X-T1 to X-T4 Upgrade - Best General Purpose Lens

KariP wrote:

Jerry-astro wrote:

Kari, it's rare that we disagree, but on this one, we certainly do. I've owned both the 18-55 and 16-55. Optically, IMHO, there's simply no comparison... the 16-55 pretty well wins across its range, not to mention the fact that the constant f/2.8 aperture can be a big benefit for low light photography. I didn't acquire my 16-55 until I had purchased the X-H1, since I rely heavily on stabilization and do a fair amount of photography in challenging lighting. I found the optics across the FL range to be noticeably better on the 16-55, and while I respect Optical Limits (I haven't read the review in question), my own experience has been very different. If you value stabilization and own a camera with IBIS, I think the choice is pretty simply and the IQ difference significantly more dramatic that what you suggested in your post. I don't disagree with the weight as potential issue for some, but in my case at least (with the X-H1), I find that a heftier lens like the 16-55 actually balances and handles better than the lighter 18-55. Of course YMMV.

And, finally, this has absolutely nothing to do with status, at least for me. I see my gear as a set of tools, not something that defines status in any form. If anything, when I'm out photographing birds or other wildlife and run into other photographers, the reaction I get is almost universally one of curiosity... particularly from long time DSLR users who haven't yet made the move to mirrorless.

I mentioned also the price - 16-55 is about 1100€ and 18-55 comes often in a bundle ... half the price perhaps.

16-55 could work quite well with my X-H1 and i read some tests ... i seriously considered the lens. But - perhaps some day if there is an offer.

In the beginning 18-55 had some sample/quality issues and there are good samples and some not so great. My lens (18-55) came with X-E1 some (many);-) years ago and i have been quite happy with the IQ. I have compared it with 23f2, 55-200 and 55f1,2 also.

Perhaps you are not interested in status things - i think very many want "The Best" - even if they can not even use it Even on this serious specialist forum. Not meaning You

If my 18-55 stops working i will replace it with 16-55 of course

and the 16mm vs 18mm angle of view difference is sometimes important.

But - as an upgrade from 18-55 i'm not sure if it really is worth it - compared to other possibilities. But why not if budget is OK

Kari—
No question that there’s a significant price difference and whether the benefits that the 16-55 bring are worth that difference is a decision that everyone has to make individually.  I’ve owned both lenses (the 18-55 was my first Fujifilm lens) and ultimately replaced the 18-55 with the 16-55 after renting a copy and running some comparisons.  I found the difference in IQ to be pretty significant — absolutely enough [for me] to justify the upgrade, particularly on the long end, IIRC.  Even setting aside the advantage of constant f/2.8 aperture, I found the IQ to be more consistent across its FL range than the 18-55 — which, BTW, is not in any way a bad lens.  I’d simply argue that the IQ differences are not insignificant and the constant aperture can be a real help, particularly if you’re shooting in low light on the long end of the FL range.  That, for me, was enough to justify the purchase, and I’ve had no regrets since.