Fujifilm XF 16-55mm f2.8 review

Drumhead

Highly Recommended award Fujifilm's XF 16-55mm f2.8 is a high quality all-purpose zoom for the company's serial of X-mount bodies. It delivers a useful walkaround range of mountains equivalent to 24-83mm and a constant f2.8 focal ratio, not to mention weather-sealing. It's an unashamedly high-end lens aimed at pros World Health Organization'll love to couple it with the XF 50-140mm f2.8. It's a shame there's no optical stabilisation on the XF 16-55mm f2.8, just the performance could still swing-it for many an.

Pip out now!

Check prices on the Fujifilm XF 16-55mm f2.8 at Amazon, B&H, Adorama, or Wex. Or els get yourself a copy of my In Camera book or treat me to a coffee bean! Thanks!

Fujifilm XF 16-55mm f2.8 review

4th March 2015

Shorthand by

In depth

The Fujinon XF 16-55mm f2.8 is a high-last all-purpose zoom lens for Fujifilm's range of X-mount mirrorless cameras. Declared in January 2015, it's the third standard zoom for the X series, following the XF 18-55mm f2.8-4 kit zoom and the more Recent XF 18-135mm f3.5-5.6.

Decorated along an X-serial publication body, the XF 16-55mm delivers a useful general-propose range that starts at an equivalent of 24mm for wide-tilt coverage and ends at a runty telephoto equivalent of 83mm that's ideal for details or portraits. IT features a constant f2.8 focal ratio throughout the optical roam and the benefit of weather-sealing, making it the ideal partner for the toughened XT1 personify. Information technology also complements the existing XF 50-140mm which shares a ceaseless f2.8 point ratio and weather sealing.

Strangely absent from the XF 16-55mm f2.8 though is optical stabilisation, omitted to achieve the best image prize and 24mm equal coverage. I understand Fuji's reasons, merely the decision testament inevitably turn some potential buyers towards the cheaper XF 18-55mm or the broader XF 18-135mm. On that point are of course other pros and cons to all three models and in my review I'll help you make the right choice for your needs and budget. Since then many reviews will directly equivalence these all-purpose options, I thought process I'd also include whatever comparisons with the ultra-wide XF 10-24mm which shares a range of focal lengths.

Fujifilm XF 16-55mm f2.8 design and build select

The Fujinon XF 16-55mm f2.8 is in real time familiar as a member of the XF series of lenses, but becomes one of the heftiest models to date; indeed at the meter of writing, only the XF 40-150mm f2.8 was heavier in the range. It's not unwieldy, but it's certainly most comfortable when paired with larger bodies, ideally the X-Pro1 Oregon XT1, the latter pictured above.

I found it a sizeable but mostly comfortable combination with the XT1, although the petit mal epilepsy of optical stabilisation means you may yearn for a chunkier grip to hold onto. On that point's a few options available if you'd comparable to boost the grip on the XT1 or other models: I typically shoot my XT1 with an L bracket out from PhotoMadd, once more pictured preceding.

In terms of build quality there's nothing to complain about: the XF 16-55mm f2.8 feels very solid and confident in your workforce, and also becomes the third Fujinon lens to characteristic weather-waterproofing, following the XF 18-135mm and XF 40-150mm.

The zoom and focalization rings feel connatural to some other higher-cease Fujinon lenses: the former is mostly smooth while the last mentioned is damped more heavily allowing very fine adjustments to manual focus, victimisation a focus-by-wire system. As you sprain the zoom ring, the barrel fractionally retracts before extending an additive 23mm at the telephoto end.

As a high-cease XF lens, the XF 16-55mm features an aperture surround with marked f-numbers and hard Chicago meaning information technology can't turn out on the far side the A and maximum f2.8 values; this is in demarcation to lower-final stage XF lenses which employ liberated-wheeling, unmarked aperture rings. Finally, the lens mount is nerve and at the opposite end, the sink in draw measures 77mm and there's a bayonet fitting for the supplied lens hood. There's no switches on the barrel.

Okay, now for any physical comparisons. As I mentioned initially, the XF 16-55mm f2.8 is ane of the bigger XF lenses, measuring 83mm in diam, 106mm in length and weighing 655g. This makes it importantly chunkier than the XF 18-55mm f2.8-4 kit zoom, which measures 65x70mm and weighs just little than half the amount at 310g. Meanwhile the XF 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 sits inbetween the two, measuring 76x98mm and weighing 490g. For completeness, the XF 10-24mm f4 measures 78x87mm and weighs 410g. I've pictured the 16-55mm (below left) alongside the 10-24mm (below right).

But how does it compare outer the XF system? If you'ray a die-adamantine Prunus incisa owner, you can skip to the next section, but if you're interested in other systems, perhaps considering a switch, then information technology's interesting to make comparisons.So of these four zooms, the XF 16-55mm f2.8 is out and away the largest and heaviest, and you sure enough know you're carrying it roughly. Indeed I requisite to reconfigure the internal walls in my diminutive f-stop ICU to reconcile it, especially with the crystalline lens hood mounted.

The Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 12-40mm f2.8 shares a twin equivalent coverage (24-80mm), along with the same focal ratio, a closer focusing distance (20 vs 35cm), and weather-waterproofing too. Measuring 70x84mm and deliberation 382g though, the Olympus lens is well smaller and almost half the weight, keeping more in-line with the mirrorless concept of greater portability. While the f2.8 focal ratio means they'll share the same exposures under the same unstressed though, in that location are differences in their effective profundity-of-field. Fully-frame depth-of-field price, the Olympus and Fuji lenses are just about same to shooting at f5.6 and f4 severally, allowing the latter to deliver a shallower depth-of-playing area effect when both are pose to the selfsame focal ratio.

Thus a fairer comparison would be with a mistakable lens for an APS-C system, such as Canyon's EF-S 17-55mm f2.8. Measuring 84x111mm, weighing 645g and having a 77mm trickle thread, the Canon crystalline lens is remarkably related to the Fujinon, and both bequeath deliver essentially the same exposures and depth of field too. There are however primal differences in stipulation: the Canon is optically-stabilised while the Fuji is weather-sealed, has nine aperture blades versus seven, and zooms wider to 24mm equivalent versus 27mm.

When faced with the petit mal epilepsy of optical stabilisation, Fuji prefers to compare the XF 16-55mm f2.8 against its full-frame equivalents, citing the Canon and Nikkor 24-70mm f2.8 lenses, neither of which sport stabilization either. Taking the EF 24-70mm f2.8L II USM, the Canyon is slightly large at 89x113mm and heavier too at 805g, spell additionally requiring big 82mm filters. But remember this is a full-figure lense that's not only apochromatic for a much bigger detector, but which will also rescue a shallower depth of field at the same focal ratio and equivalent focal distance.

In terms of equal depth of field, it may be fairer to equate the XF 16-55mm f2.8 against the Canyon EF 24-70mm f4 which shares suchlike alive statistics of 83x93mm, 600g and a 77mm filter thread. It's one stop slower in footing of exposure, but approximately equivalent in terms of effective depth of battlefield. Oh yes, and the Canyon EF 24-70mm f4 also has sensory receptor stabilization.

Indeed in footing of the contest, I'd say the XF 16-55mm f2.8 is roughly similar in size and weight to comparable models. It's certainly not blazing a train of miniaturization, nor employing a revolutionary sensory system twist. The desire then is that the focusing has been on delivering excellent superior, and I'll be examining that in good a moment.

Fujifilm XF 16-55mm f2.8 optical construction

The Fujinon XF 16-55mm f2.8 delivers a imprecise function drift that's same to 24-83mm, making it abstract as a walk-around lens. At the wide-end you'll be able to capture bountiful landscapes and becoming interiors, while at the time-consuming last you'll get dainty portraits or close to inside information. Here's how the coverage looks along Brighton's seafront.

Above: Fujifilm XF 16-55mm at 16mm (left) and 55mm (right)

Fujifilm offers cardinal XF zooms with general ranges. The latest XF 16-55mm f2.8 joins the existing XF 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 and XF 18-55mm f2.8-4 zooms. Obviously the 16-55mm zooms a wider than the other two with 24mm equal reporting versus 27mm; it doesn't sound like much but it does give in it a effective edge when faced with large subjects or tight corners. Meanwhile at the long-end, it matches the 18-55mm kit soar up, but some fall short of the 18-135mm which extends around cardinal and a half times yearner to an equivalent of 203mm.

The down pat range is a very personal thing, merely for me I'd sooner have the wider 24mm eq coverage of the 16-55mm and carry a second lens for longer telephotograph reach if necessary. But there's more just range to decide between them.

Of the trio lenses, the 16-55mm is optically the brightest with a constant f2.8 focal ratio. The 18-55mm matches this when zoomed-wide, merely slows by matchless plosive consonant to f4 by the sentence it reaches the long-final stage. Meanwhile the 18-135mm starts slower at f3.5 and ends two completely Michigan slower at f5.6. Having a silvery and constant f2.8 central ratio allows you to maintain lower ISOs operating room high shutter speeds with the 16-55mm than the other cardinal lenses, and also allows you to more easily deliver a shallow depth-of-field effect. Here's some examples of the blurring you terminate look to achieve in praxis – it's obviously not as much as an justified brighter quality, the XF 56mm f1.2 springing to mind – but it may still be sufficient for your inevitably.

To a higher place: Fujifilm XF 16-55mm f2.8 at 55mm f2.8

Above: Fujifilm XF 16-55mm f2.8 at 55mm f2.8

Above: Fujifilm XF 16-55mm f2.8 at 55mm f2.8

For the maximum blurring, you'll want to get close to your taxable, and the XF 16-55mm will focus as close as 30cm from the focal plane; that's the same equally the 18-55mm and finisher than the 45cm of the 18-135mm. So the like most imprecise-purpose zooms, none of them are swell for macro operate, just as you can see in my examples here (close to or at the minimum distance), you john still seizure some smaller details. As a quick aside, a closest focusing distance of 30-40cm is par for the course with most rivals from other systems although the Mount Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 manages to focus down to 20cm.

The XF 16-55mm also employs nine aperture blades compared to seven for the 18-55mm and 18-135mm, not to mention the 10-24mm, allowing IT to deliver smoother circular impermissible-of-focus shapes as you close the aperture. Here's two shots seized at the maximum aperture with the lens set to 16mm, so 55mm. Judging from the forbidden-of-focus areas in the shots below and above, I'd say the 16-55mm is fairly well-behaved when it comes to version with mostly fluent transitions. Unsurprisingly for the optical construction, specular highlights can suffer from a little onion-ringing, and in that location's also evidence of a little of the cats-eye impression where circles become squashed into ovals in the corners, merely total it's not repentant for a bright zoom.

Above left: XF 16-55mm at 16mm f2.8. Above reactionary: XF 16-55mm at 55mm f2.8

At this level in my reviews I'd usually try the exteroception stabilisation of a lens, but as you already know, the XF 16-55mm doesn't offer information technology. I asked Fujifilm why it was omitted; here's the answer in awash. "There is a trade off relationship between OIS and image quality. Because of this, we own focused our attention to the quality facial expression of the images. We can see that both the Nikon and Canon ample frame equivalents do not support Office of Intelligence Support and although the Canon APS-C does support it, the central range has had to change to 27mm to allow this."

So optical stabilization was omitted on grounds of optical quality and in order to deliver 24mm equivalent coverage. Fujifilm also feels justified because neither the Canon or Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 lenses are optically stabilized, although as noted earlier in my review, these are full-frame models that can fork up a shallower depth of field at the same equivalent central length. To me they're not really tantamount lenses. Canyon's EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 is a closer catch, although piece it does have optic stabilization, IT doesn't zoom as thick.

We posterior compare eyeglasses all 24-hour interval long, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The quality of the XF 16-55mm f2.8 is certainly very good and I've gone into great detail across my results pages. But how much would it have been compromised with the improver of optical stabilization, and would 24mm coverage really not have been conceivable? After all Canon also has the EF 24-70mm f4 lens with stabilization for full-frame bodies, and patc it's optically a stop slower, the effective depth of field when mounted along a nourished-physique trunk is exchangeable.

I can tell you this much: I really did miss not having stabilization when shooting with the XF 16-55mm. I've full-grown so accustomed to a perfectly still simulacrum when composing that information technology was a bit of a shock to see my paradigm wobbling on-screen operating theatre in the finder, and of course I had to ensure I was shooting at appropriately faster shutter speeds to avoid any photographic camera shake.

This makes the XF 16-55mm a bitterly-sweet tasty for me. I want the quality and 24mm coverage, but I also lack sense organ stabilization in a general-use lens. It's from time to tim the likes of these that I love the Olympus system which builds stabilization into the consistency so that all lenses effectively become stable.

Ultimately it's a option that sole you buns make. Luckily there are two optically stabilized general-purpose zooms in the range if you need them, but naturally neither zooms out to 24mm nor boasts the ocular speed operating theatre quality of the 16-55mm.

In price of optical construction, the XF 16-55mm f2.8 employs 17 elements in 12 groups; tercet elements are aspheric and another three are extra low diffusion. This makes it the most complex of the three general-purpose Fujifilm zooms, although the 18-135mm is close behind with 16 elements in 12 groups.

Focusing takes place internally and is fleet and quiet. Decorated on the XT1, I experienced no issues focusing steady in low light. Once again my biggest issue optically concerns the want of stabilization.

Fujifilm XF 16-55mm f2.8 Image quality

For the rest of this paginate I'd same to pick out a selection of images I shot with the lens on an X-H1 body to illustrate its flexibility and also pick-up along opposite aspects of its performance. All shots are JPEGs straight stunned of the cameras with no alteration – you can download some of them – and more more – from my sample images Thomas Nelson Page.