Jump to content

16-55mm f2.8 advice


MaleficusAD

Recommended Posts

Hi all! My current setup is an X-T3 with the 18-55mm kit lens, the 35mm f2, and the 23mm f2. 

I’m debating selling two or all three and picking up the 16-55mm just for sheer convenience. When I’m out and about I don’t like switching lenses constantly. I usually walk around with the 23mm on the camera and the 35mm in my pocket. 

The 16-55mm just seems so convenient with not switching lenses but still retaining a relatively low aperture with what I hear is excellent IQ. Am I going to get much better IQ with the primes? 

Would it also be more difficult getting into places with a much larger lens? Would it be hard to manage on the X-T3 body? Any and all advice would be greatly appreciated!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I've owned all of these lenses (and quite a few more Fujinons) so here's my personal take on this.

The 35/2 is a fantastic lens when it comes to image quality. The 16-55 will not reach that level. It's closer to the 23/2 and the 18-55. In fact, the German magazine Fototest has tested the 16-55 and the 18-55 and both are very close to each other in terms of sharpness. The 16-55 is a bit less sharp on the wide-angle side and the 18-55 is a bit softer on the tele end.

The main advantage of the 16-55 over the 18-55 is better contrast due to better coatings. The images look a bit 'punchy-er'. You could get a similar result with the 18-55 in post by cranking up contrast, but the 16-55 has a better 'starting position' here. The 23/2 is a nice lens. The main advantage is size/weight, speed of AF and versatility of the 35mm equiv. IQ is good but nothing exceptional like the 35/2. With the 23/2 it's best to avoid f2 when you want good IQ, so effectively it becomes a f2.8 or f4 lens, just like the 18-55. So, it's easier to leave your 18-55 on camera and zoom to 23mm, instead of mounting the 23/2.

The 16-55 is quite a bit larger and heavier than the 18-55. For travel and carry-around I would prefer the 18-55 as it is also image stabilized (the 16-55 is not). That allows you to shoot in available light situations like indoors. Esp. since the X-T3 doesn't have IBIS. The 16-55 is meant for more professional shooting conditions, with controlled light, shallower DOF, WR and front lens coating that repels water. I've used it for several assignments during when I was using Fuji for professional work. It's a work-horse lens, just like all 24-70/2.8 lenses from major manufacturers. The downside is that it is almost equally large and heavy, despite it's only for APS-C format. 

When you look for a great travel kit, you might consider to sell your 23/2 and buy a 14/2.8 next to the 18-55. Those two lenses are made for each other. Same filter size, lens hood, very portable and great IQ for relative low costs. You can always keep the 35/2 whenever you need more than f3.8 (which is approx. the aperture when you zoom the 18-55 to about 35mm). That way, you probably use the 18-55 more than 90% of the time. The rest would be the 14/2.8 or the 35/2. This however, depends on whether you need something wider than the 18-55.

Edited by Herco
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Herco said:

Hi, I've owned all of these lenses (and quite a few more Fujinons) so here's my personal take on this.

The 35/2 is a fantastic lens when it comes to image quality. The 16-55 will not reach that level. It's closer to the 23/2 and the 18-55. In fact, the German magazine Fototest has tested the 16-55 and the 18-55 and both are very close to each other in terms of sharpness. The 16-55 is a bit less sharp on the wide-angle side and the 18-55 is a bit softer on the tele end.

The main advantage of the 16-55 over the 18-55 is better contrast due to better coatings. The images look a bit 'punchy-er'. You could get a similar result with the 18-55 in post by cranking up contrast, but the 16-55 has a better 'starting position' here. The 23/2 is a nice lens. The main advantage is size/weight, speed of AF and versatility of the 35mm equiv. IQ is good but nothing exceptional like the 35/2. With the 23/2 it's best to avoid f2 when you want good IQ, so effectively it becomes a f2.8 or f4 lens, just like the 18-55. So, it's easier to leave your 18-55 on camera and zoom to 23mm, instead of mounting the 23/2.

The 16-55 is quite a bit larger and heavier than the 18-55. For travel and carry-around I would prefer the 18-55 as it is also image stabilized (the 16-55 is not). That allows you to shoot in available light situations like indoors. Esp. since the X-T3 doesn't have IBIS. The 16-55 is meant for more professional shooting conditions, with controlled light, shallower DOF, WR and front lens coating that repels water. I've used it for several assignments during when I was using Fuji for professional work. It's a work-horse lens, just like all 24-70/2.8 lenses from major manufacturers. The downside is that it is almost equally large and heavy, despite it's only for APS-C format. 

When you look for a great travel kit, you might consider to sell your 23/2 and buy a 14/2.8 next to the 18-55. Those two lenses are made for each other. Same filter size, lens hood, very portable and great IQ for relative low costs. You can always keep the 35/2 whenever you need more than f3.8 (which is approx. the aperture when you zoom the 18-55 to about 35mm). That way, you probably use the 18-55 more than 90% of the time. The rest would be the 14/2.8 or the 35/2. This however, depends on whether you need something wider than the 18-55.

Thanks so much for the detailed response! So the 18-55mm is sharper or as sharp as the 23mm f2? And not as sharp as the 35mm f2? 
 

The size of the 16-55mm is the only thing concerning me. May feel uncomfortable walking around with it on a neck/wrist strap.

 

Do you have any experience with the 35mm 1.4? Compared with the f2.

Link to post
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, MaleficusAD said:

Thanks so much for the detailed response! So the 18-55mm is sharper or as sharp as the 23mm f2? And not as sharp as the 35mm f2?

That is correct. The 18-55 is approx. as sharp as the 23/2. Fototest tested them both around 1600 linepairs in the centre and 1450 linepairs in corners. The 16-55 is a bit sharper in the centre (1750), but a bit less sharp in the corners (1370-1400 linepairs). The 35/2 is around 2000 linepairs centre and 1600 in corners. All at the equiv. focal lengths and 1 stop stopped down.

Fototest also scores the lenses based on various categories (IQ, both measured and visual, build quality and features). The 18-55 had a score of 91.1 (out of max. 100). The 16-55 scored 90.3. The 23/2 scored just below 90 and the 35/2 scored 98.9.

Edited by Herco
Link to post
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, MaleficusAD said:

The size of the 16-55mm is the only thing concerning me. May feel uncomfortable walking around with it on a neck/wrist strap.

It is definitely less comfortable to walk around with compared to the 18-55. It makes the cameras a lot more front-heavy. I used it on an X-H1 with a grip or L-plate and that is as bulky as a full-frame camera like the A7 or Z-series with their 24-70/2.8 lenses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MaleficusAD said:

Do you have any experience with the 35mm 1.4? Compared with the f2.

Yes, the 35/1.4 is often considered the 'best' Fujinon lens, but it is in fact due to some optical flaws that create an appealing character. It has much more vignetting and chromatic aberration than the 35/2 and it is less sharp in all areas. Furthermore it creates a warmer, less clinical image than the 35/2. Technically the 35/2 is much better (the 35/1.4 scored 91.9 in Fototest), but the 35/1.4 has a nice 'organic' look to its images.

Finally, the 35/1.4 has poor AF speed and is noisy (both AF motors and aperture chatter). That makes it useless for video with on-camera sound. That of course only matters when you shoot video. However, when doing street photography or in theaters or museums, the 35/1.4 can also be irritably noisy for others.

Edited by Herco
Link to post
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Herco said:

Yes, the 35/1.4 is often considered the 'best' Fujinon lens, but it is in fact due to some optical flaws that create an appealing character. It has much more vignetting and chromatic aberration than the 35/2 and it is less sharp in all areas. Furthermore it creates a warmer, less clinical image than the 35/2. Technically the 35/2 is much better (the 35/1.4 scored 91.9 in Fototest), but the 35/1.4 has a nice 'organic' look to its images.

Finally, the 35/1.4 has poor AF speed and is noisy (both AF motors and aperture chatter). That makes it useless for video with on-camera sound. That of course only matters when you shoot video. However, when doing street photography or in theaters or museums, the 35/1.4 can also be irritably noisy for others.

If you had a choice between the 35 f2 and the 1.4 which would you choose? I don’t do any videography. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MaleficusAD said:

If you had a choice between the 35 f2 and the 1.4 which would you choose? I don’t do any videography. 

These days I use Fujifilm only for personal work and I use the X-Pro2 because I like that camera best. So for me the 35/2 is the better option as it blocks less of the optical view finder. Moreover, I personally love the small form factor of the 35/2 and I don't shoot portraits with it that require shallow DOF and very smooth bokeh. I use it mostly for (urban) landscape, so the better sharpness is well-suited.

I would only opt for the 35/1.4 if I really needed the extra stop of light and/or would do specifically portraits with the lens.

PS. I also use it for street photography (X-Pro2 + 35/2) and because of its much faster and more accurate AF, I tend to loose fewer candid shots with the f2 compared to the f1.4 version. 

Edited by Herco
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...