XF16-55 or prime set-up?

I use the 16-55mm f/2.8 for some purposes, and I also use a range of Fujiflm primes for others: 14mm f/2.8, 23mm f1/4, 27mm f/2.8, 35mm f/1.4, 60mm f/2.4 macro, 80mm f/2.8 macro, 90mm f/2.

I don't select zoom or prime for supposed image quality reasons — more for practical considerations related to the kinds of photography I am doing. For street photography I lean toward the 27mm f/2.8 WR, which his an excellent performer. For night street photography I move to the f/1.4 lenses. Reasons for using the macros are mostly obvious. I use the zoom (along with the 50-140) for events and for some hiking and backpacking (wilderness) purposes.

All of these lenses produce excellent image quality.

To my way of thinking, the real question here isn't whether primes or zooms are better in some generic way. Rather the questions are more about their suitability to the kinds of photography you will do. If you are trying for a very tiny system, that 27mm f/2.8 could be the right choice. If you need much more flexibility the 16-55 could be ideal, even though it is quite large.  And so on...

One option that sort of splits the difference is to get the very good 18-55mm f/2.8-f/4 zoom for when you need the flexibility (it is quite good) and augment that with one of the smaller primes for when you want a smaller system.

Gamboo88 wrote:

Dear photographers, I am struggling. Again!

Before I moved to Australia, I lost the joy of photographing. Initially, I sold my photography equipment as I left Germany. I owned the Canon R5 and the RF 2.8 24-70 lens. You will probably think, "how could this guy sell this equipment"? Well, it was too much. I didn't have much money when I was young. Accordingly, I always treated my photography equipment with kid gloves. That took the fun out of it for me. Since I photographed abroad, even in dusty and wet areas, my worry was always great.

Enough life story. I recently decided to take up photography again. I shot the Fujifilm X-H2 for a sensational price in Australia. Now the question revolves around the lens. Originally I wanted to start with the XF18 1.4 and XF33 1.4, but now more and more doubts have come up. I have already been able to take some pictures with the XF33. Great:

(Just some generic test shots, but the lens and the editing in Capture Pro created a magical atmosphere).

I really love the Fujifilm camera and lenses so far. I am not sad about selling my Canon gear at all. The colours are definitely on another level and I do not even miss the full frame advantages.

In addition, I shot the XF100-400, which ended up at about 800€/750USD after deducting the cashback.

I see the advantage of prime lenses; however, I miss the zoom a little bit. I don't like changing lenses outside that much, especially with mirrorless cameras. Would the XF16-55 2.8 be a big disappointment compared to the prime lenses? After cash back it would be around 750€/700USD. Years ago, a zoom lens could never win against a prime lens in terms of quality and sharpness, but I would like to know if things have changed or if the 16-55 is very competitive when it comes to a battle against the afore-mentioned prime lenses.

I'm a pixel peeper who also shoots videos occasionally. So far, though, it's been more in the drone realm. Nevertheless, I will definitely do some videos in 8K/4K in future, next to photography. I travel a lot and have a diverse mix of the street, macro, and landscape, where I simply prefer to capture the moment.

Any thoughts, my friends?