XF16-55 or prime set-up?

Hi,

I lot of people here swear by the 16-55.  I'm not one of them.  I started life with the 18-55, then went to primes, then tried the 16-55 for about 6 months, then sold it and went back to primes.  No regrets.

I spent a lot of time carefully comparing my lenses.  I found the 16-55 excellent in the wide half, very much worth the 'bag of primes' tag. I didn't find my sample matched either my 50/2 or 60/2.4, so not worth the same tag at the long end.  That may simply have been my sample.  There were other reasons I didn't like the zoom.

• I didn't mind the carried weight - it weighed less than the four primes it potentially replaced.  I really didn't like the weight and forward balance on-camera.  A 1300g camera/lens is not what I left the DSLR world for.
• it's not a discreet lens.
• its weakness is that it does not focus close and does not integrate well with close-up accessories - either or tubes or CU lenses.  That may not matter to you.  It did matter to me and prevented the lens being a one-lens-does-all solution for me.
• I didn't enjoy buying expensive 77mm filters.  If you happen to like a good quality set of grad ND, CPL and couple of ND stoppers, you're looking at several hundred dollars.
• the camera and lens combo was taxing for light weight tripods and ball heads - especially tipped on its side or with column extension.  Depending on what you have, you may need to beef up your support.

In the end, there's no right answer -  it simply comes down to personal preference.

Hope that helps.

Cheers, Rod