XF16-55 lens views from those who own it

Xshooter wrote:

Could owners of the 16-55 lens give me an idea of how you rate this lens for general use, a sort of do it all lens, travel/landscape photo lens, even using it as a family or candid kid photo lens instead of a dedicated portrait lens? I am considering getting one to replace my 18-55 as it is wider focal length, is faster at the long end, perhaps means carrying less lenses in the bag, or less lens change overs, as it has a good zoom range with fast AF and relatively fast aperture. Some candid shots of kids or family would be appreciated if you are happy to show them so I can see what the dof separation and bokeh is like at 55 f2.8. I know it won't be a replacement of the very fast aperture XF56 f1.2 or shallow dof, but would it still provide ok portraits and subject isolation from the background, as well as take fast moving toddlers (on X-Pro2)? Thanks. Yes I know the 16-55 is a hefty beast and renders the OVF almost useless, but the X-Pro2 can be used equally as well in EVF (and I prefer the layout of the X-Pro2 viewfinder and buttons/feel in the hand compared to the X-T1).

I got the 16-55 and I will say the lens is very good in comparison to primes I have (14, 23, 35, 90). At first, I was thinking to get 56f1.2 prime to fill up the gap between 35 and 90mm. Unfortunately, my recent trips to Asia changed my decision. When I was traveling with primes, I had situations where I had to change lens and missed couple of shots. When I came back, I decided to get another body (X-T2) so that I have 2 bodies to work for. I was going to get 56mm but still went for 16-55mm with 2 bodies setup.

It is true that with 2 bodies, I can greatly reduced the time of changing lens but I still do not want to prime 5 primes with me on a casual walking trip if I have the 56mm. With this zoom lens, I can just pick it up and go without worrying what focal length I need for the day. Pretty much, I can take 16-55mm with 14mm or 90mm. If I need something faster, I can just bring 2-3 primes with me (23mm, 35mm, and 90mm).

After shooting with 16-55, the focus speed is fast and accurate. In comparison to my 35f1.4 and 23f1.4, 16-55mm is much quieter. I used to have 18-55mm, but I must say that photos shot from 16-55 are noticeably sharper (close to prime but if you are pixel peeping you can still tell the differences). That extra 2mm (16mm) makes a huge difference...

But 16-55mm is not very perfect, I think you have to consider the weight and price. It is noticeably bigger; it is bulkier than 90mm. Even if 16-55mm is mounted on X-Pro2 or X-T1, you will feel a bit of front heavy. The price is also another consideration as it is more expensive than 18-55mm.

The bokeh is just acceptable. I shoot a lot with my 23mm and 90mm and I can see the bokeh differences between these primes and 16-55mm. 16-55mm bokeh is just not "creamy" enough.

But overall, I'm still very happy with 16-55mm because it gives me the flexibility I really need. Instead of wasting time to swapping lens, I can just enjoy shooting more even if the sharpness and bokeh are not as good as primes.