Hi everyone,
A long shot maybe, but least I can do is ask ...
Long story short: currently I have a Fuji X-T2 and 3 lenses: (the original) 10-24mm, the 35mmF2 and the 55-200mm. I'm looking to maybe trade this in for a Fuji X-T5 and a 2-lens setup - and this is where I struggle.
Option A: 16-55 F2.8 + 70-300mm
Option B: 16-80 F4 + 70-300mm
Besides the (arguably more) important questions like "what are you going to use it for?" and "do you want a compact setup or does size/weight not matter?" I would simply like to get a good understanding how the image quality of the 16-55 and 16-80 compares to the 10-24 and the 55-200 (on the overlapping focal lengths).
I have been going down the rabbit hole online, but I always end up in endless debates arguments whatever forum I look into :) I'm not looking for the fastest lens ever or the sharpest corners in the whole wide world, I would be more than satisfied if one of these combinations is on a equal level as to what I have now in terms of sharpness / contrast.
(before you ask: I did have the 18-55 f2.8-4, but traded that in for the 10-24mm and the 35mm at one point. I did think at 55mm it wasn't that great (but I had the 55-200 for that), so if I now would switch to the 70-300, I hope the 16-55 or 16-80 can fill this gap)
So what I would like to ask is if someone here maybe has (some of) these lenses and is willing to take a few (raw) pictures to share (so I can look at them in Capture One and DxO Photolab)?
Ideally I'm looking for a photo taken:
@16mm or @18mm, at f4 and at f8 (to compare the 16-55 and 16-80 to the 10-24)
@55mm at f4 and at f8 (to compare the 16-55 and 18-60 to the 55-200)
(At 35mm I'm not that concerned - I'm considering to keep the 35mm anyway for city walks and stuff :-)
At >70mm I'm not that concerned either - the 55-200mm is at 200mm quite soft and what I've seen so far, the 70-300 is equal or better at the overlapping focal lengths.)
Using the same camera body on a tripod with a 10 second timer, lens stabilization (OIS) off (since the 16-55 doesn't have that), IBIS can be on if the camera has it - as long as it's consistent across all the images.
Subject - I don't really care, maybe a book or something with text on it (I find this more easy to compare sharpness etc instead of a brick wall :))
I know this is some ask. As a gratitude I make sure the person who can help me out with this will receive a nice print of a photo ;-)
Any other insight or link to useful information is also highly appreciated of course!
Thanks.
ps: I just read through https://photographylife.com/reviews/fuji-xf-16-55mm-f2-8/4 and at least have some data comparison to the 16-55 and the 10-24 at around 16mm ;-) Still would like to compare them in C1 or DxO myself (and maybe taken on a newer body like the X-T4 or X-T5)
given the wants/needs/don't needs you listed I would go to option B. I use the 16- 80 f4 and it is more than good enough. I'm glad to avoid the weight and the extra cost of the 16-55
@vartkes thanks for your input! Yeah, I'm still pondering ... even with the 16-80 it's quite the investment :) I'm not going to rush things ;-)
Hi Roland,
I currently have one of the sets you are thinking about: X-T5 with the 16-80mm F4 and the 70-300mm lens. My experience with this camera and these two lenses has been excellent. The 70-300 is so good that I went out and bought the XF1.4x Teleconverter to extend its reach even knowing there is some potential loss in IQ (not that I've noticed so far). I mainly use the 16-80mm lens on my XPRO-3, the results of which I like, but can't talk about that lens on the X-T5 as the 70-300mm has been glued to that camera since I got it.
Rene
@rene thank you for your insight Rene. I don't have the budget to keep two bodies, so I would alternate between the 16-55/80 and the 70-300. I get the appeal for primes (the 35mm/f2 is really nice), but I just hate swapping lenses so I want to keep it to a minimum :-)
The 70-300 is also a no-brainer for me. I'm pretty convinced it's equal or better than the 55-200 and it gives me more reach (which I'm really looking for, since with the 55-200 I'm hesitant to go over 135mm unless I need to). I'm interested in the teleconverter as well, but I also want to make a switch to a magnetic (circular) filter system so I'm finally free of screwing and unscrewing filters ;-) And that's also not going to be cheap.
@ronaldsmeets Hi Roland,
Acquiring two bodies, in my experience, does take some time and effort. To do this, I ended up selling all my non-Fuji gear and stuff I just wasn't really using much. That subsidized buying the 2nd camera/lens combination
Rene
In my experience the 10-24 and 16-80 compliment each other. I gather you don't shoot much in the 10-16 range? If you do, you will miss having a 10-24.
I had the 16-80, thought it was okay (similar to the 18-55), but ended up selling it to buy a 10-24 and 35 f/2. I needed a wider lens for my shooting.
If you are generally satisfied with the quality of the 10-24, then you should be satified with the 16-80.
I debated buying a 70-300, but instead went with the 55-200 because I value the wider end of the zoom more than the longer end.
I don't pixel peep much, but my recollection (based on how I used the lenses) is that the 16-80 is slightly better than the 10-24 at overlapping ranges, but slightly worse than the 55-200 at overlapping ranges.
I've never owned a 16-55, so can't offer any comments there.
In sum, I chose the exact set up that you have now, but if my needs were different I would have chosen the two lenses you are considering (16-80 and 70-300). I do think it is simply a question of size / weight / focal range, as my own experience and reviews I've read suggest that the lenses being considered are fairly similar in overall quality.
@pouncer thanks for your insight! Yeah, looks like you have exactly the setup I have now as well. Which camera body do you have?
Don't get me wrong, there's nothing bad about this selection of lenses, I just would like to go back to a 2-lens setup as my default setup and I'm looking for more reach on the longer end (>200mm) and I'm willing to sacrafice on the short end (16mm would be wide enough for me).
Although I try my utmost best not to pixel peep, I still do it - and sure, for most occasions you would not see much difference between the 16-55 and 16-80, but I know myself well enough to know it would bug me endlessly :) (I had that experience with the 18-55 when I compared it with the 55-200 at the 55mm range). Also, would be nice to have red-badge lens (build quality-wise). Also, over the years my copy of the 55-200 has massive zoom-creep, and the 70-300 has a lock for that.
Size and weight don't bother me that much, it's not like your iumping around with the 200mm F/2 or something like that. And I'm still considering keeping the 35mm F2 if I do want a light and compact setup for some street-type / family photography.
I case you haven't noticed, I haven't decided yet what I want to do ;-)
Thanks again for your input.
I primarily use an X-H1. I also have an X-T2 (soon to be traded in for either an X-T4 or X-T5).
For a two lens set up, I think the 16-80 and 70-300 is a good choice. I gave up on my 16-80 only because I needed something wider.
As much as I wanted to get a 70-300, and I almost did, I knew that 55-200 is a better focal length range for me. I agree with you that the 55-200 isn't great at the long end, but it's good enough.
Candidly I don't worry too much about zoom lenses. I know they have compromises and I just deal with it.
Over the years I've learned that just about any camera and/or lens from about 2010 and later is more than good enough for me. My goal is owning a lens set (which I just about have) with the right mix of focal lengths and aperture ranges more than ultimate IQ.
@pouncer well said. I'm doing photography for the best part of 15 years now and I know now that I'm more than happy to use a zoom over having to swap primes all the time. I admire that some photographers have a favorite focal length, but for me it's all over the place ;-)
Cheers and thanks again for your insight.