bashar

I am in love with the new xe-3. Don’t care about ibis or tilt , I had an xt-2 and sold it, xe-3 is about size, if you want tech buy the higher end models. The xe rangefinder style and size inspires me to take more pictures and grab my camera more, no LEICA had a flip screen.....

I am in love with the new xe-3. Don’t care about ibis or tilt , I had an xt-2 and sold it, xe-3 is about size, if you want tech buy the higher end models. The xe rangefinder style and size inspires me to take more pictures and grab my camera more, no LEICA had a flip screen.....

I am in love with the new xe-3. Don’t care about ibis or tilt , I had an xt-2 and sold it, xe-3 is about size, if you want tech buy the higher end models. The xe rangefinder style and size inspires me to take more pictures and grab my camera more, no LEICA had a flip screen.....

Fuji has X-T20 and X-T2 to compete with the others. The E-series is more specialized/cater to more specific group of people.

I just got the 16-55, I had the 18-135 and the 18-55 before. First there was is no way to compare these, the 16-55 is prime quality. This is the first zoom that convinced me to keep the primes at home, focus speed feels like an slr. weight is not an issue,considering the magic that comes out of this lens and how fast it is to catch kids, my motto is go big or use the iPhone...took it to the beach yesterday and got splashed with sand and mud, bring it on!

I use my X-T1 kit (23mm and 16-55mm) primarily for shooting pics of my family on outings and indoors. Even from someone coming from a pretty compact camera (Lumix LX7), I got used to the relative bulk of the X-T1/16-55 combo pretty quickly and don't feel as though it feels unbalanced, and I don't use any additional grips.  The ergonomics for me personally are very comfortable, and I don't have the largest hands.  The combination feels solid but not "brick" heavy.
 
I may have had a less than stellar copy of the 18-55, but I feel the 16-55's images are on a different level.  I'm just an everyday shooter who uses Fuji purely as a hobby, and my lack of skills probably has something to do with why I didn't feel as though the highly reputable 18-55 didn't seem all that fantastic to me, but I didn't change anything with my technique and still feel as though my results are dramatically different, despite what some review say regarding a negligible difference in image quality between the two.  The extra 2mm at the wide end is a nice bonus.
 
I personally don't mind the lack of OIS since I use it primarily for shooting people pictures. (It would have been nice to have of course and for others that use the lens in different scenarios, it could represent a deal breaker)
 
The lens is not as big in person as it may seem in pictures online, but it IS a big lens.  It makes for a combo comparable in size to your typical Nikon/Canon APS-C DSLR (like a 5300/5500) and telephoto zoom.  Rent it first and give it a try, though.  If you're contemplating getting one at all, you owe it to yourself to give it a go.  This is coming from someone who swore he would never tote around a DSLR-sized package to snap pics of family.

I have this lens and love it.
I used to have the 18-55, maybe I had a bad copy, but I find the 16-55 is a huge step up in performance and image quality.

For me, size is very important. I do a lot of running and biking through the hills and countryside and want to take my camera with me. The 27mm is the only one I can do that with. Photo's come out of it very sharp and the differences between it and the best quality Fuji Primes (currently XF90mm by all accounts) will be very small and only noticeable at 100% crops.
 
I love this lens - I only bought it to test it out thinking I'd sell it on. I won't be selling it on!

Zeiss 12, 27 and 56mm
 
For traveling nothing beats the 18-135:)

Why limit to Fuji lenses? I like the Zeiss 12 (wider than Fuji 14 and at least as sharp), Fuji 23, Fuji 56