The 16-55 vs. the 18-55 vs the 16-50.. another not so scientific test.

Travelshooter wrote:

Rod McD wrote:

Hi Greg,

As an 18-55 owner, one thing that emerged from these comparisons for me is how the 16-50 actually fared pretty well. For all it's lowly 'economy line' status, I think it held up pretty well against an 18-55 lens that is probably the best 18-55 in the APSC business and the XF16-55 which is Fuji's pro grade lens. I've never owned the XC and never used it, but for me it became apparent that Fuji buyers have got three good lenses to choose from. Clearly the XC is slow, and has a cheaper build quality. And the lack of an AR forces a different MO. These things deterred some buyers, me included. But is it a bad lens? No.

Regards, Rod

and the 16-50 has a really neat feature.. at least to me. You change the Aperture setting by using the scroll wheel near the thumb rest. Wish the rest of them did that.

Hi,

I'm the opposite.  I prefer the physical aperture rings.  Both require the turn of a control.  I guess I prefer ARs partly because I grew up with them.  But I also used a DSLR and scroll wheels for years before buying into Fuji.  What I've recognised that I love about going back to the AR and an external SS dial is that you can see the settings with one glance at the camera without even turning it on.  You just can't do that with scroll wheel and LCD systems.  I have the 23mm and the 27mm and despite both being good lenses, the similarity in FOV together with the lack of an AR regularly make me consider selling the 27mm.  We're all different.

Regards, Rod