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

Always nice to see a balanced view. My experience would be dead opposite to that of Rod's. I don't find the weight or "discretion" to be any sort of an issue at all. Worth noting that this is very much a matter of individual preference and the sort of photography you do. I do use a tripod on occasion, but much of my photography is handheld and the combined weight of my camera (with battery grip) and lens has proven to be very reasonable for me to handle, for years now. The close focus issue (as Rod pointed out) is a very individual thing and it has never "bitten" me at all. I find the operational FL range of the lens to be almost ideal. Similarly, I only use filters occasionally, and having the few 77mm filters that I might occasionally need for that lens really hasn't turned out to be an issue. If you happen to use filters a lot, then this might be a larger issue for you.

So, best bet would be to carefully look at the individual concerns that are being raised and decide how much that might impact your own needs as a photographer. The 16-55 is one of my most frequently used lenses and has never proved to be an problem with respect to handling. It's also very popular with many photographers who contribute to this forum. Admittedly, however, if you tend to use primes for the most part and/or are very sensitive to weight, then your own tolerance may prove to be quite different. Best bet is to find a local store (if one is available) and see for yourself whether the combo's weight and size can meet your needs. It's also worth noting that favoring zooms vs. primes is also very much a matter of individual preference and you'll find people with strong views on both sides of the argument here as well. That can definitely have an impact on the weight and handling of your kit.