15971924529 5faebd32c2 B

First Look: Fujinon XF16-55mmF2.8 R LM WR

Share

 photo 1655_zps455506f7.jpg

LIVE BLOGGING HERE

PRE-ORDER XF 16-55mmF2.8 WR: USA: BHphoto / AmazonUS / Adorama / EUROPE: wexUK / PCHstore /

_ _ _

First Look: Fujinon XF16-55mmF2.8 R LM WR

by Rico Pfirstinger

Talk to Rico (open forum for questions & feedback)

Fuji X Secrets Workshops – Rico’s Flickr Sets

The Fujifilm X-E2: Beyond the Manual (use coupon XPERT40 for a 40% discount)

Istanbul Calling – XF16-55mmF2.8 R LM WR Sample Images

X-T1, XF50-140mmF2.8 R LM OIS WR, Lightroom

Hello again!

Yesterday, I brought you a comparison of the XF56mm lens and the new APD version. Today, Fujifilm officially announced its latest high-end general purpose zoom lens, the XF16-55mmF2.8 R LM WR, which is covering the popular 24-84mm full-frame equivalent.

This lens is quite substantial. It’s also fast, expensive and weather resistant, and it doesn’t feature any kind of optical image stabilization (OIS). So better use a tripod or shoot with faster shutter speeds.

X-T1, XF16-55mmF2.8 R LM WR, Lightroom

It’s no secret that the majority of Fujirumors readers voted for OIS in this lens, but it seems like Fuji is okay with selling it to the minority who’s happy without OIS. Or maybe we’ll see a “Mark II” version with built-in OIS in a year or two?

X-T1, XF16-55mmF2.8 R LM WR, Lightroom

It would have been possible to include OIS in this lens, but according to my Fuji sources, this would have resulted in an even larger, heavier and more expensive product. Alternatively, image quality would have suffered. So this lens appears to be a compromise of many things—except for image quality.

X-T1, XF16-55mmF2.8 R LM WR, Lightroom

The XF16-55mmF2.8 R LM WR is a well-built lens (anything else would be an insult) with snappy, silent autofocus. It also features Fuji’s new Nano-GI coating that was introduced in the XF50-140mmF2.8 R LM OIS WR. Excluding protection caps and the (plastic) lens hood, the zoom weighs 655 grams, which is still bearable. I recommend using an additional grip on your camera, though. For the X-T1, I prefer the vertical battery grip.

X-T1, XF16-55mmF2.8 R LM WR, Lightroom

Nine aperture blades result in near-circular bokeh discs, which is a good thing, because between 16mm and around 50mm, the aperture blades are closing down a bit even when the lens is used wide-open at f/2.8. This implies that for the most part of its range, this lens could potentially be even faster than f/2.8.

X-T1, XF16-55mmF2.8 R LM WR, Lightroom

Since I was previewing a pre-production sample of the lens, it’s hard to tell the final image quality at this stage. However, judging from my early testing, it looks like it will match the stunning quality of its XF50-140mmF2.8 R LM OIS WR tele zoom sibling. While both lenses offer metal aperture rings with markings, inner focusing and metal focus rings, the XF16-55mm doesn’t feature an inner zoom mechanism, so unlike the XF50-140mm, its barrel extends with increasing focal length.

X-T1, XF16-55mmF2.8 R LM WR, Lightroom

The minimum focus distance is 30 cm at the wide and 40 cm at the tele end, which leads to a maximum magnification of 0.16x at 55 mm focal length. Of course, this number can be improved by combining the lens with one of Fuji’s new macro extension rings.

X-T1, XF16-55mmF2.8 R LM WR, Lightroom

With weather sealing and a low temperature rating of –10°C, it’s obvious that the XF16-55mmF2.8 R LM WR was designed with the X-T1 in mind, which is Fuji’s most successful mirrorless camera so far. The pro zoom family (featuring a red “XF zoom” label) will be further expanded with an upcoming “super tele zoom lens” that is supposed to cover the 140-400mm range. And it wouldn’t surprise me to eventually see a teleconverter, too.

X-T1, XF16-55mmF2.8 R LM WR, Lightroom

As usual, optical distortion, vignetting and chromatic aberrations (CAs) are digitally corrected via RAW metadata that can be interpreted by a compatible external RAW converter. Of course, the camera’s internal RAW converter / JPEG engine is also using this metadata, including data from Fuji’s lens modulation optimizer (LMO) that can help reduce diffraction that occurs at small aperture openings (the highest aperture setting is 22).

X-T1, XF16-55mmF2.8 R LM WR, Lightroom

At the wide-angle end of the spectrum, optical distortion is of the pin-cushion variety, and as one approaches the tele end, distortion changes to the barrel type.

X-T1, XF16-55mmF2.8 R LM WR, SOOC JPEG (Provia)

Feel free to browse through my little album with sample images, but keep in mind that I was using a pre-production lens and that my images are Lightroom-processed real-world samples. “Real-world” also means that I use perspective correction and cropping tools as I see fit.

X-T1, XF16-55mmF2.8 R LM WR, Lightroom

You can find official, unedited straight-out-of-camera samples on Fuji’s website, though. Of course, I will expand the gallery with SOOC samples after I have received a production copy of the lens with final optics and firmware. The lens is supposed to be in stores as soon as mid-January.

PRE-ORDER XF 16-55mmF2.8 WR: USA: BHphoto / AmazonUS / Adorama / EUROPE: wexUK / PCHstore /

X-T1, XF16-55mmF2.8 R LM WR, Lightroom

Fuji X Secrets News

A quick reminder: Fuji X Secrets is going to Istanbul. From 30APR to 5MAY, an exclusive group of only 5 to 7 Fuji X series fans will be able to explore this mesmerizing city along with Fuji X-Photographer Mehrdad Abedi and myself. Mehrdad’s stunning work as a travel photographer earned him the title story in a recent Fuji X Magazine edition, so check-out his portfolio here, and also have a closer look at what’s in store for you during this one-time event, which will be conducted in German language.

X-T1, XF16-55mmF2.8 R LM WR, Lightroom

For those of you who want to stay closer to my current home in Germany, I am also offering a new Fuji X Secrets weekend workshop here in Nuremberg/Schwabach on 11 and 12APR.

If you are interested in an English language Fuji X Secrets workshop this summer (July) in Southern California (Santa Barbara area), please drop me a note at info@fuji-x-secrets.com, so I can keep you informed.

X-T1, XF16-55mmF2.8 R LM WR, Lightroom

For your convenience, here’s a TOC with links to my previous X-PERT CORNER articles:

Rico Pfirstinger studied communications and has been working as journalist, publicist, and photographer since the mid-80s. He has written a number of books on topics as diverse as Adobe PageMaker and sled dogs, and produced a beautiful book of photographs titled Huskies in Action (German version). He has spent time working as the head of a department with the German Burda-Publishing Company and served as chief editor for a winter sports website. After eight years as a freelance film critic and entertainment writer in Los Angeles, Rico now lives in Germany and devotes his time to digital photography and compact camera systems. His new ebook The Fujifilm X-E2: Beyond the Manual is available at Rocky Nook.

Share
  • David

    That bitch is huge

    • kirk

      heavy as well :)

    • Bitch

      Don’t come too close !

    • Milwman

      My 16-55 showed up and it is big for a FUJI but not for a F 2.8. One way to think about it IS the bag isn’t full of primes but just one lens and the cost of it.

  • man

    Adorama has the lens listed as OIS. Must be a mistake.

    • Patrick

      it’s a mistake

    • That Fuji Guy

      B&H mentions stabilization in both its features and tech specs.

  • Hightower

    650 gramms despite looking bulky is not that bad thinking about my main kill criteria “being light and small” … I think I have to try one at least …

    On the other side for me the 50-140 is a no go, being too heavy and bulky – not for away from similar Canikon lenses ….

    • David B

      16-55 is not far from excellent Canon 17-55/2.8 which weighs 645 grams, cover the same crop circle, costs brand new $799 (with rebate) now, and DOES feature Image Stabilization that seems to have no effect on its picture quality

      • Kevin

        I can live with the lens being comparable, even a bit larger and heavier than canon’s offering. What doesn’t make sense is that price. Here in Canada, that’ll probably be $1299. That is way too much by about $200.

      • – Major issues with sucking in Dust: Not Weather Sealed
        – Not uncommon for the AF motor to fail: Mine didn’t, but many did.
        – Common for zoom creep – you can walk around and your lens will extend itself: I hated this issue.
        – Not metal
        – Not self contained: it extends. The Fuji is self contained.

        • Luzid

          The Fuji is not self contained.

      • David

        well, I would say that the Canon 1.6x crop giving an 18mm Fuji equivalent is significantly less wide — many feel the difference between 16mm and 18mm. Fuji will of course reduce the price and introduce semi-permanent rebates after a few months once the early adopters have been fleeced. Like Rico, I would have preferred OIS but let’s wait and see what the IQ is like before jumping to too many conclusions.

      • DrunkenRant

        “DOES feature Image Stabilization that seems to have no effect on its picture quality”
        Do you have the Canon 17-55 2.8 same generation as IS USM without IS? No, then how can you claim it doesn’t effect picture quality?

    • Hightower

      Checked the specs against my other lenses:
      It’s half the weight of the 55-200, but 10 mm longer than 18-135 (zoomed in) at the wide end and 10 mm longer than 55-200 (zoomed in) at the tele end …
      It’s a huge lens, but ok, if you think about the Nikon 24-70 2.8 …

      • AlexJoda

        “It’s half the weight of the 55-200” ?
        The 55-200 weights 580 grams…..

    • Luzid

      I will go for a 16-55/2.8 and the coming 90mm/2.0. Together with a 1,4x teleconverter this will cover the range of the 50-135/2.8 (for me). Long end of the 16-55 (2.8), 90 (2.0) and 126mm (2,8).

      • Jan Sunde

        You know that a teleconverter usually steals 1-2 stops of light, right ?

        • I hope for a 1.4x converter. Will ask Fuji to build one.

        • Luzid

          This is why I wrote 126mm/2.8 (one stop down from the 90/2.0).

          • Jan Sunde

            Oh, misread that one, sorry. Does anybody know the estimated weight of the 90/2.0 (also without IS?) – I guess the entire kit will end up heavier than carrying a 50-140…? Of course, in your bag instead of around your neck, if that makes a difference.

  • apw100

    I am actually very impressed (and relieved) by the nice bokeh that this lens produces.

    • Hightower

      Most of X lenses have nice Bokeh among other good things that’s why we’re here … ;-)

      • Tom

        Funny how personal photography is, I don’t like Fuji’s OOF areas, I find them too contrasty and busy. I like my X100, a sublime look that I’m very happy with.

        • apw100

          I like all of the lenses’ OOF areas with the exception of the 50-140mm f/2.8, it’s a bit busy. This lens OOF areas seem to be much smoother, almost as good as a FF f/2.8 lens’ bokeh. This is a big deal to me, if the bokeh had been less than exceptional I may have passed on this lens and stuck with the 18-55.

    • 9 blades can make a difference.

  • Ian Burrows

    Its going to have to be friggin amazing optically to justify the price difference over the Canon 17-55mm F2.8 as others have mentioned. I think that is still one of canon’s finest lenses

    • Aaron J. Heiner

      I don’t see what the relevancy of the Canon lens is, unless, you plan to buy the Canon instead and use an adapter which will provide full compatibility (that I’m unaware of even existing), or you plan to sell off your Fuji system to invest in Canon for that lens. I do not see people debating between the Fuji vs Canon system based on this lens.

      • Roy

        It shows the price point at which a comparable lens can be made, i.e. that the Fuji is arguably too expensive for what it is. Not my opinion per se, just paraphrasing.

        • purpleacky

          It’s unfair to compare a brand new lens’s price to a lens that has been around for many years (and dropped in price over time). The Fuji Lens will drop in price over time as all lenses do.

          • Ian Burrows

            Roy paraphrased well. The canon lenses RRP was similar at its time of release but in reality that dollar value gets you a lot more lens these days (with the exception of Canons recent off the wall pricing for its top line lenses, 24-70 MK II and 70-200 F2.8 MKII). I own a Canon 7D, Sony NEX-7 and an X-E2. The canon lens is an option on 2 out of 3 of cameras and therefore for me, its totally relevant compare price, features and quality. It may not be for you. I didn’t say it was. In reality the lack of OIS in combination with the price point is where m questions mark arises. The combination of weather sealing and fancy solid looking construction don’t make up for the lack of OIS therefore I feel like the price point is a bit higher than I would like when I compare it to competitors for canon crop sensor cameras.

        • DrunkenRant

          Soooo…that Canon is all metal construction and is weather sealed? No?!? Then its not exactly comparable, so your point is moot.

          • Roy

            It is not “my point”; like I said, I was paraphrasing.

            That being said, both lenses have points in their favor: listing them one-sided does not make them incomparable.

          • DrunkenRant

            Your point was regarding price. CaNikon have abandoned metal construction in favor of cheap to manufacture plastic. Sure there are plastics out there that are quite good, but I have yet to find it in a sub-$1.2k lens. Construction quality I would say favors Fuji, but we will see when they start getting sold and people drop them. New lenses are overpriced, look at the Nikon FF 35 1.8 price when it was released.
            OIS being omitted is not that big of a deal to me, and I think those that want it wouldn’t be surprised if Fuji’s next iteration of the X-Pro2 will have IBIS implemented. Due to the Sony A7II coming out at such a low price point is going to push Fuji to implement it sooner rather than later. I won’t be surprised if there was an X-Pro2 concept with IBIS being tested as we type.

          • Roy

            OIS may not be important to you, it still adds to the price.

    • I had a 17-55:
      – Major issues with sucking in Dust: Not Weather Sealed
      – Not uncommon for the AF motor to fail: Mine didn’t, but many did.
      – Common for zoom creep – you can walk around and your lens will extend itself: I hated this issue.
      – Not metal
      – Not self contained: it extends. The Fuji is self contained.

      • Ian Burrows

        Hi Kevin, the dust issue was a problem. The weather sealing never a problem in reality. The Fuji is not self contained either which was a real shock to me. I was lucky in that my lens never suffered from zoom creep but I can understand that would be annoying. Regardless of these issues, it is still a great lens. I have ‘weather sealed’ canon L series lenses that are full of dust so.

  • Victor Kina

    so the interesting bit is that the in the press announcement they states af speed up to 0.06 and with th x-t1 af speed is 0.01 … i wonder if they already have their new AF module ready or under testing… or is it just theoretical numbers (the 0.06)

  • Mardock

    Unfortunately, a bit of a disappointment without the OIS. Matt Brandon just posted the following to Facebook >>

    “I found price over what this lens delivers compared to the 18-55mm a disappointment. It really needs the OIS to be the lens we had hoped for.”

  • Starred

    Rico doesn’t seem to be over impressed with this lens…too bad

    • Lacking OIS makes it a speciality lens for me (and I am not alone here as we know from the polls), because I still have to take along another zoom with OIS in this range, typically the 18-135mm with its amazing 5-stop OIS. If this lens had OIS, it would easily become my standard lens thanks to its performance, bokeh and IQ. I hope for a “Mark II” with OIS in 2016.

      • Sqweezy

        Exactly. I was ready to jump into the X system, finally, when this lens’s first prototypes hit the floor room shows. But now, without OIS, this lens loses all semblance of what could have been the perfect lens, for me at least. It is pointless to rue on what has already been settled but I really do hope Fuji figures a way to bring this lens some stabilization for the masses. It is dire need of it! Hopefully, the best solution would be through IBIS. That way, every one of Fuji’s many stellar lenses would carry the potential of sharper hand-held images.

        • I will root for IBIS, but I don’t see it before 2016 (if ever). That would be too late for the X-Pro2 which is expected in 2015 and which I think would be perfect for IBIS, as it appeals to legacy lens users who could very much benefit from such a feature. It might even be problematic to put IBIS in an X-Trans camera. For example, Bayer sensor shift to increase resolution (like Hasselblad is already doing and Olympus is rumored to announce) isn’t possible with X-Trans in my understanding.

          • Summary

            NO IBIS IN X-PRO2 !!

          • Ian Burrows

            Don’t forget A7 MK II has IBIS. I don’t think it will affect my purchasing decisions but I feel like the gloss has worn off for Fuji. The number of people I have seen who have jumped back on the Sony band wagon is suprising me. The A7 series must surely be impacting Fuji sales. I know a bunch of shooters who have fallen in love with the A7S and literally half the landscape shooters I work with have gone A7R. At the end of the day most of us here shoot Fuji, have an investment in bodies and lenses so we aren’t looking to jump ship, but the swinging voters seem to be finally going with Sony. Fuji needs to pick up the game on bodies. IBIS would help and OIS on this lens would have helped.

          • Ian Burrows

            I’ll also add for the trolls who can’t afford to be wrong, I am writing from my perspective. I’m sure everyone you know is still completely in love with Fuji and the Sony’s suck. I love my Fuji camera and I’m unlikely to switch back to Sony as my primary shooter but I’d still gladly have IBIS or 36 MP or ISO 204,000 or Canon lenses with aperture control etc etc

          • Chad

            Ian, please stop being so level headed.

            As a former Fuji shooter – very early adopter of the X100 and then everything up to the XPro and X100s – and now back in Sony camp with an A7s and the excellent A7mkII, I respect greatly both platforms and what they are doing.

            It is interesting how both companies are riding the line between appealing to the Leica aesthetic and the DSLR switcher, with Sony making an additional play for the video guys.

            Being FF, Sony has the benefit of natively playing with rangefinder lenses so I think they have won (at least in this round) the true Leica shooters, not so much those that want the look of a retro body – see X100 for that. It was definitely a key driver for me switching.

            But anyone discounting Fuji for being APS-C or Sony for being an “electronics” company, are blind to the enormous potential of each platform.

  • mgreernz

    O darn. No OIS. Well although hope springs eternal, I guess we were reluctantly becoming resigned to that likelihood. However if the currently quoted US price is any indicator of the price further afield, it will equate to something like NZ$1790. No OIS and at that price, sadly I think that’s going to be a bridge too far for many of us.

  • George Christofi

    I will by this lens

  • PotentialBuyer

    Rico, is there a Ligthroom sharpening step (extra or default) involved in the RAW conversion of the pictures ? I mean what can we expect from SOOC pictures, softer ?

    • Lightroom usually looks softer than the camera’s engine. I usually look for detail, but that means less sharpening or you’ll get artifacts.

      • Something must be terribly wrong with my Lightroom. I keep hearing about how soft images processed by LR are, and how it’s nearly impossible to replicate any decent film simulation… Not in my case. For some wicked reason, my images are as crisp as the ones from Iridient (and certainly better at higher ISOs), and Astia developer preset colors look nearly the same as SOOC Jpegs (sans content awareness, of course).

        • Yep. My SOOCs are even crisper than Iridient 3 with Detail+ and Iridient Reveal. Just not always as detailed.

          • Rico, Trenton, can you share some insights of your sharpening settings that you normally use in Lightroom? I also think that you can get good results in Lightroom, but you will need to do some sharpening. I have created three LR presets (Generic, Strong & Mild) which I use as starting point. What is your recommendation?

          • I like 2-stage sharpening (capture/output). For the capture sharpening, LR’s default setting works just fine and sufficiently avoids any ghosting. Keep in mind though that I use Astia developer profile, so my sharpening settings might be different from generic.

            As for the output sharpening… It’s a matter of output. General rule of thumb – billboard ads (done that, Fuji’s 16 megapixels are plenty enough) require large radius and more sharpening, screen resolutions – tiny radius, less sharpening. If need be for a higher end output sharpening, go to Photoshop and use masks to avoid artifacts.

          • I mostly use the detail slider. Masking is important, too. I always try to mask so sharpening is only applied to areas that I want to be sharpened.

          • SOOC rocks at low ISO. But please tell (and keep telling) Fuji to add an option to completely disable “Image Intelligence™” (skin smoothing in particular). Unlike NR, merely dialing -2 won’t cut it, I want to completely kill that thing.

          • I’m quite okay with Fuji’s high-ISO look, but those who aren’t must write a letter every day. I told Fuji about a year ago. I probably was the only one, because everyone else was only complaining about it in forums that Fuji doesn’t read, anyway?

          • For event candids, high ISO is crucial. And RAFs are perfectly acceptable all the way up to ISO6400. However, skintones start to suck even in B&W, thanks to the Image Intelligence (AKA content awareness). Here’s a quick SOOC example of that hideous look: http://yadi.sk/d/0NkDMdwCKCmkG

            Oh, and they do read forums and blogs, trust me – I have access to web server log files :) But for some reason they choose to ignore that issue. Maybe Image Intelligence is a favorite brainchild of some high ranking corporate official?… Looks pretty similar to Sony’s former illogical obsession with Memory Sticks; probably driven by emotions, too.

          • Those who make the decisions don’t really follow forums, they often don’t even speak English and certainly not German. I can’t blame them, given the tone and attitude in many forums. So writing emails is the way to go.

          • Maybe. But very few people are going to write such an email. So here’s an idea for Patrick: how about a public petition? Not just a post-with-a-poll, but turning that poll results into a nice email sent (with return receipt) to Fuji’s headquarters. If it works, we could probably turn FR into a real source of feedback for our favorite camera manufacturer. And get some real (not so random)) Kaizen goodness in return.

          • Fuji is fully aware that many folks (including regional offices) aren’t happy with this lens not having OIS. Patrick once had a poll regarding firmware feature requests, I am sure the result was submitted to Fuji. Basically, the result read very much like my internal request sheets, so it seems like I’m quite in tune with what “the public” wants. In any case, I’ll prepare a handful of papers after I’ve finished my next book.

          • Oh, I don’t care that much about this particular lens, OIS or not. Normal zooms are b-o-r-i-n-g. I’d rather see a pro version of 10-24 (f/2.8 or faster). And a normal treatment of flash work.

  • Sergio

    I was really hoping for OIS and a 72mm filter thread to match the 70-140mm and 10-24mm. Without these features, even with amazing image quality I can’t personally justify getting one with that asking price :-(

    • M

      Uh, what does the same filter thread do to you? Do you switch UV/polarizing filters between lenses?

      • Sergio

        I switch ND filters, which tend to be expensive.

        • That’s why you usually buy large filters and use a step-up/-down (always mix up which is which) to put it on the smaller filter threads ;) except you have the money to buy one filter for each lens of course.

          • Luzid

            But not for owners of the Lee seven5 filter system, which ends at 75 mm.

          • Point taken – didn’t know that. That sucks indeed then.

          • Sergio

            Yes, that’s an option. But a step-down adapter will probably vignette on the wide angle of this particular lens. Which means using a 77mm filter + step-up adapter for 72mm is best.

            But what if you already invested in filters before you know the size of the filter thread from a new lens?

            And what if you have UV filters on all lens? Should you have to fiddle with not only (un)screwing the UV filter and (un)screwing ND filter, but now also with (un)screwing the step-up filter?

            IMO, just not convenient if you’re:

            1) Using screw-in filters
            2) Trying to keep budget under control (lens is already expensive, good ND filters as well
            3) Trying to keep you gear to the bare essential (i.e. not willing to duplicate accessories)

          • That sounds great in theory, but in practice means third party lens hoods (probably bellows, adapters etc), which could be even more expensive.

          • It’s great in real-life, too, at least for me. Just don’t use a lens cap, and a step-down/-up filter is a 3 dollar piece of metal ;)

          • Edit: I meant lens hood, not cap :)

  • “…the aperture blades are closing down a bit even when the lens is used wide-open at f/2.8. This implies that for the most part of its range, this lens could potentially be even faster than f/2.8.”

    One day we may see a Kaizen firmware update giving us even faster lens, yay!

    • I thought about that, but it would probably result in decreased IQ as the other optical elements that are moving around probably aren’t fitted for an even larger opening.

      • Probably the lens is a native f/2.6-2.8 or f2.4-2.8, and stopping down has been done mostly for marketing purposes. Fixed aperture zooms are more appealing to the general public.

        Actually, that’s rather easy to check. Do you see that “stopping down” when the lens is not mounted on a camera?

  • ktr

    Rico, I see many great images @55mm wide open, but not one @16mm wide open. Is it soft there ?

  • M

    The fixed focal length lenses for the X system are mostly fast enough, but me and some professional I know are kind of agreeing here and now that 2.8 is not fast enough for APS-C to be in control of DOF. The lens/camera (with X-T1) is small enough to leave the Canon and 24-70 2.8 L at home.

    • M

      Sorry, ISN’T small enough…

      • Fujiguys

        it’s big like 24-70 canon version I

        • MJr

          But a Canon doesn’t fit any other Fujinon when you feel like it, does it. No point mounting a pancake to the 5D. =)

        • purpleacky

          Nothing like that big.

        • Not that big, close, but not like the 24-70 L.

      • purpleacky

        So it’s too big, but the aperture is too small. It’s really disappointing that Fuji have not changed the laws of physics, what a let down!

  • Lelle Kidd

    No inner zoom mechanism :(

    • Héctor Muñoz Huerta

      It’s impossible to make this lens to zoom internally because the front element has to move.

      • Lelle Kidd

        Why? They made it with the XF50-140mmF2.8, even gave it OIS :O

        • Why is it possible to have 4WD on a truck, but not on a jet ski?

    • jypfoto

      Are there any zooms in this range that have internal zoom? Yes there are telephoto lenses that have internal zoom, but the only standard zoom that I can think of that has internal zoom is the 18-35 Sigma.

  • Lane

    Can we see a picture of it mounted on a body more the size of the X-Pro1 / X-E2 etc? I have a feeling it’ll overwhelm an X-Pro1 and I’ll want to stick to primes.

    • jojo

      I think you’re probably right, and you’ve picked up on a difficult area for Fuji right
      now. They’ve been successful in selling to people wanting more compact quality
      cameras/lenses, but they want to persuade others to switch from SLRs, so they
      need to offer lenses with similar specifications to other established brands.
      Are we seeing proof that one size just doesn’t fit all, and probably never
      will? It’s good to have the choice but it seems some lenses are better suited
      to the X-T1 shape with a central VF.

    • Sergio
  • philg

    The lens looks great and no doubt the IQ would be excellent as well,but,no IS is the killer for me.

  • Starred

    I have an Olympus EM5 with some primes and à Fuji XT1 with 14, 23 and 56 lenses. I really want to have a 2.8 standard and 2.8 zoomlens. Pffff, difficult choice as both brands now have excellent 2.8 zooms. However, IBIS and the smaller size of the Olympus lenses are really tempting…

  • Steffen

    Obviously, this lens was build for a minority of people for particular shooting situations. What a bummer!
    This lens is for sure not a all day carry around all purpose lens! Therefore, and we are living in 2015, OIS is missing!
    Sure, some photo-geeks might rise the hand to low ball me on this comment by praising the idea of lugging around a huge tripod. This is plain ridiculous talking since a tripod is a no go for the majority of people, whether it’s the busy dad on a weekend trip with family (my wife and kids would kill me if fiddling around with tripods and slowing down the trip by using that geek crap..), or the average tourist at vacation. For myself, I’m at places in the world for many times a year, where one should not even bring a camera to! Not talking about a stupid tripod!

    There is only ONE solution, Fuji. Go IBIS! This will save weight on lenses, will satisfy the wet dreams of photo geeks for NOT having a stabilized lens and also it will satisfy the needs of the majority. Fuji, think majority if you don’t want to disappear in the business till 2017!!

    Olympus will release new models with new sensor tech end of this year / beginning of 2016! Between 20 to 24 MP and one ISO stop better than previous models is to be expected. Together with their ultimate IBIS system and perfect lens quality (pro series: 12-40, 40-150), this is YOUR MAIN CONCERN, Fuji!! Wake up!

    To clarify: I do have a X-T1, 10-24, 23, 35, 55-200. I love it. I love Fuji. But this equipment is used by me on few occasions only. When I do have time to take pictures. My family, travel, party, wedding equipment is an Olympus E-M1 with the 12-40, 25 1.4 and the 9-18. IBIS there saves me around 75% of my pictures. Running kids and bright light daylight moments make up less than 25% of my shooting demands…!

    GO I-B-I-S, FUJI!!!!

    • Clint

      Yes, IBIS would be nice but it’s a patented technology, not happening anytime soon for Fuji. I’ve been taking photos for 20 yrs and never owned an image stabilized lens until 3 months ago….so no, it is not necessary to have OIS to get sharp photos. especially with current ISO abilities combined with good shooting techniques. Check my flickr page…how many blurry photos do you see:) In case you’re wondering, no I don’t walk everywhere with a tripod.

      https://www.flickr.com/photos/60455482@N00/

  • peevee

    106mm long, 655g and no stabilization? At $1200? Even Samsung made 16-50/2-2.8 which is faster, smaller, cheaper and sharp. What and epic fail (unless they prepare X-E3, X-Pro2 and X-T2 with IBIS, which they don’t).

    • John M

      Nikon and Canon shooters manage just fine with their 24-70s

      • leri

        (FF)

      • Didiergm

        and their Nikkor 17-55 2.8 DX, which is highly rated

      • peevee

        On FFs cameras, which allow 3 times higher shutter speed for the same quality. And even there IS is available even on wide angles now. And with even higher resolutions and video, it is not like shutter speed is going to same you.

    • Clint

      @peevee – ‘What an epic fail’…..seriously, are you like 12 yrs old…who says that??? Also, I think it’s funny you guys that complain about the weight of the lens. I agree smaller would be nice, but the weight is fine with me….I like the heft. Have you ever heald a Leica Summilux?? If the lens was light and plasticky people would complain about that too….no one is ever happy.

  • Tomáš Tuček

    I feel like in a kindergarten, with all this whining, there is a new piece of equipment for our beloved X system and the first thing everybody searches for is all possible negatives. That´s so stupid – and typical for our time. I´m in for this nice lens, Fuji take my money ;-)

    • MJr

      I remember when OIS was frowned upon and only for amateurs. You all realize it doesn’t actually increase the shutter speed?

      If one were to use the speeds that imho should be used there isn’t even a problem to speak of; a solution to a non-existing problem. Unless of course you truly have shaky hands all the time due to some condition, OIS rarely is the only way out. Personally, i’d say it is at the very bottom om the list of solutions i’d even want to use. And it probably helps that i don’t mind a little more grain either.

      • Tomáš Tuček

        I feel the same way. In all those months of use of the 18-55 I used the stabilization only twice, it was a great help in extreme conditions, but it was not the only way and I live 99,9% time without it (the primes are also without OIS). I can hold 1/30 on 55 mm with no problem, and even longer with short lenses, and for one second expositions a thing named tripod exists.

        • Steffen

          For stupid people carrying tripods to places were they shouldn’t, a thing named “knife” or “gun” exists… (e.g. Salvador da Bahia..)
          For stupid people carrying and handling tripods while being on a family trip, a thing named “angry wife and kids” exists.
          For stupid people carrying and handling a tripod on a crowded Christmas market, a thing named “a punch/hot wine/ketchup in your face” exists.

          Please, open your eyes! We are living in 2015! Technically, we can have fantastic stabilization systems.. if you don’t want to use them, fine. Weird thing is, most of the “”pros”” with an E-M1 that I know in person, have their IBIS activated all time. Why?

          You guys just try to talk flowers on a “nice piece of crap”.

          And to the guy above: holding 1/30s with 55mm*1,5 = 1/82s minimum??? Wow… if so: good for you. But I don’t believe you.

          Fuji needs to wake up by themselves. Go IBIS Fuji!

          • It’s an ages old “automatic transmission vs stick” dichotomy, side view. Most stick proponents drive auto.

          • Tomáš Tuček

            Pure hate, fanaticism, ignoring of the real world, and the feeling that “every manufacturer has to respect my wishes and satisfy my needs” – a needed part of any discuss in the net.

      • I remember when AF was frowned upon, so what? It never gonna be as precise as a ground glass and a good loupe, they said. It’s a gimmick for amateurs, they said. Well, maybe we’ll use it, but less than 1% of the time, they said.

        Where are they now?

        • MJr

          FYI, I still frown upon AF. :-)

          • So what’s your poison of choice in a Fuji X world then? MF boiled in EVF with a dash of focus peaking? oO

          • MJr

            Well not exclusively, just use what i like when it’s fitting. I prefer the control i get with a true MF lens, but often enough there isn’t time, or any doubt as to where the AF-square is pointing at so the AF works just fine.

          • …Speaking of which, I’ve just found a nice perk in a recent FW update. When DMF (AF+MF) mode enabled, clutch lenses work [almost] as true DMF lenses when the clutch is in MF position. Me likes.

          • MJr

            I think it will probably always feel strange to manual focus a AF lens. Not the mechanical part of it (or lack thereof), but because it has AF, and you’re purposely not using it by the flick of a switch. I just can’t do it, other than to lock its position.

            When i mount a manual lens, i can always tell myself it’s because that lens is unique – a piece of history, or a brand new Leica for that matter, but it’s how you’re supposed to use it .. ;-)

            Took me a while to be able to purposely convert a color image to black and white too, :P but you know sometimes color is just irrelevant or even distracting.

          • It does feel strange indeed, especially combined with Fuji’s the fly-by-wire thing. However, with DMF and instant magnification combined with focus peaking, Fuji is onto something.

            (BTW, my second gripe of the year is Fuji’s half-assed attempt at that “something”. Why did they stop with facial recognition? Magnification area is _not_ linked to faces!)

          • Didiergm

            Just a thought : your gripes of the year seem to be more and more precise and to the point, I think you should collect them and submit them in one go to Patrick, this way they’d have more chances to be voted for, increasing the chances for Fuji to listen & act as they sometimes do.

  • Lumen

    Flemmingbojensen said it’s blindingly fast, maybe the fast focussing lens of all Fuji lenses. …… and, almost prime quality……. and yes he needs sometimes faster apertures …….

    http://flemmingbojensen.com/blog/2015/01/06/fujinon-xf16-55mm-f2-8-lens-at-zouk-singapore-my-first-impressions/

  • Mikey

    Pass. Fuji make it up to us by adding OIS to the Fuji 90/2 or by surprising us by making it a 90/1.8? :)

  • Welarbia Munkizunkel

    I think there is some MASSIVE point missing going on here. The lens I used most during my Nikon DX days was the 17-55 f/2.8. This lens has no OIS, weighs 100g more, and still costs $75 more than the Fuji 16-55. I used that lens for years, and only used it handheld except in a studio setting, even when using it on a camera that was functionally unworkable above ISO800.

    If the 16-55 delivers anything like the performance and durability of that Nikon 17-55, I’ll be putting in an order later in the year. OIS or not.

    Nikon abandoned its pro DX users when it turned its attention to FX, at a time when a lot of its pro news togs were finding the market financially hostile. With no replacement to the D300s in sight, the Fuji system is one of the few that offers the prospect of becoming a viable alternative. And with this lens, Fuji completes its version of the Holy Trinity, and that makes the system even more attractive to the working pro coming to terms with the way things are in 2015.

  • O ISORNOTO IS Discussion

    For heavens sake, put that thing on a ricebag !

    • You mean, beanbag? Easy peasy. That’s exactly what professionals do in the middle of wedding reception.

    • MJr

      You mean the first image, i see what you mean .. its angle is annoying for a product shot isn’t it. That missing flash sync cover, and placing the kit in its own shadow doesn’t help either. ^.^

      • Please remind me to give you a call when there’s a need to decipher a brief message from the critter with unearthly nickname.

  • Lane

    Can someone name a common real-world situation where OIS is needed with an f/2.8 lens and the high-ISO quality of the X-Trans sensors? Architecture in the dark, where you need lots of depth-of-field? Dusk landscapes? You’re probably shooting wide enough where you can use a wide aperture without too much loss of depth of field. Shooting at 55mm in very low light, but can’t use f2.8 or turn up the ISO to 800 or 1600? I’m thinking of some very weird shots that would require this, but I can’t think of any typical ones in the way that I shoot. OIS doesn’t help with moving subjects. So we’re talking very low-light shooting of inanimate stuff where you’re unwilling to go up to 1600 or so or sacrifice a small bit of depth of field.

    I’m with Welarbia below: I loved my old Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 and I never needed OIS with it. And my old Nikon D300 wasn’t as good at high apertures as the X-Pro1 is. I can see why it’s a “sure, why not” add-on for some. But a must-have?

    • ccr

      When travelling, OIS can be very helpful inside churches or museums. And it helps at night, when you are already maxing out ISO or need a little bit more depth of field. Or when you want to do a little bit longer exposure and don’t have a tripod at hands.
      To be honest, I see it quite contrary than you. Why would someone who needs the maximum of IQ, and doesn’t want to sacrifice it with OIS, even use a zoom lens? The range of this lens is perfect for travellers, and as always-on lens. So IOS would make perfect sense.

      • purpleacky

        Surely the 18-55 is better for travel. This lens is for events etc. where you are earning money.

      • You got that in the 18-55 OIS lens, and since you’d probably shoot on the wide end in the locations you describe, you’ll also get F/2.8.

        This is Pro grade lens for working photographers – music, concerts photography, events, weddings, portraiture, etc. In most of these cases you shoot moving subjects or augment available light with strobes or whatever (in case of portraiture). This is not your light-weight travel lens, you already got that in the 18-55. This is for people who appreciate prime-like IQ and tank-like build quality with weather sealing.

        • ccr

          Most of the use cases you mentioned wouldn’t require weather sealing. For most of the use cases you mentioned I would use either primes or something longer than just 55mm.
          Even Canon included IS in the 17-55 although there are cheaper 18-55 IS available.

  • Would I be happier if it had OIS? Yes, it’s marginally useful, and could be very useful if Fuji ever fixed video. Bur right now, Fuji is targeting the pro wedding, event, music photographer market with this lens. And for this market, OIS doesn’t really matter. For the vast majority of portrait photographers ditto. Travel photographers? Maybe, but pro travel photographers are a niche compared to all of the above. And people who need OIS for shooting in no-tripod-allowed museums are even a smaller niche within that niche :~) Very vocal though :~)

    But than, for me, travel means “as small as possible” in terms of gear. That’s why I bought into the Fuji system with the X100T. I shoot a variety of things, but portraiture and music photography is what I enjoy the most. The x100T can do a lot at these, but can’t replace my current Nikon system. My heart is set on Fuji, and I think I’m gonna be ready for a full switch when the X-Pro2 materializes :)

    All I’m saying is that the largest group of pro or serious amateur photographers shoot moving subjects at this focal range/speed. Current FX 24-70/F2.8 users. A lot of users who are not buying Nikon’s push to FX, and are considering switching (current 17-55mm Nikkor owners). Or disgruntled Canon users. Their EF-S lens line-up is not much better than Nikon’s, both suck compared to what Fuji has to offer. This is a really nice addition. And I’d the smaller size, prime-like IQ across the focal range (the usual Fuji lens magic) any day over OIS.

    • For weddings, this lens could’ve been useful during receptions. But only if at least one of two demands are met:

      1. The camera has a decent rendering of rear curtain sync;
      2. The lens has an OIS, preferably with a good (automatic) panning mode.

      …Bummer. What good is it then on a wedding? As a cocktail hour group portrait lens maybe? Grips-and-grins? Now that’s a small niche.

      • Guest

        Thanks for your concern trolling, Trenton. Sorry to see you have yet to find something constructive to fill your off hours.

        • Steffen

          Hard times to swallow true words, dude?!??
          He’s right! Fuji must provide OIS or IBIS. Better sooner than later. If later, Fuji stays niche. If sooner, Fuji might grab a somewhat bigger piece of cake in the current market BEFORE it’s too late to do so…

          In 2015, also a nice company like FUJI will not survive on the market when the scope is set on pro wedding people or whomever.

          Bring IBIS. Some geeks like the guest above of me will immediately turn IBIS of in the camera. The majority will leave IBIS ON and enjoys the amazing IQ, too! Everyone is satisfied then!

          What are you waiting for, Fuji?!?!

          • Flyfisherman

            Idiotic post…. See below for reality.

      • purpleacky

        It will be great for weddings. Better Dof control than the 18-55, wider angle, constant aperture, sharper, better in low light for moving subjects (e.g. aisle shot, 1st dance).

      • I’m 100% with you on the rear curtain sync. On your second poitn — well, most wedding photographers still use Canikon, shooting unstabilized 24-70 F/2.8 lenses with no problems.

        Ultimately, I’d be really happy to see IBIS in the X-Pro2, but wouldn’t be a deal-breaker if it doesn’t have one. Lack of OIS is definitely not a deal breaker for this lens for the vast majority who shoot this focal range.

        • Back when I was shooting full frame DSLRs and booking 30+ events a year, I used to lug around 24-70/2.8 zooms for both my Canon and Nikon systems. Both lenses just sat in a bag most of the time; I’ve used Canon’s zoom maybe once a year, and Nikon’s once every other year. In most cases, when I needed some glass in that range, a “disposable” 50/1.8 did the trick at a tiny fraction of the cost and minuscule of the weight. Eventually I just sold them both and never looked back.

          Oddly enough, that wasn’t the case with APSC systems, as I’ve used both N and C 17-55/2.8 offerings pretty much in a “workhorse” mode on every single event. Cannot really explain that. Maybe the (much) better AF was a factor?…

          In any event, I won’t hold my breath waiting for Fuji to offer IBIS. Besides, I haven’t seen a good IBIS implementation since Dynax 7, no matter how many axises it involves.

    • ccr

      I know a lot of photographers who still use their Canon 7D because they can use their stabilised 17-55 2.8 IS USM with it.

  • A lot of Canikon shooters would salivate over this lens (especially at this price point) – regardless of OIS.

    • Joseph

      Yeah I agree. I never complained about my Nikon 24-70 not being optically stabilized. I think we’re just getting a little spoiled here.

    • leri

      mmmi would salivate only ina fuji FF and where is that??? amateur fuji

  • lord eels

    looks HUGE. especially with that giant grip. what’s the entire point of mirrorless again? oh yeah painful trade offs in the name of small size. seems missed here. and lol at ppl in this thread claiming Fuji is targeting pro pj’s with this lens. seriously ppl, x-trans systems are our weekend cameras for our families. and I’m not using a huge zoom for that. pffffffffffffft.

    • DrunkenRant

      You do realize there’s the 55-200 lens for non-Pro’s right?

    • jg

      It is still significantly lighter than the DSLR alternatives:
      Df + 24-70mm2.8 = 56.64oz/1,610g
      D7100 + 17-55mm2.8 = 50.4oz/1,430g
      X-T1 + 16-55mm2.8 = 36.8oz/1,055g
      the X-T1 combo is 1.24lbs/555g lighter than the Df combo and .85lb/375g lighter than the D7100 combo.
      By itself, the 16-55mm2.8 is 8.58oz/235g lighter than the 24-70mm2.8 and 3.46oz/90g lighter than the 17-55mm.

      • lord eels

        what an idiotic mistake there, Einstein. a f/2.8 APS-C lens is more like an f/4 full frame. compare the Nikon 24-120 f/4, the weight of the lenses is basically the same. also weight is but one metric. overall size is not that different. you still need a big camera bag, likely the same exact one that you used for DSLR gear.

        I wont correct you any further, I know all you JPEG shooting x-trannies are all hopelessly brainwashed.

        • scopedude

          f/4 equiv. is in term of DOF, not exposure which is still the same because of the same f/2.8. If you compare side by side, the X-T1/16-55 combo is still significantly smaller than any DSLR combo with similar lens. Even if the other poster is wrong, no need to be rude. I’m sure you’re a marvellous top photographer.

          • lord eels

            nope. APS-C f/2.8 = FX f/4 in DoF and light gathering (signal to noise)

          • hexx

            WTF???

            take any cameras you have with different film/sensor sizes, take light meter and note exposure values, now set them on each camera and take photo – are they different in therms of exposure? no, only depth of field will be different

          • lord eels

            No. Signal to noise ratio is different as well. Its a crop image. as you crop an image, noise goes up. See this article: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care

            you are fucking wrong and you need to be listening right now, rather than fucking blathering your fucking mouth. mr. fauxtographer.

          • lord eels

            wrong. flat out wrong. aps-c is a simple crop. as you crop an image, signal to noise ratio goes up. therefore equivalent ISO is increased. if you hold ISO constant, rather than equivalent as I just stated, then equivalent Fstop is increased instead.

            got it, n00b?

  • Christian

    No OIS is fine with me. But “… doesn’t feature an inner zoom mechanism…” is a no buy for me. I’ll keep my 18-55.

    • Flyfisherman

      I just pre-ordered mine at B&H – The lens description categorically states: “An internal focusing and internal zooming design maintains the overall lens length during operation for quicker performance and greater resistance to dust or moisture from entering the lens.” Who to believe? Guess I will wait and find out. The results shown in the article sure look sharp… indeed better than the 18-55 for bokeh, too. As for OIS, considering I have the low end covered with my 10-24, and the highest end covered with my (incredible) 50-140, I look forward to this addition to my Fuji “Holy Trinity” (HT). BTW, the Nikon HT costs well over $6k for all three lenses, compared to the Fuji HT at around $3,600 for the trio. Rough weight comparison is 73 oz. for all three Fuji lenses, compare to ~128 oz. for all three Nikkor lenses. Bye, bye Nikon… Go Fuji!

      • flyfisherman

        Checked the Fuji website – Indeed, the lens has internal focusing, but NOT internal zoom. Only question left is how far does the lens extend… hopefully not too obnoxious.

      • lord eels

        $2600 and a few dozen ounces is a small price to pay for a full stop of additional DoF control and light gathering. please don’t think you are buying the same caliber of lenses. not to mention even the cheapest Nikon DSLR from 5 years ago has better AF than any mirrorless camera out there today.

        you have big giant zoom APS-C glass. that’s what you have. you still have to carry them. you are still the conspicuous “camera guy” when you use them.

        you’ve simply traded off an insignificant amount of weight (not an rx100 after all) for a highly significant amount of performance. typical mirrorless vortex’d.

        • Luzid

          Bye, bye!

        • Marc Grimm

          ure so talking nonsense ;) really funny

  • TheProKit

    I like to see a X-T1 kit with this lens and a batterygrip !

  • Lumen

    Rico, your Photography is awesome, or is it that lens ? Both it is. You are very inspiring for this site. Thanks for that.

  • m

    Stop crying ! Fuji made this lens “big and heavy” ! I know! Mounted on a graphite XT1 , you’ll be the most “professional looking” weeding photographer. :)))) Now all the clients will think you’re serious, and all the dinos (dslr) will envy you. That’s the truth. :)))

    • MJr

      Did you mean, weeping photographer? :))))

    • Art Silva

      Right, like wedding planners asks for your camera bag contents when booking you instead of your portfolio… Brilliant. I know wedding photographers that are shooting with their X-Pro1and an X100s bodies doing much better than the Canon/Nikon DSLR guys.
      The idea of being more inconspicuous gets you more intimate shots you would not be able to get with he bloated “here I come” tank cameras of yesterday.

  • There is only one photo of the lens itself, taken at 140mm… Nothing works with this, but the perspective is misleading. The ratio between camera and lens is a little different in real life. The lens size is perceived slightly smaller than you’d perceive it with the naked eye, in real life. Try the same shot at 23mm, see that you’d get…

    • My point is – size is what it is, and I understand there are laws of physics and such, but I wish I had a top view of the combo, to have a better understanding.

      Overall, praising Fuji for not caving in and make is smaller, which would have probably compromised the performance.

  • Calking1

    Some things are ALWAYS the same on forums, like this thread.

    Reminds me of every post ever written about a “flip-out screen” — LMAO. The haters of flip screens come out and then the defenders. Back and forth they go — whether they land nobody knows….

  • Calking1

    A GREAT travel lens kit for the vacation and on-the-go type continues to be the 10-24, 18-55, and 55-200. 3 stabilized lenses, all producing more than satisfactory results, cheaper and lighter than this fast, “pro” glass stuff, and AVAILABLE.

    OR …. just a 14mm, 18-55 and the 55-200. Sweet. There’s nothing that says that just because Fuji releases a new lens / body / etc that you MUST have it, and it MUST be to your specs. Go take pictures and get out of forums.

    No need for bloody Armageddon here. Those of you who MUST have the latest, greatest thing will find a reason to buy the lens. Those of you who don’t HAVE to have it will find a reason or two NOT to buy.

    But for all those complaining about this not being a good travel lens, I say there are more appropriate alternatives so hush up and move on.

    • Hphoto

      The primary problem I personally have with the travel trio you mentioned (10-24, 18-55, and 55-200) is a lack of weather resistance. It is the primary reason I don’t buy into the 10-24 and 55-200.
      One could only hope that fuji will create mark 2 versions of those lenses that do include weather resistance. This is especially needed in the 10-24 since fuji has no weather resistant lens in that 10-16 wide angle range.
      I could care less about constant f2.8 in the WR lenses fuji has now created. I rarely shoot that wide open anyway. As it is the IQ of the lightweight (10-24, 18-55, and 55-200) trio is awesome and they are only lacking in WR. In point of fact I would probably just carry two xt1’s in that case with the 10-24 dedicated to one and the 55-200 dedicated to the other with a macro lens in the bag.

  • Steffen

    Fuji urgently needs to get support in how to design and build lenses!!! From Samsung, e.g.!!!

    Fuji 16-55 f2.8 665g WR APS-C lens no OIS
    Samsung 16-50 f2.0-f2.8 622g WR APS-C lens WITH OIS

    Samsung’s lens starts at F2.0 (!!) and does have OIS (!!) build in AND is a few grams lighter.. Also, Samsung does have a 72mm filter thread only, instead the 77mm from Fuji.

    Why Samsung can do and Fuji can’t?
    If Samsung went for a constant f2.8, I’m figuring another 100 to 120 grams of weight lesser than it is…

    • Luzid

      Ha, ha, ha! Take a look at the test charts.

    • Marc Grimm

      you can now stop writing this nonsense. thank you.

    • Z

      You copied your comment into the other thread as well, you must be a real FUJI lover :-)

    • I laughed :)

    • Art Silva

      Only if you’re not concerned with image quality you’d stick with the Samsung! Thanks for the laughs tho.

    • FF

      Because it can be used on the future FUJI FF (after X-PRO2) ?

  • Luzid

    I suggest a: 16-70/4.0 OIS WR
    900 €. With body for 500 €.
    Filter diameter about 68mm. Under 500 gr.
    I think this could satisfy the rest.

    • Milwman

      An F 4 24-105 equivalent would be nice and they may get to it later I hope.

  • Hphoto

    Thanks for the first look Rico! I have been anxiously waiting for this lens since it was put on the roadmap.
    Rico is there any chance you could test this with the new Fuji macro tubes on the 55 end and show us how sharp it is?
    Also what is your impression of this lens on the 16 end compared to the xf-14?
    I might sell my Xf-14, xf-18-55 and XF-60 in favor of this moisture and dust resistant lens if the sharpness and quality was close enough at both ends of the spectrum.
    As it is I am now only disappointed in the cost.
    Everything else is on par with my expectations. No OIS doesn’t bother me.

    I’m glad I haven’t yet sold my 18-55 yet though.
    It makes me wonder what a WR 18-55 would cost.
    I wonder if such a lens would qualm the OIS and size complaining on here.
    Since those complaining seem to care little for quality and WR in this lens.

  • So many whiners and haters in the comments here, even funnier when people are talking about actual DoF, weight, blah blah blah. I’m just happy Fuji is augmenting their existing lineup with more options. No regrets selling my DSLR and using my Fuji as my main work horse.

    • Milwman

      Yea Most are to the point they are just Peeing in the pool for something to do.

  • erbse

    Nice to have some pictures here presented.
    But :
    First, the processing of the pictures seems to be not top notch and jpg out of camera would have been far better. As an unknown lightroom “the boss DIY” settings.
    Second, Do you need an zoom for 16mm and 55mm pictures ? I have not counted but it felt like 95% where at 55mm and 16mm @ F2.8.
    some examples where at F9 and F8 well this pictures where ok at this F-stop.
    but what about 20mm, 23mm, 27mm, 35mm 40mm, 45mm, 50mm ?
    at F2.8, F4, F5.6 ?

    I am sorry that I am disappointed with the results of the pictures. I’m not blaming the lens. If you are able to get this lens to preview I would consider 2 things. Either I get the best of the best result possible, or resize the images so no one can make up their mind.
    I would have chosen not to risk anyone judge on my pictures the lens. I would have used resized JPG’s out of camera.

    If i would have to make an decision purchasing the lens based on the samples then I would not buy this lens. I now have to wait till I have seen results surpassing my old EF 28-70mm F2.8 L who is 20+ years old.

  • tapplegate2

    My old system was Canon L glass which are great lenses, but it’s apparent you haven’t used any of the Fuji x lenses have you?

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

What are Cookies?
A cookie is a small file of letters and numbers that is stored in a temporary location on your computer to allow our website to distinguish you from other users of the website. If you don't want to accept cookies, you'll still be able to browse the site and use it for research purposes. Most web browsers have cookies enabled, but at the bottom of this page you can see how to disable cookies. Please note that cookies can't harm your computer. We don't store personally identifiable information in the cookies, but we do use encrypted information gathered from them to help provide you with a good experience when you browse our website and also allow us to improve our site. You can watch a simple video from Google to find more information about cookies.

Cookies used by our Website
The Fujirumors website, Fujirumors.com, uses the following cookies for the collection of website usage statistics and to ensure that we can . These are anonymous and temporary. By using our website, you agree that we may place these types of cookies on your device.
Read how Google uses data when you use our partners' sites or apps: http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/privacy/partners/
Google Analytics Cookie Usage on Websites: https://developers.google.com/analytics/devguides/collection/analyticsjs/cookie-usage?csw=1#cookiesSet Addthis cookies: http://www.addthis.com/privacy.
Disqus cookies: https://help.disqus.com/customer/portal/articles/466235-use-of-cookies.
Vimeo cookies: http://vimeo.com/privacy.
Youtube cookies: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/171780?hl=en-GB

Disabling/Enabling Cookies
You have the ability to accept or decline cookies by modifying the settings in your browser. Please note however that by deleting our cookies or disabling future cookies you may not be able to access certain areas or features of our site. For information about how to disable cookies in your browser please visit the About Cookies website.

Close