Clicky

Jump to content


Photo

Any reviews of the 16-55 (for 18-55 users)?

16-55 2.8

  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#1 FearTheXNoob

FearTheXNoob

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 59 posts

Posted 26 May 2015 - 07:57 PM

Advertisement (Gone after free registration)

Hi all,

 

I'm interested in the 16-55 2.8 to replace my beloved 18-55, mostly because of the shallower depth of field and light gathering capacity at the long end. Are there any reviews, recommendations or experiences from people who have moved from the 18-55 to the 16-55? I'm really interested in the real-world differences and whether you thought the 16-55 is worth it (reviews seem to be very good, but so they were for the 18-55).

 

Btw, I'm mainly shooting events/people and outdoor. Thanks in advance for your responses! :)

 

 


  • 1stgc likes this
X-T2, 8-400mm 2.8-5.6
“The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.” — Dorothea Lange

#2 hrk

hrk

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 27 May 2015 - 09:25 AM

Hi, 

Yes I fit this category (had the 18-55 and changed up to the 16-55).

I changed because F/4 just isn't enough for me on the wide end, especially if you are doing events/darker light as you will always be up in 6400 ISO. 

I also wasn't a fan of the bokeh of the 18-55.

 

 

Pros

Very fast focussing

It is incredibly sharp wide open

It feels built like a tank

weather sealed

slightly wider

 

Cons

Its quite heavy (though not compared to my older canon 24-70). Its possibly double the size of the 18-55

it was very expensive

no OS ( as I'm normally shooting people I dont miss this though)

 

I also have the 56mm 1.2 and the 35mm, and to be honest when I can I use those instead, but when you need the flexibility of a zoom its very good.



#3 FearTheXNoob

FearTheXNoob

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 59 posts

Posted 27 May 2015 - 10:47 PM

Thanks you for the reply, much appreciated!

 

Out of curiosity: How much do you use the 56 during weddings? I rarely dare to risk a prime during a wedding, unless I'm sure I won't need to change lenses (which is very rare with weddings)... It's one of the reasons for looking at the 16-55 for me.


  • jasdav likes this
X-T2, 8-400mm 2.8-5.6
“The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.” — Dorothea Lange

#4 Red G8R

Red G8R

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts
  • LocationOntario, Canada

Posted 28 May 2015 - 02:55 AM

Here is a review. There is another review that compares it against the 18-55 but I couldn't find it right now.

http://www.cameralab..._WR/index.shtml
Peter

#5 Red G8R

Red G8R

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts
  • LocationOntario, Canada

Posted 28 May 2015 - 02:58 AM

Oh, here is a comparison.

http://admiringlight...18-55mm-f2-8-4/

and another

http://bjornmoerman....-55-f-28-r.html
Peter

#6 FearTheXNoob

FearTheXNoob

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 59 posts

Posted 28 May 2015 - 02:31 PM

Thanks for that. I didn't know the second link, it seems to be one of the few reviews that is not completely positive about the 16-55. However, in order to find out if the lens is worth it for me I will try to lend and test it. I guess experiences from other people can only help so far... :)


X-T2, 8-400mm 2.8-5.6
“The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.” — Dorothea Lange

#7 cold187

cold187

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Posted 15 June 2015 - 05:29 PM

Hi there,

 

I've just traded my 35 mm + 18-55 for a 16-55 and I have troubles getting the background blurred. I found it easy on a FF (I owned d800 and 5d Mk3 later) but though I've been following instructions, I can't get a proper result :( It's written somewhere that I need to get close to my subject and push the zoom... Can someone help?



#8 Sluw

Sluw

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 210 posts

Posted 15 June 2015 - 08:12 PM

The dof is more pleasing on the 16-55 but the difference isn't huge. It's only one stop faster on the long end and has the same aperture on the wide end. So if you're really looking for a shallow dof I'd look at the 35mm f/1.4 and 56mm f/1.2.

 

@cold187 try standing close to your subject, zoom all the way in and set the aperture to f/2.8. That should give you the shallowest dof possible on that lens.



#9 citral

citral

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 280 posts

Posted 15 June 2015 - 08:30 PM

Well it's already bad enough to work with a zoom (uh which focale should I chose now uh picture gone) it's even worse if the aperture is changing.

If light is limited, say you're at 18 and 2.8, ISO fixed at 1600, you want a portrait, set at 55mm and bam f/4 shutter speed dropped to 1/30 or worse good luck.

If I really needed a zoom for whatever reason, that'd be the 16-55. There are enough things to worry about, light, timing, composition etc. not to fumble with a variable aperture as well. If there is plenty light and you use it between f/4 and f/16 then why not.

#10 m2usa

m2usa

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts
  • LocationSan Francisco Bay Area

Posted 16 June 2015 - 12:27 AM

When I am working as a primary wedding photographer, I usually carry two cameras (Nikon.) One with a 24-70 and one with either an 85 or a 105. I find that this combination works well for most of what I want to capture.  When I want a wider perspective, I will attach a 12-24 and replace the 24-70.  So for a Fuji user, this would mean the 16-55 and the 56, or "maybe" the 90.  Really wish there was a 70mm.  For going wide probably the 12mm Samyang.  For those who like zooms, you can go 16-55 and the 50-140, but I usually use a fast prime as a tele.


  • jasdav and claude like this

#11 Sluw

Sluw

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 210 posts

Posted 16 June 2015 - 06:38 AM

That's a bit exaggerated don't you think citral. If you're shooting for a while with such a lens you anticipate without thinking. Changing a lens takes way longer. 


  • olibe likes this

#12 WjB80

WjB80

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • LocationBoston, MA

Posted 16 June 2015 - 03:30 PM

I skipped straight to the 16-55, but strongly considered the 18-55 first, before going all in. here's one overview I came across while looking. 

http://www.fujivsfuj...35mm-f3pt5-5pt6

I came from nikon (D300) and my favorite lens was the 16-35, and also made good use of the old 28-70, so for me its like Fuji mashed my two most used lenses together!



#13 milandro

milandro

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,644 posts

Posted 10 February 2017 - 09:58 AM

After a rather long companionship with the 18-55 I decided to part ways with it and upgrade to 16-55.

 

It is early days, I am happy with the 16-55, but if nothing else now I know how good the 18-55 really is ( by the way mine was a “ Made in China” 18-55, there are made in Japan and made in China ones) because the differences are very small indeed.

 

So, unless one really needs (and I did) the wider reach and or the WR ( I don’t really need it although I was in the snow and  appreciated knowing that the lens wasn’t going to be damaged by some snow) then upgrading is not necessarily something that I would recommend.

 

The separation at the long end is nicer at 2.8 ( at the wide end they are the same aperture and perform practically the same way), but I have specific lenses for that particular focal length.

 

However this is the ideal zoom, for me, if you are walking about, not exactly knowing what you will come across but don’t want to take all the lenses that you have. 

 

I am confident that I can tackle just about anything with it. The lack of OIS , coupled to its weight, make it a little less usable in low light ( if you don’t want to push the ISO). But I am experimenting with a pistol grip to improve a steady grip at low shutter speed. I can shoot at reasonably long shutter speeds and, of course, only have to deal with the subject moving (if this does).

 

I am not happy about the petal lens hood. I’ve ordered a vented hood which, I hope, will not vignette.


the popular expression wishful thinking is an oxymoron!

 

To all TAPATALK users

 
As a form of courtesy towards your fellow users of this forum, PLEASE remove the obnoxious tapatalk signature, it adds nothing to anyone’s contribution and it is only a sneaky way used by tapatalk to push their product by polluting each forum participant with promoting their products with unpaid advertising for their software and the brand of your phone. Removing it is easy and it is an act of courtesy that shows respect for all those whom are annoyed by this pointless feature. This is not a personal attack to you, the annoyance is caused by tapatalk and the phone or tablet brands, they are getting all the exposure and you gain nothing by this.

#14 Sluw

Sluw

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 210 posts

Posted 10 February 2017 - 11:51 AM

Just a thought... I see you already have a lot of nice primes and zooms in your signature. Wouldn't it be an interesting option to buy a back-up body instead? It's cheaper and gives more interesting possibilities. Always keep te 18-55 on one and change lenses on the other.



#15 milandro

milandro

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,644 posts

Posted 10 February 2017 - 11:56 AM

you are probably addressing this to OP who was last seen on this forum a year ago...


  • Sluw likes this

the popular expression wishful thinking is an oxymoron!

 

To all TAPATALK users

 
As a form of courtesy towards your fellow users of this forum, PLEASE remove the obnoxious tapatalk signature, it adds nothing to anyone’s contribution and it is only a sneaky way used by tapatalk to push their product by polluting each forum participant with promoting their products with unpaid advertising for their software and the brand of your phone. Removing it is easy and it is an act of courtesy that shows respect for all those whom are annoyed by this pointless feature. This is not a personal attack to you, the annoyance is caused by tapatalk and the phone or tablet brands, they are getting all the exposure and you gain nothing by this.

#16 aladroer

aladroer

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts
  • LocationBarcelona - Spain

Posted 12 March 2017 - 05:20 PM

I like to shoot with the sun in the picture. The image with the 16-55 is so much clear, contrasted and transparent! The anti-flare coating protection is much better than in the 18-55.



#17 CDBC

CDBC

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts

Posted 22 April 2017 - 09:17 PM

I like to shoot with the sun in the picture. The image with the 16-55 is so much clear, contrasted and transparent! The anti-flare coating protection is much better than in the 18-55.

 

Totally agree.

 

I'm delighted that I 'spent the extra' and got the 16 - 55 f2.8 lens. And I'm a guy who used a bag full of prime lenses with my Canon 35mm film cameras for years and never thought I would go back to zooms.

 

The two key reasons for getting this lens were the fixed aperture throughout the zoom range, and I've always preferred a 24mm over a 28mm - this lens provides the equivalent angle of view, while also working very well as a portrait lens and everything in between.

 

Sharp, sharp, sharp. Excellent even wide open, super light transmission even shooting against the sun, no rectilinear distortion, marvelous colour rendition; I've never been more pleased with a piece of glass, and I've owned some very good cameras and lenses over the years.

 

Sure, it's heavy and comparatively bulky, but even that's a positive when it comes to steady hand-held shooting. I love this lens, did I say that?


Edited by CDBC, 22 April 2017 - 09:17 PM.


#18 frod

frod

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 309 posts

Posted 03 May 2017 - 03:27 PM

no rectilinear distortion? it barrel distorts quite significantly in raw. your camera is correcting it.

The aperture ring is for composing in the third dimension, not removing it!


#19 Jaco van Lith

Jaco van Lith

    Advanced Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 40 posts

Posted 16 May 2017 - 09:21 PM

You must be out of your mind; a waist of money. Since when DOF is a must. When you look with your own eyes you will see everything in focus.

Painting are sharp painted.

Except some, the ones they were made bij lazy starters, who copied unsharp photographs.

 

If you need real DOF, buy a 5 x 7 inch view camera with a 360 mm and shoot 25 ISO film



#20 CDBC

CDBC

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts

Posted 17 May 2017 - 02:38 AM

no rectilinear distortion? it barrel distorts quite significantly in raw. your camera is correcting it.

 

That's an intriguing response, please elucidate.

 

I realize that 'no rectilinear distortion' is probably a simplistic, subjective overstatement on my part. However, after shooting with the lens for four or five months now - and with an eye for architecture (even though I don't spend my time taking square-on pictures of brick walls) I don't think it's an exaggeration.

 

I didn't make my judgment from the EVF or the little screen on the back, so much as the results I see on my computer screens. And while I'll grant that at the 55 mm end of the zoom range, there's a suggestion on pincushioning, nowhere in the zoom range - particularly at the 16 mm end, where I find myself using it most often - have I been able to identify any barrel distortion.

 

And (perhaps because I'm an old fart who doesn't grasp modern technology) I fail to understand how the image that the lens transmits - be it in-camera or in-jpeg (new terminology, OK?) can be evidentially 'different' in terms of what's being passed through the glass to the 'film' plane. Either it's bent, or it ain't, surely?

 

--------------------------------

 

 

You must be out of your mind; a waist of money. Since when DOF is a must. When you look with your own eyes you will see everything in focus.

Painting are sharp painted.

Except some, the ones they were made bij lazy starters, who copied unsharp photographs.

 

If you need real DOF, buy a 5 x 7 inch view camera with a 360 mm and shoot 25 ISO film

 

 

Jaco, what on earth do you think you're talking about, here? Why are you participating in this thread, you silly person?

 

You are off topic completely (we're discussing a particular lens, here) you can't spell 'waste' and the general attitude you convey is one of arrogance and condescension, despite your obvious ignorance.

 

Please get over yourself, before next 'contributing' to this discussion. Sheesh!


  • frod and fugu82 like this


 
x

Registration is free

Not registered? Really?

Discover the full potential of the Fuji X Forum... register now!
Registration is free and done in a few minutes!

As registered member you can discuss, post your questions and present your images.
And get in contact with Fuji X photographers worldwide!

We are looking forward to you!

The Fuji X Forum Team

Register Close