XF16-55mmF2.8 R LM WR II On The X-S20?

Really a personal choice. Some people seem to think any lens is too big. I’ve used the much larger 16-55 f/2.8 mk1 and 50-140 f/2.8 on my little handgripped X-T20 with no trouble whatsoever on many occasions, with the also larger Viltrox 27 f/1.2 pretty much living there these days. The new 16-55 should be no problem at all, IMO (and what I’d want to use on the X-S20 for general purpose shooting).

I regularly use the 16-55 Mk1 on my X-E3 with no trouble. You hold it with the left hand under the lens which snappers of my age were trained to do by numerous photo magazines.

But I'll go on (where would DPR be without going off the question).

The new XF 16-50 reviews well and I doubt you'll gain much by buying another very costly zoom. You will get a faster aperture at the longer end but I suspect little more. Optically it is a bit better but perhaps not enough to be clearly seen in normal viewing of finished images. I'd ask (not suggest of course) would you get more value from the f2 primes? You could buy two for the cost of the new 16-55 and they'd be smaller and faster. The 50/2 alone would go a long way to address the slow long end of the 16-50.

Everyone raves about the new Sigma.

I regularly use my Sigma 18-35 f1.8 zoom on my X-S20 with a Fringer adapter with no problems. I think the Sigma 18-35 is larger and heavier than my 16-55 mk 1. You shouldn’t have any issues.

a_c_skinner said:

I regularly use the 16-55 Mk1 on my X-E3 with no trouble. You hold it with the left hand under the lens which snappers of my age were trained to do by numerous photo magazines.

But I'll go on (where would DPR be without going off the question).

The new XF 16-50 reviews well and I doubt you'll gain much by buying another very costly zoom. You will get a faster aperture at the longer end but I suspect little more. Optically it is a bit better but perhaps not enough to be clearly seen in normal viewing of finished images. I'd ask (not suggest of course) would you get more value from the f2 primes? You could buy two for the cost of the new 16-55 and they'd be smaller and faster. The 50/2 alone would go a long way to address the slow long end of the 16-50.

Click to expand...

You may be right. I'm not a pro for even a high-functioning enthusiast so the IQ differences may very well be beyond my ability to really notice.

Concerning those small f/2 primes, there's something to that. This zoom is only at f/2.8 when your at 16mm. Once you reach 23mm it's f/3.3, 33mm it's f/3.8, and 50mm it's 4.8 so I can see where there would be some benefit, in terms of light gathering, from having maybe the 23mm f/2 and possibly the 33 as well. Those two would provide focal lengths that could be useful to me. I wish there were an 18mm f/2.

a_c_skinner said:

Everyone raves about the new Sigma.

Click to expand...

Which Sigma is that?

Sigma 18-50/2.8

Fuji's 18/2 is OK in the centre but weaker in the corners. I thought it was OK.





My point is the 16-55 is a big ticket item and you could get different options.

--
Andrew Skinner

It is all that, glad I got it, mine is on ma T5 ....had a s20 once sure will work great

DNBush said:

For those of you who use this lens on that body, how do you think it handles?

The body is pretty light and I'm happy (so far) with the "kit" XF16-50mm. That lens would certainly be my international travel choice but for domestic travel and use, I would like something of a higher IQ and constant, relatively fast aperture. Thus my question about the 16-55.

Click to expand...

IMHO, if you are looking for a clearly higher IQ I doubt if the (new) 16-55mm makes that much difference in practice. First, your 16-50mm is already considered pretty good and second the new 16-55mm isn't a stellar performer. For a zoom lens it maybe is but not in absolute terms. You probably see some differences in the corners at 100% pixel peeping if you have a good one.

Sample variation is an issue, especially with zooms. I would not be suprised if a very good copy of the 16-50mm is better in some aspects as a not so good copy of the 16-55mm. Maybe I am a little biased because my copy of the 16-55mm (old version) is probably not the greatest. But it is my most used lens to place this into perspective!

To get noticeable improvement and a relatively fast aperture you have to invest in some of the new (mk2) primes, e.g. 18 f/1.4, 23 f/1.4, 33 f/1.4 and the new 56 f/1.2. The old 14mm f/2.8 is very good too.

The Fujicrons (small f/2 or f/2.8 primes) are a compromise because their compactness and maybe not that much beter than your zoom, at least not in a way you will see a clear difference. Some of them are a little soft near the shortest focal distance and shot wide open. The 50mm gets universal praise though. A lot of people like them anyway. I have them too. I use them only with my X-Pro2.

BTW, within the Fuji brand you need a switch to the GFX system too experience a real improvement in IQ. But that will surprice nobody.

At risk of repetition the main determinant of IQ nowadays (as the gear is all excellent) is the photographer's technique.

a_c_skinner said:

At risk of repetition the main determinant of IQ nowadays (as the gear is all excellent) is the photographer's technique.

Click to expand...

That pretty much sums it up!

JohnS59 said:

DNBush said:

For those of you who use this lens on that body, how do you think it handles?

The body is pretty light and I'm happy (so far) with the "kit" XF16-50mm. That lens would certainly be my international travel choice but for domestic travel and use, I would like something of a higher IQ and constant, relatively fast aperture. Thus my question about the 16-55.

Click to expand...

IMHO, if you are looking for a clearly higher IQ I doubt if the (new) 16-55mm makes that much difference in practice. First, your 16-50mm is already considered pretty good and second the new 16-55mm isn't a stellar performer. For a zoom lens it maybe is but not in absolute terms. You probably see some differences in the corners at 100% pixel peeping if you have a good one.

Sample variation is an issue, especially with zooms. I would not be suprised if a very good copy of the 16-50mm is better in some aspects as a not so good copy of the 16-55mm. Maybe I am a little biased because my copy of the 16-55mm (old version) is probably not the greatest. But it is my most used lens to place this into perspective!

Click to expand...

And quite a few people who own the MkII say similar things! Since I got mine, it has been my most used lens. It’s a great standard zoom; regardless of pixel peeping or corner-sharpness comparisons with alternatives, it just gets the job done very nicely!

Personally, I don’t consider speculation about the qualities of a good copy of one lens versus a poorer copy of a different lens helpful, or valid as the basis of decision. Nor unsupported statements about absolute quality versus prime lenses.

Both of these zooms have their strengths and weaknesses, which IMO are very well summarised in Dustin Abbot’s comparison. There are good reasons to pick either without using ‘it’s better, but not that much better’ suggestions, or making the leap that to see tangible improvements it’s necessary to invest in GFX. We are talking about choices for X Mount.

JohnS59 said:

To get noticeable improvement and a relatively fast aperture you have to invest in some of the new (mk2) primes, e.g. 18 f/1.4, 23 f/1.4, 33 f/1.4 and the new 56 f/1.2. The old 14mm f/2.8 is very good too.

The Fujicrons (small f/2 or f/2.8 primes) are a compromise because their compactness and maybe not that much beter than your zoom, at least not in a way you will see a clear difference. Some of them are a little soft near the shortest focal distance and shot wide open. The 50mm gets universal praise though. A lot of people like them anyway. I have them too. I use them only with my X-Pro2.

BTW, within the Fuji brand you need a switch to the GFX system too experience a real improvement in IQ. But that will surprice nobody.

Click to expand...

RobRoy22 said:

JohnS59 said:

DNBush said:

For those of you who use this lens on that body, how do you think it handles?

The body is pretty light and I'm happy (so far) with the "kit" XF16-50mm. That lens would certainly be my international travel choice but for domestic travel and use, I would like something of a higher IQ and constant, relatively fast aperture. Thus my question about the 16-55.

Click to expand...

IMHO, if you are looking for a clearly higher IQ I doubt if the (new) 16-55mm makes that much difference in practice. First, your 16-50mm is already considered pretty good and second the new 16-55mm isn't a stellar performer. For a zoom lens it maybe is but not in absolute terms. You probably see some differences in the corners at 100% pixel peeping if you have a good one.

Sample variation is an issue, especially with zooms. I would not be suprised if a very good copy of the 16-50mm is better in some aspects as a not so good copy of the 16-55mm. Maybe I am a little biased because my copy of the 16-55mm (old version) is probably not the greatest. But it is my most used lens to place this into perspective!

Click to expand...

And quite a few people who own the MkII say similar things! Since I got mine, it has been my most used lens. It’s a great standard zoom; regardless of pixel peeping or corner-sharpness comparisons with alternatives, it just gets the job done very nicely!

Personally, I don’t consider speculation about the qualities of a good copy of one lens versus a poorer copy of a different lens helpful, or valid as the basis of decision. Nor unsupported statements about absolute quality versus prime lenses.

Both of these zooms have their strengths and weaknesses, which IMO are very well summarised in Dustin Abbot’s comparison. There are good reasons to pick either without using ‘it’s better, but not that much better’ suggestions, or making the leap that to see tangible improvements it’s necessary to invest in GFX. We are talking about choices for X Mount.

RobRoy22 said:

To get noticeable improvement and a relatively fast aperture you have to invest in some of the new (mk2) primes, e.g. 18 f/1.4, 23 f/1.4, 33 f/1.4 and the new 56 f/1.2. The old 14mm f/2.8 is very good too.

The Fujicrons (small f/2 or f/2.8 primes) are a compromise because their compactness and maybe not that much beter than your zoom, at least not in a way you will see a clear difference. Some of them are a little soft near the shortest focal distance and shot wide open. The 50mm gets universal praise though. A lot of people like them anyway. I have them too. I use them only with my X-Pro2.

BTW, within the Fuji brand you need a switch to the GFX system too experience a real improvement in IQ. But that will surprice nobody.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I agree for the most part but it is the OP, amongst others at a regular pace, who seeks better IQ and want to be informed about it. Sometimes it doesn't hurt to put this understandabble wish into perspective. Even by mentioning the GFX system.

Recently, I got into this system and this is the main reason I downsize expectations to improve IQ within the X system. I have a lot of X lenses. Most of them are excellent. Other differences are probably more important like focal lenghtmaximum aperture, compactness/weight, build quality, versatility (zoom!) etc..

Is this one an alternative worth considering?

Not as sharp as the 16-50 (if I read reviews aright) but you get a longer long end of course.