Jump to content

16-55 vs 56

jclone

By jclone
in Fuji X Lenses

 Share

Recommended Posts

jclone Rookie

jclone

Posted
Posted

Hi,

When I started getting into the Fuji system, I got attracted very fast to the 56mm f/1.2 because it is such a luxurious piece of glass. I got it cheap-ish too.

It is a wonderful lens. But big and special. My wife and kid do not like to pose, so I am doing more spontaneous portraits. The AF of the 56mm really struggles there. I feel I get great shots when I catch them still.

I tend to take the 35mm f/1.4 more which always give great images (even for portraits). So I have this 800dollars brick sitting way too often on the shelve.

The other side of the story is that I barely use the 18-55mm kit. It's technically ok, but I somehow never impress by the shots it makes and I suspect I have a "bad" copy as I randomly get complete OOF shots, which makes me insecure when I use it.

 

So I thought, sell 18-55 and 56. Buy 16-55 and some tele legacy glass for portrait work.

 

I found a reasonable cheap 16-55. Have it since 2-3 days. God, it is monstrously big. The IQ is flawless. But what is more amazing is the AF. Very confident and sure.

Will play with the setup more, but I figure yes I' ll carry a big lens, but it'll be very versatile at least. Paired with a 16mm f/1.4 and 35mm f/1.4, I think it'd make a great general setup.

Things may change when that 50mm f/2 gets out.

 

Am I making sense? anybody went through some similar thoughts?

Link to post
Share on other sites
idwilson Apprentice

idwilson

Posted
Posted

I'm in a similar situation to you, but never actually parted with any money for the 56 as (for me, anyway) it's just too specialised. Like you I sold my 18-55 as I never got on with it (poor IQ and unreliable AF) and bought the 16-55. A great lens, but it's like walking around with a can of beans glued onto the front of the camera. If I only take one lens then this is the one; but, more usually, I tend to leave it at home and take primes (16/23/35) instead. I always try to make room in my camera bag for two other lenses, though: the 10-24 and 50-140. The latter is an absolutely stunner, and extremely versatile for candid shots. OK, so it costs more than 800 dollars, but I can assure you that it wouldn't end up sitting on the shelf like your 56!

 

Ian.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites
Aswald Mentor

Aswald

Posted
Posted

Which x camera are you using?

 

I found the 56 slow until I paired it to the Pro2. I chased my kid down the go kart track with some success.

 

I think that the 16-55 is a wonderful piece of glass.....but way too big for a compact x system. I travel with the X camera so size and weight is important to me. Depending on where I go and what I intend to photograph, I usually carry 3 prime lenses with me. If space allow, I pack another body.

 

If you intend to stay with your existing x camera, then yes, perhaps the 16-55 is the way to go for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
jclone Rookie

jclone

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Which x camera are you using?

 

I found the 56 slow until I paired it to the Pro2. I chased my kid down the go kart track with some success.

 

I think that the 16-55 is a wonderful piece of glass.....but way too big for a compact x system. I travel with the X camera so size and weight is important to me. Depending on where I go and what I intend to photograph, I usually carry 3 prime lenses with me. If space allow, I pack another body.

 

If you intend to stay with your existing x camera, then yes, perhaps the 16-55 is the way to go for you.

I use an X-Pro 2 (was using X-E1 before). It's faster for sure, but we' re touching the limits of how fast can the lens elements move...

Link to post
Share on other sites
jclone Rookie

jclone

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

For me, having 16-55 makes 16f1.4 redundant. I'd get rid of it, buy 90f2 for portraits and won't messing with legacy glass at this stage.

For indoors in winter time, there's nothing that makes the 16mm 1.4 redundant. The draw to the Fuji system for me is those super fast primes. 

If anything I'd sell the 10-24mm (given that I also have the Samyang 12mm)

 

The 90mm f/2 is a good point though, I hear it's AF is up there and it's a macro lens as well is it?

Edited by jclone
Link to post
Share on other sites
Naddan28 Collaborator

Naddan28

Posted
Posted

I have both lenses, 56mm gets little use but every time I think about selling it, I end up using it and loving the output.

 

Specialised? yes but wonderful output!

 

Part of the joy of the X system vs a FF camera for me is that I can have a wide range of high quality glass vs a small selection of expensive L lenses. After all, if cameras and lenses are tools I'd rather have a few quality screwdrivers and a hammer for different situations, as opposed to one super duper hammer!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Posts

    • jerryy
      Fall pictures

      By jerryy · Posted

      Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

      Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

       
    • Giampaolo Masserano
      Looking for Full Frame lenses to adapt to GFX

      By Giampaolo Masserano · Posted

      I use a TECHART ring to mount Canon EF lenses on the GFX 50S-II and 100S-II, maintaining image stabilization and autofocus. The only limitation are lenses with a small rear element diameter that make it impossible to cover medium format. Fast lenses like the EF 85/1.2L or the 100-400L, however, work great.
    • thelostkiwi
      Looking for Full Frame lenses to adapt to GFX

      By thelostkiwi · Posted

      I also use a Nikon to GFX Fringer and it works very well.  24mm f/1.8 vignettes so best used on 35mm mode.  50mm f/1.8 covers the entire frame very well with no issues and is a superb little lens. 105mm Sigma vignettes slightly but is perfectly usable. 300 f/4 likewise the 105.  I have a 70-200 f/20+.8 incoming to test so will report back but I'm expecting a little vignetting.  Even in 35mm mode the image is still 60MP and if you're prepared to manually crop and correct you can get 80-90 MP images.  I also have a C/Y to GFX adapter.  The 24mm Sigma Superwide vignettes strongly. Ditto 28-80 Zeiss Sonnar. 80-200 f/4 Sonnar is perfectly usable. All work fine as 35mm mode lenses.  I also have an M42 adapter which I tried with the Carl Zeiss Jena 135mm f/3.5 with good results. 
    • Trevor R
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By Trevor R · Posted

      Thank you. I will research it.
    • jerryy
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By jerryy · Posted

      Ahh, the infamous brick wall photos… 😀 According to internet lore, if the dng converter does not properly apply the corrections, you can have it apply custom profiles that should work for you. How to do that is waaaaaay outside of this comment’s scope, but there are plenty of sites listed in the search engines that step you through the processes. Best wishes.
×
×
  • Create New...