I think your point referred to a wider than 16mm starting point for the zoom. Your example has a greater FL range, but actually starts at a longer FL. So, how feasible a 12-55mm f/2.8 vs. a 16-70mm f/2.8 lens (as a couple of made up examples) might be -- with each offering similar IQ to the 16-55 -- still strikes me as a bit of a stretch. But, as I said earlier, I'm no expert on lens design either and happy to be proven wrong, if that's the case.Don't take my word for it - how about Chris Niccolls ?I'm far from an expert on lens design, so please take this with a grain of salt... but I suspect that broadening the FL range (i.e. say a 12-55-ish lens) would almost certainly come at the expense of IQ and might not yield the sort of quality that would be expected or needed. I'd be interested to see any examples of lenses in that approximate FL range that can come close to matching the IQ of the 16-55... regardless of brand.For the heft of the 16-55 I personally would have kept it if it was wider so I could leave the 10-24 at home and eliminate lens changes and the need for a bag while on a day trip.
Perhaps I should have stated “adding a widER to short tele option and refreshing the 18-55 with WR”
A wider than 16 zoom would give you the option for a nice light travel kit.
Wider zoom short tele, 35 1.4 for night/low light and 70-300 for tele.
https://www.dpreview.com/videos/0341598683/dpreview-tv-sony-20-70mm-f4-g-review
I'm not really a chart guy but if you like that sort of thing Lenstip shows the 20-70 out resolving the 16-55.
https://www.lenstip.com/643.4-Lens_review-Sony_FE_20-70_mm_f_4_G_Image_resolution.html
If you like videos - Christopher Frost does it pretty well:
Ironically as the hardware gets better the software seems to be improving even faster so just getting the shot these days is the thing. If I can have a lens that requires one less lens to carry around / change it is adding value to my kit.
This is a rather unique range and I'd love to see it in Fuji-land.
I see your point - compromises are inevitable when it comes to an extended range. Apparently the FE 20-70 has an insane amount of distortion at the wide end uncorrected. I don't care about that because I never use the uncorrected images.
Same is true for the Q2 but that hasn't hurt its popularity one bit.
The Q3 with the same lens as the Q and Q2 just launched and if you didn't get your preorder in early you'll have to wait until December in spite of the uncorrected RAWs being heavily distorted.
I think your point referred to a wider than 16mm starting point for the zoom. Your example has a greater FL range, but actually starts at a longer FL. So, how feasible a 12-55mm f/2.8 vs. a 16-70mm f/2.8 lens (as a couple of made up examples) might be -- with each offering similar IQ to the 16-55 -- still strikes me as a bit of a stretch. But, as I said earlier, I'm no expert on lens design either and happy to be proven wrong, if that's the case.Don't take my word for it - how about Chris Niccolls ?I'm far from an expert on lens design, so please take this with a grain of salt... but I suspect that broadening the FL range (i.e. say a 12-55-ish lens) would almost certainly come at the expense of IQ and might not yield the sort of quality that would be expected or needed. I'd be interested to see any examples of lenses in that approximate FL range that can come close to matching the IQ of the 16-55... regardless of brand.For the heft of the 16-55 I personally would have kept it if it was wider so I could leave the 10-24 at home and eliminate lens changes and the need for a bag while on a day trip.
Perhaps I should have stated “adding a widER to short tele option and refreshing the 18-55 with WR”
A wider than 16 zoom would give you the option for a nice light travel kit.
Wider zoom short tele, 35 1.4 for night/low light and 70-300 for tele.
https://www.dpreview.com/videos/0341598683/dpreview-tv-sony-20-70mm-f4-g-review
I'm not really a chart guy but if you like that sort of thing Lenstip shows the 20-70 out resolving the 16-55.
https://www.lenstip.com/643.4-Lens_review-Sony_FE_20-70_mm_f_4_G_Image_resolution.html
If you like videos - Christopher Frost does it pretty well:
Ironically as the hardware gets better the software seems to be improving even faster so just getting the shot these days is the thing. If I can have a lens that requires one less lens to carry around / change it is adding value to my kit.
This is a rather unique range and I'd love to see it in Fuji-land.
I see your point - compromises are inevitable when it comes to an extended range. Apparently the FE 20-70 has an insane amount of distortion at the wide end uncorrected. I don't care about that because I never use the uncorrected images.
Same is true for the Q2 but that hasn't hurt its popularity one bit.
The Q3 with the same lens as the Q and Q2 just launched and if you didn't get your preorder in early you'll have to wait until December in spite of the uncorrected RAWs being heavily distorted.
Well, it never hurts to wish. I just wouldn't hold my breath for it.Lol... stop moving the goalposts on me.
What my wish would be is an XF zoom that gives me the equivalent range of the FF Sony 20-70.
That would mean the Fuji would have to be roughly a 12-13mm lens at the wide end.
Lens design has got to have improved over the last 8 or so years since the 16-55 was launched. I'm not saying it's not an excellent lens. It earned the "bag of primes" nickname for a reason.
I'm just hoping for a really wide to short tele Fuji lens. You questioned the IQ of the Sony - it's pretty darned good according to the charts and my own experience but has the extended wide end to boot.
To your point - that kind of lens is a hole in every manufacturers lineup aside from Sony.
A Fuji alternative would be an instant preorder for me.
While I agree with you that the 16-55 isn't DYING to be refreshed, I would greatly appreciate one that maintains the excellent build quality and image quality at less weight and size.
A boy can dream…Well, it never hurts to wish. I just wouldn't hold my breath for it.Lol... stop moving the goalposts on me.
What my wish would be is an XF zoom that gives me the equivalent range of the FF Sony 20-70.
That would mean the Fuji would have to be roughly a 12-13mm lens at the wide end.
Lens design has got to have improved over the last 8 or so years since the 16-55 was launched. I'm not saying it's not an excellent lens. It earned the "bag of primes" nickname for a reason.
I'm just hoping for a really wide to short tele Fuji lens. You questioned the IQ of the Sony - it's pretty darned good according to the charts and my own experience but has the extended wide end to boot.
To your point - that kind of lens is a hole in every manufacturers lineup aside from Sony.
A Fuji alternative would be an instant preorder for me.
--
Jerry-Astro
Fuji Forum co-Mod
How about not hanging it off your neck? The only camera I would hang off my neck for any extended period of time is my X100V, but even that I usually keep in a tiny sling bag hanging more off my shoulder, just a better way to go all around, IMO. My X-T2/16-55 is no strain at all in the diminutive Peak Design 3L sling bag, minimal bulk and easy to carry around all day (again, IMO).
Right on point
(I was about to write something similar)
"Absurd size and weight." Please. I wouldn't mind seeing an update as well, but it's my humble opinion that the issue is WAY overplayed here with hyperbole much like this. We should probably just agree to disagree and move on, since at this point, it's simply matter of personal preference. As I've mentioned, I'm pretty used to hauling around heavier kit, given my penchant for shooting long, so your tolerance and my tolerance for weight may be very different, and that might explain our very different points of view on this issue.Right on point
There is no single reason to justify absurd size and weight of XF 16-55/2.8 in todays standards.
Sony proved with their 16-50/2.8 G that such lens like XF 16-55/2.8 can be much smaller and lighter.
So, if XF 16-55/2.8 is basically 24-82/4.2 in FF, in link below You got direct comparsion of XF 16-55/2.8 to FF 24-105/4 lenses (some of them got even IS), and with Sony 20-70/4 (again, stellar optics with aperture ring and with more usefull focal lenght), All listed gear are WR.
https://camerasize.com/compact/#900.448,883.847,883.681,883.1085,862.1027,899.788,901.862,ha,t
Plus on that, Sony and Panasonic has access to Sigmas offering, like small and compact Sigma 28-70/2.8
In summary.. imho Fuji definitely needs to update XF 16-55/2.8, because size and weight of this lens denies the essence of aps-c format gear, which should be smaller and lighter than FF
XF 16-55/2.8 is very often slightly bigger and heavier than its FF counterparts, so where is the point of all of this?
To be honest, Fuji should update all of their standard zoom lenses..
Exactly my thoughts
Sure thing"Absurd size and weight." Please. I wouldn't mind seeing an update as well, but it's my humble opinion that the issue is WAY overplayed here with hyperbole much like this. We should probably just agree to disagree and move on, since at this point, it's simply matter of personal preference. As I've mentioned, I'm pretty used to hauling around heavier kit, given my penchant for shooting long, so your tolerance and my tolerance for weight may be very different, and that might explain our very different points of view on this issue.Right on point
There is no single reason to justify absurd size and weight of XF 16-55/2.8 in todays standards.
Sony proved with their 16-50/2.8 G that such lens like XF 16-55/2.8 can be much smaller and lighter.
So, if XF 16-55/2.8 is basically 24-82/4.2 in FF, in link below You got direct comparsion of XF 16-55/2.8 to FF 24-105/4 lenses (some of them got even IS), and with Sony 20-70/4 (again, stellar optics with aperture ring and with more usefull focal lenght), All listed gear are WR.
https://camerasize.com/compact/#900.448,883.847,883.681,883.1085,862.1027,899.788,901.862,ha,t
Plus on that, Sony and Panasonic has access to Sigmas offering, like small and compact Sigma 28-70/2.8
In summary.. imho Fuji definitely needs to update XF 16-55/2.8, because size and weight of this lens denies the essence of aps-c format gear, which should be smaller and lighter than FF
XF 16-55/2.8 is very often slightly bigger and heavier than its FF counterparts, so where is the point of all of this?
To be honest, Fuji should update all of their standard zoom lenses..
Bottom line, I wouldn't complain a bit if Fujifilm updated the lens with something of equal or better IQ and easier handling, but where that would go on my priority list vs. yours and a few others here would greatly differ. My preference will continue to be Fujifilm spending their R&D funds elsewhere. Regardless, debating pure personal opinions and preferences like this is pretty well pointless IMHO.
You told Your opinion, I told mine and its fine (same story as in Bens Kanarek recent thread). Now we can move on with our photo hobby 
I think it depends on one’s use case. For me the 18-55 is versatile for the reasons mentioned. For you, having different requirements, a different lens will fit better.
Good morning, Hans!
Well, perhaps your own definition of a “compelling” zoom is different from mine. I’m not all that bothered by the weight of the 16-55, so it more than meets my definition of “compelling.” I guess it’s a matter of one’s own needs, but for my purposes, the 16-55 more than checks off those boxes for me.
Hi Andrew,
