Maybe it's just me? But I think that Fuji's cheap, lightweight, plastic,
consumer-based kit lens - the Fujinon XC16-50mm f3.5-5.6 OIS (to give
it its full title) - is a damn fine lens!
Damn fine.
Now to be fair, it also happens to be the
only lens I've ever
used in the Fujifilm lineup. So maybe I haven't got that much to compare
it to? I do know, from reading and watching other reviewers, that
Fuji's optical quality is spoken of in extremely high regard. Words like
'outstanding' and 'exceptional' are used on a very regular basis by
anyone reviewing the XF primes or pro level zooms. And yet almost
nothing is ever said about the XC range of lenses. And if they are
mentioned at all, it's almost in embarrassment, and they quickly move on
to more 'serious' optics.
I think this does the Fujinon 16-50mm XC lens a severe injustice. I
really do. Because while I may not have any experience with other
Fujinon lenses, I have a plethora (yes, I said a
plethora) of
experience with other lenses, over a more than thirty year photographic
career. From consumer kit zooms to cheap plastic primes, mid-range third
party offerings to expensive pro level glass - I've shot with (and
owned) them all. And while the Fujinon XC 16-50mm lens might not be the
best lens I've ever owned, it certainly is
far from being the worst.
|
Lake Brunner Water Taxi. Fujifilm X-E1 with Fujinon 16-50mm XC lens. F/11 @ 1/125th, ISO 800. 23mm (35mm equiv) |
|
100% crop of lower right corner. Click image to enlarge |
That's not damning with faint praise either. Honestly. Because while I certainly can't claim that it's the
best
lens I've ever owned, I also believe that it's a truly fantastic lens,
capable of remarkably good results - especially for the price that you
will pay for this plastic 'kit' lens. Most reviewers completely
disregard this lens, or ignore it completely as if it doesn't even
exist. And I believe they do so to their own detriment.
Ok, so it's not made of metal. Yes, it is an all plastic construction - right down to the lens mount itself. But not - I repeat
NOT
- the optics. They are, of course, made of glass. Fujinon glass. 12
elements, in 10 groups, including three aspherical lens elements and one
ED lens element. The good stuff. So whilst the body might be of
consumer-grade construction, Fuji haven't skimped where it matters the
most. With the optics.
|
Cross section of XC 16-50mm lens elements |
Plastic it may be, but it's also a very good plastic (is there such a
thing in this day and age?). The fit and finish is excellent, and the
zoom ring turns smoothly and without any barrel wobble. I won't lie - a
metal lens mount would have been nice, and wouldn't have added any
discernible weight (or cost) to the lens. But for such an incredibly
light lens (just 195 grams) for a zoom, I can see why Fuji have opted
for the plastic lens mount. For its intended user base (this is a
consumer grade lens by Fuji's own definition), they probably didn't see
it getting very heavy use, and may even be the
only lens that the
average consumer ever owns? So I guess there might not be a lot of
lens-changing going on anyway. And besides, we're long past the point
where plastic lens barrels on consumer products are of concern. Canon
and Nikon have been doing it since the introduction of consumer digital
SLR's in 2003 (with the Canon D300).
|
Carters Beach, Westport. Fuji X-T1 with Fujinon 16-50mm XC. f5.6 @ 1/240th, ISO 200. 23mm (35mm equiv)
|
|
100% crop of central area. Click image to enlarge |
So let's get over the all-plastic thing shall we? Let's concentrate instead on what it
does have going for it. And there's plenty.
It's lightweight, well constructed, and has glass optics with some nice
aspherical elements thrown in for good measure. It also has image
stabilisation built in to the lens (up to 3.5 stops), seven rounded
aperture blades, a quick and silent autofocusing motor, and focuses as
close as 15cm's for 'macro' images. It's not weather-sealed (neither is
the 18-55mm), but really, what do you expect at this price point?
Ultimately, what I'm most interested in with any lens, of course, is IQ
(image quality). What do the photos that this lens takes actually look
like? And in this regard I only need one word: fantastic! Honestly -
fantastic.
From the very first image I took with the Fujifilm X-E1 and 16-50mm XC
combination I was blown away. Crisp, clean, clear, colourful, sharp -
all of the above. And while a good deal of this is down to the x-trans
sensor, it still needs the lens to translate all that x-trans goodness
into a final image.
|
Truman Track, Punakaiki. Fuji X-T1 with Fujinon 16-50mm XC. f5.6 @ 1/550th, ISO 200. 16mm (24mm equiv)
|
|
100% crop of lower left corner. Click image to enlarge |
I'm not going to lie to you, dear reader, and tell you that the Fujinon
XC 16-50mm f3.5-5.6 OIS is the sharpest lens I've ever owned - because
it's not. But it is
plenty sharp enough. Just look at the 100%
corner crops of the images in this post. They aren't bitingly sharp -
but only the very best of the very best lenses actually are. You know,
the ones you pay $1000+ for. For a 'kit' lens performance, these are
excellent results, especially when you consider that all but the last
image here (the one taken at Motukeikei Beach) were shot hand-held.
So while it might not be the sharpest tack in the box, I actually find
this to be a positive. Sometimes I find bitingly sharp optics to have a
very obvious 'digital' quality to them. Not so the Fujinon 16-50mm XC
lens. It's sharp, without being 'digitally' sharp. It has, dare I say it
(ok, I will) a more film-like quality to it. It's sharp (often very
sharp) where it needs to be, yet also beautifully smooth in other areas.
It's hard to define exactly, but I do find the images that I'm getting
from the 16-50mm XC to be very beautiful. Drop dead beautiful, in fact.
|
Motukeikei Beach Sunset. Fuji X-E2 with 16-50mm XC. f11 @ 1/2sec, ISO 200
|
|
100% crop of lower right. Click to enlarge |
Steady on! Am I gushing over this cheap little hunk of plastic a bit too
much? Surely it's just a lens you 'put up with' until you can afford a
'real' lens? I take my landscape photography very seriously, so of
course I'm going to 'upgrade' first chance I get - right?
Well, not so fast. Recently (as in this week), I had the chance to do
just that. Buy a 'better' lens for the X-E2 (see my last post). I looked
very closely at the Fujinon 18-55mm f2-4, and almost pulled the
trigger on one. But then a few reviews I read suggested that the IQ of
the 18-55mm wasn't really an upgrade. I'm thrilled with the IQ I'm
getting from the 16-50 XC lens (can't you tell). Would I be
more thrilled with the IQ from the 18-55mm? I'm not convinced I would.
Yes, the 18-55mm is 'better' built (more metal), and yet it still
doesn't have weather-sealing. And yes, it's a 'faster' lens - but as
primarily a landscape photographer working around f11, I don't
necessarily need faster. And also, as a landscape photographer, I'm
going to choose the 16-50mm over the 18-55mm because of its focal range.
16mm (24mm equivalent) is useful to me, and preferable over 18mm (27mm
equivalent). Surprisingly, at wider focal lengths, that extra 2mm makes a
huge difference - especially on an APS-C sized sensor.
Realistically, my upgrade path is actually to go to the Fujinon 16-55mm f2.8 - which
is weather-sealed, and which, I'm sure, is a superior lens. And I
probably
could have afforded one if I'd waited for a good secondhand deal. But
the 16-55mm f2.8 would also come with its own set of problems. Weight
being one of them. At 655 grams, it's over three times the weight of the
16-50mm XC lens - which would definitely be noticeable on my X-E2.
So in the end, after weighing up all the pros and cons, I decided that
the Fujinon XC 16-50mm f3.5-5.6 OIS lens was, in fact, the perfect lens
for me. So I've bought another one to go with my X-E2 (after having sold
my original lens with my X-E1). My 'new' (secondhand) one is the
version II model (slightly updated OIS apparently), in all-silver.
Should pair up very nicely with my silver/black X-E2.
|
Lake Brunner Boats. Fuji X-E1 with Fujinon XC 16-50mm. f8 @1/125th, ISO 250. 23mm (35mm equiv)
|
Apologies if this post has gone on a bit long, and become a bit of a
rant in places? But it does annoy me that so many 'serious'
photographers and reviewers dismiss the XC lenses as 'inferior' rubbish.
They are, as I have discovered much to my joy, nothing of the sort.
Since I'm not really a prime kinda guy, and since I've discounted
getting both the 18-55mm and 16-55mm (at least for the foreseeable
future), then I guess I'll keep using the XC 16-50mm plastic fantastic
for my 'serious' landscape photography. And since my experience with
this XC lens has been so positive, I'm considering getting the 50-230mm
XC telephoto as well. If it's anything like its smaller sibling, then it
just might be a real gem of a lens too? Can't wait to find out...
Comments
Post a Comment