Sharp, but too bulky and heavy

Truman Prevatt wrote:

Pan50 wrote:

lasd wrote:

Great optics throughout the entire zoom range. I gave it up since it is too large and heavy. I switched from Canon FF to Fuji X to reduce weight and this lens goes against that ethos.

Would be an excellent choice for those that prefer not to carry around a set of primes, but I personally am going for a more low-key look and this lens screams PHOTOG.

To each their own. I don’t walk around town with the 16-55 mounted on my camera, it isn’t a street lens by any means. It needs a tripod. Excellent landscape lens.

But on the other hand I've never seen any street photographer use a tripod. On the other hand for landscape a dawn or dusk - a tripod would be recommended I suspect.

It only needs a tripod in certain conditions, or chasing absolute perfection in certain scenes, or if one's holding and breathing technique is poor and one cannot hold it steady to get a sharp image above say (on a non-IBIS body for the 16-55) 1/25sec at 16mm and 1/80sec at 55mm. But these scenarios apply to any lens.

It is one of Fuji's top general purpose zoom lenses, the 50-140 being the second. It is a normal range zoom which I personally find about the most ridiculous concept I can think of and have no use for but other people just love the concept so much that Fuji has not one but two options.

Is it ridiculous to have a requirement for flexibility and convenience when using oft used focal lengths?  When photography plays second fiddle to another activity and one shoots anywhere from mild wide to mild tele focal lengths, then is such flexibility, which is also able to deliver great images, ridiculous?

The activities where I appreciate both the flexibility of focal length, good IQ and the convenience of a zoom include, for example: walking and hiking with family and friends (they do not appreciate the father photographer stopping often to change the lens); days out with families; at sports events where the distance from oneself to the action various quickly (school sports for example, children on ponies, etc); when on holiday with the family; and even visiting cities on breaks where I want to take one lens.

Yes, in all these scenarios I could get better IQ with similar primes from mild wide (I also have the 16/2.8 (and the 23/2)) to mild tele (and the 50/2) focal lengths, but I would lose the flexibility and convenience, not to mention the patience of my family.

So while I agree with you - a lot of others won't.

I don't. I suspect that the number of high quality zooms lenses in this broad focal range across the brands indicates that there is both a desire for this type of lens and a market for it. I am fortunate to have both the 16-55 and a suite of primes, but for my circumstances were I forced to go down one route it would undoubtedly be the zoom route (if all my photography was conducted solo then I might reverse that choice.) My zoom gets far more use than my primes.

Fortunately, we have choices, choices to be celebrated rather than knocked.