Fuji 16-55mm f2.8 (at 16mm/f2.8) vs 16mm f2.8 prime lens

Cagey75 wrote:

LarsRost wrote:

Why get the zoom when you already have the 23 and 35? Go for the 16/2.8. Perhaps you can upgrade to the 16/1.4 later on.

.lars

Just guessing here as OP didn't specify, but as he's on a budget I reckon it'll be a case of selling the primes to get the zoom.

I don't get this 'too heavy' thing re the 16-55, it's a lot lighter than a 24-70 2.8 for full frame for one and we don't see the 1000s that use those complain. It's only heavy in comparison to individual primes, but the fact is it's no heavier than having 3-4 small primes in your bag.

I replaced a couple of primes with the 16-55 a while back, I was itching for the 16 1.4 too but can't have it all! I opted for the versatility and it's been excellent for family day trips and general shooting. I haven't missed having a prime at all [had a 35F2 and a 50mm] - I also considered just adding the 16 2.8 but from what I've seen around, the 16-55 is sharper at 16 2.8 than the prime, it's certainly a lot sharper when close focusing. Even the 35 F2 is soft between F2 and 2.8 when you close focus, it needs stopping down. The only advantage of primes is when you're actually using one at a time of course they are lighter, but then you're switching lenses and missing moments far too often with a baby.

If you can get the right price for your primes you won't be sorry with the zoom, it's a phenomenal lens.

Agreed. I resisted getting the 16-55 for a while, just like I did with the Nikon 24-70, but reality is these are cracking lenses, aimed at pros because they are very, very good at getting the job done with great results in all sorts of challenging situations.

One of the beauties of the X system is flexibility - last week I was shooting with a gripped X-T2 and 16-55/50-140, which is not a light setup. This week I have ditched the grip and will just take the 16 & 50. It's like a different camera, more suited to the circumstances.