Although both lenses are listed as standardzoom lenses, they’re actually quite different and designed for different purposes. The 16-55 is a classic ‘professional’ reporter lens for photo journalists, wedding and portrait photographers. It’s for whenever you don’t control the light, but have to make the shot anyway. Hence the constant f2.8. You can’t have aperture changing (and DoF) when zooming in or out. The 18-55 is the classic travel zoom. Compact, lightweight and fit for lots of different situations but none of them really harsh. I’ve tested both and compared the results at 100% in CaptureOne. The 16-55 excels at 55 and f2.8 with nice sharpness, shallow DoF and beautiful (but a touch busy) bokeh. This is why it is called a wedding/portrait lens. At 16 it is actually weak and nowhere nearly as good as the 16/f1.4. It has quite an uncorrected distortion (curved horizons et cetera) and is soft even in the centre. Stopping down to f5.6-8 improves a bit but the distortion remains. It’s not designed as a landscape or architecture lens. For that the 14 or the 16 (or the 10-24) are better suited. It’s for close-up people, street and reporting shots. The 18-55 is more balanced. Doesn’t reach the level of the 16-55 for both color rendering and contrast (often mistaken for sharpness) but its a very minor difference. At 55 wide open its rather soft and needs some stopping down (f8), but it’s actually better at 18 (compared to the 16-55 at 16). At 18 you can use the 18-55 wide open with excellent results in sharpness and good results in corner softness. Nice for (urban) landscape and group photos. Like said at 55 its best to avoid wide open, but all other focal lengths and apertures perform remarkably consistent and good. That is why its such a great universal ‘kit lens’. So, if your a pro wedding/portrait photographer or photo journalist you benefit from the 16-55 but pay the price in every sense. The rest of us is usually better (cheaper, lighter, smaller and OIS) of with the 18-55. Esp. combined with the 14 you have a great travelkit that shares the same filtersize and lenshood. And unless to leave your camera with lens out on the garden table in the rain, the whole ‘weather resistant thing’ is of little or no significance.

I opted for the 18-55. The size is what won me over. I move constantly, sometimes 3-4 times in a year and I move internationally, so keeping weight down is really important to me.

I’ve had the 18-55 for a few years. It’s very good, and great size, and I love the optical stabiliser for both photo and video, but the variable aperture is kinda throwing me off a bit to be honest. I’m finding it difficult to shoot semi manual with variable aperture. Been thinking about the bigger 16-55 many times.

I have both and have had several copies of both (I'm constantly switching systems to check stuff out but always return to fuji) The 16-55 is a clear winner when you use them side by side. I shoot alot in the snow and rain and for video you can have a constant 2.8. also the 55 at 2.8 makes for a decent portrait lens...but the glass and color and contrast makes the biggest difference to me. The images on the 16-55 just pop way more....with that said....damn its big compared to the kit lens. On the x-h1 its not too bad but if i'm hiking its usually the 16mm 1.4 or the 23 or something. It's a tough choice for sure, especially on a budget.

Great info! Which lens would you recommend on the XT-3 for shooting simple talking-head videos on KZfaq? I will be using cinematic-style lighting. Here is an example of the type of footage I will shoot: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/l92CoJOWrN6aZGg.html Thanks!

The problem with the 16-55mm f/2.8 (and other red badge zooms) isn't because it's heavy, it more the fact that you can get a comparable full frame mirrorless f/4 lens for roughly the same size and weight, which is why I sold mine. I actually thought of repurchasing the 16-55mm because I miss the WR and image quality for landscapes, but I decided I would rather wait until Nikon and Canon mature their full frame mirrorless lineup instead. Looking to buy the 18-55mm for a steal during cashback season to use for the meantime and I honestly think it's an overall better choice.

I've owned both of 2 lenses. There are maybe no big differences between the two. But one thing I can surely say, the 16-55 has better color and contrast. Even compare to some prime lenses, the color of 16-55 is also a bit better. And at 16mm(24mm) the lens is bitingly sharp. I never had a sharper lens at 16mm(24mm) like this.

The 18-55 is awesome. After my new buyer's syndrome dropped on the 16-55, the 18-55 became much more reliable and usable on a daily basis. The 16-55 can be so sharp at times that I even can see camera shake at 1/125 shutter if I'm not careful, and I have extremely steady hands. 16-55 for pros or enthusiasts on a tripod, 18-55 for every day casual use

I’ve had both. The 16-55 is certainly sharper. Is it sharp enough to warrant the extra 800 bucks(18-55 350 used) ? Depends who’s asking. For me, the benefits of a constant 2.8 aperture and weather sealing were essential.

Nice honest review thank you am getting the 18-55 soon. Thank you 😉👍

You’ve been on fire with these street shots! Been enjoying them on Instagram and glad you include them in the videos, too

You can shoot in relatively low light with the 18-55 just as much so because of the OIS. Instead of high ISO, just use lower shutter speeds - it can handle it. You didn't mention that difference.

I bought this lens a couple of weeks ago and can't recommend it high enough, if you are into such thing. I had never owned 18-55mm (so I can't judge it), but I do own 18-135mm - that lens has an amazing, massive range, but the IQ is simply not there, unless you are shooting in the bright sunshine at f8 or up, not to mention that lack of wide angle bugged me more than I initially thought it would. And those are reasons I opted for the 16-55 mm instead...

Well, the most people here arguing that for an only slightly better IQ it’s not worth carrying double of the weigh didn’t try the 16-55. It is a constant 2.8, what to you think? Small and ligh? Compare it to an Sony 24-70 GM and you know that this lens is really light in comparison. Benefits: sharper corners, sharper wide open, faster shutter speed with constant 2.8, the 18-55 is only 2.8 at the widest angle, most people forget that, faster AF and better Bokeh. It’s totally worth every penny. It’s one of the best Fuji lenses ever made. I would never use the small one although it’s way better than what the competition offers.

I just bought an 18-55 (for my light-ish X-T30) and must say it's really freeing me up nicely compared to my usual 14mm and 56mm prime lens combination. As for whether I'd prefer a 16-55, I'm a bit jealous of its specifications but I just can't see myself walking around with such a heavy combination in my hand for hours (which is my ideal situation - so I don't fancy constantly accessing my sling bag and lenses, like I've been doing for two years with my set of prime lenses). I would be curious to know whether, for example, a sweet but heavier X-T4 and 16-55mm combination becomes more hand-portable with an additional hand grip attachment (in which case, that'd probably be my dream combo at my pricepoint).

Great video. However, the 16-55 has dual linear focusing motors, and in general has better AF, so it would have been great to see how both of these perform while shooting video in Continuous focusing mode, and with face/eye detection. Also, in the images I have seen, there's a significant difference between these two lenses at corners, as the 16-55 is very noticeably sharper. You could also upload this video in 4K so people could see the images in higher resolution.

Thanks for the video. I have never owned or used the Fuji 18-55mm f/2.8 to f/4 lens. However, I own two Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5 to f/5.6 zoom lenses. Based on my experience with my Nikon zooms, I knew that I did not like variable f/stop lenses. Therefore, when I was shopping for a Fuji zoom, I did not even consider the variable f/stop zoom. Instead, I bought the Fuji 16-55mm f/2.8 and have been very happy with it. When shooting with my 16, 23, and 56mm prime lenses, I like to use the 16-55mm as a backup. When shooting landscapes, I prefer to use the 16-55mm zoom because of its resistant to wet weather. When shooting under constant studio lighting conditions and must use a zoom to quickly change from full-length portraits to head & shoulder portraits, I prefer to use my 16-55mm constant aperture zoom to avoid the f/stop changing as I zoom. When shooting architectural interiors, I must sometimes balance the flash with the ambient light. It is easier for me to do so with a constant aperture 16-55mm zoom.

The full frame equivalent calculation should apply to F-stop as well. Fuji 16-55 f2.8 is equivalent to Full frame 24-82 f4, including the size. So it’s not any “smaller” than the full frame counterpart from sony or canon. It’s a good lens, but personality as a Fuji user myself, I am waiting for Fuji to make a f2 zoom.

Thanks for this video! I will keep my 18-55! Maybe change my 10-24 for a few primes.

Ive owned both these lenses since they were launched and the differences you have demonstrated in your video no way show the clear true difference's! I have shot weddings and events with both under different lighting conditions and the 16-55 shows vast differences in colour rendering,micro contrast and lens flare over the 18-55 and its well worth getting if you can afford it, so the 16-55 is as sharp if not sharper than some of the primes with better colour rendering than my 16mm 1.4, its a bag of primes all in one.

Very good analysis, but I really wish Fuji will release a 16-46mm f2 IOS WR lens and try to keep it the same size as XF16-55. That makes a real FF equivalent 24-70 f2.8.

Isn't that always the big question with lenses; is it REALLY worth going twice the price for slightly better? haha Enjoyed the comparison of those two lenses!

Bought the xt20 last year with the 18-55 as kit. You know what? I bought the 16-55 too 6 months ago and never looked back. The constant aperture is a must!

For money it's better to stay with 18-55 as it has OIS and still covers about 80-90% of the 16-55 2.8 utility and quality while staying more compact. Aaaand with the money saved - get some primes. However, if the 16-55 2.8 is gonna be your only lens of a choice welded 90% of a time to your camera, and furthemore - your camera has the IBIS, then I can see a good reason. Besides that, 18-55 is something unique among all the systems. I'm speaking my mind as I'm learning to be more minimalistic and happier person. I came back from having top fullframe Sony cameras and lenses like A7RIV and G-Master lenses back to having just the xt-3, 18-55, and sigma 30 1.4. Don't let the marketing and gear aquisition syndrome to control your wallet and just focus on the photography itself.

"Kit lense" comes with f/2.8 at 18mm.... with image stabilization... That's pretty crazy. I guess that explains why it goes for $700. To me, 16mm vs 18mm even on cropped body (purely based on experience and for what I do) doesn't matter as much. But at 55mm f/4 vs f/2.8 could make it worthwhile for me to get the 16-55mm. But then again, if I need faster longer lense, I would probably go with something different (another cheaper prime lense - as you suggested). Great comparison review!

That is so good that Fuji has done a better job with their kit lens, I use the 18-55 canon for a few regular photos, nothing too crazy

A waterproof lens, that is a good option. So the difference isn't big, but when vlogging for example, the 16-55 could be more beneficial, but with the price difference, maybe it is not worth it. I like the colors of the 18-55 when putting next to the 16-55 in photography, and even with a gimbal, if we had to choose, I think we would stay with the 18-55

Good review. I do find, actually, that the 16-55 is excellent for landscape.

Superb review Huan. I'm getting a 15-45 kit lens along with the T200, but negotiating to see if I can have them bundle the 18-55 for a price.

I used a red industrial marker, painted the XF-Zoom badge on my 18-55mm and 55-200mm red. Boom! Instantly better lenses! ;)

To those who are confused as to why 16-55mm is almost 2 times more expensive. I think the biggest factor is that 16-55 is made in Japan and 18-55 is made in Philippines.

16-55mm with IBIS Fuji XT4 would be great

WR is NOT only the gasket at the mount! It is sealed all over with seals on the inside - it requires totaly different engineering and expensive materials.

Good review, but I wish people would stop referring to the 18-55 as a kit lens just because it comes with a camera at a really great price. It is a quality lens

Picked up a cherry XH1 and a pristine 16-55 2.8 for $600 each on Fred Miranda. IBIS! Love this beast of a combo.

Neither. One lacks OIS and the other lacks WR. Get the 16-80. Also, weather sealing is NOT just one rubber gasket around the mount. They seal every single moving part, such as the focus ring, aperture ring, etc.

Did you buy both lenses? Did wifey know? :D Jokes aside, I personally decided to pick 18-55 mm since it is smaller and much affordable. Perfect lens for travelling!

Damn f2.8 in a kit lens is incredible value. Plus recently we went from a 10-18 range to 17-55 and can't ever go back. Getting the macro and micro angles is so important. Fuji seem like they have some incredible lenses too bad about not having a flip screen 😅

I am a SONY user, but I recently bought an X-T30 due to the lovely FUJI color. I really want to buy a fixed focus lens, but FUJI really has no more choice...

Awesome channel. I don´t now how cam i bought. xH1 or xt3, only for filming. But i miss the 4K60fps on the Xh1! My wish is OIS in cam, lens and gimbal for much smooth shots. Greetings from Germany and Subbed

I actually liked the 18-55 better🤔

I wish Fuji makes 16-60 f2 lens with OIS, people will buy it for sure even though it will be expensive 😬

Great vid 👍🏼 you’ve got a great way of helping me decide. I went with choice C hah 16-80 f4

I have 2 x 18-55's. We use them for most of our videos.

I love your channel and your calm way of delivery. Most people will hate what I am about to write here though - for me that Fuji colour is absolutely horrible. I am always wondering how come people prise those grungy tones. Fuji cameras from the tech point of view are extremely interesting but the colours I personally like even less than those of Sony.

I personally like primes. I have the 16mm 1.4, 23mm 1.4, and the56mm 1.2, and I really love the image quality. However, I find myself bringing the X100V out almost exclusively nowadays, and when I need zoom, I leave all the fast primes at home and just use the 16-80. Additionally, the 56 1.2 is pretty difficult to focus on kids and moving objects wide open. So I ended up stopping down to 2.0 or 2.8 anyway. I used to bring the 16mm 1.4 for indoor gatherings, but again, nowadays I almost exclusively bring the X100V, sometimes with the WCL converter if I needed the wide angle. So the primes have become like trophies in the camera box at home. I sometimes wonder if I actually like shooting primes at all! 🤣 This is the reason I might switch to the XT5 + XF16-55 F2.8 given there’s IBIS in that body now. When i needed the zoom, I can probably live with the extra weight. And when I go out and about, the compact X100V is still my first choice. So this might simplify my gear to X100V, and the XT5 + XF16-55, and possibly another tele zoom for the occasional wildlife photography.

Seems like each lens has its pros and cons, but both seem to be useful depending on needs, budget etc..

I think weathersealing is more than just that rubber gasket at the rear. The lens should have other rubber gaskets inside

Nice comparison Hyun.. bigger is not always better.. if I were to choose, I always like the smaller lens for price and portability 🙂

Great explanation of the lenses. Excellent presentation per usual!

I'm always happy to watch your videos. More Fujifilm please. Perhaps, you could test how well the Fringer adapter works with Canon glass on Fuji. That's something I'd love to see.

I’ve owned both lenses. I ended up keeping the 18-55 and selling the 16-55. While the 16-55 has the advantage of fixed 2.8 aperture, it is also significantly heavier, only a bit sharper, with an non-exciting bokeh at 55mm FL. The advantage of a faster stop is neutralised by lack of IS. The 16-55mm is a great lens but if you want to use it at its best you need a Fuji X-H1, else is money wasted. So, for the money of an X-H1 + 16-55mm f2,8 I’ve purchased a Nikon Z6 + 24-70 f4.

16-55 f2.8 LM for sure! The most underrated lens in Fujifilm line...

16-55 on an xt3 sitting on the weebill s. Nuff said

stabilization is something i really miss on my camera+lens...next camera i buy i'm gonna check video feats way more than i did this time...

You should get XF 16-80, such a versatile travel lens.

Thanks for this video. I might wait for the 16-80 F4 then to replace my Kit lenses since it will surely be sharper and more versatile although a little larger. But I'm still considering the 16-55 since it is obviously sharper, I mean much sharper since I felt the kit lens is not sharp enough to my eyes and when I compare it to downloaded sample raws it's much sharper (well it depends on the conditions, for potraits I can surely see the difference) and the focusing speed is a lot faster (it's already faster than the blazing fast 50-140) lastly the low light is much better. You won't obliterate the background at 2.8 even on Full Frame with this kind of zoom lenses so that's no surprise either.

I was totally surprised when those shots of Graveyard Club popped up. Didn't know you were from Minneapolis!

I totally agree. Great video. I have the 16 as my only on xt2 and love it, and would definitely bought the 18 if i hadn't bought a used body and a this was my first camera. Your probably the first review where i agree with everything lol. 😅 And when it comes to background blur i think the 56 mm would be better for portraits in general, as i don't see this as bokeh monster lens. I got cashback when i bought my lens so i thinks it's worth it, i wish it had OIS but i love the challenge and im a pretty steady shooter anyways. For me this lens really comes through when shooting in direct sun light or any kind of glare on the lens, it just really great, but i don't know if the 18 has the same antiglare coating or if it's because of all the more elements of glass but it looks great. Tbh i know shit about lens construction so i don't know why it has more glass, i just assumed it was because of the constant 2.8 aperture..

To sum up, 18 55 is enough for me. Thank you for saving me 400 dollars.

Very good review. Keep going. Thanks.

So today I shot landscape with 18-55 and two 10stop and 6 stop Hoya ND filters attached to it for long exposure shots. The sharpness and colours are really unexpected. I am sorry for disregarding and not using it often because I thought it wasn't sharp.

Now with the upcoming X-T4, which has IBIS, I’m so happy with my 16-55. This is such an amazing lens.

Nice. Succinct and clear. Thank you, Hyun.

18-55 with ois lets you lower the shutter speed so i would disagree with your low light test. From my personal use. The 18-55 gives me better results than my 27 & my 35 because of the range and ois cuts my shutter speed in half indoors hand held. Size, size ,size. To have a lens the size of the 16-55. It better get pictures that are noticeably better. I'm not seeing it. Maybe if it was an F2 then i could see the size, but not 2.8

I don't get the moans about the weight of the 16-55, are photographers really gone so weak? Is it just people who have only ever used compacts or smaller bodies with light primes doing all the moaning? I'm using it on the X-H1 and I find it a tidy package, it delivers excellent results wide open and of course I get IBIS too. I watched a tonne of comparison videos before deciding and the 18-55 just doesn't compare. People who own that lens will try convince themselves there's no difference but there is, it's not shown in this video as you must have an excellent copy, but many others have proven that the kit lens is nowhere near as sharp. Also you're only getting 2.8 at 18mm, i's pretty much an F4 lens besides

Good review! I love the Bob Ross figure 😍

I have both lenses and I prefer to use my kit lens for video shooting on my XT2 and sometimes on my X-T100 and my 16-55 on my XH1 to counter the weight.

I found the 18-55 a bit of a dog. I had 3 copies over the years and just didn't find that optical Nirvana that everybody raves about. Particularly at the 55 end and wide open - results were quite terrible. I use the 16-55 for everything now and just love that lens so much. In fact it is sharper wide open than my Fuji XF 23mm F2. Philip

I've just ordered my 18-55 lens second hand. Hoping it's going to be a worthy purchese

Seems like each lens has its pros and cons, I like both

I don't get the 16-55 bashing. It has a much wider range and f2.8 is a big difference vs f4. It's also only a few cm longer, not huge, and aperture control on the lens. Except for video it's just a way way better lens. PS I have both, 18-55 is a bit "boring", 16-55 makes better colors and bokeh. I would just use a prime 23 or 35 instead of the 18 55 zoom

Just ordered the fuji xt4 with a 16-55mm but changed it to the 18-55 simply because my use case will be mainly video. I use full frame for pro photo so I figured ibis + ois would be way more beneficial in this case. The variable aperture is a bit disappointing though.

Great review!

Figures Jimmy Chins masterclass would lead on a photography channel : ]

Really useful and balanced review

If the 16-55 had OIS I would have bought it over the 18-55. Dont understand why there isnt OIS on the bigger lens

18/55mm il folosesc pe video si este SUPER...16/55mm e o glumă proastă pe video

The purpose of using a apsc size sensor is for its compactness so 16-55 obviously defeats that purpose

Neither. I shoot Nikon and Panasonic. Kidding :) I would choose the 18-55, because of stabilization. Fuji does not have it, apart from 1 camera body, if I'm not mistaken, and it is not only useful, but needed.

thanks for the review! budget is always important for us! 😂

Excellent video thank you. You are forbidden not to try the Fuji 16mm F1.4 :-)

Whats with the 16-55 f2.8 these days. Suddenly there are new videos coming out haha btw great review

Coming into the Fuji world and purchasing the XT-4, what lens would you get as a kit? Thanks!

Getting a prime lens instead is the honest thing I've heard for a long time. Congratulations. The point is this: the XF 18-55/f2.8-f4 is roughly equivalent to a 27-80/f3.5-f5.6. That's basically equivalent to a kit lens you'll get with a full frame camera. Although the Fuji lens has a better quality than most kit lenses have, to an affordable price. This lens is for me one of the proofs that Fuji takes the APS-C size a lot more serious than other camera manufacturers! BUT that also means the XF 16-55/f2.8 is equivalent to a 24-80/F3.5. For the high price of this lens I would rather expect a 16-55/f1.8. That would be equivalent to a full frame "standard pro grade zoom" 24-70/F2.8, and that would just be an amazing, outstanding lens for the Fuji APS-C based XF System! Or it could be 18-35/f1.8 like the Sigma. That would be fine too. Since this lens doesn't exist for the Fuji system, the way better alternative is to spend the same amount of money in a fine prime lens. In my opinion your conclusion and recommendation is just right.

It's a very good Frank review. I like it. But I have a question.i am planning to buy XT4 which has IBIS. I want to take one alround useful lens with it. What do you suggest between 16-55 f2.8/18-55 f2.8-4? I am getting on a promotion offer as kit lenses with camera 18-55 at $1790 & 16-55 at $2300. Please advise which one to buy. I take more landscapes, portraits, food, product. Please advise. Thanks.

Such a detail review. Really like how you think of must possible issues. So cool that you can get water resistant lenses. Never really think of that. By the way, we're really enjoying your pictures on Instagram.

i do streetphotography with my Xt2 and 35mm f1.4 but i search a zoom like the 16-55 or 18-55. I hesitate between the 2 lens... the 16-55 looks big and i try to remain discret. Some Feedback for the 18-55?? I need to photograph larger and closer shots.

hi im planning to buy fujifilm xt30... im not professional photographer. i usually shoot with people and objects. do I need to buy the camera with 14-45mm lense or 18-55? what do you think?

We shoot with 18-55. It's just great.

Good review but there is a difference between the 16 and the 18 -55. The 18 - 55 is much sharper.. I can tell the difference

16-55 f/2.8 on a APS-C is not the same as 24-70 f/2.8 on full frame. You will need f/2.0 on APS-C to get the same resultat.

Which lens would you suggest for the video footages 18-55 vs 16-55 ( do not suggest other specific video lenses they are so expensive)? There will be lots of close shots like hand made products. Probably 55 mm will be chosen most of the time. However, in terms of image quality of the 4k videos, what do you suggest?

what does it mean that the 18-55 has aperture 2.8-4.0 while you can turn the ring to f22 ?

What about AF-C tracking speed? Are they both the same, or is one of them faster --- for video.

How is the AF on both of the lens? Is the 16-55mm a bit better at AF speed for example.

I will be a little careful when you state F Stops in terms of Field of View. F Stops is a function of Aperture size and its byproduct is the depth of filed. If you want to state field of view then retate this to the focal length.

The 16-55 is at f2.8 way more sharp. The 18-55 at 18mm and f2.8 is actually soft. From f5.6 it gets better.

would this lens be good enough to do Real estate videos with for detailed shots?

Hyun, another great video thank you. In my opinion, the fuji kit lens 18-55mm f2.8-4 is a great lens particularly for video. For the money you spend on the 16-55, it's completely not worth it for the wider aperture. Like you said you better save and buy a prime. Thank you for your videos and best of luck on your endeavors.