Sharp, but too bulky and heavy

notchy wrote:

Jerry doesn't get 'nit picky or try to scare anyone off' as you suggest above. Just the opposite. And, I also asked the OP to further explain the "Screems Photog" comment...no reply as yet.

The OP probably feels that it's obvious what he meant by "screams photog", not least because he provided the reason, albeit succinctly, in the same sentence, writing:

"but I personally am going for a more low-key look and this lens screams PHOTOG."

Saving a few millimeters here and there doesn't make for a more 'noticeable' lens stuck on a real camera body - as opposed to a phone. I really don't buy into, and never have, the street photography issues pertaining to size of the camera gear(really just the lens we are talking about) being obtrusive or not. In this day and age, just the hand holding of a camera will make one stick out amongst the crowd. The 16-80 is longer at full tele than the 16-55 (obviously) and the diameter savings of the 16-80 or even the 23f1.4 is negligible. I still would like the OP to elaborate, and of course I can read the comment they initially made.

That seems pretty clear to me and it's one reason I wouldn't take the 16-55mm on to the streets for general use (the other being that I also find it to be a little heavy and unwieldy for a general carry-around lens).

Personal preference, indeed. I absolutely don't find the lens to be heavy at all. In fact, compared to the lack of heft of the 23f2, it makes the handholding even easier for me and many others here.

What's more, the sentiment he expressed agrees with the literally thousands of comments we've seen in these forums expressing appreciation for the size and weight of Fujifilm's APS-C cameras and lenses relative to most comparable full-frame offerings.

Sure, agreed. But, the added size and weight of any of the Fuji lenses is what it is as they compare to FF equivalents. And, the APSC alternative generally speaking is always going to be lighter and 'smaller'...Fuji constructs their XF line of lenses with high quality materials as a given. Metal lens barrels and dedicated aperture rings are something that sets them apart not only from the competition in the APSC space, but also with some of the FF glass out there.

Clearly, he's declared that someone's baby is ugly, but I'm not sure how writing "in my opinion your baby is ugly" softens the blow very much, not least because the qualifying "in my opinion" is implicit in the shorter version anyway (and implicit in the very act of writing a subjective review).

Looking for balance and that's all I do when it comes to proposing an alternative opinion of the 16-55's size and weight.

I briefly owned a refurbished 16-55mm (from the Fujifilm UK store), but returned it on account of it clearly having a poorly aligned element or two. I may well buy another copy if the right deal comes along, but it won't be my first choice when I want my camera to be both light and unobtrusive (that's why $deity gave us the X-Pro2 and the Fujicrons

Sorry you experienced this issue. When you have the inkling, go get another one. Only you can formulate your opinion of it, and I will respect that.

I stand by my consistent and chronic opinion that the 16-55 is one stellar lens and is a worthy ambassador into the world of the Red Badge zoom Fuji provides for their customers looking at this type of lens, quality build and high quality IQ.

Edit: I unthinkingly referred to the OP as "he". Apologies if my assumption is wrong!

I have concluded that using the pronoun 'they' can't offend anyone today. This may change!