XF 16-55mm f/2.8 WR Lens

[ryan_khoo]

Hi all Fuji users,

 

Can I know, if you already have the 18-55 and the 56mm F1.2, will you go through the trouble to sell the 18-55 and replace it with 16-55 ?

 

Thanks

[Dis]

Can I know, if you already have the 18-55 and the 56mm F1.2, will you go through the trouble to sell the 18-55 and replace it with 16-55 ?

 

Depends on what you are shooting. Both are great lenses.

[bashar]

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!

[Niftee Fiftee]

here's a video review from a non-pro (hobbyist) perspective - https://youtu.be/AlrERuPVGpg.

[Merde]

It really depends if one prefers fast zoom lens or slow zoom + fast primes.

 

I prefer the latter approach, because mirrorless gear shouldn't be heavy.

[Marc G.]

because mirrorless gear shouldn't be heavy.

I can't read this nonsense anymore. Glass is glass and metal is metal. If you want a well built lens with certain specs, then there's no way around a certain weight. Maybe the 16-55 is too heavy for you but this slogan that mirrorless can't be heavy is just pure bollocks...

[Merde]

I can't read this nonsense anymore. Glass is glass and metal is metal. If you want a well built lens with certain specs, then there's no way around a certain weight. Maybe the 16-55 is too heavy for you but this slogan that mirrorless can't be heavy is just pure bollocks...

 

For you it may be nonsense, for me it is the reason I sold my Canon gear.

[Marc G.]

For you it may be nonsense, for me it is the reason I sold my Canon gear.

So what? I enjoy using lighter gear, too. The 16-55 and 50-140 are still lighter than their f/2.8 counterparts for DSLRs. If you require tools with certain apertures, then there's no way around weight. But you still save a bit. Mirrorless does offer 2.8 zooms and I am happy about that. After all, you can go light with small primes with a DSLR, too. But most people choose not to.

[Merde]

If you require tools with certain apertures, then there's no way around weight.

 

Yes, there is - fast primes. Let me repeat myself:

 

 

It really depends if one prefers fast zoom lens or slow zoom + fast primes.

 

It seems you are "fast zoom guy" and I'm not.

The only nonsense is your calling my approach nonsense.

[Marc G.]

The only nonsense is your calling my approach nonsense.

I'm not calling your approach nonsense. I call the repeating of the slogan "mirrorless shouldn't be heavy" nonsense. There's a subtle, but nonetheless important, difference.

[umad?]

I prefer the latter approach, because mirrorless my gear shouldn't be heavy.

 

I fixed that for you.

 

That's like saying a car shouldn't be heavy. Or a monitor shouldn't be big. There are cases where they just need to be.

 

 

Mirrorless gear should be universal. That's the nice thing. You can use a Fuji X-T1 with a 27mm and stay at 500 Gramms, or you can put a grip/battery grip on it and use it with larger lenses like the 16-55 or 50-140.

[Brogan]

If you look through Flickr or 500 pix you'll see plenty of top quality photos talen with this lens regardless of X type camera body.

Regards Brogan

[jlmphotos]

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.

I have to agree with Maurice.  I kept my 18-55.  The extra bulk, and weight was not worth a 2.8 aperture when my 18-55 is from 2.8 to F4.  For the same reason  chose the 55-200 over the 50-140.  Just not worth it for me.  And the 18-55 just kills it in the image arena!  It's my most often used lens and I own quite a few of them.

[frod]

I prefer zooms in the mid to long range and to that end I have both the f/2.8 zooms (I still have my 18-55). The key feature of the 16-55 for me is that it's at its best around f/4, whereas the kit lens peaks around f/8, but even then the big zoom is still superior. It's absolutely no contest wide open, the 16-55 is a lot sharper. OIS is useful in some circumstances and that's why I keep the 18-55, I don't really care about the relative sizes; if I need a small camera I'll use the 18 or 27, on my x-e2 these combos can fit in my pocket, or hang nicely, which is not true of the 18-55 anyway.

[globeglimpser]

I own the 16-55mm and love it. Size is fine and image quality is top notch (though I bumped it recently and am seeing some corner degradation which may require a service to rectify).

 

I also recently got my brother an X-T10 with the 18-55mm and was perplexed with how good the quality was. I have owned this lens before and it was nothing special but his particular copy rivaled by 16-55mm AND had OIS. I then tried out 2 friends 18-55s and neither was on-par with the one I got my brother.

 

This may be a one off thing or a change in the manufacturing. The point is, you (and others) may get very lucky with the 18-55mm. But for WR and the extra 2mm, I still prefer my 16-55mm.

[cjuk]

New member here, had my X-T1 etc for 18 months now and loving it.

 

I recently bought the 16-55, and I was very unsure at first. I was travelling in Japan and managed to pick it up for £440 (compared to ~£1k new / £700 used) here in the UK) and so bought it mainly as an experiment, since I could always sell it on. 

 

Its a lot bigger and heavier than the 18-55, but for me, I think its worth it for the following reasons:

 

1) although the 18-55 is 2.8-4, even at 23mm or so, its getting close to 3.5, so for most of the 'normal' range, this lens is significantly faster.

2) I love the wide end, and the 2mm extra is quite a lot at that end.

3) At the portrait end, the bokeh is lovely. Its enough to keep me away from the 56 1.2 for the time being.

4) the weather sealing is useful, and means that walking around I just don't worry about the camera. The side benefit of WR is that is must better sealed against dust etc... which is a good thing too.

 

So for me, I accept the weight compromise, and its still a whole lot smaller than the equivalent DSLR setup.

 

I love the primes, but I bought it because I love to take pictures of my 1yo son, and the primes mean't i often missed a cool shot because I didn't have the right lens on the body (any of you with kids know they ain't gonna sit still for anything!). With this lens, I pretty much get everything.

 

I'll hang on to the 35 1.4 as my go everywhere small prime for street/portrait/landscape etc... and might grab the 27mm just so i can pocket the camera when necessary.

 

Now I just need to figure out an ultrawide, but thats for another topic....

[Malsam]

I bought this lens when I switch to Fuji but sold it after about 1 month of use. What I like about this lens is the build quality, handling, colour and AF. Why I eventually sold it away is the weight and size which becomes a concern over time. I came to Fuji is mainly due to the compactness and agility in use. The weight and size reminds me of my old Canon setup and it really started bothering me as times goes by.

 

Anyone who appreciates build quality and performance will like the 16-55. Its really a stellar performer less the weight and size advantage.

[immo_p]

I also apparently had a less than stellar copy of the 18-55 - very blurry at the tele end (and with 1/1000s, handshake is probably unlikely), even stopped down.

 

I talked to some guys and they said that the OIS might have been the reason. Anyway, sold it - the 16-55 is way bigger, but the image quality is outstanding and it feels more solid, Being twice as heavy as the 18-55 iis one reason, but it's more details like the more defined aperture ring clicks that really define the lens. Can only recommend it if weight is not a concern.

[jkundi]

The 16-55 is a godly lens it stays on my camera always and covers most situations with gorgeous picture quality. I only use the primes I own for extreme low light conditions or when I know that one particular focal length will suffice for the entire shoot and that'll cut down the weight. Not that it feels extremely heavy as I still use a Canon 24-70 with 5D MK3.

[h2odog]

I prefer primes but if i were to get a zoom, it would be the 16-55 2.8.

[Under Fire]

Hello, i m a new member

 

i buy 16-55 a month before, i sell immediately my old 18-55

 

it is perfect lens for me!