XF 16-55 2.8 & XF 500 5.6 First Impressions Review

[@justcallmebones]

This is the most detailed video I have seen on the new 16-55mm yet. I appreciate you showing the difference in bokeh and sharpness throughout the aperture. That being said, even with the size and weight reduction, I can't justify upgrading to the new lens currently. If I were to start over, I would absolutely pick this up today. People on a budget shouldn't ignore the original though. If you can get the Mark I for less than half the price of the new version then that's truly incredible.

[@guillandanthony711]

I'm not moving to the Mark II either. I like the size of the first version. Yes, it is heavy, but it also feels and looks "premium".

[@Nathansmithphotography]

I own 10 Fuji lenses and the 16 to 55 has been my most used Fuji lens. But there are times where I haven’t used it because of the weight and a bit on the size. I just received the new version two days ago after pre-ordering it in October. Can’t wait to really put it through its paces.

[@billsimmons1753]

I didn't like the original 16-55 2.8 on my X-T5 and returned it. It just wasn't satisfying on the 40 mp sensor. Something in the IQ was lacking, maybe overall resolution or microdynamics, I'm not sure what exactly. The new version sounds promising.

[@vistek]

Thanks for the comment, Bill. This is precisely what this new version attempts to address. I didn't have time to actually test its resolving power with the 40mp sensors - but I'd like to imagine that some online has done that. I'd be interested in seeing those results. My cursory tests were very promising - and my enthusiasm is absolutely genuine.

[@matthewchute5514]

Super cool and great first impression video! May I ask how distortion was with the 16-55? Im looking for a zoom for my XH2 (Currently have four fuji primes). I tested out the tamron 17-70, and while there's so much to like about that lens, there was crazy distortion specifically at 20mm that wasn't correctable in Lightroom (that tough donut shape distortion.) Hopefully this lens is solid in that regard? Thanks!

[@vistek]

Hi Matthew. Thanks for the comment. I do have a distortion chart, but I ran out of time and the distortion test didn't make it. I did a flare test, but that didn't make the cut (if you are curious, there is much less veiling flare in the Mk II, but spot flares are more apparent vs the Mk I). I also didn't have time to test vignetting or breathing - but just from the focus chart, I'd say vignetting was minimal.

[@cedric3379]

the new 16-55 with its lens hood on (forward or reversely attached), would it bump on a plain surface on XT5 or XH2?

[@vistek]

Hi Cedric, I'm not sure I understand the question. Could you possibly rephrase it? I'm unclear about what you mean by "bump on a plain surface."

[@cedric3379]

@@vistek excuse me for my English. I was wondering like, if I got the lens with lens hood on, on a xt5 or xh2, and let's say I put the camera on the table, would it be wobbly on the table like phones with camera bumps?(like does the lens elevate the camera off the table a little bit because of its diameter)

[@vistek]

Hi Cedric - no problem. Good question - and honestly, I don't recall what it was like without using the external grip on my X-H2s. It's smaller than the original, so I think it is going to be quite flush with the camera body. The camera would likely lay flat with the lens hood on. Just a guess, though!

[@cedric3379]

@@vistek Appreciate it! Would definitely try it out when it comes out. I bet there are lots of people like me who cares if the lens stays flat with the camera which makes me willing to put the lens as a always-on my camera over a prime which usually has a humble profile.

[@Léon-x3c]

That sharpness straight from f2.8 at that size and weight? Yep, that's a purchase from me. I sold my Tamron 17-70 because I found it too big so this is a welcome replacement. Can't wait for it to arrive. Hope they make a new wide angle red badge soon. Also, lovely duck footage! This 500mm is out of my budget so the 150-600mm will have to do.

[@vistek]

The 150-600 is still a great lens! Sure, there is a notable optical trade off, but not everyone is going to notice that, and I think versatility sometimes wins. The 16-55, however - oufff the Mark 2 really sets the bar high. It was not easy giving that lens back to Fujifilm!

[@runcmd1419]

Is the variable focus throw limited to the 16-55 ii for now?

[@SinSilla]

I've noticed that in none of those first hands on videos a lens hood is used with the 500mm. Were they not provided or were you not allowed to use it due to it making the lens bigger?

[@vistek]

I think that's just coincidence. The lens hood isn't needed often unless the sun is going to spike the lens, so likely it's just another thing to get in the way. I chose to use it as a protective device - there was no protective filter on the lens, and I have a history of breaking things.... so the lens hood was the safest bet.

[@tomjansen9895]

How about fitting this on a x-t50?

[@dwaynepiper3261]

I thought the original 16-55mm was over-rated and was considering adapting a Canon EF-S 17-55mm with OIS for video on X-T3. This new version looks very promising and the mage quality looks good from your samples. I believe the focus breathing appears better than the Canon from initial reports so its just missing OIS. How is the focus ring travel adjusted? Does it require a firmware upgrade and if so will older cameras be compatible is important? Some features of the 18-120mm were not compatible with older bodies. Not impressed with the IQ of the 500mm as does not look sharp from what I have seen. My understanding is the 500mm is the same GfX lens adapted with the FX Mount and a paint job.

[@SoowDeJu]

Since it is optimized for higher res sensors, how will it perform on an X-T3??

[@vistek]

Most of the optic qualities will be the same across any sensor/camera. However, when it comes to high resolution sensors, it should resolve better than the previous version. Even on my 26 MP sensor, the optical improvements were obvious and significant.