Lens comparison · Fujifilm X · updated 5 November 2026

Fujifilm XF 16-80mm f/4 R OIS WR vs Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8 Di III-A VC RXD

Verdict

Fujifilm XF 16-80mm f/4 R OIS WR has more in its favour on paper. The 17-70mm f/2.8 Di III-A VC RXD gathers more light for low light and background blur; the XF 16-80mm f/4 R OIS WR is cheaper. The Fujifilm lens is the mount maker's own, while the Tamron is a third-party alternative.

Choose the XF 16-80mm f/4 R OIS WR for

  • less weight (440g vs 525g)
  • a lower price (about £340 vs £470)
  • more reach (80mm vs 70mm)
  • a wider starting focal length (16mm vs 17mm)

Choose the 17-70mm f/2.8 Di III-A VC RXD for

  • a brighter maximum aperture (f/2.8, about 1.0 stops more light)
XF 16-80mm f/4 R OIS WR17-70mm f/2.8 Di III-A VC RXD
BrandFujifilmTamron
Focal length16-80mm17-70mm
Maximum aperturef/4f/2.8
Weight440 g525 g
StabilisationYesYes
Weather sealingYesYes
Filter size72mm67mm
Made forAPSCAPSC
New price£799£699
Used at MPB (Fujifilm X)£274–£404£429–£504

Frequently asked questions

Is the Fujifilm XF 16-80mm f/4 R OIS WR better than the Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8 Di III-A VC RXD?

The XF 16-80mm f/4 R OIS WR offers less weight (440g vs 525g), a lower price (about £340 vs £470), more reach (80mm vs 70mm); the 17-70mm f/2.8 Di III-A VC RXD offers a brighter maximum aperture (f/2.8, about 1.0 stops more light).

Which is better value, the XF 16-80mm f/4 R OIS WR or the 17-70mm f/2.8 Di III-A VC RXD?

On Fujifilm X, the Fujifilm XF 16-80mm f/4 R OIS WR costs about £340 against about £470 for the Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8 Di III-A VC RXD (MPB used where listed, otherwise new; checked 5 November 2026).

Is f/2.8 worth it over f/4?

f/2.8 gathers about 1.0 stops more light, which helps indoors, at night and for background blur. If you mostly shoot in good light, the slower lens is usually lighter and cheaper.

Do both lenses fit the same cameras?

Both are available for Fujifilm X (and other mounts: Sony E / FE, Canon RF / RF-S, Nikon Z). Both are made for crop sensors.