Fujifilm XF16-55mm F/2.8 R LM WR II vs XF 16-55mm F/2.8

[@justint8115]

This is the best and most detailed and non fanboy review of this lens on the internet! Thanks Richard! It seems like a good upgrade for people who want a small setup

[@TheRealRichardWong]

thank you very much Justin!

[@thegeneral123]

I noticed on release, hardly anyone spoke about this lens being much sharper than the Mk1. I suspected that optically there's very little difference. The big news here is the size and weight reduction. I never had any issue with the size and weight of mine so I won't be upgrading. Especially as I'm only shooting at 26mp and even at 40mp the differences were not big. I'd not be surprised if I couldn't tell the difference at 26mp.

[@patricklonguechaud4253]

Thanks for this simple and complete review. The one I have been expecting for a long time. Good job Richard !

[@juleshorse9056]

Excellent comparative review - probably the best I have seen. I had the 16-55 Mk I and have now upgraded to the Mk II (on a XT5). As the Mk I image quality, for me, was excellent I'll take any minor IQ improvement. That said, most reviews of the Mk II conclude overall that its IQ is better than the Mk I. I upgraded to the lighter lens for hiking. I have taken it out on a couple of walks (not demanding hiking) and the weight reduction is a pleasant feature. Thanks for an excellent review.

[@TheRealRichardWong]

thank you very much Jules!

[@kzr83]

No surprise about your fantastic work, Richard! 👌🏻

[@TheRealRichardWong]

thank you so much kzr83

[@gvz1538]

Great video; thank you Richard!! The original 16-55mm was a little too heavy for my liking on any Fujifilm body (I owned it twice and sold it twice), so the smaller & lighter version II is something that I will purchase and keep. And the version II zoom is only slightly heavier than the 23mm f/1.4 R LM WR (a good thing), which currently is my favorite lens on any Fujifilm body.

[@TheRealRichardWong]

yes i think a lot of fujifilm users would appreciate the smaller and lighter lenses

[@jandzoe9249]

Wow I was just looking for a comparison some hours and ago and now there it is :D

[@TheRealRichardWong]

haha perfect timing :)

[@bernios3446]

Thank you for the comprehensive test. So, it is basically just the reduced weight and size. Optical performance is too close to replace the old one just for image quality. Weight and size is another question. I may look for the old one at a good used price.

[@TheRealRichardWong]

Yes That's another benefit with a new lens release. I think a lot of people would like to upgrade, so there would be more 2nd hand copy and hopefully lower the price too!

[@tomleo4670]

Great Review, Richard, thanks for your efforts in testing both side-by-side. I am tempted to upgrade, because of the lightweight, and also the close focusing distance at the Tele end.

[@artemholstov9207]

The results of the new lens are looking very good! I am glad that Fujifilm focused on making the lens smaller and lighter and still managed to maintain great image quality. Even the first gen was not fully optically corrected for distortion and vignetting, and to be honest, it does not really matter very much (unless you are publishing your photos directly from unedited raw files oO)

[@dirk.4711]

Thanks for this review. A comparison with the Sigma 18-50/2.8 DG DN would be interesting too.

[@jandzoe9249]

And the Tamrom 17-70 please :)

[@dirk.4711]

@jandzoe9249 does the Tamron exist in with Fuji XF mount?

[@jandzoe9249]

@ yes, it’s 2.8, too

[@vasco3326]

yes absolutely ! i'm torn between the 2, is the supposed better image quality still worth the bigger form factor

[@jethrohaha]

@@vasco3326I had both, go for xf. 18-50 feels so cheap

[@rallysardegna]

The first version had a very large focus shift when stopping down. Does the new one have that too?

[@AB_223]

I’ve got a Sony 20-70f4 for my full frame camera but I’m so tempted to buy this lens for my more ‘fun’ Fuji. GAS alert! 😀

[@trezegol2007]

Hi! Nice and comprehensive comparative video. The conclusion of the video is about how I see it too, I don't have the 16-55 yet, and one main reason of hesitation from buying it on my part was exactly what Fuji decided to work on mostly on the Mark II, which is to reduce the size and weight of the lens. I did not expect a noticeable difference in the image or built quality, the main "complaints" I heard from this lens was it's size and weight. And as you said at the end of the clip, I'm wondering too and it wouldn't surprise me Fujifilm is working on the same kind of improvements as far as (mainly) the other red badge lenses is concerned, the 8-16mm, the 100-400mm and most of all the other often praised 50-140mm. I dearly hope they'll work on the same aspects for the 50-140 lens, I'd like to have it very much but not for the current size and weight as I know I'll get bothered by it at some point...

[@matt88169]

I own the 16-55mm and 50-140mm mki's. Considering I also own backpacks, small bags, and a black rapid / neck straps, the size and weight haven't been a real issue for me at all, since I've never really needed to hold either in-hand all day. I don't understand the obsession with "small and light" just because of the sensor that happens to be attached to the body. Many of us just want PERFORMANCE (and Fuji colors!). The occasionally crampy ergonomics of the X-T3 with or without a battery grip are the main issues when dealing with the bigger lenses. From my point of view, the lenses are already substantially lighter and smaller than anything my DSLR wielding friend owns. What I really wanted was for Fuji to do something spectacular - re-release these lenses at basically the same size, but a stop faster (f/1.8 - f2). Then I'd have one of my few reasons to jump ship to full frame addressed by team Fuji. Of all their recent lens releases, this one is the first let down. It could just be that I need to see it in person, but the lens actually looks cheap to me compared to the mki. Oh well.

[@trezegol2007]

@@matt88169 I'm not saying that your arguments don't make sense. On the contrary, indeed I'd need to make a side by side comparison between the 2 before I make a final decision. The Mark II version where I live is sold out since a long while and I'd like to wait when it hits the shelves again. don't want to order it before seeing with my eyes and feel it in my hands. I totally believe you when you say the new version must probably not only look but feel more plastic hence maybe less robust.

[@matt88169]

@@trezegol2007 Overall, I think the 16-55 will sell like hotcakes - it is a great size/image quality compromise really - lighter than my 56mm f/1.2 WR, lighter than the 16-80, and it will nail more in-focus shots at 55mm I bet. Smoother bokeh/less onion ringing/more magnification at the long end means better bokeh balls and better portraits, probably (it is now the holidays, after all, which for me shows the weakness of the mki). I should say I am very tempted by it, since I can in theory ditch both my 18-55 and 16-55 mki and get the "one and done" system lens I want, but like you will wait for more in-depth reviews and/or proof it can take a beating before I consider a switch. This lens makes me think that a similarly less exciting "update" will come to the 50-140, which is too bad. That lens has very few flaws, and given the higher price really needs to offer something special to impress me (other than just shrink, which I guess it probably will). An f/2 aperture would be an instant "must by". But I guess I'll have to keep saving up for Canikony/GFX, possibly.

[@steveshapiro9915]

I think they should have designed it to zoom internally. I will probably keep my old version. It is big and heavy, but I only use it for events a few times each year. I started using GFX equipment recently, so none of the X series lenses bother me much.

[@matt88169]

I am perplexed by this lens release - almost 10 years or so goes by, and no real tantalizing improvements or reasons to upgrade outside of smaller size (which is a nice achievement). It somehow looks cheaper to me with the thicker aperture ring and thinner zoom ring (and loss of the nice little chrome detail). It looks like the barrel extends even further out at 55mm - more opportunity for dust and grime ingress. The 16-50mm "kit" lens is even smaller, lighter, looks comparatively quite premium, and has INTERNAL zoom - that was quite a welcome surprise. Other than being "slow" at f/4.8 at the long end, it is pretty clearly the better lens for video/hybrid shooters, probably (though, personally, I just wanted a mkii 18-55 with revised optics and faster AF). Slapping a declick option on the 16-55mm seems, idk, like an afterthought. How about a function button? How about OIS? How about internal zoom? How about lightning fast AF? Please tell Fuji that Photographers would love to see f/1.8-f/2 red badge zooms that prioritize image quality and toughness over other factors. We want these to keep the system competitive with full frame alternatives, and make the lenses more useful indoors or when shooting in low light - I've watched as a D850 with a 70-200 (released years and years ago) keeps nailing razor sharp focus indoors as my X-T3 and 50-140 has totally given up (and technically my camera is supposed to be a stop better in terms of low light AF). It is moments like that that have me shopping other systems - with plans to switch if my needs aren't/can't be met.

[@masterofcamera]

2nd :D Crazy how new lenses with same specs just keep getting smaller!

[@TheRealRichardWong]

Yes indeed. I think smaller size is great!

[@daveboyle5751]

Wished they has made this new lens an f2 or f2.4 instead of making the same thing smaller with slight improvements.

[@donaldp.5762]

The more compact format was the main reason why I sold the old one and ordered the new WR II.

[@fllsgsys4184]

is new one parfocal?

[@TheRealRichardWong]

I did some quick test. It seems like it's electronically assisted as I do see the image goes slightly out of focus then in focus again as i turn the zoom ring. but it's just my guess

[@fllsgsys4184]

@@TheRealRichardWong may you try manual when zooming. anyway thank u

[@TheRealRichardWong]

Yes that’s what I did when I test it previously and the result I saw

[@MelvinGarcia]

Next updated lens should be 50-140 2.8. It deserves the same treatment as the 16--55 2.8

[@43rdMusic]

Is the AF-C better on the mark ii?

[@TheRealRichardWong]

Sorry i didn't do extensive test to answer this.

[@6042833]

It would be more cost-effective compared to the previous version. Fujifilm utilizes less material in its production.

[@lol-di3tf]

Well this is very disappointing in terms of image quality despite of 9 years gap between new and old.

[@TheRealRichardWong]

Lens design is always a compromise, image quality, size, price, you can get one or two, but usually have to give up something. It's very difficult to get significant improvements in all three areas.

[@BlaxkNobility]

Not much difference from the original lens.