The Fujifilm 16-50mm f/2.8-4.8 Has a LOT to Live Up To!

The Fujifilm 18-55mm f/2.8-4 was one of the most legendary kit lenses of all time, but now we have a replacement in the 16-50mm f/2.8-4.8 LM WR. Can this new kit lens resolve the 40 megapixel detail required on the latest cameras? And more importantly, can it live up to the legacy of its precursor? Chris Niccolls roamed the streets of Calgary to find out.
Order the Fujifilm 16-50mm f/2.8-4.8 here: www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...
Read the full review: petapixel.com/2024/05/21/fuji...
Rental equipment provided by The Camera Store:
www.thecamerastore.com
PetaPixel exclusively uses Audio.com music in our KZbin show: audiio.com/petapixel
0:00 - Intro
1:52 - Sample images
2:19 - Design and controls
3:03 - Autofocus
3:20 - Flare and sunstars
4:01 - Bokeh
4:58 - Close-up performance
5:26 - Sharpness
6:43 - Video performance
7:41 - vs. 18-55mm

[@themframes]

For those of us on the XT3 or older models, the 18-55mm is still the lens to go for thanks for the OIS switch. Clearly Fujifilm is targeting its new kit to XT4/XT5/XT50 users.

[@Indrakusuma_a]

Agree. This is clearly just for those 40 MP sensor with IBIS. Those who are still rocking the good oldie like me(X-E1), 18-55 is still the holy grail.

[@opalyankaBG]

Why would you buy a kit lens separately?

[@themframes]

@@opalyankaBG For one, if you buy a used body, it's unlikely coming with a lens. So you need to buy one separately. The 18-55 is such a good lens that many add it to their arsenal anyway.

[@j2thebee]

@@opalyankaBG in addition the above points, the kit lens is usually very cheap (especially used) as so many are made.

[@johansphoto]

And for everyone else the Sigma 18-50 is the way to go. F2.8 vs 4.8 at the long end makes a big difference.

[@Dvlx1]

I'm still rocking the XC 15-45mm lens and despite the annoying zoom mechanism I just love the thing. Excellent image quality, compact and very light. A bargain if you pick one up used, which shouldn't be difficult to find.

[@Tempus__Fugitive]

So underrated, as sharp as my 23f2 around similar focal lengths where I use it most. Zoom is annoying but a price I'm willing to pay to keep it so compact and light. Ideal lens to take into the mountains, especially knowing it's so cheap to replace if smashed off a rock!

[@drs-Rigo-Reus]

You discovered Fujis biggest secret…😎

[@thepolardesert]

@@Tempus__FugitiveI almost find it to be sharper than my 23f2 in cases, only downside to me is the micro exposure/distortion shifts when zooming during video

[@stopdrpnro]

Love mine also. Almost bought another one just in case

[@tookamooka]

@@stopdrpnro plastic mount breaks too easily

[@BrownieX001]

Just waiting on next version of 16-55mm f2.8. Hopefully we will see more updates from Fuji after this.

[@seantomlinson3320]

I love you guys. Been watching you forever, and now enjoying the podcast and ALL THE VIDEOS the last couple weeks. I don't even shoot Fuji (anymore) but I'm still curious.

[@bugsygoo]

Canadian possum at 7:39!!!

[@totallynotmyeggalt6216]

I'm assuming this is a Canadian joke because that's a squirrel, but you guys do also have opossums there

[@bugsygoo]

@@totallynotmyeggalt6216 Yeah, nah mate.

[@martinphilipps8678]

i have the sigma 18-50 and love it, but the internal zoom and WR of the fuji lens are really tempting

[@256guitarplayer]

Thanks for the timely review. I'm buying an X-T50 and wondered if I should get the new 16-50 kit lens with it since I already have the 18-55. Excellent review as always 👍

[@RotemEren]

Some great compositions in this episode. You guys were inspired.

[@janwilson9485]

Great collection of shots in this one and very pro modelling from Jordan - nice

[@Car_Fanatic]

Another banger keep it up boss❤

[@CartyCantDance]

The sigma 18-50mm f2.8 has served me well for 2 years. Great “kit lens”

[@ragavsathis]

I am geting XT5 and was wondering if sigma 16-50 is doing ?

[@CartyCantDance]

@@ragavsathis it’s like having 3 primes with you at all times. 28mm (and maybe 35mm) 50mm and 75mm full frame equivalent at f2.8.

[@zacredacted2137]

Clean water only shot was really funny. nice!

[@tankivulture148]

Looking forward to the GF 500mm f/5.6 review :)

[@gabewebyt]

Thank you for the review! I brought my 18-55 to the X-T5 and could see that it wasn't resolving the 40MP like the 70-300 does. I hoped that the 16-50 would be sharper and resolve the larger sensor, so it's great to see that confirmed!

[@justcallmesando]

This one video I was looking forward to

[@BritainMcCubbin]

Do we know how this new 16-50 compares to the heavy 16-55 2.8? I love it but is it inline for an update?

[@jorgecarrasco868]

Thanks for the video Chris. Always very informative and useful. If you were choosing between the Fujiflm 16-50 F2.8-4.8 and Sigma's 18-50 F/2.8, which would you favor?

[@EricGibaud]

I got to the same conclusion. Great video as always

[@skrisanto]

07:38 SQUIRREL!

[@paulreading8980]

My older camera does not have IBIS so I will stick with the 18-55, but the 16mm focal length is something I would much prefer. I used to own a Leica Digilux 2 and it had in-body zooming and I love that too. Fingers crossed for an X-Pro 4 and a 16-50mm

[@brownbear100]

Grab a 16 2.8, it's really cheap used, has incredibly close focussing, weather sealing, great IQ and is super sharp. Best aperture ring on a Fuji lens I've used and I've only not used the 8mm 3.5 and 200mm f2.

[@Alex_564]

I'd like to see a comparison between this & the Fuji 16-80mm f4 lens.

[@mattias5952]

7:39 animal detection in the background!

[@TroupeGoal]

Glad the floating aperture thing is mentioned, it's really distracting and I find it with any video shot on this lens

[@doptimist]

I owned the 18-55, sold it to buy a 16-80 (by far the worst Fuji lens ive never used) and sold that to buy another 18-55. The only real downsides are quite a lot of distortion and some very frantic out of focus areas on occasion. Apart from that its crazy value!

[@RoamingDoctors]

That means U love shopping...😅

[@hafidmohadi8811]

My 16-80 is good

[@JJARCHIE]

​@@hafidmohadi8811gotta disagree , all of the 16-80 i used are pretty bad

[@Sleepyboiwonder]

Loving this. The images come out sharp without appearing like overly digital

[@MRpapageorgeo1]

Can you compare the x-mount sigma 18-50 vs the new 16-50?

[@9Mtikcus]

I was thinking the same thing... in the UK at least the X-T50 Body only + Sigma 18-50 = £1778.00 X-T50 Kit with 16-50 = £1649 That is only £129.00 difference

[@Kit2Canada]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/Zny5Y31sl5ifotksi=Q4ZmOQrOsF0CC6mO Hugh Brownstone positively reviewed the Sigma 18-50 vs the Fujifilm f/2.8 in this link from a year ago.

[@travis5481]

I love the Sigma - the size is incredible and the fixed 2.8 is definitely worth the money to me.

[@NotAnotherChannel_Channel]

I wish they would’ve squeezed in a little more aperture on the telephoto end, but looks pretty decent especially with the internal zoom.

[@AllenKrughoff]

0:35 best opening, subscribed

[@jeremytheoneofdestiny8691]

2:12 pure art

[@mateuszmrowiec4265]

I think fuji decided to make xt50 with new wider kit Lens more appealing to Gen z. They made it more fun to experiment with new jpegs. This also means pricenbump for somebody like me wanting to play with more advanced functions. Thank you for the review!

[@hfranke07]

My workhorse is the 18-55 and it will stay on my X-E3 for years to come.

[@SJMPhotography]

How does it compare to the Sigma 18-50 F2.8?

[@petergabriel8448]

I never understood the obsession in reviews about sun stars.

[@POVwithRC]

Your understanding is not required

[@shang-hsienyang1284]

People love sunstars. Here in Taiwan we literally put a sunstar on our national flag.

[@yawningmarmot]

Sun stars are just another way of testing/showcasing the lens performance. I do agree, however, that it's arbitrary (personally I find that sun stars look fine on most lenses)

[@L3ON360Z]

They're popular in cinematography afaik

[@Paul_Rohde]

Personally, I like the more naturally diffuse rays over the sharp artificial looking ones that Chris aims for.

[@chuckl7713]

Watching this video I can say I'm glad I'm not the only one that takes shots of weird things.

[@short_bar]

I have heard that the 18-55 is being sold until their stock is out but they should keep it around to match the x-t30s. They offer OIS to go with the 30’s lack of ibis and help provide a more affordable lens option.

[@short_bar]

That said, I do like the 16mm view for this since I do like to do landscape and the macro capabilities is cool to see too

[@victoriankambe3070]

Could this replace my much-used Xf16 f1.4?

[@kalvino67]

It would be good to see future reviews on how this compares to the 16-55mn. This could be a good option for landscapes when you’re shooting at f8-f11. The 16-55nm is just too heavy when hiking.

[@Kayzox]

For the price you can find a 16-55 f2.8 used in good shape. Again depends on the needs and usage. Nice alternatives out of fuji also now. In a starter kit it makes sense for someone you prefer some 2.8 over 16-80 or a little lighter setup.

[@Wannes_]

Not at the kit price It’s half the MSRP when bought in a kit

[@jaapkamstra9343]

I have mixed feeling about this lens. I really like that they went to 16mm and included weather sealing. F4.8 is a bit too dark for me for general use though. The internal zoom is a nice to have. I wonder if the colours have improved. As that was the biggest reason for me to go for the 16-55. Those colours were very similar to the colours of my primes. Which helps with editing.

[@Muldoonite]

the sharpness, internal zoom, 16mm focal length, and WR seal the deal for me. squirrel cameo at 7:38!

[@ChristopherBonis]

My M. Zuiko 12-40mm is considered a ‘kit’ lens (as it came with my OM-1)-but it’s also the only ‘pro’ MFT lens I own. So what does ‘kit’ even mean anymore?

[@samson40a]

And to be honest the 12-40 is a much better lens. I have it and also a Fuji 16-55

[@JJARCHIE]

I mean the 24-105 F4L is also part of a kit

[@leemoody9247]

Hey Chris. I’d love to see a video about the cameras that you and Jordan own and use personally

[@SpencerLupul]

does it refocus while zooming in video?

[@Real_Photo]

2:13 perfect!

[@trulsdirio]

I mean my Olympus 12-40mm 2.8 is also a kit lens and it is the best standard zoom I have ever used and that you can get for the system.

[@jessejayphotography]

That lens is sold in a kit but it part of Oly's Pro line so not really a traditional kit lens. Oly's Pro branded lenses are very good.

[@muttishelfer9122]

f2,8 on mft is nothing impressiv.

[@johansphoto]

@@muttishelfer9122 true, f2.8 is hardly impressing on APS-C to be honest, for low light you need faster glass on both systems. But after having owned both I can say with conviction that the Olympus is definitely the better lens - but not a "real" kit lens. Also f4.8 (f7.2 equivalent) on the new lens is very unimpressive, and noticably slower than the mft which is constant f2.8 (f5.6 equivalent).

[@Bayonet1809]

@@muttishelfer9122 More impressive than f/4.8 on APS-C.

[@paulwhite1109]

The sharpness comparison with the 18-55 looked pretty much the same to me. Could you do a comparison to the Tamron 17-70 f2.8?

[@backslashio]

Thanks for the review! But your sharpness and video performance chapters are at the wrong parts

[@seanb480]

I’m still a fan of the 15-45! Use it all the time on my X-E2.

[@luisarturohernandezramirez5910]

How does this compare to the 16-55? I'm waiting on an x100vi because I don't want a big camera, I'm renting the 16-55 since it's what they recommended me this weekend but I got to hold that 18-55 and was shocked at how much I liked the form factor... So an XT-5 with the new 16-50 is quite tempting atm...

[@Bayonet1809]

Why didn't you test the sunstars at different apertures? Richard Wong found that at f/5.6 they were quite good.

[@MaxwellStarr]

Chris and Jordan should do a best lenses for Sun Stars for each camera system video..

[@RM.TokyoPhotographer]

was randomly thinking...if the kit lense becomes inner zoom (zoom not stretching out/inward) does this mean that the 16-55mm F2.8 Mark 2 will also be inner zoom? that would be AWESOME thats probably what alot of people would want

[@zerodicjcorez9173]

ive had fujis since 2012, xt1, x100, xt2 etc - was looking to jump to the xt4 because i still have lenses from the old 1st ones, 18,35,60,55-200,10-24... xt4 because i like the look of the bigger body to be honest.......But now ive seen the Panasonic S5II .. I dont need more megapixels 24 is fine , to go xt4 or s5II ????? any help yhanks

[@juleshorse9056]

It feels, I hope, like a good upgrade from my 18-55. I have one on order due to the 16mm, WR and improved IQ. Price is fair considering inflation over ten years and the war and health shocks to the world economy over the last four years. Nice review. Looking forward to receiving mine in June.

[@TheFriendlyBroski]

I've got the X-T5 on the way, and I'm currently looking for a "1X-5/6Xmm" kind of lens, either with OIS, WR or a constant aperture. So far, I was considering this specific lens, but would the Fujifilm XF 16-55mm f2.8 R LM WR Lens be an overall better lens for all around photography and travel?

[@dorkapedia]

That 16-55 2.8 lens is in a completely different class, and will never disappoint at any of its focal lengths. If you can spare the change, it's well worth it

[@andreabeccarisi1126]

Definitely consider Sigma 18-50, previously I had the fuji 18-55, the Sigma is definitely sharper and it maintains f 2.8 across all focal lengths

[@malfunkt]

For an all round lens also consider the Tamron 17-70 2.8. Yes it is a bit larger, but it will be worth it for its versatility. It has an F.28 aperture throughout the range, and at the 70mm telephoto, that 2.8 will allow you to get soft out-of-focus backgrounds if you need but can sharpen up at smaller apertures to amke for a great portrait or landscape lens. The lower aperture will also allow you to get better low-light shots throughout the range, and maintain a higher shutter speed for moving subjects.

[@daphnedh9086]

I use my 18-55 on smaller bodies on hikes and city trips. With the 10-24 and a prime (usually the 56mm) Honestly i do not want that beast in my bag.

[@jeremytheoneofdestiny8691]

6:04 can you guys zoom in a little closer for sharpness tests? Fairly hard to tell any difference on an iPad. Why not go a bit further in to really accentuate the differences?

[@Razor2048]

I wish they could do a kit lens that would be an f/3.5 constant aperture through a 16-50mm range.

[@funtaril]

+ sharpness and 2mm on wide end. - OIS, 5mm on tele end and not insignificant amount of light. Also it's f/3.2 on 17mm already! And it's expensive, $400 in kit (with pretty costly cameras) and $700 standalone are not your usual kit lens prices.

[@ruff1draft]

I actually use the Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-F4 on my Nikon D5500 it replaced my 18-55 Kit lens that came with it.

[@MrBenjy2006]

I’d love to see a proper shootout with the old lens. I bit more rendering and feel talk. Whether the resolving power is actually worth it for most people

[@jordansmith5248]

I dont see any sharpness issues with my 18-55 on my xt5. The only thing i wish it had was WR. But other than that i see no reason upgrade

[@TimvanderLeeuw]

So you say that the sunstars are not very good with this lens. Let me ask you, how would you rank all Fuji X-mount lenses for sunstars, worst to best?

[@robojimtv]

I think i may sell the 16-80 with my X-h1 myself and get this instead. I like the internal zoom design and the weather sealing

[@robojimtv]

Hoping this means a re-designed 55-200 then

[@CadenMcCullough2424]

@@robojimtvthe redesigned 55-200 is the 70-300

[@carlosmcse]

I liked fuji when i had it. I dont miss it though. From the files i see nothing has really changed.

[@kenilev_photographer]

how about putting electronic variable NDs in the new to come XH bodies

[@cless85]

can you test with x-s20 if it's a better combination than 18-55mm?

[@TheUnleashedRT]

Too bad that - at least here in Europe - it does not seem like there are any kit offers for an X-T5 body and the new 16-50, only with an X-T50. Oh well, then I guess we'll just wait and hope that prices drop quickly after its release...

[@NatPage]

i wanna see this lenes vs the sigma 18-50

[@albyzonta]

Complimenti

[@AllenRReid]

This lens will be on the new XS20 I just ordered, so good to hear it's decent enough. My first venture with a Fuji camera, so I'll likely add a lens or two down the road.

[@mysticjais]

Did you get your XS20? I'm confused b/w this and Sony a6700. Everyone keeps saying that the autofocus on Fuji is shit but is it really that bad?

[@AllenRReid]

@mysticjais I got it, but really haven't put the auto focus through any tough tests just yet. I still have a lot to learn with this camera as it's my first Fuji.

[@franciskikomanliclic]

@@AllenRReidplease post a review or your comment on it. I have the same setup, xs20 and this lens and it’s really not sharp at all! Auto focus breathing all over when video. I’m thinking it’s more compatible with the new 40mp camera only. Hopefully they thix this lens on new firmware

[@michaelcroff7097]

When you accidentally start the video at 50% speed and Chris is far more intoxicated than normal

[@loganwebb5449]

Seems weird not to mention the sigma 18-50 as a comparison here

[@minimac93]

4:40 I think the two images are swapped, the bokeh looks wrong

[@quite1enough]

can't believe you didn't test exposure jumping in video

[@jlwilliams]

"Can this new lens resolve the 40 megapixel detail required..."? [sigh] Time to do a search on the phrase "why perceptual megapixels are stupid cicala" and read Roger Cicala's brilliant 2019 appendix explaining that improving EITHER sensor resolution or lens resolution improves system resolution (although maybe not as much as you'd like) so the whole notion that a higher-resolution sensor somehow "requires" a higher-resolution lens is nonsense. Of course it's possible that writing that appendix is what got Roger banned from the Internet for the crime of NOT inciting people to buy more stuff they don't need...

[@Propaganda_Films]

Entry level X-Pro3 🤣

[@dopebeats6087]

I hope that was a joke!

[@johnjon1823]

Sound seemed a tad muffled here and there to me. Like on that bridge.

[@ruff1draft]

Is the Fuji 18-55 F2.8-F4 going be put down in price.

[@Zakmani]

HOW DO U UPLOUD AT SUCH HIGH QUALITY ??

[@antonhei2443]

With OIS it would be fantastic

[@larrywhite8590]

So would you replace your OM-1+12-100 with a FujiX-T5 and the 16-50 2.8-4.8?

[@johntupper1369]

He'll na

[@balboa0621]

No way. The 12-100 is a much, much better and more useful lens.

[@petouser]

You can get the Fuji 18-120 F4 for fairly good prices. Even cheaper is the 18-135 F3.5-5.6. Or even the Tamron 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3 that is an astonishing value for price.

[@jessejayphotography]

@@petouser I bought the 18-120 F/4 new on sale for $699 from B&H. Lots of people poo poo this lens but it is generally pretty decent for its size, weight, and features. Update the camera and lens firmware to help with exposure stepping in video. Use something like DxO PureRAW for lens corrections and it is useable as a landscape lens in the F7.1 to F9 range. It was clearly designed for video but it can be used for photos with good to very good results.

[@user-db4lq1fg1y]

Shame about the stabilization. It was my impression that the lens stabilization worked in tandem with camera stabilization to get even better results. I guess Fuji know what they're doing though...

[@Johnlancaster]

Am I the only person who can’t see the difference in this, and other “18-55 can’t resolve the new sensor” videos. Works really well on my XT-5. I will wait til all the used 16-50’s turn up at MPB by Xmas and get one for £300

[@uumuu]

The loss of zoom and aperture at the telephoto end is kind of a big L. I wonder if they could have gotten that back with a changing-length zoom and a bit more weight budget.

[@martinweber3859]

How does it compare to the Sigma 18-50?

[@Kit2Canada]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/Zny5Y31sl5ifotksi=Q4ZmOQrOsF0CC6mO Hugh Brownstone positively reviewed the Sigma 18-50 vs the Fujifilm f/2.8 in this link from a year ago.

[@SquirrelHybrid]

No chromatic aberration test?

[@SCEmissary]

I tested the 18-55 on my X-T5 and was, to my own surpirse, pretty underwhelmed by its performance. Maybe I got a bad exemplar or I'm spoiled by my prime lenses but especially on the wide end it never managed to be sufficiently sharp. Pity, as I like the size and could sometimes use an allround zoom again. So maybe I have to wait for some second hand 16-50s.

[@Wannes_]

Fuji doesn’t recommend that combo as the 18-55 can’t fully resolve the 40MP

[@SCEmissary]

@@Wannes_ Yeah, I knew about it, but it still surprised me HOW much worse it is, especially at 18mm. The 16-80 f4 for example is also not recommended, but waaaay sharper in the center. Again, maybe I've got a bad one, but the difference is huge.

[@spamllama]

Next compare apples to oranges: XF 16-50/2.8-4.8 vs XF 16-55/2.8!

[@zeissiez]

The best kit lens for Fuji is the 16-50, XC version. Dirt cheap, good optics, good range, OIS (cancelled in the new XF 16-50), the paint never gets scratched like other XF lenses, dust and moisture proof in REAL use (without having to pay the price for this feature).

[@Paul_Rohde]

By the time I realised that this lens might be really good to try, it was unavailable.

[@MrKikoboy]

Agree - I've had it for years with my X-T20 and it's a great combo ....and when I wanted a prime rather than spend $$$ on new Fuji's or Sigma's I bought a mint Konica Hexanon 50mm and adapter for under $100 and it's fantastic on that sensor

[@ozuidema]

In the US, the price is $ 699 (645 euro), but in Europe, the price is € 799. Way too much.

[@Wannes_]

Only half that as a kit lens. People buy the kit, sell off the lens for say 600€, and both parties are 200€ less out of pocket.

[@LUITESLIFE]

Not sure why they couldn't just match the Sigma 18-50mm though, that's a great lens.. insane value for money. I do know why they wouldn't want to though, because the value for money is too good for Fuji itself. Their "pro" 16-55 f2.8 wouldn't sell anymore :D The only reason to get this over the Sigma would've been an aperture ring WITH assigned aperture values, which it doesn't seem to have.

[@bassandtrebleclef]

Brutal Jordan takedown at 1:45

[@Xo1ot1]

5:21 shouldn't the text say 50mm?

[@Invincibleagent]

The video sections are mislabelled

[@PetaPixel]

Thanks, fixed!

[@Fusionprogamer]

"Much like his film making aspirations" Lol poor Jordan Roasted

[@dan.allen.digital]

I'm thinking this 16-50 is going to resolve the 40mp sensor better than the 16-55 2.8. Since its decent in the corners at 16mm 2.8 its probably useable for Astrophotography. The Macro ability is what sold me on this over the sigma 18-50

[@Aeonikst8]

Isn't the sigma 18-50 macro ability really good. Maybe better than this. I may be wrong.

[@dan.allen.digital]

​@@Aeonikst8I think the Fuji gets you much closer than the sigma

[@SquirrelHybrid]

Sigma has higher magnification at the wide end (0.36x @18mm), but Fuji is better at the long end.

[@Aeonikst8]

@@SquirrelHybrid 👍 , ! thanks

[@birjub9647]

Fujifilm had 12 years to give us a good lens.. they could have just made the 18-55 f2.8-4 Mark ii with new improvements - good size, different look, better OIS, faster AF and better tracking. Easy!

[@matt88169]

Yup. My thoughts too.

[@TungstenOvergaard]

Instead of that you get this and the Instax Pal

[@opalyankaBG]

f/4 on 55mm wasn't fast either. F/4.8 is just half a stop slower, so I doubt one would see a huge difference in shallow DOF.

[@daphnedh9086]

Well it’s also 5 mm longer. Which adds to the seperation and more pleasing portraits due to being more or less an 85mm equiv.

[@abhinaybuiss]

1:45 ouch!

[@DJFAmenHeavy]

Very bizarre lens decision considering the 18-55 f2.8-4.0

[@TheBigNegative-PhotoChannel]

Poor guys who got ther new 40MP Fuji with the old version. :D