthew! Thanks for the video. In my opinion, the biggest value of the 16-55 2.8 is it's unique, i would say, dreamy and vintage rendering. The images taken with this lens look like it's a memory. I tend to use this lens if something dynamic happens outside, like city events. This focal range seeems just fine for city events. However, the weight of this lens makes it less versatile for me than any prime lens. I do get tired when I use it for a long period of time in one hand, that doesn't happen even with the 90 f2. Therefore, my personal answer to the 'just one lens' is the 18 1.4, because you can use it for street photography, even in low light (and pretty much everything will be in focus even at 1.4), you can use it for portraits, travel and even (almost) macro. Overall, I think this lens is the one I have thought of selling so many times, but I will never do that.

[@rudermanphoto]

The 18 1.4 would be my close second choice for this answer! The weight and size of the 16-55 is its biggest downside, but it produces such excellent images and is so versatile I ended up just picking it over the 18 1.4 for that reason. But as far as 28mm eqv primes go the 18 1.4 is the best I’ve ever used outside the 28mm 1.7 summilux in the Leica Q!

[@marcosartori9213]

Thanksssss ❣

[@user-vf5ei9zg6o]

i hve this lens from the very begining after it"s release >> LOVIT >> but i also hve some fuji prime on the line >>16mm 23mm both1.4 and 50mmf2 >> IF i trade off This lens to get f33mm.1.4 i could be much better low light situations >> what do u think?? GIVE ME YOUR THOUGHT >> I ALSO HAVE Fuji f8-16mm2.8 which is fantastic >> i'm 72 only a travel photo shooter

[@ellenmariewagner]

Yep. I just bought this lens after trying to convince myself I don’t need it. I did. It’s a fantastic iteration of the 24-70 lens.

[@rudermanphoto]

I hope you enjoy it as much as I do! If only I had decided to buy this before all my primes I’m not even sure I’d end up getting most of them haha

[@perryvalton4245]

50-140 is another great zoom

[@ianhtavares]

Great review dude! How about the internal IBIS of the XH2s with that lens, does it work well tho? Also, what would you recommend as an alternative with IS? Image stabilization is sooo important for what I do (surf/water photography)

[@rudermanphoto]

For photos it’s great, I could comfortably handhold images up to 1/15 of a second with it - if you really want IS in a lens you’d probably want to get something like the Tamron 17-70 2.8 as that is the only option that has IS, but I haven’t personally tried it out so I can’t comment on its performance.

[@wesleychapman9001]

I appricaite the praise of the Sigma 18-50mm for what it is. As more of a photographer myself, it does quite well on my x-s20. Though i would love to get it on a 40mp sensor like th XT5 or perhaps something else that Fuji announces this year.

[@rudermanphoto]

It’s a great lens and fantastic value if you only take photos! I tested it with my X-T5 briefly and it worked great on the 40mpx, no issues resolving it whatsoever!

[@wesleychapman9001]

@@rudermanphoto Good to know! thanks for making me even hungrier for an XT-5 haha

[@TheRiddle1981]

I have this lens and it's excellent. Just as good as my Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G but half the size and over half the price!

[@dan.allen.digital]

Love my 16-55 2.8 for years, but I have had issues with it on my XT5. I noticed after a while that like 1 in 10 pictures with the 16-55 on the XT5 would be soft. Not soft like i missed focus, but like there is some issue with the IBIS in the xt5 working with the lens. I would be shooting at shutter speeds over 1/500 so it wasn't an issue with a slow shutter speed. Curious if anyone else has this issue? I didn't notice this happening on my xt3 with the same lens.

[@rudermanphoto]

Interesting, have you updated the firmware on the lens and your body to the latest version? Might be the reason. I haven’t personally experienced this, if the shot is in focus the shot is razor sharp for me.

[@EugenePalomado]

I almost bought 1 just a few days ago. It was a used one but when I saw the lens in person the focusing rubber was replaced and most of all the lens mount was loose so when the lens is mounted on the camera it wobbles a bit. Bummer!

[@rudermanphoto]

Oh no! Before I got this one used on eBay for 1k aud I almost did a swap for my Sigma plus $500 cash for one locally but when the dude sent me photos of it it was filthy and in awful shape, this one was near new. You can definitely find them for a good price, (and in good condition) there’s plenty around!

[@vicentegaonac]

Have you tried the Tamron 17 70 ? Id love to hear your opinion on it

[@rudermanphoto]

I have not! I was considering getting it after the Sigma 18-50 didn’t quite meet my expectations but I don’t really need the long end of that 70mm and I’d rather have 16mm on the wide end - plus it’s the same money as the Fuji 16-55 and while having IS is great, no aperture ring is a deal breaker for me. It’s also a bit longer then the 16-55 (a cm longer) and the 67mm filter thread means I’d need to use step down rings to use my 77mm VND filter with it which I was already hating having to do with the 18 1.4. Edit: also I just didn’t want to trust 3rd party AF accuracy with Fuji, I’ve noticed it’s always been noticeably worse than actual Fuji lenses. I could be wrong, I’ve never personally used it but I had a Tamron 24-70 2.8 for EF years ago and it was awfully inaccurate.

[@RoyAlf]

I was terrified of getting the 16-55, the price was way too high for me at the time. But I did, and wow, it's a phenomenal lens, great performance including low light, the sharpness is great, and you can get fantastic separation as well. My next lens will probably be the Viltrox 75 f1.2, that is a prime I would love to own.

[@rudermanphoto]

It really is that lens that you get and you are like how did I live without! I would love to try the Viltrox 75! I hear amazing things about it

[@RoyAlf]

@@rudermanphoto Try it, (I used a friends lens for a couple of days), the folcal length gets some getting used to, but I think it's more interesting than the 56mm (f1.0, 1.2), or the amazing 90mm f2 or the 70-140 f2.8 (another lens I would love to get my hands on). The image is crisp, has a very unique sharpness, it felt on the one hand, advanced and modern, and on the other, a feel of a retro manual.

[@luismeyer400]

Great video! I have an x-t5, and i want to buy this zoom. But some people are saying im internet that they are having bad experiences with the 16-55 2.8 and the new sensor, because this lense cannot resolve well the 40 mpx? What is your experience? Do you see any difference in sharpness and overall image quality between your H2-S (26 mpx) and your X-T5 (40 mpx)? Thanks!

[@rudermanphoto]

Where have you heard that? The 16-55 2.8 is perfectly capable of resolving the 40mpx sensor of the XT5 - are you perhaps mistaking it with the 18-55?

[@coeurdelion8517]

Do you have any example of zoom lenses that don’t protrude outwards ?

[@rudermanphoto]

The Fuji 50-140 2.8 zooms internally. Unsure of many other Fuji zooms that do, it’s a lot more common on full frame zoom lenses.

[@Psiwt]

Too large for what it is. It's almost the same size and weight as the Sony 24-70mm F2.8 GM II while covering a smaller sensor... I hope Fuji is working on updating it, either by making it smaller keeping the same specs or making it an F2 and keeping it roughly the same size as now. If the latter it could probably be the only lens I'd ever need. I'd pick the Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 before it any day.

[@rudermanphoto]

The sigma is a great option if you don’t shoot any video! Or want an aperture ring Or full weather sealing Or 16mm on the wide end Or much better build Either way I do hope a V2 is an f2 in the same size, but honestly I have my doubts - I’ll just take the same size lens with IS thanks.

[@frankartale1026]

18-55 all day. The o.i.s alone is worth it. You need to pick up an 18-55 to compare for yourself. I've seen some comparisons on youtube. The 18-55 is very impressive against the 16-55. Especially since you had the sigma 18-50. Which the Fuji is superior in every way. Just my 2 cents😉

[@rudermanphoto]

Yeah I have had an 18-55 in the past, it is an excellent lens but the 16-55 edges it out for me just because of the constant aperture and I really like 16mm on the wide end! I would buy it over the Sigma if I had to pick though.

[@frankartale1026]

@@rudermanphoto i use an XE1 so thats another reason i like the smaller 18-55 😁

[@Iamquiroga]

what do you think of the 18-35 1.8?

[@rudermanphoto]

The Sigma EF mount one? Never used it - have heard it’s amazing and works great with the Fringer adapter on Fuji though. Great video lens apparently

[@Natzcape]

My 16-55 is from 2022 and it is made in Japan...guess they have two production lines.... I also went from the 18-50 to the 16-55...so damn sharp. My iphone show show pictures of my kids in the screen and I always can´t recognize when an where I did the photo....when I look for it, I realize it is a really tight damn crop of a picture....It is just ridiclous sharp

[@rudermanphoto]

Very interesting! Maybe they do have two production lines? I was under the impression all new manufacturing was moved to the Philippines, my 18 1.4 is made there too. The 16-55 really is like a knife, unlike any other zoom I’ve tried! So so sharp haha

[@stayuntilforever]

For photography I would pick the XF35mm1.4. Zoom with your feet, compose better images, great for night shots and concerts. Rendering is magical and for portraits I never experienced a better lens for my needs. It’s light, compact and cheap used.

[@tulasnaps]

I want it. Can't afford it. I have the 10-24 and 16-80 F4 lenses, with my trusty 18 1.4. My style and what i want to shoot is changing so would really love this lens one day for video and travel photography. I'll probably get the sigma tho. Smaller and less intimidating, also lighter.

[@rudermanphoto]

The sigma is still an excellent lens, I just really wish its video AF wasn’t so bad. As a photo lens and for travel it’s awesome, and for value for money given it’s half the price of the 16-55 it’s a great option!

[@mortenthorpe]

Of all of my Fuji lenses, the 16-80 and 10-24 are the ones I’d most easily part with.. maybe also because my GFX more than easily outperforms those lenses without breaking a sweat

[@sr49yt]

what do you think about 16-80 f4?

[@rudermanphoto]

Never tried it, hasn’t really appealed to me due to the f4 aperture and I don’t really need the 80mm on the long end.

[@depotmsa2362]

35 mm 1.4 !

[@dirkstadil8621]

I sold my 16-55, bought the Tamron 17-70 and never looked back. It has (in my experience on the X-T4) better AF and (I know, this is highly subjective) better bokeh. I was never happy with the bokeh of the 16-55 because of it's harsh edges. It is not a bad lens by any means, but for me the Tamron with it's longer reach works better.

[@rudermanphoto]

I did consider the Tamron but a few things ruled it out for me, firstly reviews said the performance with video AF wasn’t as good as the Fuji and given that was a big reason I hated the Sigma I decided not to pursue it. Secondly, it’s as expensive as the 16-55 and yet lacks an aperture ring, is bigger and I would rather 16mm then 70mm - I just use wider lenses more often then the tele, 55 is plenty and if I need longer I’ll use the 90 f2. Plus while this is probably not as significant but a 67mm filter thread would mean I need to use a step down ring to use the $300 NISI VND filter I have which is a 77mm as that’s my most common lens diameter size (and also biggest) The 16-55 having a 77mm filter thread means I can use that and my 77mm Glimmerglass filter without any step down rings and that’s honestly a massive bonus for me. But yeah having IS would be AWESOME. Can’t win them all I guess

[@garethmcfarland7244]

Standard ~24-70mm zooms are, by their very nature, boring in my opinion. However, when there's work to be done they are unrivalled and this lens is no exception. Great to hear your thoughts and top video as always Matthew!

[@rudermanphoto]

Thank you!!

[@1111undici1111]

I have many Fujinon lenses for my X-system and they are great, but am still missing this one. Instead of this lens I have the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 so perhaps I don't even need this.

[@rudermanphoto]

The sigma is an excellent lens if you just shoot photography! I think optically they are very similar - the 16-55 just has a in my opinion better focal range, is built nicer (with an aperture ring) and honestly the most important distinction is its video autofocus is leagues above the sigma. But the sigma is half the size and half the price so it’s all dependent on what you use the lens for which makes it worth it for you!

[@ECDPhotography]

What about the 16-80? I don’t want a 3rd party option.

[@rudermanphoto]

Never used it but the F4 aperture on a crop sensor didn’t really appeal to me - I guess the OIS plus a bit extra zoom range is useful but I’d much rather have the constant 2.8 aperture and IQ of the 16-55

[@yashwinning]

I really, really hope the V2 version of that lens is an F2 constant, bc it's getting to a point now where FF cameras are getting amazing F2 zooms and somehow Fuji still hasn't released any truly groundbreaking zoom lenses for APS-C, when Fujifilm is literally the only brand that's made APS-C cameras its flagships. It's kind of embarrassing that Sigma released 2 F1.8 zoom lenses 10 whole YEARS ago, and somehow nobody's beat that yet. Not even Fujifilm.

[@rudermanphoto]

I agree! An F2 version would be great, as long as it isn’t as colossal in size as the FF f2 zooms (or as eye wateringly expensive!) It’s a massive shame Sigma didn’t bring their 18-35 1.8 to Fuji natively - I know you can get a fringer adapter and have it work but a native X mount version would have been much preferred over the 18-50.

[@danielfulop]

I found that the 16-55 makes soo much mistakes with the X-T5, that it became annoying for me to use. The roots of the problem is actually the X-T5, cause I have problems with all my lenses on this camera (which I didn't have with the X-E4), but I experienced the most misfocus with the 16-55, and a lot less with primes. When it does get the focus right, it can be very sharp tho, but not at all focal lengths. As long as you view my photos on instagram, it's not an issue, but once I go 100%, half of the shots look either misfocused or soft. The latter problem occurs when my model wears white and the environment is dark with a piercing ray of light. This is however not a problem for any of my other lenses, not even for the cheaper ones. The thing is that the Sigma is even worse, but that lens have different problems (horrendous CA)... so I gotta say that it's unfortunate that the 16-55 is the best Fuji zoom, cause they could have done better, and it's fortunate that their primes are better

[@rudermanphoto]

You might just have a faulty copy, mine is almost always bang on my XT5. Or perhaps you might need to update the firmware?

[@danielfulop]

@@rudermanphoto idk, I got a totally new replacement X-T5 from Fuji, and it's not much better. I would think that I'm doing something wrong, but then my X-E4 was perfect.

[@nickgoogle4525]

18-55 plus 14 mm, not heavier, but more options than the single 16-55 :)

[@rudermanphoto]

That’s two lenses though! The whole point of the video is if you could just have one haha

[@nickgoogle4525]

@@rudermanphoto Sure, but for the price and weight of one lens I get those two. The one lens option has its merits, but the two lens options has its own merits as well. :)

[@Nathansmithphotography]

I have 10 Fuji lenses and I tell people that my most used of the 10 is the 16 to 55 f 2.8. If I absolutely had to, I could shoot an entire wedding with this lens. And actually they just released a firmware update for this lens, today, January 22, 2024.

[@rudermanphoto]

I saw! It addresses the variable aperture issue when zooming, I’ll install it and give it a go!

[@kmzzzzz]

33mm 1.4 hands down. 18-50 sigma is a better buy than 16-55mm lol!

[@rudermanphoto]

18-50 sigma is awesome value for money if you never shoot any video!

[@vd_a6169]

Nah. Simply nah.

[@Sjorezz]

I don't get why this lens performs so mediocre in head-to-head comparisons against the XF 18-55 kit lens and Sigma 18-50 in terms of sharpness. Is it genuinely that good? It's frustrating that some KZbinrs hype certain gear, and the KZbin algorithm directs all the people who love that particular gear to these videos, resulting in very positive comments here. I know it's an old design, but it's strange that the XF 16-55mm 2.8 weighs 720 grams and isn't even better than the 285-gram Sigma 18-50 2.8. also the AF is improved a lot since recents FW updates (many ppl will disagree but check the benchmarks please and head-2-head).

[@rudermanphoto]

All the comparisons I have seen and from my own personal comparison side by side of this lens with the Sigma 18-50 and it is sharper then the sigma in almost every instance I checked. Not by a lot, the sigma is a good lens - and excellent value at half the price of the Fuji, but it is definitely sharper especially on a 40mpx XT5. The differences are greater then just its sharpness though, as explained in the video its build quality, video autofocus performance and weather sealing are all vastly better then the Sigma - not to mention how good it is having an aperture ring and that extra focal range too. The Sigma presents a great choice if you don’t shoot video or want something small and lightweight, but the 16-55 is still the best zoom available on the market for Fuji with all features considered. The positive comments are because it is a GOOD lens.

[@Sjorezz]

Yeah good point! But for most stills shooters its a hard sell. the price and weight for the build quality and Aperture ring…

[@rudermanphoto]

@@Sjorezz for sure! I think the sigma presents excellent value for stills photographers, up until I actually began shooting video frequently I had no issues with it (other then the lack of an aperture ring lol) But if you want the best zoom you can get for Fuji, the 16-55 is the way to go. Only up to you whether that’s worth it to you or not haha

[@Sjorezz]

I need to test it again maybe.. i have 9 fuji primes now with focal lengths from 10 to 90mm but i might give it another chance

[@rudermanphoto]

@@Sjorezz don’t get me wrong, I definitely think some of Fuji’s primes are better, it’s just for sheer versatility, if I can just have ONE lens - the 16-55 is the most sensible option for me, as it delivers the most wide range of focal lengths at a level of quality that doesn’t compromise and make me wish I had the primes on hand haha

[@benbunch4159]

35mm f/1.4 If that was all I had on my XE-4 it would just be a better X100.

[@rudermanphoto]

A great choice, I was going to say the 32 1.8 Touit but the versatility of the 16-55 is just too good to pass up.

[@benbunch4159]

@@rudermanphoto for me if I was going to go the pro-zoom route for only lens I could ever use I would probably go with Sony or Canon or Nikon sorry to say. Nothing wrong with the 16-55 or shooting that type of coverage on Fuji, fantastic stuff. Just if that was the only type of package I could use I would probably select a different system since for me so much of my joy from Fujifilm comes from a compact camera and primes. And I do think the faster aperture option that affords has a big impact on APS-C.

[@f26031967]

If only one lens? XF 23mm/f1.4 LM WR ❤

[@rudermanphoto]

I really would love to try that one out! I had the older 23 1.4 and while I loved its MF clutch design, the AF felt very inaccurate on my copy so I got rid of it fairly quickly. A shame as it produced excellent results when it actually got them in focus!

[@f26031967]

Right, my old 23mm 1.4 felt inaccurate too. Please check the new version. A dream…

[@rudermanphoto]

@@f26031967 it’s on the list!

[@SummersSnaps]

Love the 50-140, that is as perfect as a workhorse lens can be, but the 16-55 needs a few upgrades first. One, it needs to be internal zooming, WR only goes so far, internal zooming helps mitigate further potential problems and protects your investment. Two, the internal zooming would also stop the lens creeping it suffers. I'm actually of the unpopular opinion that f2.8 is also kinda 'slow' (on the wider/normal lengths). 2.8 on the long lengths provides plenty of subject isolation style work due to tele/compression, but on the normal to wider side (especially on ASP-C) it is hard to tell certain 'stories'. Along with compositions, colours, aperture is there to help us highlight what we want to be the focus of the image and it's harder to do that at times with 2.8. It's why I eventually went the Sigma 18-35/1.8 route instead (but of course this is not perfect either). I'll wait for a mkII of the 16-55, or even just consider to go all in with the 'slow' vibe and grab the newer smaller internal zooming XF16-50mm f/2.8-4.8 R LM WR that's forthcoming. It does kinda suck tho, we're on APS-C here, we could be getting small 28-70/2 lenses for our system that would be smaller and lighter than the FF counterparts (as we're not needing to cover FF sensors). Fuji play it safe tho, staying cemented in travel friendly photography.

[@rudermanphoto]

While the flaws you point out are valid - I still don’t believe there exists a lens on the Fuji system that delivers what the 16-55 can. No third party lens blends the awesome AF performance, good build and focal range, Fuji themselves don’t have any other zooms that come close, and while the 50-140 I’m sure is awesome, it’s even BIGGER and unwieldy, and something like the 90 f2 honestly is suitable enough as a long Tele lens for me, it’s AF is blisteringly quick, the range is good enough that when used in conjunction with the 16-55 you get enough reach for *most* things. I’d love to try one out, but it also reminds me of using a 70-200 on a DSLR and just how heavy that entire setup was lol. While yes, having something like an F2 would be great especially as 2.8 doesn’t offer the same DOF as it would on FF as it does on crop - until some magic lens comes along and implements everything you describe, the 16-55 is still the lens I’d pick over anything as a “one lens” solution. I think the pros just really outweigh the minor cons in this case.

[@mortenthorpe]

Easy… the 50-140 2.8

[@rudermanphoto]

I need to try that one out! I just don’t really use such long focal lengths often, the 90 sorta covers that end very well for me.

[@mortenthorpe]

@@rudermanphoto by far the very best lens for Fuji XF.. arguably for wide angle, the 8-16 mm is amazing, and at the long end - the XF 200 f2 prime is… well… insane!

[@mortenthorpe]

Finally! Someone discovered that Sigma lenses absolute suck balls! I’ve been putting this forth, ever since I have had the Art 18-35 1.8 and 24-105 lenses… horrible lenses, and they live in a box, never to be used again… worst buys ever

[@rudermanphoto]

Haha my issues with Sigma lenses began when I had multiple 35 1.4 Art lenses for EF just not focus properly - it seems to be a common issue with them, I just can’t trust the autofocus performance with them. Optically I think they’re actually great, and the size of the 18-50 is a very impressive technical feat, but I got so frustrated dealing with its awful autofocus that I hated using it. No aperture rings on a camera system where there’s aperture rings on almost every native lens released feels wrong to me too.

[@mortenthorpe]

@@rudermanphoto inconsistent autofocus renders the sigma lenses to be paperweights…