Sharp, but too bulky and heavy

Len-O wrote:

Meetmer wrote:

Len-O wrote:

lasd wrote:

I appreciate the discourse. I disagree that my statements are made as a universal valid conclusion. In my mind, any review is subjective by nature and therefore does not need to be qualified as such. Perhaps I'm not sensitive to the nuances of this community yet.

Regardless, I still think it's an excellent lens that I wish I could keep and I hope that comes across with my 4.5 rating.

Since each of us has a valid opinion I can only address the 16-55 "too bulky and heavy" issue from my experience. Initially the 16-55 was a lens I didn't believe I would find suitable for me, after all I had a perfectly good 18-55, and some fine primes. Then I had an opportunity to buy a used 16-55 in great as new condition for $749. I figured I had nothing to lose, if it didn't work for me I could always sell it.

It has turned out to be my day to day working lens on my X-T3, and while it certainly adds weight, and bulk to that camera, and I don't see using it on my X-E3 due to obvious balance issues. At this point I just don't see giving up on it when paired with my X-T3.

If I need compact, and not so bulky I go to my X-E3, the 18-55, and a variety of not so bulky primes.

What was it that you liked better about the 16-55 compared to the 18-55 and why did you feel it was worth the weight trade off?

Start with the lens features, and construction, the constant aperture f/2.8, and WR. Then there is the undeniable image quality results in any comparison between the 16-55 and the 18-55. The lack of OIS in the 16-55 has never been an issue, but without IOS the 18-55 would be a mediocre lens

As I said earlier I was quite happy with the 18-55, but I could never understand why the 16-55 got such praise, until I got a copy to use for myself. The IQ of the 16-55 is an eye opening revelation.

I can understand how those are all potentially useful features, but I would wonder how easy it would be to differentiate between the output of both lenses shooting landscape at F8. Granted if you want F2.8 at 55 mm because you have a person as the subject then the 16-55 would work better, but for most other shots I find the 18-55 more than good but also very light. I think the absence of OIS on that 16-55 is a deal breaker for me, otherwise I might have bought one by now.

BTW: I seem to have ignored the big lens on the X-E3 issue, as I find myself using the 16mm f/1.4 on my X-E3 more, and more. Again the characteristics , and image quality delivered by the lens overrides any balance issue. so much so that I haven't used the 18-55 on any of my Fuji cameras in over a year.