This lens has been out a while, and was always a stunning lens but just never got the recognition it deserved.
The release of the X-H1 changed all this and has resurrected this lens from the dead.
This combo is just meant to be.
You are doing the lens a disfavour.
It didn't and doesn't need IBIS. The release of the XH1 had little influence on sales which had never dropped off. It was great on the XT2 and sales among proper photographers had taken off well before the intro of the XH1. Why should a zoom of that range need IBIS for goodness sake? We've been using that range and longer well back into film days. My several safaris were with lenses such as the non stabilised Sigma 50-500mm on FF and mainly APS with great results. There seems to be some sort of fear factor that has crept in, perhaps to newer photographers who expect a camera to do everything including holding their hands.
It is a fact that the weight and solidity of this lens adds the perfect heft to help create a stable platform when fitted to XT1/2/3. I had mine for several years as my main walkaround on XT1/XT2 along with its partner the 90mm f2 - another lens which is apparently impossible to use without an XH1.
What the XH1 has done is extended the usefulness of the lens to very low shutter speeds in low light but it never made a difference to shooting at normal shutter speeds. It does exactly the same on fast primes or the f2s which are pretty lightweight. The extra weight assisted non-stabilised hand-holding with the 16-55mm f2.8 - it never hampered it.
Vic
Good for you, but it’s a bit of a coincidence that as soon as people started buying the X-H1, there were many threads on here about ‘the brick’ starting to surface (I hate that name by the way).
And in regards to not needing IBIS or whatever you wish to call it, I find the 16-55mm a perfect landscape lens as it is so versatile with great image quality. Last year I used it on my X-H1 and captured several waterfalls at 0.5 secs handheld all with pin-sharp foliage. It was abolsutely pouring it down and I didn’t want to waste time setting up a tripod. Now you do that with your X-T2 and tell me you don’t need IBIS.
I'm afraid I also have to disagree with Vic as well on this one, particularly his rather definitive statement that "it didn't and doesn't need IBIS." That is technically true, as long as you're shooting in excellent light or on a tripod. However, many of us find ourselves in situations where the light is more challenging and where a tripod is simply very inconvenient or impossible (try dragging one into a cathedral sometimes and see how well that goes).
I strongly prefer the ability to use that lens in a wide variety of environments ranging from excellent light to an early morning/late evening glow. I also really don't like using tripods except where absolutely necessary and in many cases, they're not even allowed in some places I enjoy shooting with that lens. Given how often I find myself in those low light situations, I would have to go a bit beyond Vic's positioning as simply "extending the usefulness of the lens" in case, to finally making it attractive enough to me to be a "must have."
So, I actually didn't choose to buy the 16-55 until I acquired the X-H1 and now, excepting those times when I'm out shooting long (e.g. wildlife), it's all but welded to the camera. It's vastly reduced the need for me to drag along and set up a tripod and has given me the freedom to do the majority of my shooting handheld. That's always been my preference, so yes... it's a game changer technology for me and has made the 16-55 my go to "normal FL" lens.
