It is certainly big and heavy

Hi,

Thx for the extra images.  I like the middle one best of the three.

I bought the 16-55 a couple of months back after using primes and the 18-55 since I got my XT1 in 2014.  I agree with your sentiment about it being big and heavy.  I don't find the carried weight heavy, since it weighs about the same as three or four small primes or two bigger fast ones.  However, I really notice the balance on-camera - the front heavy leverage of it, and I don't really like that aspect of using it.

In terms of IQ it's an excellent zoom.  I find it compares mostly very well with my primes  at the available apertures. (I have both 16's, both 23's, the 27, both 35s and the 50).   Of these, a couple still out-resolve it (16/1.4 and 50/2).  I find that it's better than my 18-55 at wide FLs and wide apertures, but that the differences diminish as I zoom longer and/or as I stop down.  A wide open shooter would obviously prefer the 16-55, but I'm not seeing much difference at say f5.6-f8.  That doesn't come as a surprise to me - my 18-55 has turned out some excellent images when stopped down a bit.

If the 16-55 has a weakness (for me) it's that it doesn't integrate nicely with close-up accessories like extension tubes and CU lenses.  That doesn't matter to everybody but I like taking close-ups of small nature subjects, so the 16-55 doesn't quite become a one-lens-does-all solution.   Just me.

I'm trying to decide whether to keep it and I think the nagging irritation with the on-camera weight might be the deciding factor.  I just prefer the balance of my primes.  I'll keep trying it out for a bit longer.....

Cheers, Rod