16-55 vs Primes

[thedwp]

I mostly shoot primes. I have the Ziess 12, Fuji 23,35 & 90. I've noticed Lately when I'm out shooting for fun in always going into my bag to swap lenses. It opens the door for dust and that inevitable dropped lens moment.

 

My question for any of you who own the 16-55 is, aside from the 2.8, does the 16 really look like the 16 prime and does the 55 look like/close to the 56 prime? Can it be used for portraits and still get the same results as the primes?

 

I looked at one at my local camera store and it was a lot bigger and heavier than I thought, I imagine that's something that you overlook of the lens is a great performer.

 

And with the upcoming sale on May 22...I'm considering going for it.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited May 9, 2016 by thedwp

[Tom H.]

If you're shooting for fun, you could always take less lenses Less desire to swap that way. I usually take a 23 or a 35 and that'll do.

 

The 16-55 is slower, but image quality is still good/great, as long as you don't need ultra fast apertures. For me, the weight is the biggest issue.

[JaapD]

In some aspects, for instance when shooting at f/5.6, the 16-55 mm  is better than the 16mm.

In order to compare the 16 and 56 mm versus 16-55 mm I find this a good site:

 

http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/fujinon/xf-16-55mm-f2.8-r-lm-wr/review/

 

http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/fujinon/xf-16mm-f1.4-r-wr/review/

 

http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/fujinon/xf-56mm-f1.2-r/review/

 

If you don't need anything faster than f/2.8 I can highly recommend the 16-55mm. When shooting RAW you do need to have a RAW converter utilizing automated lens corrections (CaptureOne, Adobe, Silky, RFC), taking care of pincushion, barrel and chromatic distortions.

[kim]

I find the AF faster on the 16-55, it handles portraits very well and is sharp through the range. If you don't need the wide aperture in your shooting it's a good choice, as long as you are OK with the much bigger size and weight. I had mine 'borrowed' by another shooter during on event he preferred it there to his 56 or 35 due to the speed and flexibility.

[Marc G.]

I always wondered why the images from the 16-55 looked slightly harsh, until I found out that the lens suffers severely from CA. Those CA get automatically corrected in LR and leave white edges which made for a harsh look.

 

I sold mine after a year of much use. I prefer the look of the primes any day. Not because of the larger aperture but because how clean the images look.

[deva]

I mostly shoot primes. I have the Ziess 12, Fuji 23,35 & 90. I've noticed Lately when I'm out shooting for fun in always going into my bag to swap lenses. It opens the door for dust and that inevitable dropped lens moment.

 

 

I like having 2 bodies and the 23 and 56 on them... switching cameras is much faster than switching lenses...

 

I prefer the primes when I have time. On the other hand, I just purchased the 16-55. The 16-55 and 50-140 on 2 bodies covers a wide range of situations.

[bhu]

You sound interested in a zoom. The 16-55 is a "Pro" lens like the 50-140 with its constant aperture zoom made for photographers who use a lot of manual settings. Get it, if you need that feature. Keep in mind it is the constant aperture zoom and probably faster auto-focus components that make the lens so hefty.

 

Do you have the 18-55 kit zoom? It is optically slower than the 16-55 at anything but 18 mm but also weighs under half and is smaller, especially zoomed to 55 mm. If you have the kit lens, think over what you would like it to do that it does not right now. If you do not have it, or another zoom, consider trades between the 10-24, 16-50, 16-55, 18-55, and 18-135. I do not recall any truly "bad" lens reviews for Fujifilm lenses. Whatever you decide should not become a horror story.

 

Regarding primes, I only really use fast primes wide open in poor light, though professional photographers do so to intentionally de-focus some of the image. (The wider the aperture setting, the shallower the depth of field, meaning foreground and background become more out of focus as aperture increases. Etendue can be frustratingly intractable but at least photographers seem to have fun with it.)

 

If you have not seen it, yet, look this over:

http://www.fujivsfuji.com/16-55mm-f2pt8-vs-18-55mm-f2pt8-4-vs-18-135mm-f3pt5-5pt6/

[Antoine B]

Hi

I have the 16-55 on a X-e2 and although the weight was a concern at first, with the thumb rest it's completely fine.

Image quality is very good and the comfort of a zoom is priceless when dealing with kids...

[deva]

I just shot many hundreds of images with the 16-55. The autofocus is very fast and sure. The lens performed very well under a variety of challenging situations. The image quality is excellent too. When the light gets low, I switch to primes. 16, 23 and 56.

[jlmphotos]

I've always been a zoom shooter but I have to say the Fuji primes are amazing.  With that having been said I do own the 18-55 (never leave home without it) and the 55-200 (almost never leave home with out it)  In order not to be redundant, in my signature block below you can see what other Fooj lenses I own.  Anyway, I considered the 16-55 2.8, and I also considered the 10-24 F4 but in the end they were too large, and too heavy for me.  After shooting for years with Nikon gear, and carrying around the Nikon trinity of lenses and some medium format gear, my personal choice was go stay light.  and that is a promise I made to myself and one I intend on keeping.  So far, it has worked out tremendously for me!!!!  I am having more fun than ever!  My images are more fluid.  Yes, I gather a ton more dust and dirt but who cares?  Nothing a good Giotto blower, or a wet cleaning can't take care of!  And knock on wood, I've yet to drop a lens so I'm not going to worry about that.  Though, with that being said on a destination wedding I shot in San Juan Puerto Rico I did manage to drop not once, but twice my D700 with the Nikon 24-70 F2.8;  Once inside the El Morro Fort on solid concrete (camera and lens still worked fine but destroyed my grip) and the second time, the next morning, shooting the "trash the dress" on the beach in wet sand (camera still worked fine).  That just happened to be the last wedding I photographed, destination or local.  Two days, 19.5 hours, heat, humidity.  Done.  Retired. Been doing weddings since the mid-eighties and I literally and figuratively retired.  Now I just shoot stock for travel and magazines/books.  Anyway, I like to keep it light now.  My two cents my friend.  Good luck on your decision.

[frod]

My abiding memory of the 16-55 was being continually disappointed that for its bulk and heft it didn't have OIS. There was no real payoff to putting it on vs just having two bodies with an appropriate prime on each. It also has huge levels of barrel distortion at the wide end.

[kim]

The OIS 'issue' I find interesting on the 16-55 lens. I have never noticed that it needed it but I guess I generally don't drip the shutter to below what is needed for it's focal range to induce enough shake to blur an image. Sure OIS makes sense on longer lenses like the 50-140 or 55-200 but on the wide to mid tele the shutter speed of 1/24 to 1/84 seems low to me.... 

 

As for the softness I think I must have a good version of this lens my corners are nice and sharp and very little distortion at 16mm [ a slight stretching ] unless your angels are 'interesting'. It is a relatively heavy lens & I find if I have two cameras with light lenses like the 2/18 & 1.4/35 there is  a saving there but once the 1.4/23 & 1.2/56 go on that saving is well gone, there is also the build of having two cameras to deal with. I like primes over zooms, a lot, however I find myself using the 16-55 for all kinds of shoots, it has yet to let me down.

[deva]

My abiding memory of the 16-55 was being continually disappointed that for its bulk and heft it didn't have OIS. There was no real payoff to putting it on vs just having two bodies with an appropriate prime on each. It also has huge levels of barrel distortion at the wide end.

 

I find the payoff with the 16-55 is the AF speed and sureness. And of course it is a zoom which certainly helps in fast changing situations. I'm very happy I purchased it, but I also wish it had OIS. But of course we are talking about a luxury of quality and diversity that was unimaginable 20-30 years ago. I don't mind being spoiled :-)

Edited May 20, 2016 by deva

[Naddan28]

I am lucky enough to have a prime set up and 16-55mm set up. The 16-55mm is great for when I want to travel lighter or have the convienence of not having to change lenses, whilst shooting on vacation with family.

 

The IQ is solid, practically close to the primes. Sharpness too. It doesn't have the super shallow DoF of the f1.4 & f1.2 lenses but the versatility and weather sealing is very helpful.

[2point8]

It depends on the situation. This is first zoom lens I actually use a lot. (I'm a pro with 30+ years doing travel editorial and commercial work). The 16-55 has fine image quality across the range. But besides that it allows me to be safer when I'm shooting a changing situation, like walking backwards, (or forward), in a field or on the street. Or, getting the shot because I could zoom faster than I could change lenses. Two bodies with primes?  Yes, sometimes, but that can be physically awkward and also distracting for some subjects.  So this upcoming trip to Vietnam where I'll be shooting a rice harvest will be primariy the 16-55 and 55-200. Additional 2 bodies with primes: 18, 27, and 35 f2, for back-up and night shooting. Leaving the heavy primes at home. Taking a carbon fiber Gitzo.