Been testing various lenses for landscape work on Sony a6400, trying to find the perfect minimal setup. The results challenged my assumptions about what’s “necessary” for quality landscape photography.
What I actually discovered testing these lenses:
The Sony 16-50mm kit lens isn’t trash for landscapes
Between 16-24mm at f8-f11, it’s surprisingly sharp. Everyone hates on it for being soft at f3.5, but who shoots landscapes wide open? At 123g vs the Sigma 18-50’s 290g, the weight difference is huge for hiking. The version II (the expensive one) is actually solid.
Edge softness killed the Sony 35mm f1.8 OSS for me
Despite the stabilization and compact size, the edges stay soft even at f4. For a lens that costs €300+, I expected better. The cheaper Viltrox 25mm f1.7 (€180) actually performs better overall, though it has a green color cast that needs correction.
The Sigma 30mm f1.4 - optically the best, but is it worth it?
Sharpest lens I tested, even at f1.4. But it’s bigger, heavier, and costs €370. The Viltrox 25mm gives you 90% of the performance at half the price. Weirdly, the Viltrox missed focus 3/4 times at f11 in low light - still investigating if that’s just my copy.
Surprise finding: My Sigma 18-50mm zoom at 35mm beats the primes
When testing the Sony and TTartisan 35mm primes, I also tested my zoom at 35mm for comparison. The zoom was sharper. That shouldn’t happen, but it did.
My final minimal kit decision (under 300g for both!):
Sony 16-50mm OSS II - Covers wide landscapes at f8-f11, weighs nothing (123g), already paid for
Viltrox 25mm f1.7 - Fast prime for low light, travel, and general use (37mm equivalent is perfect)
Sony 70-350mm - Already owned for wildlife, stays in the bag when needed
Questions for discussion:
Does anyone has experience weird thing with Viltrox at f11?
Anyone else gone back to the kit lens after trying “better” options?
What’s your minimal landscape kit that actually gets used vs the dream kit that stays home?
Kit lenses tend to be much better these days than a decade or two ago. I think most of them are absolutely fine and even the best choice for many landscape/travel photographers.
My Fuji kit lens is the 16-80 f4, which is a weather-sealed, constant-aperture, well-built lens. There’s not much you can fault it for, except perhaps its weight. And its weight is one of the reasons why I’m trying out M4/3, specifically the OM-5.
The latest OM System kit lenses include the 12-45 f4 PRO and the 12-40 f2.8 PRO, depending on which body you buy. Both of these are very highly regarded. For my purposes, the F4 version would be fine 95% of the time, and I have read online that some people “upgrade” to the F2.8, but then move back to the F4 after seeing very few gains.
For many people, including myself, edge-to-edge clinical sharpness should not be much of an issue. If I end up selling large-format prints one day, I may want those pro-grade lenses, but for sharing photos online and small prints, a recent kit lens is more than enough. My priorities these days are compact, lightweight and weather sealed.
Personally, I very much enjoy the Fuji 16-80. It has a wide focal range, is sharp enough, but above all, has a calm, smooth bokeh that makes it usable as a portrait lens. This is uncommon for a travel zoom.
I think that today’s reviews are unreasonably focused on resolution and sharpness. How much resolution do we really need? Most applications are perfectly served by some 12ish good megapixels. The error is, I think, looking at Lightroom’s 100% view too often. That view tells you basically nothing of value for photos. Who cares about sharpness or noise at a pixel level if you never see those pixels?
I have several 1x1.5m prints from 12MP and 16MP cameras. With appropriate processing, they look absolutely fine. It’s patently ridiculous to demand pixel level sharpness in a 40MP file. And yet, even today’s basic kit lenses do achieve that. We are truly spoiled.
I agree with you. This recent trip has really showed me what I value in a camera/lens. When I opened shots taken with the XF16 1.4 I was blown away by the quality at f2, truly something I don’t see often. I can’t describe it but maybe microcontrast? Things just look great. But at the end of the day, the image would’ve been just as good (or bad) with slightly less resolution since I am not likely to print it or display it in a big screen.
I think I may work more towards zooms for travel, which is most of what I do, so I may get the Sigma 17-40 or something else. Another critical thing is the shutter sound, I was so used to the X100V with its quiet leaf shutter, that when I pulled the X-T3 and started blasting away inside St Giles’ Cathedral I felt self conscious and bad, even if people were chattering away like it was not a place of worship and deserving of respect for folks. I ended up using ES that bit…
Having shot both, do you find that the X-T5 has a quieter shutter?
In my testing I found that after applying “no AA filter” and eventually some lens de-blur (both from the S&D modul in DT) the differences between all my lenses (2 viltrox primes, 1 fuji prime and 2 fuji zooms) become in-significant at normal magnification and size. Only when pixel peeping a significant difference is visible. Other topics like color rendering or micro-contrast are more visible on the full image to my eyes.
I also take the 16-80 f4 fuji zoom as the default lens when I dont know what I have to expect.
I actually bought second hand kit lens recently even though I own 16-55 f/2.8 exactly because the quality is just enough for viewing on my 4k oled tv. I also have both Ricohs GRIII and GRIIIx which would be probably all that I would need really for photography, but I wanted to make some use of the great video on a6700 to document my family travels. As a “dad” lens I think it works great. The lens is also mostly fine even wide open on the wide focal lengths if you’re willing to leave the distortion correction off (the corners are way sharper). I actually prefer the look of stereographical projection / slighly barrell distortion as it keeps people proportions more natural and everything doesn’t seem so far away when shooting at 16mm.
I had that for a while but I constantly compared it to my fuji primes, which were so much better. I ended up trading it in for the 16-55mm f2.8 (II), which I’m much happier with
What I’m wondering is: no doubt the 16-55 is a better lens than the 16-80 in most respects. Especially the far end is likely much sharper. But how much? Specifically, how does the 16-55 cropped to 80mm compare to the native 80mm on the 16-80?
To be honest, I don’t remember a significant difference. The X-T5’s shutter is relatively quiet compared to most other cameras. But so is the X-T3, especially in EFC mode. The X-T5 is I think a little quieter, but a leaf shutter it is not. On the other hand, it’s also a far cry from the chunky slap of a DSLR, or the tectonic bonk of a medium format mirror.
I’ve recently been on vacation with a Sony shooter. I will say that I could hear the A7R5’s shutter from a few meters away, while the X-T5 remained less conspicuous. But if silence is required, I do rely on ES mode as well.
The Fuji is 440g, so I would not expect anything comparable to be much lighter for micro 4/3. The OM System 12–100 f/4 comes to mind, but it is 561g. Don’t get me wrong, it is a great lens, but it will not be lighter.
Yes, I think that is another lens that just nailed it. Smooth background blur (not the quantity, but the quality) is the most important aspect of a zoom for me. At eg f/4 on crop sensors, I only get a small amount of blur, but if it is nice it works out, if it is busy it distracts more than it helps. I think the eye perceives the weird “busy” artifacts as a distraction.
Fun fact, for comparisons of the 16-55 f/2.8 vs the 16-80 f/4: 55/2.8 = 80/4. The amount of blur is very similar at the long end. The perspective and working distance will obviously differ.
Silly me of course forgot about the Panasonic Leica 12–60mm f/2.8–4.0, which is 320g and pretty close to the Fujifilm in terms of quality and trade-offs.
(Psychological explanation: I own the PanaLeica, but I have GAS for the Olympus 12-100. If I had the latter, I would of course be in the reverse situation.)
Yes, I was going to point out that Pana-Leica, but staying with OM System, you’re right that there isn’t a good 1:1 match to the Fuji. However, if I’m happy to give up some reach at the long end, then the 12-45 f4 is only 254g, so paired with an OM-5, the total weight is 688g compared to 997g for the X-T5 with 16-80mm. That’s quite nice weight savings.
There is also the 14-150mm f4-5.6 superzoom, which comes in at 285g (699g total with OM-5). It obviously has compromises with optical quality and speed at the long end, but a weather-sealed 28-300mm focal range at 285g – that’s an incredible chuck-in-your bag travel lens!
By all accounts, the 12-100mm is a fantastic lens, but the size/weight does put me off, and it wouldn’t be a good reason to switch from Fuji.
I haven’t done direct comparisons, but I found the 16-80 to be a bit soft especially towards the 80mm end, and it relied on quite significant distortion correction at the other end. Maybe I just got a bad lens, but I was just never particularly happy with the photos I got from it, except maybe the ones in the middle of its focal range.
On the 16-55 I just haven’t noticed anything like the softness I saw on the other lens. As the reviews have said, it’s basically prime lens performance in a zoom. Worth the extra money for me, but I can see how people might be perfectly happy with the 16-80, especially given the premium price of the 16-55 (it’s definitely not a kit lens).
For a hot second there, you had managed to flare up my GAS. And wouldn’t you know it, there’s even one online store that currently has a 16-55 II in stock!
But then I remembered that I just came back from vacation, where I shot a whole lot with the 16-80, and never once was dissatisfied with it. So the moment passed, and I didn’t spend money. Better that way.
Or any editor’s 100% view for that matter. I care. I check my images at 100%, 200%, 300% … etc. up to 1600% if necessary, Nearest Neighbor of course. Nothing like a good hard peek to dig out those nasty aberrations …
Interesting choice of words! You didn’t say you were “satisfied”, which means your GAS will flare up once more like a nasty rash that you can only scratch by buying a new lens. And then the marginal gains will give you that instant endorphin rush, which alas is only temporary. And the question is then how you deal with the comedown: buy once more to chase the high, or hang your head in shame for realizing what you always knew – GAS never fully satisfies…
Astute observation! I’ve had to think quite a bit about its ramifications.
Ultimately, my choice of words was quite appropriate, I think. My ideal lens is indeed the smallest, lightest lens I can get away with that, as the quote says, doesn’t leave me dissatisfied.
There are always ways to spend more money, carry more weight, to get better results. But I do this hobby explicitly for fun, so my question is not “can I find better gear”, but “can I have more fun”. And I think for that purpose, the 16-80 is actually as close to ideal for me as I can find in the current market.
I’ve actually tried various “better” lenses and cameras, but found their benefits in resolution and speed not contributing much to my enjoyment. Which is not to criticise anyone for whom those things are fun, they just aren’t to me, beyond that “not dissatisfactory” point.
