I'm testing the Tamron as well, and I'm finding inconsistency as well. I'm giving it a couple of chances, but I'm not willing to deal with too many inconsistencies

Thanks Enrique, too kind as usual. I still have to test the X-T5, and I'm trying to get a video out before Christmas. That combo you mentioned is the one I've used in the last year or so, and it is freaking good

Get the fujifilm xh2s I am a pro photographer and would not exchange this camera for any other camera in the world.

Thanks. I sold mine and I kind of regret that decision

I definitely hope you'll get a good one. At the end of the day, despite its flaws, it looks like the lens you need. And despite its flaws it is definitely a good lens

Thanks, I really appreciate it

It depends on your needs. They're both good. It's more in what you personally need

Good to hear that it was helpful

Thanks!

Thanks!

Thank you!

Grazie Daniele

Thanks for sharing

It was launched together with the X-H2s, although it didn't grab too much attention

You will definitely like it

Very glad you're happy with you choice. And very very jealous of your "non-creeping" copy😜

@@LucaPetraliaPhotography Thank you!!! Just writing to say that my late 2020 (0D) 16-80 is also "non-creeping". I like my 16-80, I have it on my X-T2 IR full spectrum camera - it has no competition among zooms, pretty much

Get the 10-24 for the wide view.

I just sold the 10-24 since I got the Tamron 11-20 F2.8

Thanks!

Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

It is better for video, but for stills I prefer the 16-80

Thanks for your feedback. I really used the 16-80mm a lot, this may have caused the lens creep. I'm glad it's not like that for yours, because it would drive me crazy at times

They really are

It's my travel combo as well, and it's close to be the perfect combo. Without those two issues I mentioned, I'd say that combo would be perfect

@@LucaPetraliaPhotography I should have mentioned, I also bought the new 33 f/1.4 to take along just in case I need a faster lens for lower light situations. That makes up for at least one of the slower aperture of the 18-120. My family has a big trip planned next summer (Germany, Austria, and Hungary, with a few days in London). I’ll find out how well everything works then!

You'll love the trip and the photos that you'll get out of it

@@LucaPetraliaPhotography - I'm starting to think there may be a focusing issue with my 18-120 while taking photos using AF-C and Face Detection. Many of the photos I've taken just don't seem to be properly focused. For example, I took a photo at 77.5mm using f/5.0, 1/160s and ISO 4000. It seemed to show the focus indicator on my subject's eye, but ended up front-focusing by about 10 cm. I know there are many factors involved and I'll be working to tune the focus behavior to see if I can get better results. Luca - Have you noticed any issues like this? Do you have any recommendations for getting the sharpest photos of people using Face Detection with AF-C? Do you think there could be a problem with my copy of this lens? EDIT: I did some additional testing and I found one behavior that I had not noticed before. If I take a photo while actively turning the zoom ring, the lens completely loses focus! My testing involved having my son walk quickly around the room while I followed him using Face Detection with AF-C, AF Mode of Wide/Tracking, Tracking Sensitivity set to 3 and Tracking Speed set to 2. I held down the AF-On button the entire time - I've also disabled AF from the Shutter button. The camera tracked him perfectly, as expected. Every shot I took while NOT changing the Zoom was in focus as I would expect. However, every time I took a shot while zooming the focus was completely lost! I'm not sure if this is the same issue that caused my earlier shots to seem front-focused, but it could be a factor. This is the first Power Zoom lens I've owned - all others were mechanical zooms. Is this the expected behavior of a Power Zoom? I guess this is not a good lens for sports, even with the impressive speed of the X-H2s! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

@mipmipmipmipmip - Thanks for your reply. I have also identified another potential source of sharpness issues. Being new to mirrorless, I thought it was great that I could use electronic shutter and shoot silently but I didn't realize the impact that could have when shooting moving subjects. I've switched to mechanical shutter and so far it seems to have helped. I *think* my copy of the 18-120mm lens is OK, although I still haven't used it heavily.

If you don't shoot videos, hold on to your 16-80, it's definitely a great lens

Thanks!

Well... 120 may be a bit short even for cropping. With whales is also about luck, depending on how close they can get. Don't dismiss the Fuji 70-300, it's a great lens, way smaller than the 100-400 and yes, in that case you can help with a small crop

@@LucaPetraliaPhotography Thank you, I shall look into that.

Other say they don't have any zoom creep. My copy was the very first batch. They may have fixed it in the meantime The combination with the xh1 will work fine as far as Ibis goes. I'm a big fan of this lens, so I can only recommend getting one

@@LucaPetraliaPhotography Thank you so much for your response. I will surely want to try the lens first, in any case. Have a great day!

The answer to this question meet be very long. I had a terrible experience with the Tamron 18-300. You can watch my review and understand why. I believe it was a bad copy I got but I have no way to confirm it. I wouldn't personally be concerned about the 6.3 aperture because even the 70-300 becomes 5.6 at 300, so there is only a third of stop of difference. That being said, between the 18-120 and the 18-135 I would go with the 18-120, it's more modern, weighs less, it's F4 all the way and it's more hybrid. If it's for photos only however, I would stick with the 16-80, it's a perfect lens for photos

@@LucaPetraliaPhotography many thanks for your prompt reply - very helpful. As the 18-120 is equal to or slightly better than the 16-80 for photos then I will buy the 18-120 because of the extra reach. Stay healthy

It must be similar to it, but I haven't photographed Monte Velino... Yet. It's one of those locations I have to explore yet

Thanks! I honestly haven't tried the digital zoom function. I tend to use the Xh2 as a photography camera and the X-H2s as a hybrid camera. I guess you can use it as a workaround for limited zoom in and out, although I guess it would not look natural as the perspective doesn't change, nor the depth of field. For what concerns the comparison with Sony I can't honestly say nothing as I don't know those lenses

I'm usually not a superzoom guy, but like Luca have been branching off into video recently. I've never shot the 16-80 for comparison, but I have been favorably impressed with the 18-120 on my X-H2. They did a great job of smoothly integrating the digital zoom feature into the experience with this lens.

Definitely agree

@@LucaPetraliaPhotography Thanks for the response. Still on the fence about the XF18-120 - I still have a Fuji camera body without IBIS so I'm keeping the XF16-80 for now. I found it funny where you had the XF16-80 pointed downwards and then gravity started to "adjust" the focus. For my copy - it stays put at 16mm but it starts to "drift" if I use a focal length beyond that. Luckily, my 18-55 kit lens does not do that. I tend to use the Sony for travel - more reliable autofocus and smaller form-factor. But I always wish I have the Fuji kit since its more fun to use.

@@ArtifexBarbarus How is the image quality when Digital Zoom is used for stills/video? Down-sampled from 8K, right? How much does it affect perspective/depth of field? I've always been partial to zoom lenses. I started out with point-and-shoot cameras and have always liked the convenience of an all-around lens. Changing lenses while on the move can be cumbersome. Plus, there's also the concern about exposing the camera and lens to the elements. As Luca has shown, the image quality produced from zoom lenses have come to a point where it is comparable to primes. Prime lenses will most always be better but the convenience trade-off especially for video is hard to overlook/overstate.

Hi, I own too many lenses to be honest with you 😅. You gave me a great idea for a video I didn't plan for. I'll work on that, as I really like the idea

@@LucaPetraliaPhotography thank you 😊

Outside yes, indoor the stop of difference with the aperture makes a huge difference

Thank you!

It doesn't change anything as the zoom mechanism isn't driven by the camera like the 18-120

I guess you wanted to get closer than the lens allows. Try to manual focus at the minimum focusing distance and then move around until the object is in focus. By going this you will understand how close you can get to your subject

If I was Al Pacino I would have the money to have a Leica channel😜

lol..@@LucaPetraliaPhotography

Image quality wise you will definitely lose some, and you also lose brightness. Unless video is your main thing I wouldn't make the switch

Unfortunately it does it with all the lenses. The best one for this is the 18-120mm which also doesn't lose focus while zooming

Dolomites, Rifugio Lagazuoi

Definitely!

@@LucaPetraliaPhotography xt4 just video 16-80 or 18-120 What would you recommend for a short film?

18-120 with no doubts

Wow, that's terrible.