{"id":4705,"date":"2015-02-25T22:20:37","date_gmt":"2015-02-26T03:20:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/admiringlight.com\/blog\/?p=4705"},"modified":"2016-03-09T08:54:04","modified_gmt":"2016-03-09T13:54:04","slug":"review-fujifilm-fujinon-xf-16-55mm-f2-8-r-lm-wr","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/admiringlight.com\/blog\/review-fujifilm-fujinon-xf-16-55mm-f2-8-r-lm-wr\/","title":{"rendered":"Review: Fujifilm Fujinon XF 16-55mm f\/2.8 R LM WR"},"content":{"rendered":"

The past year has seen Fujifilm release several new high-quality lenses. \u00a0The latest is the Fuji 16-55mm f\/2.8 R LM WR. \u00a0While the Fuji X-Series has had a relatively fast standard zoom for a few years now, with the 18-55mm f\/2.8-4, the 16-55mm fills the need for a constant f\/2.8 zoom with a wider 16mm starting point. \u00a0The 16-55mm f\/2.8 lacks optical stabilization like its older brother, but promises to make up for that fact with exceptional optics. \u00a0Fuji seems to have gone all out on the optical design of the 16-55, sacrificing a compact size in the process as well. \u00a0The XF 50-140mm f\/2.8 released at the end of 2014 has already proven to be a top-notch optic. \u00a0Can the 16-55mm follow suit?<\/p>\n

\"The<\/a>
The Fuji 16-55mm f\/2.8 Review<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

If you\u2019re not familiar with my reviews, I review from a real world shooting perspective. You won\u2019t find lens charts or resolution numbers here. There are plenty of other sites that cover those. I review products on how they act for me as a photographic tool.<\/em><\/p>\n

Construction and Handling<\/h3>\n

The XF 16-55mm f\/2.8 is Fuji’s top-end professional-grade standard zoom lens. \u00a0It’s apparent that Fujifilm wasn’t particularly set on minimizing size with this lens, as it’s quite large in comparison to its only slightly slower brother, the 18-55mm f\/2.8-4, and it lacks an optical stabilizer as well. \u00a0However, despite the large size, the lens is well constructed and handles decently on a Fuji body with a substantial grip. \u00a0This is a lens for the X-T1 or one of the X-E or X-Pro bodies with the additional handgrip. Fuji includes a nice petal lens hood that reverses for storage, though it does add extra width to an already rather fat lens.<\/p>\n

\"The<\/a>
The 16-55mm f\/2.8 is a large lens for an APS-C standard zoom for mirrorless cameras<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The lens is constructed predominantly of metal, with high-grade plastics making up the extending inner tube of the lens. The rubber-gripped zoom ring operates smoothly and evenly, with no stickiness or zoom creep. \u00a0I was surprised by the relatively light damping on the zoom ring, which feels similar to that on the 18-55mm. \u00a0I would have preferred a bit more resistance here. \u00a0Luckily, both the focus ring and aperture ring have just the right amount of resistance. \u00a0The Focus ring is well damped and smooth to operate while the aperture ring is almost identical to the one on the 50-140mm f\/2.8, which is a good thing. \u00a0It’s nice and firm with solid detents at each 1\/3 stop, making it easy to move by difficult to accidentally change the f-stop.<\/p>\n

The lens is weather-sealed and has the same air exhaust slots on the bottom that the 18-135mm features, but thankfully doesn’t have the spongy feel to the end of the zoom range like the 18-135 did. \u00a0Given that it’s the middle of winter here (and we had a particularly cold stretch during my testing of the lens), I didn’t use the lens in rain, though I did shoot quite a bit in moderate snowfall, and the lens performed admirably. \u00a0I’m still not a fan of the ‘surrounding’ rubber gasket at the lens mount, and would prefer one that gets sandwiched against the mount plate. \u00a0Still, the lens didn’t allow any moisture into the lens body or camera during my shooting, even after thawing with snow on it.<\/p>\n

Overall construction of the lens is fairly solid, though it falls a bit short of the very best built lenses for other systems, and even against the 50-140mm. \u00a0There is a very small amount of wobble and flex to the extending lens tube that isn’t present on other lenses I’ve recently reviewed (the Samsung 16-50mm and the Sony 16-35mm). \u00a0The lens does extend about an inch and a half at the long end, as seen below.<\/p>\n

\"The<\/a>
The 16-55mm at 16mm (left) and 55mm (right)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Autofocus performance<\/h3>\n

The 16-55mm features a linear motor that is quite fast and essentially silent. \u00a0In good light, focus locks on nearly instantly, and while it slows down slightly in dimmer light, the lens maintains acceptable speed. \u00a0I had excellent focus accuracy with the XF 16-55, in both good and poor light.<\/p>\n

This paragraph is where I would normally review the optical stabilizer in a lens, which the 16-55mm controversially lacks. \u00a0While many pro-grade DSLR standard zooms lack stabilizers, for systems that rely on optical stabilization, the lack of one in this day and age is somewhat unusual. \u00a0Fuji claims they removed the OIS system from the 16-55mm to allow for better image quality while still keeping the size manageable. \u00a0This may be true, but I wonder about the size differences. \u00a0The lens is considerably larger than the 18-55mm f\/2.8-4. \u00a0That lens is the same speed at the wide end and one stop slower at the long end, but has an OIS unit. \u00a0It’s also half the weight and significantly smaller in both length and width.<\/p>\n

I do wish that Fuji had included OIS in the 16-55mm, but to be honest, the situations where I wished for a stabilizer weren’t all that common. \u00a0Now let’s see if the lens lives up to the hype with regards to image quality.<\/p>\n

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

<\/p>\n

Image Quality<\/h3>\n

Sharpness<\/h4>\n
\"Cold<\/a>
Cold Columbus Morning – Fujifilm X-T1 with Fujinon XF 16-55mm f\/2.8 @ 33mm, f\/8<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The 16-55mm has some lofty standards to set when it comes to image sharpness. \u00a0The cheaper and smaller 18-55mm f\/2.8-4 is revered for its high image quality, and so there really needs to be a significant improvement in image quality to justify the higher price and increased size. \u00a0For the most part, the 16-55mm meets these goals quite handily.<\/p>\n

The lens produces images with outstanding central\u00a0image sharpness at any focal length, and at any aperture (until diffraction sets in beyond f\/11). \u00a0The extremely high sharpness even continues all the way to the corners at f\/2.8 between about 25mm and 55mm. \u00a0There is some border softness at the wide end of the zoom range at wide apertures, though it’s still perfectly usable there. \u00a0Stopped down the lens is extremely sharp from corner to corner at all focal lengths and\u00a0most<\/em> focus distances.<\/p>\n

This is the only real downside when it comes to image sharpness. \u00a0The lens doesn’t perform quite as well on further focus targets as it does closer up, though in most situations, you’d be hard pressed to tell. \u00a0However, there appear to be some focus distances (and I’d be hard pressed to pin down exactly what they are), where the images get somewhat soft at the edges. \u00a0It’s something I saw crop up from time to time in images when out shooting, though overall it was a rare occurrence. \u00a0I’d chalk it up to poor technique, but I even had a few of these images show up when shooting tripod mounted in good light. \u00a0However, even when this happened, image quality was still excellent in the central region and very good on the borders. \u00a0Overall, it’s hard to ask much more from a zoom lens, and it definitely shows an advantage over the 18-55mm, as I discovered in my head to head tests. \u00a0For an idea of 100% zoom level sharpness, take a look at that comparison here.<\/a><\/p>\n

Bokeh<\/h4>\n

The 16-55mm features a constant f\/2.8 aperture, allowing for some nice subject separation throughout the focal range. \u00a0The bokeh produced by the 16-55 is generally quite pleasant, with soft transitions out of focus and a general smoothness to the background. \u00a0Specular highlights aren’t perfect, however, and do show the typical artifacts that are common with lenses containing aspherical elements. \u00a0There is some bright ring outlining and onion-ring insides to specular highlights, but overall, it performs better than the average standard zoom in this department.<\/p>\n

\"In<\/a>
In the Snow – Fujifilm X-T1 with Fujinon XF 16-55mm f\/2.8 R @ 55mm, f\/2.8<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Color, Contrast and Chromatic Aberration<\/h4>\n

One of the areas where the 16-55mm really shines is in image contrast and color rendition. \u00a0More than anything else, this is what really stands out about the lens. \u00a0It produces images with exceptional contrast right from f\/2.8, with high local and global contrast that makes images simply pop. \u00a0Colors are rich and saturated and produce a really lovely look that doesn’t require much post-processing at all.<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, the exceptional characteristics in image contrast and color rendition don’t extend to chromatic aberration performance. \u00a0The one truly weak area in the 16-55mm’s imaging performance is in lateral chromatic aberration control. \u00a0Quite visible lateral CA is present at all focal lengths and aperture settings, especially towards the corners. \u00a0While these aberrations can be almost entirely corrected in post-processing, it was a minor disappointment in what is otherwise an extremely solid lens optically.<\/p>\n

\"Winter<\/a>
Winter Sunrise – Fujifilm X-T1 with Fujinon XF 16-55mm f\/2.8 R @ 55mm, f\/2.8<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Distortion, Flare and Vignetting<\/h4>\n

The 16-55mm f\/2.8 produces images that are predominantly free of distortion in field shooting. \u00a0There is some very minor barrel distortion present at the wide end, but elsewhere, at least when viewing RAW files in Lightroom, there is virtually none present.\u00a0These results, however, are the result of in-camera corrections to the native optical distortion produced by the lens, which can be fairly hefty. \u00a0However, since the corner sharpness is still quite good after digital correction, I don’t mind the approach Fuji has taken here. Most RAW converters will automatically apply the distortion profile, so you shouldn’t see any distortion in regular use of the lens.<\/p>\n

The lens performs quite well against bright light as well, showing minimal loss of contrast in veiling flare situations and only a few small green or magenta ghosts present when a bright lights like the sun are prominent in the image frame. The image to the right is a worst-case scenario for flare. \u00a0In most images it was much less prominent, even with the sun in the frame.<\/p>\n

The lens is also a decent performer when it comes to vignetting. \u00a0There is some visible light falloff on the edges at f\/2.8 throughout the zoom range, but it’s largely gone by f\/4.<\/p>\n

Overall, the performance of the 16-55mm is on a very high level. \u00a0It’s definitely a lens that can pull duty as an event lens for wide aperture work and especially as a landscape lens, where high image quality is needed at a variety of focal lengths.<\/p>\n

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

<\/p>\n

\"16-55_single\"<\/a>Conclusion<\/h3>\n

Pros<\/h4>\n
    \n
  • Well-built lens with weather-sealing and smooth and positive controls<\/li>\n
  • Fast and accurate autofocus<\/li>\n
  • Excellent image sharpness right from f\/2.8 throughout the focal range<\/li>\n
  • Outstanding contrast and rich saturated color<\/li>\n
  • Bokeh is fairly nice for a standard zoom<\/li>\n
  • Good flare control in most situations<\/li>\n
  • Minimal vignetting<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

    Cons<\/h4>\n
      \n
    • Quite large and heavy for a mirrorless standard zoom<\/li>\n
    • Pronounced lateral chromatic aberration<\/li>\n
    • No optical stabilizer<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

      The Fujifilm XF 16-55mm f\/2.8 R LM WR is a pro-grade zoom lens, and it certainly performs like one. \u00a0It’s got excellent sharpness right from the maximum f\/2.8 aperture, good bokeh for the most part and truly stunning contrast. \u00a0Optically, the only real flaw is the presence of lateral CA.<\/p>\n

      The biggest knocks on the 16-55mm are going to be about size and the lack of an optical stabilizer. \u00a0The lens is quite large, though it’s not particularly unwieldy on a body with a grip. \u00a0The complaints come in comparison to the competition. \u00a0Fuji’s own 18-55mm f\/2.8-4 has an optical stabilizer, is almost as fast, and is downright tiny in comparison. \u00a0Samsung’s 16-50mm f\/2-2.8 is a full stop faster at the wide end, has an OIS unit, and is still slightly smaller and lighter than the Fuji. \u00a0The size is, therefore, a concern. \u00a0However, ultimately I don’t view it as a deal breaker depending on your uses.<\/p>\n

      If you’re after an all-purpose compact lens, it’s obviously not going to fit the bill (look to the 18-55). \u00a0However, if you are looking for a lens to produce prime-like image quality over a range of focal lengths, then the 16-55mm will work quite nicely. \u00a0I think the 16-55mm is especially well suited to professional event shooting for Fuji users, and for landscape photography, particularly in inclement weather where changing lenses isn’t a great idea. \u00a0You can bring just the 16-55 and the 50-140mm, and cover a huge range with impeccable image quality in only two lenses. \u00a0The weather-sealing only adds to that usage scenario.<\/p>\n

      The $1199 price tag and the lack of a stabilizer may drive away some buyers, but for those looking for great optical quality in a single lens solution, the 16-55mm is hard to beat. \u00a0Fuji’s created another excellent lens for the X-Series lineup, and while it’s not quite as optically incredible as the 50-140mm, it’s darn close and makes a great one-two punch with that lens for serious shooters.<\/p>\n

      Purchasing your gear through the B&H Link below helps support Admiring Light at no additional cost to you:<\/em>
      \n