X-H2s three weeks in...

Jerry-astro wrote:

GMacF wrote:

Jerry-astro wrote:

GMacF wrote:

SoCalDawg wrote:

FuzzyDice wrote:

Don't do it, that super wide opening on the 16 - 55 is providing fantastic image quality and I just don't think that 16 - 80 can match it optically.

16-55mm is amazing.. just a brick in the bag. I’m seriously considering pairing the 18 1.4 with my 33 1.4 and X100V .. then the question will be do I need the heavy zoom.. as I am a slight crop away from it with the primes.. sans 16mm of course. I mainly use primes indoors so it’s a lot of $ and weight for an outdoor walk around lens.

Yeah I definitely wouldn't class it a walk around lens that's for sure. The only reason I have one is I need a zoom for my freelance press work as you just never know where you'll find yourself plus I needed the f2.8 for low light scenarios - only for that last point I'd be happily operating with the 16-80.

For "planned" photoshoots or for my own personal usage I find I will always gravitate towards my 23 and 56 f1.4 primes - these do 90% of my commercial/private work.

That just goes to show you that we all have our own tolerances for weight and size. The 16-55 is absolutely a "walk around" lens for me, and I'm not really bothered by the weight or size, even attached to my X-H1 with grip. Admittedly, I have simply gotten used to the size/bulk/weight of my kit, and acknowledge that it wouldn't by any means be OK for everyone. Probably hauling my 100-400 all over creation might simply have built up my tolerance just a bit.

Of course that’s understandable. Subjectively I certainly don’t think the 16-55 is large or heavy for what it is - a f2.8 zoom - it’s just a little larger and heavier than I would like as a walk around. I lugged my Canon DSLR bodies and EF 24-70 f4 around for years - including our honeymoon which I don’t think the OH was too enamoured with - so I really enjoy the lightweight options I have with Fuji. I still have the big boy lenses and bodies when needed.

Yup, which is why the whole argument is highly subjective. Where I have issues would be statements that declare the size/weight as completely unacceptable for a larger audience, as opposed to being something very much an individual decision. I think a lot of the opinions stated here would be more credible, and perhaps less controversial, if they included “… for me” as part of the statement, as opposed to supposedly representing the needs of a much broader audience.

As far as the 16-55 goes, it also depends a lot on whether constant f/2.8 aperture is important enough to justify the additional bulk and weight. For me, at least, it certainly does, but clearly that view is hardly universal. It’s nice to have choices.

It’s definitely a preference thing. I carry a ThinkTank Retro 7M with main body/zoom lens, X100V, and occasionally a drone or extra lens + accessories/adapters.. and maybe a kindle. I don’t MIND the weight of the 16-55.. can easily handle it, but it feels significantly more comfortable with an f4. I also don’t need 2.8 for outdoor walk around. Today I took my Retro 5 with the X-H2S/18 1.4 and X100V and it was gloriously light. I’m not getting paid and I walk anywhere from 3 to 10 miles a day so 4 vs 2.8 makes a noticeable difference to me.