This lens changed my view on Zoom lenses | Fujifilm 16-55 II Photo Examples

[@tamascsizmadia8449]

Hi John, I was using the mark I 16-55mm with the 90mm f2 together in weddings, and I can confirm your idea: they make a perfect pair for weddings, and no one needs the big tank 50-140mm for zoom... between 55-90mm I could crop from the 40 MP (if I need it 10% the cases), and over 90mm you need never a longer lens on events - not to mention the sharpness and bokeh quality of the 90mm, it's my favourite portrait glass, just amazing even with the new Fuji sensor. Thank you for the mark II review and opinion, it confirms my thoughts getting one! :)

[@MelvinGarcia]

The 16-55 is my lifeline lens and I will be upgrading as soon as possible. I'm so excited for this new version!

[@jbivphotography]

That’s awesome to hear. I’m totally going to get on myself.

[@Nathansmithphotography]

Nice review, although at 4:29 you say that this lens HAS stabilization, but it does NOT. However, I own 10 Fuji lenses, including 6 Fuji primes, and the original 15-55mm f2.8 is my MOST USED Fuji lens, even though I also love shooting with primes. And I've never really had any problems with the lack of OIS on the original (maybe because of its weight). But at a wedding being able to quickly change focal lengths is a godsend, and often with group and couple shots, you are often at f2.8 or smaller anyway. My only wish on the original was that it was smaller and lighter. And sharper and more accurate focus is a bonus. So I will DEFINITELY be getting the new version.

[@donaldmfalls]

The original 16-55 was bulky but IQ is so top notch! Im glad they made the lens slightly lightweight. If you like the 16-55, you would love the GF 45-100mm f/4 for GFX System.

[@juliascamp2175]

Since you’ve posted so much “pro-prime” content, it must be a pretty useful lens to have you reconsidering your wedding gear set up!!

[@jbivphotography]

lol. It's true. I still love my primes but my goodness was this useful in a real shoot. I'm really curious how I would do with it in a real wedding. I know personally the 2.8 is not going to be very fun when it starts getting dark, but other than that it's such an amazing lens.

[@MarcLerchs]

Excellent idea . I have two XT-5 and I will do like you.

[@mvillar24]

Wow. For you to say you will be buying this zoom as you find it useful among your bag of primes is interesting. Looking forward to hearing your further thoughts after you get a chance to see how you would use the 16-55/2.8 Mk 2 along side your favorite primes in your work.

[@jbivphotography]

Having a really good lens in your tool kit is a must. While I still might lean on primes more often I would totally use this in a lot of scenarios instead of bringing multiple bodies with me to like every session.

[@creativetom413]

the perforfmancefuji realised by massively sizing down impresses me a lot. I haven't expected that. I would have expected an internal zoom on top.

[@Sean-603]

For me this paired with the 33 1.4 and the viltrox 75mm on the xh2s is like the perfect setup pretty much covers all the range I would need for (portrait) work

[@bernios3446]

Hi, John, with an image like at 2:05, do you feel the Gfx would give you a visible advantage over the X-T5 with 16-55 II ? Or how big would you have to print to even see it? Such a comparision would interest me a lot, as I think about getting into the GfX system since quite a while.

[@tonyelsom]

Hi John, thanks for your review, I have the 16 55 mk2 on order and will be selling the old version to upgrade. To me the upgrade is well worth the cost. Having two bodies at a wedding with the 90mm on one body would be absolutly perfect Two beautiful lenses, both pin sharp with amazing focus. Thanks again John, and please keep us updated on when you get this lens and start shooting weddings with it.

[@jbivphotography]

Appreciate it! Glad this was helpful to you. Stay tuned for more!

[@KK-ch8qi]

“I tend to use only ZOOM lenses, mainly for the faster aperture” 🤭

[@jbivphotography]

🤫🤫

[@salahh-m1s]

What lens would you recommend for bird photography?

[@hejakma4682]

Amazing shots!

[@jbivphotography]

Thanks a lot!

[@lrb05131963]

I will be getting one

[@jamesmlodynia8757]

Im glad that they updated this lens, the older model was on the larger side on the XT bodies ,i tend to use in on the XH2. for a period of time before I added Fujifilm to my camera collection, i photographed events for a number of years and i used Pentax DSLR's, the last several years i used a K1 MKII and the K3 MKIII. I had a full time job and before I got more involved in events that included weddings, i photographed events at the Correctional facility I worked at. During this time I only photographed one church wedding all the other's took place outdoors at the wedding venue, during the ceremony i found it easier to concentrate and photograph the ceremony with one camera and a 24-70 F2.8, during the cocktail 🍸 hours i went back to a two camera setup with prime lens. I have watched your video's for a while and you do beautiful work. I always worked any event that I photographed with a wide angle zoom, the 24-70 f2.8 and a few prime lens. Some of the venues i worked in were poorly lit especially once in got late in the day so that was only one of several reasons I carried a few prime lens, they were also smaller and faster and gave me better subject separation. Another reason I worked by my self, so I had no back up photographer so if a lens or camera or flash went down i had to be my own backup. If i was to do it over I would still have the two cameras, a 24-70 F2.8 a wide 20mm a 5o mm and an 85 or longer. My long prime of the Pentax cameras were the 77mm f1.8. It works perfectly on the K1 full frame and APSC k3. So i will get the new 16 to 55 or 16 -50 that was just released.

[@oscarcolman5677]

How is that zoom rubber? My copy of the original has basically slipped off the lens…

[@markuspruudel23]

I bought mine used and the same thing happened a few months in. Removing the rubber and putting it in boiling water fixed it, shrank enough to fit snug again. There are also 3rd party knockoff replacements on sites like Temu. Unless weight or clickless aperture is a huge plus for you I personally don't think the extra cost is worth the money for the upgrade.

[@tao033]

i was hoping for it to have internal zoom, tbh the photos on my MK I still comes out fine, although it’s definitely worn out from the past several years of shooting

[@jbivphotography]

Thanks so much. It really is obviously lighter in hand as well.

[@tao033]

@@jbivphotography weight isnt an issue and concern for me with the MK I, will need to wait for more user reviews to see if its worth the upgrade!

[@Luigi13]

Hi John, I have the lens that you used in the video to make it and I like it a lot, and your video with the 18-55 2.8-4.0 is quite good. I am inspired about the new Fujifilm lens and I will be looking forward to purchase it as well. Thanks for the review and very good images of the wedding. Greetings from Oregon.

[@jbivphotography]

That’s awesome! Glad you enjoyed it!

[@dean_arias]

i would love to have this one

[@Synth8693]

How do you all think this compare to the 18-135 mm f3.5-5.6 zoom lens? I am debating between the two? Especially for a mixture of street and portraits or even weddings?

[@jbivphotography]

I own the 18-135 and I don't use it often mainly because I don't like the changing apertures. I do think the range is nice but the 16-55 II is much sharper when it comes to images. Personally I like it better as well because I usually don't shoot at 135mm. And for weddings I would worry about the f5.6 if I was in a ceremony area where I couldn't use flash.

[@thetuskers1]

Great video & amazing shots! I had a couple of learner questions, will be grateful, if you could answer them for me: 1. In the picture at 2:08, what would have been the aperture to ensure that all of the people in the frame are in focus. 2. Same picture which focus mode would you select /selected and where would you put the focus point. Many many thanks!

[@jaybee2530]

I'm not sure if i understand your question correctly, but since the people in the picture are basically all on the same plane, you could choose any aperture and get all the people nice and sharp. The aperture can influence whether the foreground and background are blurry or not.

[@thetuskers1]

All good! Many thanks for explaining. My doubt was whether with a wide open apperture will there be a risk to get everyone in focus, meaning will they have to be absolutely aligned.. ​@@jaybee2530

[@jaybee2530]

@@thetuskers1 Yes, when your apperture is large (a small F number), then only a very narrow region will be in focus. So if you want to take a picture of 4 people and you want them all to be nicely sharp, they will more or less have to be standing next to each other shoulder to shoulder. If you want to take a picture of people that are standing close and others are standing further away, and you want all of them to be nicely in focus, you'll have to choose a smaller aperture (larger F number). If you like watching youtube video's and want to learn more about photography, i would recommend the youtube channel 'Simon d'Entremont'. He's a very good teacher in my opinion. www.youtube.com/@simon_dentremont

[@Rholmes2010]

​Typically 1+number of rows of people (rows being not in the same plane but near each other) works fine for me getting everyone in focus when capturing the subjects full body with any Fuji lens.

[@AnnabelleStrickler-e4u]

Okay so I've been reading anything around a 18mm isn't ideal for portrait photography or like, people photography due to the disconfiguration of a wide lens can exaggerate facial features. Is a 18-55mm zoom a good idea or a bad one? Im confused

[@markuspruudel23]

This zoom range is referred to as a standard-zoom. It basically means you can't go wrong with it no matter what you're doing. You can get very nice portraits with this lens anywhere from the 23-55mm zoom range. If portrait photography is your main interest you could save a lot of money by getting 50 or 75mm prime lens though (Viltrox and Samyang both make nice ones for Fuji)

[@benard702]

Got the 16-55 and considering version II but will have to first try it to see if the upgrades are worth it.

[@Powerland56]

Does any user have to bring up the topic of AF as a prerequisite for the continued use of Fujifilm devices in every thread, regardless of the topic? Firstly, the update is coming and secondly, the AF is still much better than it is made out to be.

[@samson40a]

I want a lighter standard zoom as for holiday use the 16-55 original is too heavy. For me the price of the new one is expensive as I only paid around £800 when bought with an X-T1. Yes I know prices have increased.

[@Powerland56]

@@samson40a MkI here in Germany 1299€… street-price 1030 -1090€. The MkII new 1349€. So 50€ more. A significant lower street-price will be there perhaps in 1 -2 years.

[@kyleritchie50]

I don't have the OG 16-55, so I just pre-ordered this one. I do have the kit 16-50 2.8-4.8 and it's super sharp, but I wanted something with a constant aperture.

[@benard702]

@@kyleritchie50 congrats hope you can give some feedback after getting and using this lens. I use OG 16-55 for paid gigs so the weight reduction of the II is welcome

[@eastcoastiso3523]

How does it render the images with the new sensor ?

[@r423fplip]

Awful !

[@MaineMountainMedia]

Dude I'm so excited about this update...mostly because it's lighter than the Mark I. Hyped you got your hands on one, photos look awesome

[@jbivphotography]

Same here! Loving the update too.

[@shermn8]

Now I need to add this lens to my arsenal!

[@jbivphotography]

That's a great idea. Go for it!

[@jaapkamstra9343]

Very cool! As a happy owner of the original 16-55 this sounds like a cool upgrade. I use that lens mainly for events where things can change fast. So changing lenses is not allways an option. That being quite a big lens looks cool, but is not allways very practical. So sizing it down to have the same filtersize as the also amazing 50-140 is very welcome :) The original is allready very sharp but I heard from multiple sources that the new version is even better. So yeah: I think I will upgrade :)

[@jbivphotography]

That's awesome. I really did like this version and will be picking it up myself.

[@sorlindquist]

Nice vid! Im a "one lens" photographer and used the 16-55 mk1 version about 2yrs ago. It was fantastic except for weight and size so I got back to one prime instead. I absolutely hate to carry around a lot of gear or bags of bodies/lenses and this 16-55 mk1 even being one single lens, is on the heavier side for me. However, for my style I struggle to find the prime that works for everything. With everything I mean that sometimes zooming with my feet is not fully possible.. Do you believe the 16-55 mk2 version is worth the upgrade compared to mk1 since most of my issues with mk1 will be solved..? Is this one so much better or should I just accept to use the heavier mk1 that probably is now cheaper than ever?

[@guillandanthony711]

I love the quality of the 16-55 mm. It is sharp and Fuji did a way better job than Canon there (I used to have Canon before). But I don't know if I will be switching to the second version. I actually like the bulky size of the first version and it looks way better, in my opinion. Maybe I will buy it later.

[@Loki_Highlock]

How does the sharpness and details hold up against your primes? I’m looking in to purchasing both the 18 and 33 1.4 for landscape photography and really want the most detail for printing purposes. Also I’m using an XT5. Thanks and great video :)

[@r423fplip]

You won’t see a difference in a print.

[@seanysyang]

Are you adding vignettes post? Seems like all the ones have heavy vignetting, is that straight from the lens?

[@jbivphotography]

I generally don’t add vignetting to my images in post.

[@neethuandthomasphotography]

@@jbivphotography I feel some of those images look grainy. I don't know why ? Don't think I'm complaining. I'm team fuji and one of the Fujifilm Ambassadors from India.

[@msturi2002]

@@neethuandthomasphotography His Natural Feels presets have grain.

[@seanysyang]

@@jbivphotography Interesting, it looks plenty sharp, but lots of vignetting. 1:58 seems like it's not too wide of an angle, but still heavy vignetting?

[@joeyc923]

John you use mostly GFX now right? How does it compare to that in your view? I use my GFX less and less as the 40MP sensor with primes seems better than good enough most of the time, but would love to have a zoom that performs on that level.

[@jbivphotography]

I jump back and fourth but the X-T5 is still my main workhorse. I would like to put them next to each other to see how it looks. Sometimes I do weddings with both GFX X-T side by side and I love the overall look. The 40mp keeps up with the GFX for sure.

[@joeyc923]

@@jbivphotography for real, that 40MP sensor is just 🤌 Anywhere outside of Lightroom I think it’s tough to tell the difference between it and FF or even GFX, as long as you’ve got good glass in front of it. Only thing I really bring GFX to weddings for now is group/formal shots, which the 45-100 is super convenient for. But this new 16-55 might give it a real run for its money! Great video & shoot, thank you for sharing.

[@Shaunrosss]

I’m gonna need to get one!

[@jbivphotography]

I’m deff getting one. It was really good to use.

[@dave.mac.d]

I just got the old one used this year. Mainly as a video lens. I don’t mind the size, so I won’t be updating anytime soon. It’s a pricy lens!

[@MoTecZA]

That’s my Go too 16 55 and 90 f2

[@jbivphotography]

That’s a great setup. I’ll probably start doing it myself.

[@murlidhr]

do compare it with Sigma 18-50

[@jbivphotography]

Oooo that would be a fun comparison

[@timblass4811]

To be honest the Sigma18-50 is a great lens. £400 v £1100. Far sharper and lighter on my XH2. I miss the aperture ring though and am seriously considering the Mark 2 now with its weight reduction.

[@artr.2082]

Would love to see a three-lens comparison between this, the previously mentioned Sigma, and the Tamron 17-70.

[@sgoody1]

Me too. Going though that dilemma right now!

[@Sleepyboiwonder]

@@timblass4811when you have it on your xh2, what dial do you use to change aperture? I have an xh2 but only have pure prime lenses with aperture rings

[@TheFat_Operator]

Actually, the original version is also on the list of lenses that can resolve the new 40 megapixel sensors 👍🏾

[@Mihandust1]

if you use dji mic 2,upgrade fraimware for better sound quality your sond ins so muddy

[@jbivphotography]

Thanks. I was wondering why it sounded like that.

[@stayuntilforever]

Those window shots would look great in black and white. The lens itself is a great lens for weddings but not for private use. I find it too big and lacking of character compared to the 1.4 lenses. I might get it as a travel landscape lens for my work though.

[@markewing7898]

I have the Mk1 version , which is a great lens. I don't think I will be paying the difference to get this one. If it was faster , say f2 or 1.8 , I would probably buy it, but then it would certainly be more expensive still.

[@tomheim9516]

And heavier! 🙂

[@v_stands_for_value124]

If the old 16-55 was heavy hit the gym my friend, I'd love to let you hold my R6mk with full cage + sigma 105 1.4

[@Susieque963]

🙄

[@mvillar24]

I used to say that back in my DSLR days --- three Canon f/2.8 L zooms and three primes in a shoulder bag all day for multiple days in a row. Getting old sucks. These days I hit the gym three days per week and still appreciate going lighter.

[@Cary_mac]

240g or about 1/2 lb weight savings! Absolutely nutty.

[@jbivphotography]

It's such a big difference when you hold the 2 of them in your hands.

[@vascotek]

They took the magic 3d pop out of the mark 2. images look flatter then my ex

[@Cary_mac]

For the price I am genuinely curious how it compares to the sigma 18-50. It’s over 2x the price and I’ve seen great reviews.

[@john-wiggains]

Don’t know how they compare, but I love my sigma 18-50. It lives on my Fuji XH2 and I never feel limited by the lens EXCEPT with reach sometimes - but the extra 5mm here won’t matter.

[@Cary_mac]

@@john-wiggains what use case? I am curious for weddings and low light performance really

[@BobbyGN268]

@@Cary_mac I have the Sigma 18-50 and I love it on my XT-5 but I use it as a travel lens so size is my main factor. If you are looking for a wedding zoom lens I recommend to take a look at the 17-70 f2.8 by Tamron, it has IS and a very versatile zoom range.

[@jbivphotography]

That would be a great comparison. Maybe I'll see if I can get my hands on the 18-50. I believe I used it in the past for a review but I don't totally remember my results since that was a couple of years ago.

[@Rholmes2010]

I haven't found any issues with the Sigma except for some vignetting. Its so light and small! Be interested in your take on it. ​@jbivphotography

[@jayk3642]

Lens doesn’t have OIS

[@jbivphotography]

Yep. I’m not sure why I thought it did 🫠🫠

[@stephanedubarry8624]

The new camera just announced has no ibis neither so the new combo has no ibis ... the new camera is not wr so the new combo in addition to not be ibis is also not wr... fuji x summit has presented the new camera mointed with the 27/2.8 to benefit for tiny dimensions but the 27/2.8 is still (at least in my home town)out of stock !

[@OlaLundström-n8q]

Is it not enough to have IBIS in the camera?

[@jayk3642]

@@jbivphotography All good…I just got really excited for a minute when I heard you say that 😂

[@alanc6416]

Definitely try it out but it seems you’re over excited about this lens and only if you use it compared to your usual prime setup you’ll find out if it works for you or not. Good luck

[@vukhuat4251]

I'm owning the Mk1 and it is the lens I use the most. I will wait for Sigma and Tamron to see if they have any plans for their lenses such as MK2 of the 17-70mm then I will make decision.

[@timblass4811]

Got to try out the Mark 2, having been a Mark 1 user for 4 years+. Felt weird on the XH2, really light and back heavy. Reliably informed this is the same body as the Mark 1, but initially felt plasticky/polycarbonate outer shell, but not. Granted, no ibis, but not an issue personally from Mark 1 and 250g lighter now so less of an issue still. Will be interesting to feel what it's likexafter 2-3 hours in the hand. Was really impressed by the Sigma 18-50 I got try on loan. Picture quality wise it knocked the mark 1 out of the park on a 40MP Xh2 body. Unfair comparison but shows how far lens tech has come in the last 10 years. Sigma slighlty lighter and smaller than mark 2 but not significantly so, but great price point so head-to-head comparison would be fascinating to see.

[@simon359]

For this kind of lens, it seems that leaving it at F2 8 the whole range, would give you enough bokeh at all focal lengths?

[@jbivphotography]

It seemed like it for my short time I had with it. In the photos you see I pretty much left it at 2.8 aside from the group shots.

[@simon359]

@@jbivphotography This might make an excellent street photography lens!

[@rdbimages]

@@simon359 I would think it is kind of big for 'discreet' street photography, especially with the lens extended (remember: it is not internal zoom).

[@simon359]

@ Yes, primes can be smaller, but I have use the old version of the 16-552.8 in street photography and never had an issue. But if you’re uncomfortable, you can use a prime lens, which is somewhat smaller. My self would use a lens like this for travel, since the new version is smaller and lighter. But I don’t see any other major advantage unless you’re doing video.

[@인생은한번-e5h]

Can I ask you for a comparison with sigma 1850?

[@pforpramit]

First view and first like! :)

[@jbivphotography]

Thanks for watching. I hope you enjoyed the photos.

[@pforpramit]

@@jbivphotography I already saw you and your works with this new beast in that Fujifilm event stream earlier today and now this - certainly a treat! :)

[@Powerland56]

Please compare the IQ with the MkI. 🙏

[@jbivphotography]

I’ll make sure to do that if I can get my hands on the lenses.

[@63MacGuy]

I didn't think it had OIS?

[@jbivphotography]

I thought it did. I could be mistaken.

[@Shaunrosss]

@@jbivphotographyi just looked it up, and everything I’ve found says it does not have ois.

[@druidobianco9734]

No OIS in the name, it doesn’t have it

[@matthewchute5514]

Just came to write the same thing

[@tonydesarzec907]

Mine is on order!

[@jbivphotography]

Awesome! Can't wait to see what you create.

[@r423fplip]

Thanks for the information. I feel so much better.

[@tonydesarzec907]

@@r423fplip I've got mine now and it is a superb lens. I'm looking forward to working with it.

[@djxcel23]

Wish it had image stabilization.

[@jbivphotography]

Yeah I misspoke on that. Idk why I thought it had OIS on it.

[@cloud-bytes]

A body like X-T5 with IS will be fine. No need for OIS + IS on this short focal length like this.

[@HaydnMichael-o7f]

Erdman Dam

[@alanjcravophotography4149]

2.8? That’s it? Come on Fujifilm !! I will keep the sigma, less than half price…

[@ducko1988]

Looks good but you can’t beat a prime

[@Vincent.Morreale]

Great !

[@jbivphotography]

Thanks! Glad to hear.

[@qqqken100]

Fujifilm 16-55 II 2.0 Only attractive

[@errole]

I wish the zoom was in body and not stick out

[@jbivphotography]

I will say I'm personally a fan of in body zooms but I'm assuming they didn't do that so they could make it smaller. 🤷‍♂️

[@vilmavisuals]

They need to sponsor you with that lens’s lol

[@jbivphotography]

❤️❤️

[@Dave24hrs]

4:26 Jitteriness of the sound? What? 😂

[@6whatnext]

F1.8 would have been interesting

[@jbivphotography]

That would have been crazy. There’s no way it could have been smaller though.

[@JohnIvoryMusic]

Welcome to the dark side 😈😆

[@jbivphotography]

😂😂😂😂

[@Cartiyayyay]

How can we trust your reviews now if you’re a Fujifilm ambassador? You have a bias opinion from the start

[@jbivphotography]

1. I've been a Fujifilm ambassador for 5 years 2. Fujifilm does not pay me (never has. I don't even get gear for free) 3. I've been using ONLY fujifilm cameras for 8 years (I'm already biased because it's all I use) Everyone is biased in some sort of way. That's why when you consume reviews you should look for the people who use Fujifilm only like myself, as well as people who don't use it as much.

[@tomkssarmks2804]

Shadow area too dark, try canon

[@jbivphotography]

That has more to do with the edit than the camera brand.

[@faichan6620]

I will not buy because I already have sigma 18-50 f2.8 and the price is cheaper than this fuji one ...

[@TungstenOvergaard]

Most interesting future content on Fuji is the honest comparison of Sigma 18-50 with this one. Because difference in price and size/weight goes to Sigma, no doubt.

[@r423fplip]

Thanks for telling us.

[@superstringsbro]

It should have had image stabilization 👎

[@r423fplip]

Why ? It would increase the size, weight and cost. For no gain.

[@superstringsbro]

@ no, the gain would be image stabilization