In praise of the Fujinon XC 16-50mm f3.5-5.6 OIS

Maybe it's just me? But I think that Fuji's cheap, lightweight, plastic, consumer-based kit lens - the Fujinon XC16-50mm f3.5-5.6 OIS (to give it its full title) - is a damn fine lens! Damn fine.

Now to be fair, it also happens to be the only lens I've ever used in the Fujifilm lineup. So maybe I haven't got that much to compare it to? I do know, from reading and watching other reviewers, that Fuji's optical quality is spoken of in extremely high regard. Words like 'outstanding' and 'exceptional' are used on a very regular basis by anyone reviewing the XF primes or pro level zooms. And yet almost nothing is ever said about the XC range of lenses. And if they are mentioned at all, it's almost in embarrassment, and they quickly move on to more 'serious' optics.

I think this does the Fujinon 16-50mm XC lens a severe injustice. I really do. Because while I may not have any experience with other Fujinon lenses, I have a plethora (yes, I said a plethora) of experience with other lenses, over a more than thirty year photographic career. From consumer kit zooms to cheap plastic primes, mid-range third party offerings to expensive pro level glass - I've shot with (and owned) them all. And while the Fujinon XC 16-50mm lens might not be the best lens I've ever owned, it certainly is far from being the worst.

Lake Brunner Water Taxi. Fujifilm X-E1 with Fujinon 16-50mm XC lens. F/11 @ 1/125th, ISO 800. 23mm (35mm equiv)

 

100% crop of lower right corner. Click image to enlarge

That's not damning with faint praise either. Honestly. Because while I certainly can't claim that it's the best lens I've ever owned, I also believe that it's a truly fantastic lens, capable of remarkably good results - especially for the price that you will pay for this plastic 'kit' lens. Most reviewers completely disregard this lens, or ignore it completely as if it doesn't even exist. And I believe they do so to their own detriment.

Ok, so it's not made of metal. Yes, it is an all plastic construction - right down to the lens mount itself. But not - I repeat NOT - the optics. They are, of course, made of glass. Fujinon glass. 12 elements, in 10 groups, including three aspherical lens elements and one ED lens element. The good stuff. So whilst the body might be of consumer-grade construction, Fuji haven't skimped where it matters the most. With the optics.

Cross section of XC 16-50mm lens elements

Plastic it may be, but it's also a very good plastic (is there such a thing in this day and age?). The fit and finish is excellent, and the zoom ring turns smoothly and without any barrel wobble. I won't lie - a metal lens mount would have been nice, and wouldn't have added any discernible weight (or cost) to the lens. But for such an incredibly light lens (just 195 grams) for a zoom, I can see why Fuji have opted for the plastic lens mount. For its intended user base (this is a consumer grade lens by Fuji's own definition), they probably didn't see it getting very heavy use, and may even be the only lens that the average consumer ever owns? So I guess there might not be a lot of lens-changing going on anyway. And besides, we're long past the point where plastic lens barrels on consumer products are of concern. Canon and Nikon have been doing it since the introduction of consumer digital SLR's in 2003 (with the Canon D300).

Carters Beach, Westport. Fuji X-T1 with Fujinon 16-50mm XC. f5.6 @ 1/240th, ISO 200. 23mm (35mm equiv)

100% crop of central area. Click image to enlarge

So let's get over the all-plastic thing shall we? Let's concentrate instead on what it does have going for it. And there's plenty.

It's lightweight, well constructed, and has glass optics with some nice aspherical elements thrown in for good measure. It also has image stabilisation built in to the lens (up to 3.5 stops), seven rounded aperture blades, a quick and silent autofocusing motor, and focuses as close as 15cm's for 'macro' images. It's not weather-sealed (neither is the 18-55mm), but really, what do you expect at this price point?

Ultimately, what I'm most interested in with any lens, of course, is IQ (image quality). What do the photos that this lens takes actually look like? And in this regard I only need one word: fantastic! Honestly - fantastic. From the very first image I took with the Fujifilm X-E1 and 16-50mm XC combination I was blown away. Crisp, clean, clear, colourful, sharp - all of the above. And while a good deal of this is down to the x-trans sensor, it still needs the lens to translate all that x-trans goodness into a final image.

Truman Track, Punakaiki. Fuji X-T1 with Fujinon 16-50mm XC. f5.6 @ 1/550th, ISO 200. 16mm (24mm equiv)

100% crop of lower left corner. Click image to enlarge

I'm not going to lie to you, dear reader, and tell you that the Fujinon XC 16-50mm f3.5-5.6 OIS is the sharpest lens I've ever owned - because it's not. But it is plenty sharp enough. Just look at the 100% corner crops of the images in this post. They aren't bitingly sharp - but only the very best of the very best lenses actually are. You know, the ones you pay $1000+ for. For a 'kit' lens performance, these are excellent results, especially when you consider that all but the last image here (the one taken at Motukeikei Beach) were shot hand-held.

So while it might not be the sharpest tack in the box, I actually find this to be a positive. Sometimes I find bitingly sharp optics to have a very obvious 'digital' quality to them. Not so the Fujinon 16-50mm XC lens. It's sharp, without being 'digitally' sharp. It has, dare I say it (ok, I will) a more film-like quality to it. It's sharp (often very sharp) where it needs to be, yet also beautifully smooth in other areas. It's hard to define exactly, but I do find the images that I'm getting from the 16-50mm XC to be very beautiful. Drop dead beautiful, in fact.

Motukeikei Beach Sunset. Fuji X-E2 with 16-50mm XC. f11 @ 1/2sec, ISO 200

100% crop of lower right. Click to enlarge

Steady on! Am I gushing over this cheap little hunk of plastic a bit too much? Surely it's just a lens you 'put up with' until you can afford a 'real' lens? I take my landscape photography very seriously, so of course I'm going to 'upgrade' first chance I get - right?

Well, not so fast. Recently (as in this week), I had the chance to do just that. Buy a 'better' lens for the X-E2 (see my last post). I looked very closely at the Fujinon 18-55mm f2-4, and almost pulled the trigger on one. But then a few reviews I read suggested that the IQ of the 18-55mm wasn't really an upgrade. I'm thrilled with the IQ I'm getting from the 16-50 XC lens (can't you tell). Would I be more thrilled with the IQ from the 18-55mm? I'm not convinced I would.

Yes, the 18-55mm is 'better' built (more metal), and yet it still doesn't have weather-sealing. And yes, it's a 'faster' lens - but as primarily a landscape photographer working around f11, I don't necessarily need faster. And also, as a landscape photographer, I'm going to choose the 16-50mm over the 18-55mm because of its focal range. 16mm (24mm equivalent) is useful to me, and preferable over 18mm (27mm equivalent). Surprisingly, at wider focal lengths, that extra 2mm makes a huge difference  - especially on an APS-C sized sensor.

Realistically, my upgrade path is actually to go to the Fujinon 16-55mm f2.8 - which is weather-sealed, and which, I'm sure, is a superior lens. And I probably could have afforded one if I'd waited for a good secondhand deal. But the 16-55mm f2.8 would also come with its own set of problems. Weight being one of them. At 655 grams, it's over three times the weight of the 16-50mm XC lens - which would definitely be noticeable on my X-E2.

So in the end, after weighing up all the pros and cons, I decided that the Fujinon XC 16-50mm f3.5-5.6 OIS lens was, in fact, the perfect lens for me. So I've bought another one to go with my X-E2 (after having sold my original lens with my X-E1). My 'new' (secondhand) one is the version II model (slightly updated OIS apparently), in all-silver. Should pair up very nicely with my silver/black X-E2.

Lake Brunner Boats. Fuji X-E1 with Fujinon XC 16-50mm. f8 @1/125th, ISO 250. 23mm (35mm equiv)

Apologies if this post has gone on a bit long, and become a bit of a rant in places? But it does annoy me that so many 'serious' photographers and reviewers dismiss the XC lenses as 'inferior' rubbish. They are, as I have discovered much to my joy, nothing of the sort.

Since I'm not really a prime kinda guy, and since I've discounted getting both the 18-55mm and 16-55mm (at least for the foreseeable future), then I guess I'll keep using the XC 16-50mm plastic fantastic for my 'serious' landscape photography. And since my experience with this XC lens has been so positive, I'm considering getting the 50-230mm XC telephoto as well. If it's anything like its smaller sibling, then it just might be a real gem of a lens too? Can't wait to find out...