16-55mm f2.8 on a X-T3?

[MaleficusAD]

Hi all. Thinking of selling my 18-55 for a 16-55 f2.8. I know it doesn’t have OIS and neither does my camera. Would that make a huge difference? Would it still provide better images than the 18-55 or would the OIS on that lens push it ahead on my camera? Thanks!

[jerryy]

You can try that 'ol rule of thumb about sharpness that was accepted wisdom in the days before image stabilization, i.e. set your shutter speed to 1 / focal length and see if you can hold it steady and get shots looking sharp. (Of course there was a lot more to it than that!)

Try this on your current lens with the OIS turned off and see if it works at both ends, 1/15 and 1/50 -- as close as you can get to 1 / FL. If it works, as in you get sharp images, great.

OIS is supposed to help you be able to get the same level of sharpness with slower shutter speeds, so it may or may not help you. F2.8 will give you shallower dof so you can balance what you want to try to photograph against your hand shake. Or get a tripod. 😀

OIS helps in regular situations, not just in the extremes, it depends on how much camera shake situations you run into, but it is only one of many tools, folks got plenty of great images before it came along.

[desparoz]

The 16-55 is a great lens, very sharp and the weather sealing is awesome. I really like it.

As a landscape photographer, I find it heavy.

If I were buying now, I'd take a solid look at the 16-80 f4, which has both OIS and is WR.

The 16-55 is great, and if you need the fixed aperture speed, you can't go wrong.

[jlmphotos]

Don't sell the 18-55~. That's my opinion.  I own the 16-55 2.8 and TWO copies of the 18-55.  Though the 16-55 is a tad sharper, clearer, and has truer color reproduction I still use my 18-55 due to it's lightweight.  And, unless you are comparing them side-by-side honestly you can't tell.  If it were me, well it is me:  I'd keep the 18-55 for those times you just want to grab and go without all the extra weight.