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

#21 Jaco van Lith

Jaco van Lith

    Advanced Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 40 posts

Posted 18 May 2017 - 08:27 PM

Advertisement (Gone after free registration)

It is a waist of money !!! The size of the APS-C is for amateurs; most of the time. I do not say "amateurs are bad photographers". A professional tries to earn his living bij making photographs. An amateur makes photoos just for fun. Forget those figures. Enjoy the hobby. Stop talking about good and better. By today's standards the old optics should be bad ? People talk too much. People think bigger is better. All nonsense.

 

In the U.S.A. Full Frame is the standard for the Pro. In Europa Full Frame is the standard for the amateur.  Mr. W. Eugene Smith was a great American photographer, even with the tiny Olympus Pen F 18 x 24 mm camera. 

 

Show me two identical pictures; made with the two different Fujinon zoom optics. Do the same with a 135 mm optic at 6 x 6 cm neg. and  with a 210 mm at 4 x5 inch.  Can you see the difference of DOF at 80 x 100 cm enlargements.

 

I never said that a Fujinon optic was bad. Hardly anybody needs the oversized wide apertures. Is not it the same like todays motor cars. Smaller engine with big turbo. 



#22 CDBC

CDBC

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 02:10 AM

I rest my case.

 

Hope you get the help you need, and soon.  :rolleyes:


  • MSM likes this

#23 frod

frod

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 309 posts

Posted 10 June 2017 - 07:35 AM

That's an intriguing response, please elucidate.


lenstip are far more eloquent than me: http://www.lenstip.c...Distortion.html

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


#24 Mike G

Mike G

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 456 posts
  • LocationLondon

Posted 10 June 2017 - 01:15 PM

"Complete Overview over the available and upcoming Fuji X-Mount lenses" in this very forum is excellent, other than that have you never heard of google!

 

     Complete Overview over the available and upcoming Fuji X-Mount lenses    


Edited by Mike G, 10 June 2017 - 02:00 PM.


#25 pez

pez

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 46 posts

Posted 11 June 2017 - 06:16 AM

Mike G thanks for the overview huge amount of work there - impressive.

 

16-55 vis 18-55 I have been there but because the change coincided for me at the time I changed from XT1 to XT2 I cannot say 1 set of images are better than another. But what I can say the XT2 and the 18-55 work together beautifully and got better after firmware updates. What is better for certain indoor school shows something I have been attending for 10 years{kids} I get more and more more successful photos ie in focus. What has not worked any better is the Fuji EF42 {used with XPro-1 XT-1 and XT-2} I avoid using it if possible[HSS to the rescue maybe].   Also Important for me is dust resistance living 13 degrees off the equator means hot and dusty big time.  But what about humidity resistance dew points etc? Anybody know?



#26 CDBC

CDBC

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts

Posted 12 June 2017 - 01:39 AM

lenstip are far more eloquent than me: http://www.lenstip.c...Distortion.html

 

Thanks for the link, good data.

 

Still love my 16-55 though!



#27 drandyperry

drandyperry

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 59 posts

Posted 10 July 2017 - 10:10 AM

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.

I only use primes for weddings. Shoot most things wide open. You only really need 3 lenses for a wedding , keep 2 of them on 2 bodies and then switch out when needed.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk

#28 drandyperry

drandyperry

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 59 posts

Posted 10 July 2017 - 10:12 AM

P. S. I'm also looking at the 16-55 to switch for my 18-55. The only reason I'm hesitating is the lack of ois which I'm loving on my kit lens. I wonder if they'll update the 16-55 to include ois to match the 50-140 (which is awesome).

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk

#29 AdamJOrange

AdamJOrange

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • LocationAurora, IL

Posted 10 July 2017 - 05:29 PM

P. S. I'm also looking at the 16-55 to switch for my 18-55. The only reason I'm hesitating is the lack of ois which I'm loving on my kit lens. I wonder if they'll update the 16-55 to include ois to match the 50-140 (which is awesome).

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk

 

 

I was a long time 18-55 user before I got the 16-55.  It's very rare I actually miss the OIS, in most cases OIS is valuable when the shutter speed dropped below the 1/FL - and if I'm shooting anything that moves (people, streets, vehicles, foliage) I need 1/100s at minimum to have any chance at stopping blur - in those cases OIS was of no benefit, but the extra stop of light at 55mm on the 16-55 was.   In the end the biggest difference of moving to the 16-55 has been the complete edge-to-edge sharpness improvement wide open vs the 18-55, I have no hesitation using the 16-55 wide open at any time, whereas on the 18-55 I tried to stop down to f/5.6 whenever there was enough light.

 

If having the OIS is of primary importance, just keep the 18-55 in your stable and then you'll always have the option.  After a few months my 18-55 was just never getting used.


Edited by OrngeDRAGON, 11 July 2017 - 02:51 AM.

  • drandyperry likes this

#30 BobJ

BobJ

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 57 posts

Posted 11 July 2017 - 11:18 AM

For what it's worth my 'review' of the two lenses is as follows.

The 16-55 is nicer to use for landscape. Being constant aperture it has a marked aperture ring and it is weather resistant. But it's big, heavy, not much sharper than the 18-55 and doesn't have IS. I should have saved my money.



#31 drandyperry

drandyperry

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 59 posts

Posted 11 July 2017 - 06:34 PM

Very interesting. I'm always slightly underwhelmed by the subject separation at the long end. F/4 at 70mm equivalent but with 55mm dof doesn't quite give the pop I like. I had the same issue but not so bad with my sigma 24-105 f/4 on my d810 but I put up with it for the extra reach over the 24-70. I'm sure the 2.8 would head me more towards the right direction. Could do with the 18-35 f/2 that sigma has with a little more reach.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk

#32 Mistik-ka

Mistik-ka

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 11 July 2017 - 10:35 PM

Everyone has their own priorities, of course, and often one may need to consider how a particular lens fits into a set of lenses for a given purpose. There is much in the small size, low weight, and OIS of the 18-55mm that I find appealing, but the angle of view of a 16mm lens is my 'bottom line': I'm unwilling to do without it. If I used the 18-55mm lens, I would have to lug around a second lens to cover 16mm, which sort of kills the size and weight advantage of the 18-55mm.



#33 jlmphotos

jlmphotos

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 481 posts
  • LocationTime Split between New Jersey and Maine

Posted 12 July 2017 - 03:06 PM

There are many reviews on Youtube.  I considered the 16-55 to replace my "don't leave home without it lens" the 18-55.  Quite frankly, I just couldn't do it.  The weight, and the lack of OIS plus the extra price tag to me was not worth it at all.  Your mileage may vary but the size and weight for that sh*t I'd have kept my D800e and my bevy of Nikon lenses.  This is also the reason I opted for the 55-200 instead of the monster 50-140.  Size and weight.  

 

I don't know about others but my copy of the 18-55 is tack sharp, albeit a tad soft in the corners but I don't care.  It generates a sh*t ton of money for me as it's my go-to, on the camera lens.  And that's all that matters to me.  It's paid for itself ten times over in stock and travel imagery.


Jorge L. Moro   | X-T1 |  X-T2 | 18-55 |  Zeiss 12/2.8  |  Fuji 16 1.4  |   Fuji 23 1.4 | Fuji 35 1.4 | Fuji 60 2.4 Macro | Fuji 55-200  |

My websitexshooters blog  |  Flickr  | 


#34 Mervyn

Mervyn

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts

Posted 25 July 2017 - 11:57 PM

I never had the 18-55 so I can't really compare, but I do have the 16-55.

 

Obviously the 16-55 is bigger and heavier then the 18-55 or a prime, but personally I don't mind and I find it perfectly balanced on an X-T2. Yes it's much more expensive then the 18-55, but what I prefer about the 16-55 is that it has 16mm on the wide end and f2.8 on the tele end. Actually f2.8 at 55 is essential for me, because I've just sold my 56. I felt the need to simplify my 5 lens set-up (all primes) and went from 5 to 2 and then added the 16-55 zoom. Now I won't need to swap lenses nearly as much and everything fits neatly in my bag.

 

16 to 56 are my most used focal lengths. I don't really need anything wider or closer. So the 16-55 zoom makes a lot of sense to me. And at these focal lengths I don't mind that it doesn't have OIS. OIS would have been nice for video use, but I hardly ever film anymore.

 

On the 50-140 the OIS is absolutely amazing though, and at those focal lengths OIS is much more of a necessity.

 

Edit (addition):

This week I rented the 100-400 to try my luck at bird and wildlife photography. It was loads of fun! After working with the 100-400 for a couple of days I just took another look at my 16-55mm. Guess what? The 16-55 is tiny and lightweight in comparison. It's pretty obvious of course, but 'big and heavy' as the 16-55 often is described (also by me) is very relative. It depends on what you compare it to. Actually the 100-400 didn't feel too big and heavy for what it is either.


Edited by Mervyn, 26 July 2017 - 09:08 PM.



 
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