[mst]

So, finally, the long awaited review of a so-so lens at the end of a so-so year:

https://www.opticallimits.com/fuji_x/1103_fuji1680f4ois

Things can only get better.

Happy New Year everyone!

New year's resolution over here: publish a lot more and more frequently.

[Rover]

The performance at 80mm is beyond belief. The Zeiss 16-70/4 has a worthy stablemate... in the far corner of the racecourses.

[Klaus]

I think one has to realize what 26mp actually means here - the pixel density is equivalent to a 61mp full format sensor.
If you remember what the 5Ds R is doing to lenses, it is not surprising that "average" quality lenses fall apart on such APS-C sensors.

[Rover]

Greater uniformity was one of the advantages of APS-C before, but it seems that past 20MP it all starts eroding. I can say it's a pity... more so since I own a 24MP APS-C camera.

[Brightcolours]

Not much greater uniformity when you shoot at equivalent settings on APS-C (since always), though.... I know you are allergic to "equivalence", but it is just reality. Or an uncomfortable truth?

[Klaus]

Well, you have greater uniformity when using full format lenses on an APS-C body (but yes, this doesn't happy to Fuji).

[Rover]

Yeah, BC, churns my stomach to think of that. As they said in a classic Soviet movie, "Yeah, so much animosity that I can't eat". Anyway, I'm not looking to start and argument but I liked the results that I saw in Klaus's reviews of any half-decent APS-C (and certainly FF) lens used on an APS-C body where good results all over were very often possible right out of the gate, and 3-4 stops of vignetting were the (rare and much deplored) exception rather than the norm. No use comparing them to any other sensor size especially with Fuji where FF or any sensor size other than APS-C is non-existent, is there?

Oh and speaking of good long zooms starting at 16mm... this Fuji and the Sony E mount ZA lens are desultory enough, but there was a time when a good semi-fast 16-80 lens was around... the A-mount ZA 16-80/3.5-4.5. (sigh) I almost bought it once, but that was the time when I was switching away from the KonicaMinolta system I was using and on to Canon...

BTW I'm wondering if Nikon had any success with their 16-80/2.8-4, or it's as iffy as this Fuji as far as IQ is concerned.

[Klaus]

Well, the FF 24-105mm f/4 are usually pretty good and there is no reason why this can't be replicated on APS-C.
However, if you prioritize size over performance (like here) this won't happen.

A problem for Fuji is really that their standard zoom lens options aren't overly attractive.
The 16-55mm f/2.8 is big and heavy, the 18-55mm f/2.8-4 is good but the range is meh and the rest of the gang isn't hot really.

Over at Sony, you got the stellar and light-weight 16-55mm f/2.8 G and a fairly decent 18-135mm & 18-105mm G.

[Rover]

Sure would be interesting to see how the Sony 16-55 fares.......
(The Canon 17-55/2.8 had excellent IQ, and the problems I encountered while using it were all from a different area).

[toni-a]

While I think the 2.5 stars for optical performance is somewhat low, since it is penalized by relying on digital correction, however once corrected the performance is rather acceptable.
OTOH there are Canon 15-85, Nikon and Pentax f16-85 all three suffer much less vignetting and distortions and they had to deal with longer flange distance, so it is feasible, however they seem to have prioritized the small size, and constant aperture.
I do like my Canon 15-85 a lot and it is not that big along with 750D or 7Dmkii it is my usual hiking kit