p.1 #1 · Which Fuji zoom to choose? XF 16-55 mk i/ii, Sigma 18-50, Tamron 17-70.
I'm looking to upgrade from my XF 16-80 f4 to something with a constant aperture of f2.8 that has a better chance of resolving the 40mp sensor on my X-H2 and these are the 4 contenders.
XF 16-55 MK I
XF 16-55 MK II
SIgma 18-50
Tamron 17-70
I like the idea of keeping Fuji glass on a Fuji body so either of the XF 16-55s seem nice. I like the used price of the 16-55 MK I as well but I don't know how much I will miss the built in stabilization from the 16-80. The issue here is the price, even a used 16-55 MK I is as much if not more than a new lens from either of the 3rd parties. I am also, even after watching videos not sure just how much of an upgrade the MK II is over the MK I considering I have no plans of using it for video and I really don't care about the weight/size savings (If anything I like a bigger lens personally).
The Sigma 18-50 is easily the one I'm least interested in as it has the least range and is the smallest so I'm worried it won't feel nice in my hands. It also has no Image stabilization built in. I really only include this because of the constant f2.8 and the fact that it keeps coming up when looking around at zooms in this bracket.
The Tamron 17-70 is an interesting lens, I'm not a fan of the fact that it isn't Fuji but it seems to have a lot going for it with a wider range and built in image stabilization. I know that my camera body has it's own image stabilization but I imagine it wouldn't hurt to have more?
My main questions are as follows.
Does anyone with experience with any or all of these lenses have comments on image quality? It seems that the Fuji lenses are very similar here with maybe some generational improvements. The Tamron seems like it might be a bit worse but I don't know if it would be noticeable or still be an upgrade over the 16-80 anyway.
Does the OIS matter? As mentioned I have some built into the camera but I am not sure if losing it on the lens will be massively noticeable.
Is the difference between the Fuji 16-55 MK I and MK II enough to justify the increase in price if the size doesn't matter and if I'm not worried about the de-clickable aperture?
It seems like there are a thousand videos talking about one or all of these lenses and each one is coming away with different and sometimes conflicting takeaways so I am just confused and trying to sort out which one would be the best way forward.
p.1 #2 · Which Fuji zoom to choose? XF 16-55 mk i/ii, Sigma 18-50, Tamron 17-70.
I have the 16-80 and then went to the 16-55 mkII because the weight of the original 16-55 was a big issue for how I use this lens. I love the mkII but if you don't care about weight as much as price, I would go with the mkI. I've never used the other two you mention but seriously doubt either matches the Fuji red badge lenses. I don't even notice the lack of OIS but do occasionally miss the range of the 16-80. But its more than offset by the 2.8 aperture and the MFD is also a little shorter which helps offset the zoom at close focus. There is a used mkI in the B&S for $475 right now, and this lens is posted there quite often at good prices. I actually like the 16-80 quite a lot and the 16-55 mkII was an expensive upgrade. But this lens is spends more time on my X-T5 than all others and I wanted the best zoom I could get and I feel like this is it. I was shocked by how similar in hand the mkII is to the 16-80, no muscle memory adjustment required.
p.1 #3 · Which Fuji zoom to choose? XF 16-55 mk i/ii, Sigma 18-50, Tamron 17-70.
Have you tried the MK I? Honestly that was the lens I originally wanted to go with but then I started looking into it and several people told me the MK I wasn't even worth looking at with the MKII now out. I saw the one on B&S but I can't PM people to buy yet. I figured there would be others so for now I'd worry about figuring out exactly which lens I wanted to get and maybe by the time I can actually PM people I will know what I'm looking for.
I've also seen that new Sigma Art zoom floating around but that loses so much range I didn't even consider it seriously (not to mention it's supply is very limited right now).
p.1 #4 · Which Fuji zoom to choose? XF 16-55 mk i/ii, Sigma 18-50, Tamron 17-70.
Murphino wrote:
Have you tried the MK I? Honestly that was the lens I originally wanted to go with but then I started looking into it and several people told me the MK I wasn't even worth looking at with the MKII now out. I saw the one on B&S but I can't PM people to buy yet. I figured there would be others so for now I'd worry about figuring out exactly which lens I wanted to get and maybe by the time I can actually PM people I will know what I'm looking for.
I've also seen that new Sigma Art zoom floating around but that loses so much range I didn't even consider it seriously (not to mention it's supply is very limited right now)....Show more →
No, I haven't used the MkI but I got the impression the IQ was pretty similar. I looked at it in a store and it actually feels like a nicer built lens due to the weight savings of the MkII, both the aperture ring and zoom ring feel nicer on MkI. There are some users here that have used both and will probably chime in. Don't get me wrong, I happily accept the compromises made for the lighter weight of the MkII and the IQ is stellar.
p.1 #5 · Which Fuji zoom to choose? XF 16-55 mk i/ii, Sigma 18-50, Tamron 17-70.
SGinNorcal wrote:
No, I haven't used the MkI but I got the impression the IQ was pretty similar. I looked at it in a store and it actually feels like a nicer built lens due to the weight savings of the MkII, both the aperture ring and zoom ring feel nicer on MkI. There are some users here that have used both and will probably chime in. Don't get me wrong, I happily accept the compromises made for the lighter weight of the MkII and the IQ is stellar.
I think I'll go for the MK I, it seems like a good option and if I can snag one cheaply then even if I end up not absolutely loving it I could just save up for one of the other options eventually.
Completely separate question that I don't know if you know the answer to, It keeps telling me I don't have enough posts to pm someone but doesn't tell me how many I need. Is just putting a reply on a sell thread a taboo here? That one for $475 seems like a good deal.
p.1 #6 · Which Fuji zoom to choose? XF 16-55 mk i/ii, Sigma 18-50, Tamron 17-70.
Murphino wrote:
I'm looking to upgrade from my XF 16-80 f4 to something with a constant aperture of f2.8 that has a better chance of resolving the 40mp sensor on my X-H2 and these are the 4 contenders.
XF 16-55 MK I
XF 16-55 MK II
SIgma 18-50
Tamron 17-70
I like the idea of keeping Fuji glass on a Fuji body so either of the XF 16-55s seem nice. I like the used price of the 16-55 MK I as well but I don't know how much I will miss the built in stabilization from the 16-80. The issue here is the price, even a used 16-55 MK I is as much if not more than a new lens from either of the 3rd parties. I am also, even after watching videos not sure just how much of an upgrade the MK II is over the MK I considering I have no plans of using it for video and I really don't care about the weight/size savings (If anything I like a bigger lens personally).
The Sigma 18-50 is easily the one I'm least interested in as it has the least range and is the smallest so I'm worried it won't feel nice in my hands. It also has no Image stabilization built in. I really only include this because of the constant f2.8 and the fact that it keeps coming up when looking around at zooms in this bracket.
The Tamron 17-70 is an interesting lens, I'm not a fan of the fact that it isn't Fuji but it seems to have a lot going for it with a wider range and built in image stabilization. I know that my camera body has it's own image stabilization but I imagine it wouldn't hurt to have more?
My main questions are as follows.
Does anyone with experience with any or all of these lenses have comments on image quality? It seems that the Fuji lenses are very similar here with maybe some generational improvements. The Tamron seems like it might be a bit worse but I don't know if it would be noticeable or still be an upgrade over the 16-80 anyway.
Does the OIS matter? As mentioned I have some built into the camera but I am not sure if losing it on the lens will be massively noticeable.
Is the difference between the Fuji 16-55 MK I and MK II enough to justify the increase in price if the size doesn't matter and if I'm not worried about the de-clickable aperture?
It seems like there are a thousand videos talking about one or all of these lenses and each one is coming away with different and sometimes conflicting takeaways so I am just confused and trying to sort out which one would be the best way forward.
Glad to see this post; I am going through the same at the moment. I have an X-H2 and my standard zoom is the original 18-55 that came as a kit lens. I also have only fuji glass at the moment (16/1.4, 90/F2, 70-300) but am seriously considering the 17-40 as opposed to the 16-55 II. I just love the idea of the very fast zoom and would sacrifice the reduced range for that. I plan to rent the Sigma to make sure we "get along". If not I will likely go with the 16-55 II. Curious to hear where you end up
p.1 #7 · Which Fuji zoom to choose? XF 16-55 mk i/ii, Sigma 18-50, Tamron 17-70.
bluewinged46er wrote:
Glad to see this post; I am going through the same at the moment. I have an X-H2 and my standard zoom is the original 18-55 that came as a kit lens. I also have only fuji glass at the moment (16/1.4, 90/F2, 70-300) but am seriously considering the 17-40 as opposed to the 16-55 II. I just love the idea of the very fast zoom and would sacrifice the reduced range for that. I plan to rent the Sigma to make sure we "get along". If not I will likely go with the 16-55 II. Curious to hear where you end up ...Show more →
I have decided that if I can find a way to contact the person selling a 16-55 MK I for $475 without having to outright buy the ability to PM I will do that. If nothing else getting the MK I for that price means that if I really am not a fan of it I can still save for one of the other options. Probably the 17-40 since the f1.8 is really tempting.
Oct 25, 2025 at 08:00 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · Which Fuji zoom to choose? XF 16-55 mk i/ii, Sigma 18-50, Tamron 17-70.
Murphino wrote:
I think I'll go for the MK I, it seems like a good option and if I can snag one cheaply then even if I end up not absolutely loving it I could just save up for one of the other options eventually.
Completely separate question that I don't know if you know the answer to, It keeps telling me I don't have enough posts to pm someone but doesn't tell me how many I need. Is just putting a reply on a sell thread a taboo here? That one for $475 seems like a good deal.
I got the Tamron 17-70 f/2.8 and it is a really nice lens. I do miss the aperture ring, but otherwise I like it a lot. It has about the same weight as the 16-55 Mk I and is very similarly priced. I got mine on the Buy & Sell forum with a WTB listing and paid $475. You could probably get it a bit cheaper if you were patient, as I wasn't. I think it has a nice mix of features. I don't think you can really go wrong with any of your choices. In my investigation of prices, the Sigma, the Fuji Mki 1 and the Tamron all have similar pricing and are really nice lenses. The Sigma is obviously the smallest but also has the smallest range. The Fuji is really good and has an aperture ring, and the Tamron has the wider range of focal lengths and stabilization. For my use I wanted the larger range of focal lengths and the stabilization, but depending on what matters to you most any of the three could be a very good choice.
If you are willing to pay more the MK II its getting close to being as small as the Sigma, has an aperture ring, an excellent focus motor, full weather sealing and has a larger range than the Sigma with exceptional performance throughout its range. It too is a really good choice.
p.1 #9 · Which Fuji zoom to choose? XF 16-55 mk i/ii, Sigma 18-50, Tamron 17-70.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I got the Tamron 17-70 f/2.8 and it is a really nice lens. I do miss the aperture ring, but otherwise I like it a lot. It has about the same weight as the 16-55 Mk I and is very similarly priced. I got mine on the Buy & Sell forum with a WTB listing and paid $475. You could probably get it a bit cheaper if you were patient, as I wasn't. I think it has a nice mix of features. I don't think you can really go wrong with any of your choices. In my investigation of prices, the Sigma, the Fuji Mki 1 and the Tamron all have similar pricing and are really nice lenses. The Sigma is obviously the smallest but also has the smallest range. The Fuji is really good and has an aperture ring, and the Tamron has the wider range of focal lengths and stabilization. For my use I wanted the larger range of focal lengths and the stabilization, but depending on what matters to you most any of the three could be a very good choice....Show more →
So I do like the OIS on the 16-80, but I am thinking it might be made up for with the wider aperture since I will be able to shoot at faster shutter speeds and my X-H2 has some level of IBIS anyway.
Oct 25, 2025 at 08:06 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · Which Fuji zoom to choose? XF 16-55 mk i/ii, Sigma 18-50, Tamron 17-70.
Murphino wrote:
So I do like the OIS on the 16-80, but I am thinking it might be made up for with the wider aperture since I will be able to shoot at faster shutter speeds and my X-H2 has some level of IBIS anyway.
Wider aperture will definitely help when you need more shutter speed and it is useful when your subject is moving and image stabilization either from the camera or the lens is typically only useful when having enough shutter speed is dependent on your hands moving not by the subject's movement. So yes, do pay attention to the max aperture. That said for still objects adding stabilization to the lens can let you lower the shutter speed a bit more than just the camera's IBIS. I want to use the Tamron for landscapes and I am hopeful it will let me slow shutter speed for some subjects (think waterfalls) a bit more than I could with one of the other lenses, but that is just me.
p.1 #11 · Which Fuji zoom to choose? XF 16-55 mk i/ii, Sigma 18-50, Tamron 17-70.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Wider aperture will definitely help when you need more shutter speed and it is useful when your subject is moving and image stabilization either from the camera or the lens is typically only useful when having enough shutter speed is dependent on your hands moving not by the subject's movement. So yes, do pay attention to the max aperture. That said for still objects adding stabilization to the lens can let you lower the shutter speed a bit more than just the camera's IBIS. I want to use the Tamron for landscapes and I am hopeful it will let me slow shutter speed for some subjects (think waterfalls) a bit more than I could with one of the other lenses, but that is just me....Show more →
I'm looking for a lens that's good indoors for portraiture and party photography, so the wider aperture is nice. I tend to see people moving around a lot and wind up shooting at higher shutter speeds to freeze motion. The f4 on the 16-80 is limiting in some cases so I think going for something f2.8 would be good. The sigma art with its f1.8 sounds really nice but I don't know if that small a zoom range would be enough for me to capture what I need to as I am often zooming in and out to get pictures before a group disperses without having to walk up to them. That said I'm mostly in smaller rooms so 40mm might be enough.
p.1 #12 · Which Fuji zoom to choose? XF 16-55 mk i/ii, Sigma 18-50, Tamron 17-70.
I have owned all the Fuji zooms you mentioned. The 16-80/4 was my primary hiking/landscape lens for years. I always thought it was .... fine. Sharp enough. I have a bunch of large prints hanging on my wall and they look fine.
I had the 16-55/2.8 mark 1 at work, but it was too large for hiking and in any case I sold it when I retired. When the Mark 2 came out, and it was smaller and lighter even than my 16-80, I bought that, and it has lived on one of my X-T5 bodies ever since. It's light, fast, and very sharp. Way sharper than the 16-80 that I had. Very satisfied.
p.1 #13 · Which Fuji zoom to choose? XF 16-55 mk i/ii, Sigma 18-50, Tamron 17-70.
Do you have any insights on the MK I vs the MK II other than the size/weight? Neither of those are issues for me but I am a little worried about just how big a difference in image quality and autofocus there is generationally. How do those points compare? I know the autofocus will be improved on the new lens, but is it a major difference? Image quality wise did you notice a big difference going from the MK I to the MK II?
p.1 #14 · Which Fuji zoom to choose? XF 16-55 mk i/ii, Sigma 18-50, Tamron 17-70.
I have used both of the Fuji 16-55’s. I have had a red badged mk i since I got into the system. I bought the mk ii due to the hype of optical improvements and weight savings. I compared them side by side on the same sets of images across focal and aperture ranges on my 40mp XH2’s. I posted a few of the crops here at that time. End of day, there isn’t much difference even comparing at 200%. In some cases the mk ii was a little better in the center while the mk i was the same amount better in the corners or vice-versa; and at that you had to squint to see it. In other words they’re virtually identical optical performance wise. Me, I kept the mk i and returned the mk ii. The mk i remains my goto all around lens. The mk ii is notably lighter in weight, but at the same time feels more cheaply built. If I backpacked a lot with my camera, I’d go for the mk ii for the weight savings.
I’m sure the Tamron and Sigma are great. For me it’s more about the short end — I am at 16mm often enough I know that I’d be looking for that extra mm or 2 from the others.
p.1 #15 · Which Fuji zoom to choose? XF 16-55 mk i/ii, Sigma 18-50, Tamron 17-70.
Jack Flesher wrote:
I have used both of the Fuji 16-55’s. I have had a red badged mk i since I got into the system. I bought the mk ii due to the hype of optical improvements and weight savings. I compared them side by side on the same sets of images across focal and aperture ranges on my 40mp XH2’s. I posted a few of the crops here at that time. End of day, there isn’t much difference even comparing at 200%. In some cases the mk ii was a little better in the center while the mk i was the same amount better in the corners or vice-versa; and at that you had to squint to see it. In other words they’re virtually identical optical performance wise. Me, I kept the mk i and returned the mk ii. The mk i remains my goto all around lens. The mk ii is notably lighter in weight, but at the same time feels more cheaply built. If I backpacked a lot with my camera, I’d go for the mk ii for the weight savings.
I’m sure the Tamron and Sigma are great. For me it’s more about the short end — I am at 16mm often enough I know that I’d be looking for that extra mm or 2 from the others. ...Show more →
I'm finding that I hover right around 20-35 enough that the sigma art is really tempting, probably going to give that one a while thought since it isn't available anywhere near me and when I buy new I prefer to go through my local shops. I think I'll go with the 16-55 MK I for now and see how much I find myself missing the 25mm from my 16-80 and if it isn't all that much then I might just grab one of the 17-40s when they are around to try that out.
p.1 #16 · Which Fuji zoom to choose? XF 16-55 mk i/ii, Sigma 18-50, Tamron 17-70.
Jack Flesher wrote:
I have used both of the Fuji 16-55’s. I have had a red badged mk i since I got into the system. I bought the mk ii due to the hype of optical improvements and weight savings. I compared them side by side on the same sets of images across focal and aperture ranges on my 40mp XH2’s. I posted a few of the crops here at that time. End of day, there isn’t much difference even comparing at 200%. In some cases the mk ii was a little better in the center while the mk i was the same amount better in the corners or vice-versa; and at that you had to squint to see it. In other words they’re virtually identical optical performance wise. Me, I kept the mk i and returned the mk ii. The mk i remains my goto all around lens. The mk ii is notably lighter in weight, but at the same time feels more cheaply built. If I backpacked a lot with my camera, I’d go for the mk ii for the weight savings.
I’m sure the Tamron and Sigma are great. For me it’s more about the short end — I am at 16mm often enough I know that I’d be looking for that extra mm or 2 from the others. ...Show more →
That’s interesting. I’ve had the original version for a long time now, and it is a useful and competent lens. I was expecting, at least from the initial descriptions, that the newer model might improve on the optical performance a bit… but it doesn’t sound like you are seeing that.
My perspective has been that if I were buying a new one today I would get the more recent model. I still think I would do so for the decrease in size and weight. While these two lenses aren’t as big as their functional counterparts on FF, the original one is a pretty chunky lens.
(I have no experience with the third-party lenses.)
p.1 #17 · Which Fuji zoom to choose? XF 16-55 mk i/ii, Sigma 18-50, Tamron 17-70.
Murphino wrote:
I'm finding that I hover right around 20-35 enough that the sigma art is really tempting, probably going to give that one a while thought since it isn't available anywhere near me and when I buy new I prefer to go through my local shops. I think I'll go with the 16-55 MK I for now and see how much I find myself missing the 25mm from my 16-80 and if it isn't all that much then I might just grab one of the 17-40s when they are around to try that out.
Just so you're clear, the Sigma 18-50 is NOT an ART designated Sigma, it is a DC-DN, shorthand for APS-C coverage.
I have not shot with either it or the Tammy, but have used both the Sigma 10-18 and Tammy 11-20. IMHO the little Fuji 10-24 is a better all-around choice, being a bit sharper corner to corner at both ends than the others. Of course the Sigma and Tammy are f2.8's, but the Fuji 8-16/2.8 literally blew them out of the water optically. My only point here is that trend is probably going to hold similarly in this comparison; meaning they will be very good, but possibly not quite as good overall as either Fuji option.
p.1 #18 · Which Fuji zoom to choose? XF 16-55 mk i/ii, Sigma 18-50, Tamron 17-70.
I recently picked up the Fuji 16-55 mm f2.8 mark ii and all I can say is it is optically the best zoom lens i have ever used on the XF system, and I have used quite a few. The only negative thing I would say about it is the aperture ring clicks feel a bit mushy and imprecise. As the mark i is reportedly as good, if you can live with the size and weight it could be a good choice.
In contrast, I tried the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 and it is the only lens I have ever returned. It's centre sharpness is ok, but it is soft in the corners extending into the frame at 18mm, making it ordinary for landscapes. If you are intending to use it for subjects where you mainly want centre sharpness and f2.8 it could do ok. I thought it was a slightly worse performer overall than the XF 18-55mm f2.8-4, except for the constant f2.8.
p.1 #19 · Which Fuji zoom to choose? XF 16-55 mk i/ii, Sigma 18-50, Tamron 17-70.
gdanmitchell wrote:
That’s interesting. I’ve had the original version for a long time now, and it is a useful and competent lens. I was expecting, at least from the initial descriptions, that the newer model might improve on the optical performance a bit… but it doesn’t sound like you are seeing that.
My perspective has been that if I were buying a new one today I would get the more recent model. I still think I would do so for the decrease in size and weight. While these aren’t as big as their functional counterparts on FF, the original one is a pretty chunky lens.
(I have no experience with the third-party lenses.)...Show more →
No I know the Sigma 18-50 is not an art lens, when I reference "the art lens" here I am talking about the 17-40 that sigma launched. later in the thread I realized that Sigma is offering a 17-40 ART that I had not considered previously.
p.1 #20 · Which Fuji zoom to choose? XF 16-55 mk i/ii, Sigma 18-50, Tamron 17-70.
Jack Flesher wrote:
Just so you're clear, the Sigma 18-50 is NOT an ART designated Sigma, it is a DC-DN, shorthand for APS-C coverage.
I have not shot with either it or the Tammy, but have used both the Sigma 10-18 and Tammy 11-20. IMHO the little Fuji 10-24 is a better all-around choice, being a bit sharper corner to corner at both ends than the others. Of course the Sigma and Tammy are f2.8's, but the Fuji 8-16/2.8 literally blew them out of the water optically. My only point here is that trend is probably going to hold similarly in this comparison; meaning they will be very good, but possibly not quite as good overall as either Fuji option....Show more →
If the MK II is the best, have you tried the MK I? At this point I am looking at the MK II vs. the MK I.
