jlmphotos

GREAT!  The sooner the better.  Not because I want the X-Pro but this could mean the X-T2 won't be far behind!

Nice!  I love my 16mm 1.4 -- almost as much as my 18-55.
 
Here's a sample:  https://flic.kr/p/z6B23R

i use 5.11 backpacks for everything in life.  they're used by the military and police and last forever.  i like the molle modular system to easily attach other cases or a tripod to the bag.  the bags are even designed to attach attach to another bag.  wrap the camera and lenses in some lens wraps and throw them in.  i used the 5.11 rush 12 on a recent trip, took most of my camera gear and it held it all with no issues.  the bag is about the heigh and width of a normal backpack, maybe a little deeper.  it held 3 camera bodies with lenses attached, another 5 lenses, tripod, filters, and more.  the rush 24 is bigger, it easily accommodates my 17" laptop

Well first let me say this may be your first bag but TRUST ALL OF US HERE, it will NOT be your last.  At one point I was up around the 14 mark.  Now, I'm down to ONE backpack, and several messenger style bags -- four I think.  
 
The best thing you can do is go to a store with all your gear and try them.  If you order online, you may get lucky.  That's what I've done, and in some cases I've wound up returning them.
And I say no to the camera case unless you just want to add some bling.

The 36MP in the D800 is overkill for 99% of the people out there and that included me when i owned one.  

24mp would be pretty much perfect for me.

24-30 mp range on APS-C, somewhat more if full frame or medium format for me. Beyond that, you gain detail (minor) with certain lenses, under certain conditions, but you pay with reduced dynamic range and increased noise. 200 MP on APS-C or FF, you're in the pixel density range of a cell phone! I can spot phone pictures even as tiny jpegs, simply because they have blown highlights, muddy shadows or both. The current generation of 24 MP sensors are similar to the 16MP sensor we have, just with more detail. If Sony puts a modest increase in density on the A6000 replacement, I'm relatively confident it'll be similar as well, but a big jump would probably lose in other categories.
 
Dan

The Fuji is water RESISTANT.  Meaning you can get it wet with rain and snow and it "should" be ok.  The lenses with the WR designation are also water-RESISTANT.  None of the equipment will survive a dunking of course.
With that being said I used my X-E1 and 18-55, of which NEITHER was WR in rain, snow, sleet and around salt water.
I've used my 18-55 and my X-T1 in the same weather; no problems.  My grandson smacked my 18-55 and X-T1 with a full load from water canon last summer directly at the lens and again everything still functions.  Though, I did have to remove the lens and dry the water that seeped in between the lens and the body!  No big deal.
I do believe these Fuji's, as I'm certain other brands are rather robust.  Even though I love Fuji I won't be a fanboy and say that only fuji will be this rugged.  
I just spent ten days in and around salt water, sand, and rain with zero ill-effects on ANY of my lenses or my X-T1. I have the details in my blog.
 

Wow. I guess I'm the first to answer here.  Yay me.  I returned in late September with more than 5,000 images of a ten-day stock/photography trip down into the Florida Keys.  More than 3000 of those images were taken with the 18-55 which, if you get a great copy, is an AMAZING lens.  
another 1200 or so I took with the 16mm 1.4 which is FANTASTIC. Not only fir it's sharpness, 1.4 aperture, but in my case it's extreme close focusing ability!
The other lens I took were the Zeiss 12mm 2.8 which I used for the big wide expansive images, the 23mm 1.4 which hardly was used at all and  my 35 1.4 which did not come out of the bag.
 
Here is a quick image of a hermit crab taken with the 16mm 1.4.  And that's a jpeg that i brought into PS and added the text in there to spoof a friend of mine at the office - which is why I have it on this machine that I'm using now.
Mid-October I hit Northern Maine for autumn images.  This time another 3800 images.  Six days.  This time, the 18-55, then the 55-200.  In that order.
 
Personally, I LOVE my 16mm 1.4.  I find the 10-24 is too wide at the low end, and too heavy for me to carry on extended trips.  If you's like to see some images taken with these lenses just click on one of my links down in my signature.  I'm one of those that lists the exact shooting info for each image so you'll be able to see what lens I used among other image information.
Hope that helps you narrow down your decision, but that 16 1.4 is freakin' sweet.

The original poster is asking about Real World Experience with the 16 ƒ1.4 for the X Series.  Not about how it compares to Sigma's offering for full frame bodies.  Somehow somewhere this discussion went down a completely different track.
 
I only got to play with the 16 for a brief time, but I absolutely loved it, and have not heard of anyone who owns it that doesn't love it.  If the 24 is a length you love, you most definitely love the 16.  I've heard many that owned the 14 and didn't feel they needed the 16, but once they tried it out, they quickly forgot the 14 altogether.  It's zippy, and sharp as hell, and the low light performance is quite amazing.  I fell in love with it in the brief time I had with it and wish I could afford it.  All that being said, I don't need it to be that fast and I can afford the 14 much sooner, so I've opted to try and grab the 14...That however is just my needs...As I said, if you love the 24 Focal and can afford the 16, then you will not be disappointed in my opinion.

If I had to start today acquiring a kit of lenses my choices would be:  16mm 1.4, 16-55 2.8, and the 55-200.  
That's my story and I'm sticking to it 
 
And that's coming from experience as I currently own the Zeiss 12, the Fuji 16 1.4, 23 1.4, 35 1.4, 18-55 (OUTSTANDING Lens) and the 55-200.

DAMN.  If I didn't hate people so much I could be tempted.  ALL OF THESE images are fabulous! I love them!
 

The Fuji is water RESISTANT.  Meaning you can get it wet with rain and snow and it "should" be ok.  The lenses with the WR designation are also water-RESISTANT.  None of the equipment will survive a dunking of course.
With that being said I used my X-E1 and 18-55, of which NEITHER was WR in rain, snow, sleet and around salt water.
I've used my 18-55 and my X-T1 in the same weather; no problems.  My grandson smacked my 18-55 and X-T1 with a full load from water canon last summer directly at the lens and again everything still functions.  Though, I did have to remove the lens and dry the water that seeped in between the lens and the body!  No big deal.
I do believe these Fuji's, as I'm certain other brands are rather robust.  Even though I love Fuji I won't be a fanboy and say that only fuji will be this rugged.  
I just spent ten days in and around salt water, sand, and rain with zero ill-effects on ANY of my lenses or my X-T1. I have the details in my blog.
 

The Fuji is water RESISTANT.  Meaning you can get it wet with rain and snow and it "should" be ok.  The lenses with the WR designation are also water-RESISTANT.  None of the equipment will survive a dunking of course.
With that being said I used my X-E1 and 18-55, of which NEITHER was WR in rain, snow, sleet and around salt water.
I've used my 18-55 and my X-T1 in the same weather; no problems.  My grandson smacked my 18-55 and X-T1 with a full load from water canon last summer directly at the lens and again everything still functions.  Though, I did have to remove the lens and dry the water that seeped in between the lens and the body!  No big deal.
I do believe these Fuji's, as I'm certain other brands are rather robust.  Even though I love Fuji I won't be a fanboy and say that only fuji will be this rugged.  
I just spent ten days in and around salt water, sand, and rain with zero ill-effects on ANY of my lenses or my X-T1. I have the details in my blog.
 

Yuck.  This is one of the Kelby clowns.  If he said the sky was blue I'd have to disagree.  Can't stand that whole group.

I don't think bloggers are (necessarily) any more professional than forum users. We are one people, some just happen to know how to use Wordpress.
 
From what i hear, you get what you pay for, but gaining one stop at 55mm only, and a bit more wideangle at 16mm, is not worth the increase in size and weight over the 18-55 F2.8-4. End quote.
You even lose the OIS. But of course there's WR, and stellar corner performance, probably. Don't take my word for it.

Everyone is all excited about the WR of this and other Fuji lens.  Quite frankly, I don't know if it is that critical.  I've used my 18-55 in rain and sleet; I've had it out in the elements since I purchased in back in February 2013.   I just returned from a 10 day trip where I was in Rain, sun, thunder, saltwater and sand. I used the 18-55, 55-200, and the Zeiss12mm.  My second most used lens was the 16 1.4 but that is WR.  The 18-55 was responsible for over 3,000 images alone and it survived.  The "ONLY" thing the WR designation would have done for me is to make me feel more at ease.  That's it.  
You know, back "in the day" we didn't have WR lenses.  We used our gear to make images, not to be coddled or displayed on  a shelf at  home or to post gear selfies online.  I lived in Alaska for four years and shot in rain, sleet and snow with all my Minolta gear.  Never had a problem.   If the lens did not survive so be it;  I would not go back to that brand again. Period.  My 18-55 was used to shoot for fun a water pistol fight.  My grandson literally pointed this water canon at me and sprayed me and the lens with a full load of water.  The 18-55 still works.  just fine.  Though I did see where water seeped in between the lens and the bod flange.  I had to physically dry it with a towel.  That's all that happened.  And I'm talking a water canon that held probably more water than you will see short of a monsoon.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.  
In a couple of days I'm headed out to shoot up on the Maine coast.  Wet, cold, drizzly weather.  I'm looking forward to it.  

After having returned from a 10-day stock shooting trip and using the X-T1 plus a bevy of lenses I can honestly say I don't need any further upgrades.  I'm perfectly content with what I have.  Now, if Fuji would hurry up and put out a 24 megapixel, X-T1 equivalent I would love that.  
 
I'm very, very pleased with my equipment.
 

It was a cold, blowy day at the beach

Cold, Blowy Day by Paul Crespel, on Flickr

And even if they asked you, you must be honest with yourself, and with them, or you stand a risk of losing a lot of friends.  Seriously, Shane, think hard before you do the wedding

Hello Shane,
 
A wedding is a very important event, which can't easily be rewound and replayed for a re-shoot if you get the photos wrong. 
 
My advice to you is, if you need to ask such a question, then perhaps it would be better to have the assurance of an experienced wedding photographer present to ensure backup for any mistakes.
 
You don't get a second chance at a wedding, and if you screw up through lack of experience, you are going to disappoint the wedding couple, their family and their friends, and possibly leave yourself open to a lawsuit.
 
In a church (down the aisle), a telephoto is not ideal.  You need 21mm or 28mm to allow for low light, and the depth of field and surroundings to give the photo some context.  You don't want to blur the background in the church, you want to include it.
 
Really, think very carefully about covering the wedding until you've followed experienced wedding photographers enough to understand what is expected, and to have enough experience not to screw up.  It's a BIG responsability

You know I hear great things about the 56mm.  However, I purchased it several months ago and wound up returning it.  It hunted focus way too much for me.   was shooting two christenings back to back.  It was in a beautifully lit church -- skylights, huge windows, so it was definitely NOT low light at all.  It hunted and hunted.  I was so frustrated I switched to my 18-55, and my 35 1.4 and finished both christenings with no more issues.
 

I looked at both the 50-140 and the 55-200.  Sharpness was the same to my old eyes.  What wasn't the same was the size and weight. I went with the 55-200...
No regrets whatsoever!!!

Everyone is all excited about the WR of this and other Fuji lens.  Quite frankly, I don't know if it is that critical.  I've used my 18-55 in rain and sleet; I've had it out in the elements since I purchased in back in February 2013.   I just returned from a 10 day trip where I was in Rain, sun, thunder, saltwater and sand. I used the 18-55, 55-200, and the Zeiss12mm.  My second most used lens was the 16 1.4 but that is WR.  The 18-55 was responsible for over 3,000 images alone and it survived.  The "ONLY" thing the WR designation would have done for me is to make me feel more at ease.  That's it.  
You know, back "in the day" we didn't have WR lenses.  We used our gear to make images, not to be coddled or displayed on  a shelf at  home or to post gear selfies online.  I lived in Alaska for four years and shot in rain, sleet and snow with all my Minolta gear.  Never had a problem.   If the lens did not survive so be it;  I would not go back to that brand again. Period.  My 18-55 was used to shoot for fun a water pistol fight.  My grandson literally pointed this water canon at me and sprayed me and the lens with a full load of water.  The 18-55 still works.  just fine.  Though I did see where water seeped in between the lens and the bod flange.  I had to physically dry it with a towel.  That's all that happened.  And I'm talking a water canon that held probably more water than you will see short of a monsoon.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.  
In a couple of days I'm headed out to shoot up on the Maine coast.  Wet, cold, drizzly weather.  I'm looking forward to it.  

Well Patrick I have the 35 1.4 since February 2013 when i got my X-E1.  I doubt if I would purchase the 35 F2.  However, that is exactly what I said about the 16 1.4 and now I not only own it I love it!