16-55 vs 18-135 and 55-200

[Les White]

I have the following fuji zooms--10-24, 18-135, 55-200, 50-140 and 100-400 plus a few good primes--I am thinking about selling the 18-135 and 55-200 and getting the 16-55 2.8 since I have the midranges pretty well covered--I would welcome opinions of what I am thinking about

[mdm]

It's make perfect sense. 16-55mm is a great lens. You will love it.

[Herco]

Apart from the generic comment that "this depends on what you're shooting" it makes sense to me. I already wondered about the huge overlap in the area beyond 50 mm. The 16-55 is a great lens and as you're used to the 18-135 you won't be struck by it's size and weight. Note that on the wider end (16 mm) the lens has much more distortion and corner softness as the 10-24, so I would definitely keep that, unless you have the 12 or 14 mm primes. On the long end (35 and above) it is a very good lens for portraits. The f2.8 creates a nice focus transition and good quality of bokeh for a zoom lens. Dustin Abbott on Youtube has made a very good balanced review of the 16-55.