crazy question how does the 16-55 f2.8 compare to the 50mm f2?

Truman Prevatt wrote:

DrNeil wrote:

I'm wondering about getting the 50mm f2 or splashing out and getting the 16-55 f2.8. ok the first thing you will say is they are completely different lenses at different price points.. ones a prime ones a zoom - its a different type of photography etc...but I'm wondering if i need the 50 if i get the 16-55?

seems to me the 50 might be sharper and faster to focus - but the zoom is much more versatile and only a little slower in f stop?

so question - any one got a comparison of optical quality at 50mm? anyone know the relative focusing speeds?

i have the 23mm f2 and love it as a walk around lens - reminds me of my original x100. but sometimes i want to zoom in... and i wonder if changing lens or using a zoom would be better...

One major difference is it is called "the brick" for a reason as it weights like a brick around you neck. The zoom goes at about 1.5 pounds. The 50 is less than 1/3 the weight of the brick. So if you are looking for a street lens or a "walking around lens" - you have ask yourself if packing around a pound and 1/2 lens is something you want to do.

Another major difference is it doesn't require you to carry multiple lenses and take the time to swap them while you miss your shot. That's why the 16-55 is referred to as the "bag of primes" zoom. A single lens that gives you what it might take 3-4 lenses to get otherwise.