{"id":2225,"date":"2013-08-16T15:01:59","date_gmt":"2013-08-16T20:01:59","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/admiringlight.com\/blog\/?p=2225"},"modified":"2013-08-19T13:36:33","modified_gmt":"2013-08-19T18:36:33","slug":"review-fujifilm-fujinon-xc-16-50mm-f3-5-5-6-ois","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/admiringlight.com\/blog\/review-fujifilm-fujinon-xc-16-50mm-f3-5-5-6-ois\/","title":{"rendered":"Review: Fujifilm Fujinon XC 16-50mm f\/3.5-5.6 OIS"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Fujifilm<\/a>
Fujifilm Fujinon XC 16-50mm f\/3.5-5.6 OIS<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The release of the Fujifilm X-M1 (reviewed here<\/a>) also saw the release of a new kit lens from Fuji. \u00a0This new lens, the XC 16-50mm f\/3.5-5.6 OIS, is unique among kit lenses for a few reasons. \u00a0First, it’s one of the very few inexpensive kit lenses that starts with a super-wide focal length. \u00a0The 16-50mm on Fuji has a wide-angle focal length of 16mm, which gives the same field of view as a 24mm lens on a Full Frame camera. \u00a0Most APS-C kit lenses start at 17 or 18mm, which is a less extreme wide-angle view. \u00a0I personally much<\/em> prefer the wider starting point on a standard zoom, as I tend to favor a wider view. \u00a0Second, it’s the first lens in Fuji’s recently coined ‘XC’ line. \u00a0Fuji calls this new lens line its ‘casual’ line. \u00a0Basically, it’s to differentiate consumer-oriented lenses like this from the more enthusiast\/professional ‘XF’ line. \u00a0They’ve omitted an aperture ring on this lens, and it’s got a cheaper all-plastic construction, but there are plenty of good lenses in the world that are built like that, so let’s dig deeper.<\/p>\n

Around the Lens: Build Quality<\/h3>\n
\"Fujifilm<\/a>
Fujifilm Fujinon XC 16-50mm f\/3.5-5.6 OIS<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Unlike the other Fujinon lenses for the X-mount, the XC 16-50mm’s body is entirely plastic. \u00a0The zoom ring is ribbed plastic, the focus ring is ribbed plastic, the filter threads are plastic…even the mount is plastic. \u00a0Fuji has assured us that the optics are glass, however. \u00a0The lens is a 12 element design with three aspherical elements and one extra-low dispersion element, which should help control lens aberrations. \u00a0I am never a fan of a lens with a plastic mount, as it simply lends a ‘cheap’ feeling to the lens. \u00a0Aside from the plastic mount, however, the XC 16-50mm is actually pretty well-built for a kit zoom and the all plastic build makes the 16-50mm feel quite light.. \u00a0The zoom ring has nice resistance, the extending lens tube has no wobble, and everything feels tight and put-together. \u00a0You can hear the gears moving when you zoom, and it does make one wonder how robust the mechanical innards will hold up to long term use.<\/p>\n

While not as reassuring as a solid metal body, the barrel plastic feels like a pretty high quality plastic. \u00a0It feels a lot better than many other cheap kit zooms, though still a noticeable step down from the mostly metal construction of the Fuji 18-55mm f\/2.8-4 and the metal Fuji prime lenses.<\/p>\n

I received the 16-50mm as part of the X-M1 kit, and surprisingly, only a proper front lens cap was included. \u00a0Fuji decided to simply include a translucent ultra-cheap plastic rear cover in the kit, which is really cutting corners a bit too much, though they did see fit to include a nice bayonet mounted petal lens hood.<\/p>\n

Like most standard zoom lenses, the zoom system on the 16-50mm is external, with the lens the shortest at 16mm and longest at 50mm. \u00a0When set to its shortest length, the 16-50mm is roughly the size of the Fuji 60mm f\/2.4 Macro, though lighter due to the plastic construction.<\/p>\n

\"Fujinon<\/a>
Fujinon XC 16-50mm at 16mm (left) and 50mm (right)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Around the Lens: Handling, Operation and Autofocus<\/h3>\n

The lens handles really well due to its light weight and relatively small size. \u00a0The zoom ring and focus ring operate nicely, though I do wish Fuji had opted to put a rubber grip on the zoom ring. \u00a0 The plastic ridges don’t grip nearly as well as rubber or even metal, and sometimes my hands would slip on the smooth plastic of the zoom ring. \u00a0The included lens hood snaps securely on to the front bayonet mount, though occasionally, I have a little trouble getting it to snap on correctly. \u00a0Still, I’d rather have this issue than the rather loose hoods I’ve experienced on the Fuji 14mm and 18-55mm, as the 16-50mm’s hood stays firmly in place when attached.<\/p>\n

The autofocus motor in the 16-50mm is perfectly silent and reasonably fast. It’s not ultra-fast, but it does lock focus in a reasonable amount of time to get the shot. \u00a0I have found focus accuracy to be relatively good, though I have had occasional minor misses when focusing up close in certain lighting conditions. Overall, AF accuracy is on a high level.<\/p>\n

\"Fujifilm<\/a>
Fujifilm X-M1 with Fujinon 16-50mm<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

There are no external switches on the XC 16-50mm, and no aperture ring as mentioned before. \u00a0Aperture is controlled by the rear command dial on all X-Series cameras, though the X-E1 and X-Pro 1 will require the latest firmware to use this capability. \u00a0I didn’t harp on the removal of the aperture ring in my X-M1 review. Most people have attributed that decision to the X-M1, rather unfairly, as the X-M1 works just like any other X-Series body using R lenses with aperture rings. However, I do think it’s a poor decision to remove the ring from this lens as well as the XF 27mm and future XC lenses. \u00a0I love having an aperture ring on my Fuji lenses…it’s one of the great things about the system. \u00a0While aperture control works just fine on the 16-50, having aperture work differently for this lens than for almost all other lenses in the system means your muscle memory when switching between this lens and other Fuji lenses has to change…there are different control paradigms when using different lenses, and that slows you down as a photographer.<\/p>\n

There isn’t a switch to quickly disable the 16-50’s OIS system either, so if you want to turn off the image stabilizer, it has to be done through the menu system or the Q menu on your camera. \u00a0Speaking of the image stabilizer, the optical stabilization on the 16-50mm is quite good, but not at the level of the best OIS systems around. \u00a0I found the 16-50mm generally gave me 2-3 stops of extra handholdability in most situations. \u00a0I could get shots at around 1\/10 second about 50% of the time at 50mm, and about 1\/4 second at 16mm, though neither of these limits were really consistent. \u00a0About 2 stops was almost always good, but the 3 stop limit was more hit and miss. \u00a0It would have been nice to have similar performance to the excellent Fuji 55-200mm in this department, but the OIS system is at least competent.<\/p>\n

Continue: Image Quality<\/a><\/h4>\n

<\/p>\n

Image Quality: Sharpness<\/h3>\n
\"Boats<\/a>
Boats Under Broad Street – Fujifilm X-M1 with Fujinon XC 16-50mm f\/3.5-5.6 OIS<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The Fujinon XC 16-50mm is a mixed bag when it comes to sharpness. \u00a0Center sharpness is quite good throughout the range right from the widest aperture. Unfortunately, edges of the frame are noticeably softer at wider apertures. \u00a0On the wide end, the edges sharpen up considerably about one to two stops down, so that by f\/8, the picture is reasonably sharp across the frame, though the edges are never quite perfect. \u00a0At the longer end, I’ve found the edges to be a little better wide open than at the wide end, but the lens still needs to be stopped down a bit for optimum sharpness.<\/p>\n

Overall, not a bad result here, especially considering the lens’ paltry $100 entry fee when paired with the X-M1, and the wide starting focal length. \u00a0It’s good for a kit lens, but falls short of the Fuji 18-55’s performance.<\/p>\n

Image Quality: Bokeh<\/h3>\n
\"The<\/a>
The 16-50mm produces rather nice bokeh. This is at 50mm and f\/5.6<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The out of focus areas on the 16-50mm are quite neutrally rendered. \u00a0They are not perfect, but for a kit zoom, it’s a rather impressive performance. \u00a0There are no obvious rings around specular highlights at the long end, and while wider views do have a little more nervousness, it’s not terrible. \u00a0There isn’t a lot of blur to be had with the 16-50mm unless you’re focusing relatively close, but it can provide some subject separation, and does it rather nicely here.<\/p>\n

Image Quality: Chromatic Aberration, Color, Contrast and Flare<\/h3>\n

While the XC 16-50mm might be only average in sharpness, it’s in the control of other lens characteristics where it starts to shine a little bit. \u00a0Chromatic aberration is relatively well controlled, with a minor amount\u00a0of lateral CA being visible in some shots, but very easily corrected. \u00a0The lens is very resistant to purple fringing and there’s really not much longitudinal chromatic aberration, which is seen as magenta and green fringes in front of and behind the focus point.<\/p>\n

\"Hayden<\/a>
Hayden Falls – Fujifilm X-M1 with Fujinon XC 16-50mm f\/3.5-5.6 OIS<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The 16-50mm has really nice color and a great contrast curve that really give the lens a great rendering. \u00a0I said to a few people after shooting with the lens for a while that the 16-50mm isn’t the sharpest lens, but images out of the 16-50mm don’t\u00a0feel<\/em> like those out of a kit lens. \u00a0Most kit lenses are very sterile in their rendering, with plenty of lens aberrations and no depth to the images. \u00a0The 16-50mm, on the other hand, gives really deep images with great color and contrast, even if they aren’t the sharpest shots in the world on the frame edges. \u00a0In real world use, I’ve found that I prefer this approach. \u00a0Sharpness can be great, but if a lens is sharp, but makes pictures that look flat, it takes a lot more work to bring out the magic in the image. \u00a0The 16-50mm gives a great look right out of the camera, and that makes using it quite nice.<\/p>\n

The 16-50mm is also quite resistant to flare, which is a nice surprise. \u00a0I have found it difficult to produce any sort of complex flare when shooting into the sun, and even veiling flare, which displays as a loss of contrast at the frame edge, is largely absent.<\/p>\n

Continue: Conclusion and Image Samples<\/a><\/h4>\n

<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/h3>\n

Pros<\/h4>\n