Any reviews of the 16-55 (for 18-55 users)?

[CDBC]

lenstip are far more eloquent than me: http://www.lenstip.com/433.6-Lens_review-Fujifilm_Fujinon_XF_16-55_mm_f_2.8_R_LM_WR_Distortion.html

 

Thanks for the link, good data.

 

Still love my 16-55 though!

[drandyperry]

Thanks you for the reply, much appreciated!

 

Out of curiosity: How much do you use the 56 during weddings? I rarely dare to risk a prime during a wedding, unless I'm sure I won't need to change lenses (which is very rare with weddings)... It's one of the reasons for looking at the 16-55 for me.

I only use primes for weddings. Shoot most things wide open. You only really need 3 lenses for a wedding , keep 2 of them on 2 bodies and then switch out when needed.

 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk

[drandyperry]

P. S. I'm also looking at the 16-55 to switch for my 18-55. The only reason I'm hesitating is the lack of ois which I'm loving on my kit lens. I wonder if they'll update the 16-55 to include ois to match the 50-140 (which is awesome).

 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk

[AdamJOrange]

P. S. I'm also looking at the 16-55 to switch for my 18-55. The only reason I'm hesitating is the lack of ois which I'm loving on my kit lens. I wonder if they'll update the 16-55 to include ois to match the 50-140 (which is awesome).

 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk

 

 

I was a long time 18-55 user before I got the 16-55.  It's very rare I actually miss the OIS, in most cases OIS is valuable when the shutter speed dropped below the 1/FL - and if I'm shooting anything that moves (people, streets, vehicles, foliage) I need 1/100s at minimum to have any chance at stopping blur - in those cases OIS was of no benefit, but the extra stop of light at 55mm on the 16-55 was.   In the end the biggest difference of moving to the 16-55 has been the complete edge-to-edge sharpness improvement wide open vs the 18-55, I have no hesitation using the 16-55 wide open at any time, whereas on the 18-55 I tried to stop down to f/5.6 whenever there was enough light.

 

If having the OIS is of primary importance, just keep the 18-55 in your stable and then you'll always have the option.  After a few months my 18-55 was just never getting used.

Edited July 11, 2017 by OrngeDRAGON

[BobJ]

For what it's worth my 'review' of the two lenses is as follows.

The 16-55 is nicer to use for landscape. Being constant aperture it has a marked aperture ring and it is weather resistant. But it's big, heavy, not much sharper than the 18-55 and doesn't have IS. I should have saved my money.

[drandyperry]

Very interesting. I'm always slightly underwhelmed by the subject separation at the long end. F/4 at 70mm equivalent but with 55mm dof doesn't quite give the pop I like. I had the same issue but not so bad with my sigma 24-105 f/4 on my d810 but I put up with it for the extra reach over the 24-70. I'm sure the 2.8 would head me more towards the right direction. Could do with the 18-35 f/2 that sigma has with a little more reach.

 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk

[Mistik-ka]

Everyone has their own priorities, of course, and often one may need to consider how a particular lens fits into a set of lenses for a given purpose. There is much in the small size, low weight, and OIS of the 18-55mm that I find appealing, but the angle of view of a 16mm lens is my 'bottom line': I'm unwilling to do without it. If I used the 18-55mm lens, I would have to lug around a second lens to cover 16mm, which sort of kills the size and weight advantage of the 18-55mm.

[jlmphotos]

There are many reviews on Youtube.  I considered the 16-55 to replace my "don't leave home without it lens" the 18-55.  Quite frankly, I just couldn't do it.  The weight, and the lack of OIS plus the extra price tag to me was not worth it at all.  Your mileage may vary but the size and weight for that sh*t I'd have kept my D800e and my bevy of Nikon lenses.  This is also the reason I opted for the 55-200 instead of the monster 50-140.  Size and weight.  

 

I don't know about others but my copy of the 18-55 is tack sharp, albeit a tad soft in the corners but I don't care.  It generates a sh*t ton of money for me as it's my go-to, on the camera lens.  And that's all that matters to me.  It's paid for itself ten times over in stock and travel imagery.

[Mervyn]

I never had the 18-55 so I can't really compare, but I do have the 16-55.

 

Obviously the 16-55 is bigger and heavier then the 18-55 or a prime, but personally I don't mind and I find it perfectly balanced on an X-T2. Yes it's much more expensive then the 18-55, but what I prefer about the 16-55 is that it has 16mm on the wide end and f2.8 on the tele end. Actually f2.8 at 55 is essential for me, because I've just sold my 56. I felt the need to simplify my 5 lens set-up (all primes) and went from 5 to 2 and then added the 16-55 zoom. Now I won't need to swap lenses nearly as much and everything fits neatly in my bag.

 

16 to 56 are my most used focal lengths. I don't really need anything wider or closer. So the 16-55 zoom makes a lot of sense to me. And at these focal lengths I don't mind that it doesn't have OIS. OIS would have been nice for video use, but I hardly ever film anymore.

 

On the 50-140 the OIS is absolutely amazing though, and at those focal lengths OIS is much more of a necessity.

 

Edit (addition):

This week I rented the 100-400 to try my luck at bird and wildlife photography. It was loads of fun! After working with the 100-400 for a couple of days I just took another look at my 16-55mm. Guess what? The 16-55 is tiny and lightweight in comparison. It's pretty obvious of course, but 'big and heavy' as the 16-55 often is described (also by me) is very relative. It depends on what you compare it to. Actually the 100-400 didn't feel too big and heavy for what it is either.

Edited July 26, 2017 by Mervyn