Thoughts on Fuji 16-50mm

[ianmarsh]

I usually shoot primes on my XT1, or use my x100. But I have an old XE1 body that I leave with my in-laws in Italy and on my most recent trip found I used the 50-230 zoom a lot. I've no quibbles with the quality it produced. I typically used it at f8 on a tripod and nearer the shorter end of the zoom range. I am now thinking of pairing it with a 16-50mm where I am likely to shoot at f8 on a tripod and nearer the longer end of the zoom range. The alternative is to spend double the money (or more) on an 18-55 which also loses 2mm on the wide end, or keep taking out wide primes (12mm Samyang, 14mm and 35mm) each trip. Is the 16-50mm good enough stopped down and not often used at the extremes of the zoom range?

 

[Dale.]

I love my 16-50 and I don't think you can go wrong for the money. I have the 18-135, which is my only XF lens to compare an XC lens to and the 16-50 stands up well to it. I don't find my 16-50 quite as sharp as my 50-230 though, the 50-230 I think is very sharp. The difference though could be me and not the lens but I think for the money, especially second hand, it's a nice lens to have.

 

[tijuana taxi]

Excellent lens and if bought as part of a kit costs about a hundred quid, complete bargain. (I can only comment on the mkii version)

Use mine all the time on a X-E2, the extra 2mm over the 18-55 comes in handy very often.

 

[ianmarsh]

Thanks chaps. My 50-230 is very good. I used my brother's 55-200 and liked it a lot but didn't reckon I'd use a long slow zoom enough to justify the price so took a punt on the XC zoom. It really is good (or I am a poor judge...) so I'm hoping the 16-50 is comparable.

 

[GTG]

I have the 16-50 ois ii version and I think the image quality is shockingly good