Replacing primes...

georgehudetz wrote:

bowportes wrote:

Greg7579 wrote:

I am writing this without reading the other replies, but the 16-55 is my least favorite Fuji lens. The 18-55 is much smaller and has OIS, and the 16-55 is un Fuji-like and reminds me of my Canon L bricks.

There's nothing "un Fuji-like" about it. It has an aperture ring and a depth-of-field scale. Many other Fuji lenses are less "Fuji-like," unless you're defining weight as the primary criterion of "Fuji-like," which I don't.

It is a great lens though. I like to use the three zooms on travel (10-24, 18-55, 55-200) and always carry the 16. I have the 90 too but haven't used it much. About half the guys on here are prime street shooters, but I like the flexibility of the smaller zooms on travel, especially the fantastic 10-24.

Your 55-200 is about identical in weight to the 16-55, the former being "dead weight" in my experience while the latter is "live weight" (meaning it gets used all the time). The 55-200 was my least favorite Fuji zoom, which I sold. The 18-55 is my next least favorite, which I still own but rarely use. To me, the quality and "pop" of the images from the 16-55 are always worth the added weight. I was pretty unimpressed with the 18-55. Oh, it was sharp enough but not wide enough at the wide end, and not wide enough in aperture to give the subject isolation I was looking for. It also had no distance nor depth-of-field nor aperture scale (all of which I like), and you had to flip an extra button to use the aperture ring. Talk about "un-Fuji-like"!

The 16 is magical. I agonized about getting the 16-55 a year ago. Glad I didn't get it. It's a brick, and a brick without OIS. But ... it is a great lens. Superb IQ and a great FOV range for sure. But when I have it on my XT-1 I think I'm carrying my Canon and that ruins it for me.

These comments are confusing. You say you never purchased it, but then speak (in the present tense) about when you have it on your XT-1. Do you have it on permanent loan? Why do you carry it on your XT-1 if you find it to be such a brick? (It weighs approximately 250 grams more than your 10-24 and about the same as your non-brick 55-200.)

I'm sorry, but I get tired of hearing this "brick" trope repeatedly. By any objective measure, the 16-55 is not a brick. Even as a metaphor, I have heard few people who actually shoot with the 16-55 on a regular basis comment about what a "brick" it is. More commonly, they say that it wasn't nearly as heavy as they had been led to believe by all of the "brick" commentary. I don't even notice the weight, and I'm certainly never tempted to take the 18-55 in order to lighten my load. If I want to do that, I slap the 23, the 27, or the 35 on the T1 and leave all zooms behind.

My theory is that there's a bit of "sour grapes" going on with the 16-55 brick trope -- maybe not in your case but in general. People want to have the best image quality but want a light kit, OIS, etc. ... But they still want to feel they have the best image quality. So they go overboard in dismissing the 16-55 as a "brick" and as "not better" than the 18-55, because deep down, they know it's the best image quality in a Fuji zoom, and they kind of lust for it, so they exaggerate its negatives because they don't own it.

Those who own it, on the other hand, are typically pretty thrilled with the 16-55.

Well said sir.

Me too, if you have an opportunity to shoot with a 16-55 for a few days you may become a believer. Great lens.