All test images are straight crops from original images, reproduced at their original resolution.Ĭomparison of lens resolution with a test chart. On my 6000×4000-pixel sensor, the theoretical maximum resolution would therefore be a resolution number of ⁴⁰⁰⁰∕₂₀₀ = 20. The resolution scales are in 200x line widths per picture height. And just for fun, I've thrown in a similar analysis from two prime lenses as well. The following graphic shows a resolution scale near the center of the frame and near the left edge of the frame. All images were taken in identical illumination, on a tripod, with the chart covering half the sensor height/width. To do that, I printed a test chart, and took some test images.
Next, let's compare the resolution of the two lenses. My inch-thick macro filter however does vignette heavily until 23 mm. Anyway, using a thin polarizer with a 72‑to‑67 step-down ring works without issue on the 16‑80. I'd imagine users of the 72 mm 10‑24 see this differently. This is somewhat annoying for me, as my filters are all 67 mm, which also fit on my 70‑300. The 16‑80 has a 72 mm filter thread, while the 18‑135 uses 67 mm filters. Note the marked aperture ring on the 16‑80, and the Auto-Aperture/OIS switches on the 18‑135. The 18‑135 is a longer, and the 16‑80 wider. The ideal lens for me would have both the auto-aperture switch and the numbered aperture ring. On the other hand, the 18‑135 can switch to and from auto-aperture without losing its preset aperture, which is useful as well. The 16‑80 has a numbered aperture ring that allows for adjustments while the camera is turned off. Autofocus speeds are also reputably different, but they feel similar to me. To that end, the rings on my 16‑80 turn more smoothly than my 18‑135's, but then that is comparing a new-ish lens to a well-used one. Some people claim that the 16‑80 feels better built than the 18‑135. If anything, the 16‑80 actually feels a bit bigger to me due to its larger front element. Physically, the 16‑80 is a slight bit smaller (89 mm vs 98 mm) and ligher (440 g vs 490 g) than the 18‑135, but the difference is negligible on camera. Instead of smoothly blurring, the near-focus areas of the 18‑135 have this strange, hazy look My hope is that the 16‑80 has a nicer rendering, especially for people photos with out-of-focus backgrounds, and a stiffer zoom ring that doesn't creep. Except for two things: The transition between in-focus and out-of-focus can be a bit rough, and my lens extends on its own when carried on a sling. But so long as I can get the shot, these limitations don't bother me. Of course it is not the world's brightest lens, nor sharpest, nor smallest. The 18‑135 has served me very well indeed.
But given that these lenses are somewhat similar, few people on the internet were ever able to compare them side by side. Ever since, I have wondered how this new 16‑80 compares to my 18‑135. In 2019, Fujifilm released a second travel zoom lens, the XF 16‑80 f/4 R OIS WR. This is a lens with a very wide focal range, that is commonly called a “travel zoom” because you could travel the world with just this one lens. When I bought into the Fuji system, I selected the XF 18‑135 f/3.5‑5.6 R LM OIS WR as my main zoom lens. Comparing the Fujifilm XF 16‑80 with the XF 18‑138 Travel Zoom Lenses
0 kommentar(er)
