How do you guys like the 16-55 2.8?

Vlasty wrote:

Cliff Fujii wrote:

Vincent AF wrote:

ajamils1 wrote:

I've owned this lens for couple of months (along with X Pro2) and love it. It has really taken the place of primes in the range. I was concerned about the OIS but it has not been an issue. After all none of the primes have OIS so I don't why people make such a big deal about it. Yes, the lens is big and heavy but that's the price you pay to get a quality constant aperture zoom.

The 1.4 primes are much faster, so less need of OIS, that's why people make a big deal out of it. When your biggest aperture is only f2.8, OIS really becomes a great asset in low light situations.

https://www.instagram.com/vincent__af/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/archetypefotografie/
http://www.archetypefotografie.nl

2 f/stops are significant, however, the versatility of the 16-55 is unquestioned. In my film days, I missed many shots when changing lenses. While this doesn't matter in static subject in landscaping or product photography, for PJ/Acton photography, versatility is probably the most important factor in a camera system. If you can't get the shot, you can't get paid.

Well said. Personally I have really started to question stabilized lenses in general for my photography. IS certainly has a place but after really researching the optical compromises made in the design of lenses in order to have IS its just to negatively impactful for me in many situations.

Yeah...I'm starting to think that stabilized lenses should be included medium (70-200) and long (500) telephotos because that's where they are really needed. I don't think that Nikon or Fuji will produce zooms in the short range w/o OIS due to market demands. I cringe when I go to a sporting event and see how the photographers hold their cameras. I was at a rodeo and the event photographer was shooting with only his right hand. I'm wondering if the photographer was an ex-rodeo jock with one too many falls.