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

Truman Prevatt wrote:

DrNeil wrote:

yes id not really considered weight. but i guess it replaces carrying 2-3 primes..

If we do a bean count on weight - between 16 and 50 Fuji has a few primes. One probably would not want to carry all of them. Why carry an 18, 23 and 27? A 23 and 35 are quite close in reality - about a step or two. So unless you are really interesting in the lower range a 23 f2 (which I think you have) and 50 would and a step or two would do it. So the two lenses are probably together 1/2 the weight of the brick and both are one stop faster (on ASP-C 2.8 is quite slow) not to mention the bird is about 2K.

With your 2 lens combo, you don't cover 16 or 55. The 16-55, however, does. To get 16, you'd have to add a heavy third lens. To get 55 you'd have to add another prime. But even if you equate 50 and 55, the 16-55 gives you 16, 23, 35, and 50mm options, which are all quite different FOVs. Your 2 lens combo is much more limited.

Zoom lenses are over sold - they make the camera makers lots of money.

One could as easily argue that primes are oversold. It's a matter of taste  and shooting style.

In a weaken moment I got talked into the Nikon holy lens for my D800E, the 24-70 f2.8 which is about the same FOV range as the brick. It to is a brick. I made the mistake of not renting it which I usually do and sold it at a loss after the back pains of lugging it around all day. Sure the argument goes - it replaces a lot of primes. However, add two steps and it replaces fewer.I sold the puppy (losing money in the process) and am quite happy using a 28 and 50 on my Nikon. I don't miss the Nikon brick.

-- hide signature --

Truman
www.pbase.com/tprevatt

Add two steps and you change perspective, and thus the photo. ... Not the same as standing still and selecting a different FL.

The 16-55 is an amazingly versatile, high quality lens. The weight doesn't bother many of us. I agree that it would be a good idea for the OP to rent first.