Shooting landscape for me also includes night shots – where this lens is usable only from f/2.8.
Anything wider-open will introduce great amount of coma and softness.

I mean – this lens is great, has usability in its own very unique style, especially due to close-focus and f1.4.
But not for landscape. You can shoot forest details and documentary shots – thats great.

My first attempt was to use xf16 1.4 + xf18-55. But i think of replacing them with xf16-55.
Changing lens often in landscape photography is also unwelcome – either cause of weather or time.
When you have light for 20 seconds, changing lens is difference between having shot and uselessness of doing photography (and maybe frustration too xD).

Another note:
Just switched from nikon FF. I had tamron 17-35 for 350eur and a nikon z24-70 which you can get for 470eur. No reflections(flaring), pretty sharp throughout range, none of distortion/vignette issues, weather sealing, fullframe lens both of them. 24-70 f/4 is smaller and lighter than xf16-55.
I think that opens up the question if Fuji lens aren’t somewhat overpraised and maybe overpriced by todays standard. Also, the cost/weight/dimension differences between FF and APSC are getting so small nowadays, it’s reasonable to think about that – especially as a newcomer.

However, in the end I’ve got to say also that fuji’s got my heart, that’s why i sold nikon :) Fun factor and enjoying something doesn’t always has to go in line with ‘reason rules’ :D

If this blog page should’ve been the ad for fuji ( i think this comment’s getting deleted :D )

That’s a tough choice! Overall the 10-24 will be the most useful overall, especially for landscapes. It’s not the greatest for the aurora since it’s only f/4, if you can stretch your budget a little bit I would get the 10-24 and the Rokinon 12mm for night shots.

Thanks for spotting the typo! Fixed now :-)

Hi Travis. Gosh, that is a tricky question. The 16-55 is optically brilliant, weather-sealed and has a nice wide 2.8 aperture. But it is heavy at 650gm and there is no OIS. The 16-80 is only f4 but does give you longer reach making it great for more uses. It has built-in IBIS, is lighter at 440gm and has weather sealing.

So far I have not helped I know. They are both great and both have pros and cons. As a result, it comes down to budget and use. Personally, as a non-professional, I would go with the 16-80. That kind of focal range is excellent for most photography genres. Like a landscape, you have f4 and 16mm. Like a portrait, you have 80mm. Want to photograph a kids party, you have the entire range.

I would recommend the 16-55 for pro users for sure. Save yourself the $100 and grab the 16-80. It is still a brilliant lens and I am sure you will put it to good use.

I hope that has helped. Let me know what you decide. Cheers. Greg

Hi Mark. I am yet to try that one out but I hear it is a cracker. Also, the 8-16 is amazing but crazy wide! G