bowportes wrote:
Fabbyoh wrote:
bowportes wrote:
Fabbyoh wrote:
bowportes wrote:
Fabbyoh wrote:
bowportes wrote:
Fabbyoh wrote:
some photo guy wrote:
Would appreciate any thoughts folks might have on this.
Likely choices are:
16mm
56mm
Options include:
35mm
16-55
50-140 (too heavy? esp w 16-55?)
Will have the gear in a lowepro protactic 250, so could take it all if it wasn't too much weight to haul.
Appreciate any thoughts.
16-55 is very pointless unless you plan on shooting wide open and need critical sharpness. At the middle apertures they perform pretty much identical and the 18-55 is cheaper, has stabilization and far smaller/lighter. It's a complete no-brainer UNLESS you want 2.8 at the long end.
As for 35, get the F2, much faster and WR.
Maybe throw in the 12mm Samyang.
Rather amusing that your two reasons for the 35 F2 also distinguish the 16-55 from the other mid-range zooms. And "cheaper" isn't an issue when he already owns the 16-55.
Yes the 2 benefits are the same, but you conveniently ignore the obvious downsides which are size, cost and weight.
The trade-off between the 35 F2 and 35 F1.4 is far less in all 3 variables.
Not so amusing now eh.
Actually, still amusing. Size/weight is a single factor, while cost is 0 because he owns the 16-55. Everyone knows the 16-55 is larger, but it's also sharper, faster to focus, WR, has a marked aperture ring, provides better subject isolation, and gives a 24mm equivalent on the wide end. I own both and wouldn't consider taking the 18-55 to Europe when I go, which is fairly often.
Unless he got it for free, cost is still a huge factor.
Better subject isolation? Wrong lens if you want shallow DOF pal. As for sharpness; nope, especially at optimum apertures, very much the same. And if sharpness is that critical, better off using a prime.
You're welcome
We aren't arguing 16-55 versus primes; we're comparing the 18-55 with the 16-55 zoom. Do you own them both?
I do. The subject isolation of the 16-55 at 55 is much better than the 18-55 at its maximum aperture. My images are sharper from the 16-55 at wide apertures, which I use a lot, and it's tough to see much difference in sharpness between the 16-55 and many of the primes. If you haven't been shooting with it, all you have to go on is test charts. The added expansiveness on the wide end (16 vs 18) is VERY useful in travel photography; being able to zoom from 16 to 23 and then 35 without changing lenses is invaluable.
The only real reason to go with the kit zoom rather than the professional grade one is reduced size and OIS, and I can get those from the even cheaper XC 16-50 lens, which matches the 18-55 quality at "optimum apertures" as you say. I own it as well, and if I had to choose between the 18-55 and 16-50 for travel, I'd choose the cheaper, lighter lens with the extra 2mm on the wide end.
But I choose the professional grade zoom for its obvious image quality and aperture benefits. I've used the 18-55 and 16-55 extensively. The former is "meh" -- it's neither wide enough nor bright/fast enough -- the latter is generally "wow." I can even shoot evening concerts with the 16-55 because F2.8 gives me enough light to keep the shutter speed up. The 18-55 does not; I'd have to carry my 56mm to back up the kit zoom. The 18-55's OIS doesn't prevent blurring of performers in motion.
All things considered, the 16-55 lightens my bag because I confidently leave other lenses behind. That's my experience. What's yours with the 16-55 and the 18-55? Most of its critics are people who haven't really worked with it.
I don't own them both anymore; I had the 16-55 for studio work (a zoom is more practical when mounted)
A zoom is also incredibly practical when hiking, biking, traveling, or on a leisurely walkabout, when proximity to the subject is constrained and/or variable, all unmounted.
but I realised it's absolutely no different at optimum apertures (5.6 and above) to the 18-55, it also weighs an absolute ton so I wouldn't take it out and about for leisure shooting (it feels like a DSLR with that on which is one of the reasons I went to Fuji)
I actually like the weight/size of the 16-55. There's greater separation of the rings, the aperture ring is nicely marked, the lens balances nicely on the T1 and P2, and the WR leaves me a bit more confident on a drizzly day, which is often encountered in European travels.
and finally any benefit of speed at 55mm is negated by the stabilization of the 18-55.
This is simply not true. I can shoot at faster shutter speeds with the 16-55, which is important with moving subjects at 55mm.
The only benefit I can see is a marginal increase in sharpness wide-open (often post can bring these near identical) and a marginal increase in subject isolation at 55mm which is frankly not that great in either lens (see below photo for the insignificant difference)
Yes, there are small, but noticeable improvements in these areas. Whether they are "marginal" depends upon how much you shoot wide open and or at 55mm.
Your photo comparison pretty well makes my point. The increased subject isolation at F 2.8 is small, but sufficient to add "pop" to the photos from the 16-55.
The problem for me is that if absolute sharpness was a factor and was required I wouldn't dream of using a zoom; they simply fall shot on sharpness vs primes.
Who said anything about "absolute" sharpness? I'm not after that with travel photos, but if one zoom brings even somewhat greater sharpness than another, I'll carry the one that's better, especially if I don't mind the lens's size.
And if subject isolation was of importance, my 56 or 90 would perform far better. Even 55mm at 2.4 isn't great and it's not much different to 55 @ f4 (see below).
I saw below and commented on it. 2.8 is better than 4 for subject isolation. That's indisputable. I'm not interested in toting additional lenses to get some absolute in subject isolation; I simply want the zoom of the two that gives better subject isolation.
The benefits you mention are not why people buy zooms, that is the whole point. Nobody buys a zoom because they want the best isolation, and nobody buys it because they want the best sharpness;
In my view, you set up a straw man by arguing it's not "best." When I decide which zoom to carry, I simply want the one that's better.
you get a zoom because it's flexible, so why not use the most flexible zoom when the differences are insignificant?
The ability to zoom out to a 24mm equivalent, in my view, far overrides any added flexibility of small size or OIS. The 16mm is tremendously useful/flexible in a zoom when traveling. I'd have to carry an additional lens with the 18-55 to get that. For those who care a lot about lens size, I'd argue the cheap XC 16-50 is a more flexible zoom than the 18-55.
It's not that the 16-55 is a bad lens; it's that the 18-55 is so good for it's size and price.
I shoot side by side with my wife when traveling, she with the 18-55 and I with the 16-55. She always envies the added expansiveness of my 16mm shots and the slightly greater "pop" (subject isolation) that I get at F2.8. my shots are also sharper out of camera. Neither of us is swapping lenses in a quest for the "best." We are traveling, after all.
OK, sounds like you're the kind of guy who wants a jack of all trades lens, who has no care for weight and bulk or cost.
The 16-55 is a great fit for you, and the extra few cm's of DOF will really make your images "pop".
