Re: 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.
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.)
Oct 25, 2025 at 10:00 AM
Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #16915170 « Which Fuji zoom to choose? XF 16-55 mk i/ii, Sigma 18-50, Tamron 17-70. »
