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.

Calling the 16-55 F2.8 a brick is common but rather unfair. Yes its large and heavy compared to the 18-55 which is almost as good IQ-wise but its rather small and light compared to full frame F2.8 24-70 zooms.

F2.8 full zoom range, a slightly more even look to the images (the 18-55 is a bit centre oriented on XT2 - didn't notice it on the XT1 but higher resolution sensors start showing up weaknesses not noticed before - commonplace with the Sony A7r2). I see the centre areas being sharper than the outer areas and it tends to draw your attention in to the centre area whereas when I use the 16-55 its more even across the frame with no bias or attention being drawn to any area by the lens itself. Otherwise yeah, the 18-55 is not far off the 16-55 IQ. Its these little things and differences that captures my attention. I aim for the best gear and the best results and often that little bit extra in your images comes from that last little bit of performance in your gear. That usually costs more or comes with a penalty like larger and heavier.

Generally speaking, as sensors get more and more megapixels lenses are going to get a hiding trying to cope. You only have to look at DXO scores and how much they vary with different sensor megapixels.

The 18-55 is starting to show signs of weakness at 24mp. The 16-55 does not.

Once Fuji hits 36 or 42mp the 18-55 will probably not be considered good enough anymore.

Sony GM lenses are rated up to 100mp and as Sony is the one making the sensors and has a sensor roadmap like Fuji has for lenses then you can see where the future is heading.

Greg.