16-55 f/2.8 /16 2.8 I.Q test shots

yayatosorus wrote:

Hi, if you had the brick, would you rather keep the 2.8 as it is so light and slightly wider, or keep the 1.4, as it is brighter?

And thanks so far to all for your contributions!

I never shoot the 16/1.4 at f1.4.  I bought it for the FL, not it's aperture, when it was the only 16mm available.  I'm into landscape, so I tend shoot at around f5.6.   I rather wish Fuji had offered one 16/2 in the first place.  Just as good but a bit smaller and lighter.

When I've thought about buying the Brick, it would be to replace all my primes, if it was optically up to it, not just the 16mm.  I'd then need just a macro - which the 16-55 isn't good at - and a tele.  So far, I haven't been convinced, so I'm still changing lenses.....

There are other aspects to shifting to the zoom that people tend to overlook.....  A Fuji with 16-55 is a substantially heavier and more front-weighted beast than the same camera with any of the small primes.  My lighter tripods probably wouldn't offer as much stability as they do to a camera with a 16/2.8 or any of the f2 lenses.  It would be fine on my heavier Gitzo, but not on my Slik 634 or Sirui. So the light end of my tripod collection might need revision.   And then there's filters.  For my interests, I'd need a clear, a CPL, a graduated ND, and two ND stoppers, all in 77mm - maybe five hundred dollars worth of good quality filters.  Not cheap.

Cheers, Rod