Satisfied with the 16-55?

Greg7579 wrote:

georgehudetz wrote:

Very satisfied with mine, and I do have both.

For street (day or night) the 16-55 easily trumps the 18-55. Faster AF, larger aperture on the long end, OIS not needed since you need to keep the SS up, WR, and don't discount the importance of a hard stop when you reach F2.8 on the aperture dial. When you are trying to get that moment and you want it wide-open, the hard-stop lets you get there quickly without having to look at the viewfinder.

I always reach for the 16-55 for street.

George, You and I have made the rounds on this.... I know you love the brick and you know I don't, but please ... can't we at least agree that we should stop saying the Brick doesn't need OIS? I think it most definitely does.

I would have bought the brick the moment it was announced (on pre-order) if it had OIS. That lens "needs" OIS and it "needs" it badly.

That said, you guys have almost talked me into getting the Brick. I almost pulled the trigger again yesterday. It is the only notable Fuji lens I don't own. Wait ... not true. I don't own that awesome 56, because I just got the 50-140 and decided I don't need the 56 (for now).

https://www.flickr.com/photos/139148982@N02/albums

After lugging around a Sony A7r2 and adapted Canon 24-70 F2.8L ii the 16-55 "brick" is really not that large nor heavy in comparison. Its all relative.

You hike long distances so I can see it would be no good for you. A couple of nice primes will do it or the 10-24.

The OP - I think the 18-55 and a nice prime like the 16 1.4 would do beautifully. I use a similar setup on my S7r2 - Canon 24-70 F2.8L ii and adapter (also a larger "brick") and Zeiss Batis 25 2. Both superb and cover just about everything.

Greg.