XF16-55 or prime set-up?

gdanmitchell wrote:

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.

Sensible advice.

Choosing lenses for the kind of photography you want to do is sensible.  And also the focal lengths you enjoy or require for that photography.  I'm an old dawg hobbyist and my favorite old dawg focal length is 50mm-e.  So for me, the 33mm f/1.4 is my main lens.  But I've also had my bag bottom out with primes, and the 16-80mm f/4 has solved that problem for me.  These are the only two lenses I really need, unless I again get the urge to photograph squirrels, then I suppose I will need the 70-300mm.