Just to be clear right up front: this is not a review of the new Fujinon 16-50mm f/2.8-4.8 R LM WR kit lens. Someone let me use their copy for half a day while I was in Denver to lead a photowalk (thanks, Matt!), so this is just a quick impression after a handful of hours of use. Everything that I say about it should be taken with a grain of salt, since I don’t own the lens and only used it briefly. My goal is simply to help bring some clarity to those who might be considering it—I’m not certain if I’ll be able to accomplish that, but I hope so.
The Fujinon 16-50mm f/2.8-4.8 is Fujifilm’s successor to the much-beloved 18-55mm f/2.8-4 kit lens, which has been discontinued. I’m not a zoom-lens guy—I prefer prime lenses—but I do own the 18-55mm f/2.8-4, and it’s the only zoom lens that I use even close to somewhat regularly. I don’t use it all the time, but definitely more than any other zoom that I own. It’s an excellent kit lens, perhaps even the best kit lens offered by any brand. I was actually a little sad when Fujifilm announced that they were replacing it. I think the primary reason for its discontinuation is that it cannot fully resolve the 40mp X-Trans V sensor.
There’s actually quite a lot different between the 16-50mm f/2.8-4.8 and the 18-55mm f/2.8-4. Some advantages of the 16-50mm are: optically superior, internal zoom, lighter, smaller (the lenses are the same size, but the 18-55mm extends when you zoom while the 16-50mm doesn’t), weather-sealed, wider focal length, and better minimum focus distance. Some advantages of the 18-55mm are: optical image stabilization, larger maximum aperture at the telephoto end, longer telephoto reach, and can be found cheaper used than the 16-50mm new. Each has advantages and disadvantages, so it’s difficult to say that one is “better” than the other; however, if I had to pick one as better, it would be the new 16-50mm.
I was actually pretty impressed with the sharpness of the 16-50mm f/2.8-4.8 lens. It’s tack sharp, with the crispness that one would expect from a prime lens. I didn’t notice any vignetting, either. The new lens is optically the winner; the old lens isn’t a slouch, but the 16-50mm is quite obviously the better of the two. Having the 16-50mm is like owning a whole bunch of prime lenses, albeit ones without impressive maximum apertures.
The difference between 16mm and 18mm is larger than the difference between 50mm and 55mm; however, my personal preferences is to have more telephoto reach. For me, I want 55mm f/4 more than I want 16mm. I almost never used 16mm during the short time with the lens, but you might use 16mm often and 50mm rarely. Toping out at f/4.8 at 50mm is odd, since it is a half-stop intermediate aperture. Half-stops were once common a long time ago, but they’re pretty rare nowadays. There’s not a significant benefit in depth-of-field, compression and bokeh (using that term incorrectly) from 55mm f/4 compared to 50mm f/4.8, but there is a difference nonetheless. For me, though, the biggest problem with f/4.8 is dust. You see, living in Arizona, I constantly battle a dirty sensor, and dust on the sensor won’t show at f/4 but it will begin to show at f/4.8.
The Fujinon 16-50mm f/2.8-4 R LM WR makes the most sense when paired with the cameras that have the 40mp X-Trans V sensor and IBIS, which (as of this writing) are the X-H2, X-T5, and X-T50. My guess is that the majority of those who own the X-H2 and X-T5 are not using kit zooms (although I’m sure some are… I use the 18-55mm on my X-T5 sometimes), so that means the Fujifilm X-T50 is the camera that this lens makes the most sense for, in my opinion (I’m sure Fujifilm will release more models in the future that this lens pairs especially well with). For the models without the 40mp sensor but with IBIS—the X-H2s, X-S20, X-S10, and X-H1—you could go either way. Pairing this lens to a weather-sealed body is quite logical, so maybe that could be a deciding factor. For cameras without IBIS, I would recommend the 18-55mm f/2.8-4 lens, since it has OIS.
I have no intentions of purchasing the Fujinon 16-50mm f/2.8-4.8. Don’t get me wrong: I would be happy owning it, but I’m also happy owning the Fujinon 18-55mm f/2.8-4, and I just don’t have a need for two kit zooms right now. But, if you’re trying to decide, I think the Fujifilm X-T50 and Fujinon 16-50mm f/2.8-4.8 combo could be an especially excellent lightweight travel kit. Also, the internal zoom of the 16-50mm is a major plus for those who will be using it with a gimbal, since you won’t have to rebalance whenever you adjust the focal length. The $699 MSRP is a bit steep (it’s the same price that the 18-55mm was), but if you buy it bundled with a camera body, it’s basically $300 cheaper, and for that price I think it could be worthwhile.
This post contains affiliate links, and if you make a purchase using my links I’ll be compensated a small amount for it.
Fujinon 16-50mm f/2.8-4.8 R LM WR:
Amazon, B&H, Moment, Wex, Nuzira
Photographs captured using the Fujifilm X-T50 and Fujinon 16-50mm f/2.8-4.8 R LM WR:
Thanks Ritchie for your quick impressions on the new XF16-50 LM WR zoom (kit) lens.
I’m owning it on the very day of its release (as usual). I traded it against my loved XF16-80 f4 WR zoom. I’m owning it along a bunch of Fujifilm X mount lenses like the XF18-55 LM..
I concure fully with you on performance + sharpness levels and it has a very snappy AF thanks it’s Linear Motor (LM).
It’s really a perfect combo for those who have latest 40MP with IBIS bodies and want a zoom / only 1 lens travel kit.
I love it on my XT-5 as indeed it is very responsive AF wise (latest firmware) and very sharp on a 40MP vs the 18-55.
It is amazingly extra very light, weather sealed, and do not extend thanks to its inner zoom.
I trade my XF16-80 f4, which was my go to holiday only 1 lens because of those points.
And like the 18-55, the 16-80 is not resolving fully the 40MP which is quite a disappointment (along the 10-24 WR Mark II sadly).
Both the 18-55 and 16-80 protube quite significantly.
With the 18-55 when zooming it can indeed bring dust not being WR. While the 16-80 (or 18-135, both sealing works very well, wi would say from experience a bit better on the 16-80) with the16-80 you can have still have dust and sand depending as you remarked on the situations
You still need to be carefull like in your place or if you go in Egypt for example whete Egyptian sand is very fine and sticky so quite nasty for camera gear and digital sensors (it can also scratch a film).
I would add that while the 16-80 stay put even if you put it down toward the ground, using it as a zoom kit / only holiday lens for doing cities / house – museum – exhibition visits like I’ve done in Barcelona last year can be at desavantage in crowdy situations compared to 16-50 with it’s inner zooming.
During crawded visits while shooting details with my 16-80 ,(or 18-55) since protubing too much means if you are not carefully here too and no protecting your gear while circulating you end up that the lens being hit very easily by nearby visitors or you hit people with it.
Issue for your gear and (very) big annoyance for the nearby visitors!
This is not the case with the new 16-50, being small, keeping its size thanks to the inner zoom. You end up being quite unoticeable with your gear if handled properly.
Also inner zooming helps drastically against dust and sand issues!
Last, after a full day of walking despite being not a heavy lens, the 16-80 around your neck or shoulders, well, when your are getting old, you definitely feel it!
About the stabilisation: in contrario of the 50-140, or 100-400 or 150-600 for exemple, where you can clearly see both the lens stabilisation and IBIS working together, I have definitely the impression that the lens stabilization of the 18-55 or the 16-80 are not really in use when you put them on a X-T5 or similar IBIS bodies. It’s active but… Definitely not at 16/18mm, not much even at 55, possibly at 80mm on bad light situation. On none iBIS lenses the IOS of the 16-80 is very effective (tested on X-T2, X-Pro3 and X-E4). I’m always wondering about the algorithm logic – choiced, but well do not care much overall stability is assured.
Hence a bit of a waste here Knowing the IOS take more place, is heavier, and more so consume battery power.
So I have no issue on loosing the IOS. I’ve gained lightness and compactness + extra shots with my battery.
Sadly when switching off IOS on the 18-55 (or the 20-24), it does switch off too IBIS. No choice on the 16-80… I would have appreciated a functionality on IBIS cameras to let user decide to use either IOS of their lens along IBIS or not. A bit like MF+AF setting when using the XF16 f1.4 or the like with their manual clunch focusing ring.
So easy to implement firmware wise in a sub menu…
Fujifilm camera are so customisable, this oversight is a real pity.
Macro mode when at 50mm. Well here it
works as advertised. You can easily do with the new 16-50 proxy macro photography as the minimum focusing distance is much lower than the 16-80 or 18-55. It works well enough to be fun and useful.
And if you use the digital ‘zoom’ 1,4x & 2x functionality of the X-T5 (and other 40MP cameras) it can be very handy!
I’m doing (proxy) macro photography so I do appreciate this added optical feature a lot.
A real plus in a lot of situations I’m into as being outside in woods or in a museum, it can be an asset for capturing details.
And there being at f4.8 is not an issue (and IBIS helps along).
Hence for all those points, the new XF16-50 is a big and clear winner for me.
Which causes as wrote earlier my immediate trading of my 16-80.
BUT like you, Ritchie, I’m more a telephoto guy than a wide one.
While having 16mm is handy / necessary when in-house visit or for landscape photography, not having the 55mm reach like the previous awesome zoom kit is a clear limitation for me.
But I get along as ending up using more the build-in digital zoom functionality offered by my X-T5 (a bit too much thought, but I do not mind going back to 20MP, the image quality is still there for my usage).
I miss also the constant f4 aperture of the 16-80 (or being able to be only at f4 with the 55).
I’m a big fan of f4 zoom lenses (like the Nikon ones too).
No brainer when shooting portraits (f4 rule) or street.
So going to f4.8 is a bit weird and of annoyance indeed.
I wonder about the lens design size and weight trade of, if the lens had been kept to max f4.
Way too big and fat lens? Maybe so. Especially on the X-T50? For sure.
I’m pretty certain that to go to f4.8 instead of f4 and thus keeping the lens small and extra light for the X-T50 was a key design and marketing factors.
Being at f4.8 at 50mm, for my trials gives also a weird usage detail.
Depending on your auto settings (mainly ISO related) with this max aperture if you let the camera decide for you, you end up being quite too often at f5.6 or more even. ISO might rise too much for one taste.
Therefore you need many times to override, and thus push the button switch to manual aperture selection on the lens.
I strangely ended up with this slow max aperture to be forced to manipulate much more this button aperture selection switch, way too much my taste, than with other zoom lens especially the 18-55…
Knowing this is a tiny button switch, I wonder on it’s lasting durability…
Therefore I would strongly advice with this new 16-50, when above 35mm (35mm is the very last step giving f4 aperture) to be more in manual aperture mode than in auto mode when possible (a bit going against the customer market target of the X-T50 though, thus indeed a bit weird)
Just a detail, but the real downside one, I found.
Thus making maybe the 18-55 still the best ever made kit zoom.
But You cannot have it all.
Clearly this lens is a balanced compromise.
Better or not that the previous 18-55. Here I do not know yet. Too early to tell.
But after 10 years of being praised , I’m pretty sure that the quest and second-hand market price for the XF18-55 will soon rocket high…
And for the very last downside about the 16-50, I miss a lot too the aperture markings on the ring of my 16-80 !
I would have wished they kept it.
Would have been more premium.
But the 16-50 is consistent with it’s former brother the 18-55, a more ‘consumer’ approach…
Overall I’m happy wit it, so welcome to this new kit zoom for 40MP IBIS bodies.
A very nice addition to Fujifilm lenses offering.
PS: While still having the 18-55, why I’m not using it on my X-T5 then? Well very simple reason: on all my weather sealed cameras, I’m using only weather sealed lenses!
My 18-55 is going and do very well on my X-E4.
I think it’s true: you cannot have it all—like you said, the lens is a “balanced compromise.” I wish that I had a little more time with the lens to give more than just a quick impression, but it does seem like a decent zoom option… very sharp. I appreciate your thoughtful feedback!
Indeed. And thx Ritchie for your reply. It was a pleasure commenting / giving feedback after a whole summer usage.
I purchased the 16-50 stand-alone (ouch; the price hurt….), but I can say it is excellent. On my XT5, the lens is sharper and resolves the 40MP better than the 18-55, although you have to zoom in beyond 100% to see the difference. However, the 16-55 provides much “cleaner” images (again: 40MP); the old 18-55 was much noisier for instance in skies; the 16-50 remains clean even if zoomed in at ridiculous percentages. Consequently, the images have a “nicer” look with more pop and are altogether more pleasing. It also has a better close focussing distance. Finally, it is more suited than the 18-55 (or any of the other standard zooms out there) for street photography or shooting at social events: because the lens is so small and does not extend while zooming, it is much more discreet and less likely to attract (negative) attention. Big plus for me, as I’m never really comfortable shooting strangers up close. I first thought it to be too expensive and that I would not buy it – but I did (after testing) and man, really happy with it.
Glad that you like it! It has excellent optics that are difficult to find any faults with.
Like most kit lenses, I think it seems like a solid choice when bundled, but perhaps a little steep in price if purchased separately.
But overall, seems like a really strong landscape lens for 40mp Fuji bodies. The 16-80 appears to struggle with the higher resolution, and this has WR, internal zoom, and is sharp enough to keep up. If buying a new X-T5 with landscape in mind, getting the 16-50 kit makes a lot of sense. You’ll probably want to use a prime for portraits, but otherwise probably won’t miss the aperture, since stopping down is often the plan.
For someone more interested in Street or social occasions, maybe it’s the Sigma 18-50. For events, the Tamron 17-70 (that long telephoto end at f/2.8 has a lot to offer for portraits). But it feels like this lens probably has a great niche for landscape. Wider when you need it, sharper than the alternatives, with WR I’d be more inclined to trust, and still decently compact. The tradeoff is aperture, but that’s an acceptable one for some uses.
If I had the option, I would definitely buy it bundled over buying it stand-alone. In my opinion it is more of a $400 lens than a $700 lens. The weather-sealing does make it more compelling for someone photographing out in the elements.
Very interesting, I’m debating if I need a zoom at all and whether to buy this or the Sigma, this gave me a few more points to consider. As you mentioned in another comment, price is a matter though and bundled would be a better option.
A side question: Will there be more Most popular recipes of MONTH X?
I’m missing these posts, always gave me new ideas and inspiration.
I’m glad that you liked those. I wasn’t sure if those were helpful or not… glad to know that they were!
Hi Fred, I compared the Fuji and Sigma quite thoroughly side-by-side. I found the Fuji to be the clear winner: 16mm on the wide end (which for me outweighs the loss of 5mm tele), (much) better built quality, aperture ring, weather resistant, shorter and lighter, faster and better focusing, and more pleasing images (at least to my eyes) with better colors, more contrast and pop. Sharpness was about equal. The 2.8 of the Sigma is nice, but the difference in terms of background blur is actually not that big. For lowlight and real background blur, I revert to fast primes anyway, so for me, the verdict was easy. Best of luck with your choice!
Thanks a lot, especially the Aperture of course is an important plus for the Fuji for me. Just the price… Guess I’ll have to give it even more thought and look for a deal, or just upgrade from my X-T30II to the X-T50 with the lens bundle 😛
Thanks for your helpful comment! Onno