XF16-55 or prime set-up?

Rod McD wrote:

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

Thanks Rod! Definitely good arguments. I do not have any issues with weight, fortunately. I remember to times when I had to carry the 5DSr and all the lenses. That was a nightmare. I definitely see you points and will consider them, thanks a lot!