XF16-55 at 55 f2.8 versus other Fuji portrait lens?

Hi I have X-Pro2 with a XF14 (little use), XF18 (some use), XF60 (v little use), XF18-55 (lots use), XF35 f1.4 (most use). I'm thinking of getting the XF16-55 to replace the XF18-55, XF60 and maybe the XF14 as it is an all in one wider angle to zoom, with fast f2.8 across the range. I can see it directly replacing everything the 18-55 can do (except it's bulkier), possibly replace the good portraiture of 60 f2.4 as it will be 55 f2.8, and at wide 16mm it will be wider than the 18-55 for normal use and unless I'm on holidays or touring I don't use the fabulous XF14 at all (not for everyday local photography). Thoughts? I would use the 16-55 with the EVF mostly and keep the OVF for the XF35 and my older XF18 f2.

My main question to the X world user is how does XF16-55 at 55mm f2.8 compare with XF60 f2.4, or the XF50-140 at 50mm f2.8, or XF56 f1.2 for portraits and separation, bokeh? Does anyone have the 16-55, 60, 50-140, 56 and can let me know how the 16-55 holds up at 55 for portraiture? I know it's a bulky heavy lens, but I'd not have to change lens as often and it is a faster wider all in one WR lens, good all rounder for hiking and general family photos indoors or outdoors. Your thoughts on all this would be appreciated, thanks.

Xshooter wrote:

Hi I have X-Pro2 with a XF14 (little use), XF18 (some use), XF60 (v little use), XF18-55 (lots use), XF35 f1.4 (most use). I'm thinking of getting the XF16-55 to replace the XF18-55, XF60 and maybe the XF14 as it is an all in one wider angle to zoom, with fast f2.8 across the range. I can see it directly replacing everything the 18-55 can do (except it's bulkier), possibly replace the good portraiture of 60 f2.4 as it will be 55 f2.8, and at wide 16mm it will be wider than the 18-55 for normal use and unless I'm on holidays or touring I don't use the fabulous XF14 at all (not for everyday local photography). Thoughts? I would use the 16-55 with the EVF mostly and keep the OVF for the XF35 and my older XF18 f2.

My main question to the X world user is how does XF16-55 at 55mm f2.8 compare with XF60 f2.4, or the XF50-140 at 50mm f2.8, or XF56 f1.2 for portraits and separation, bokeh?

It holds up very well, but doesn't get nearly as much background blur as the 56 at f1.2.

Does anyone have the 16-55, 60, 50-140, 56 and can let me know how the 16-55 holds up at 55 for portraiture? I know it's a bulky heavy lens, but I'd not have to change lens as often and it is a faster wider all in one WR lens, good all rounder for hiking and general family photos indoors or outdoors.

You articulate very well its advantages, and it doesn't strike me as bulky or heavy when I'm out for a day with it... With no need to carry a bunch of other lenses.

Your thoughts on all this would be appreciated, thanks.

Some may think I'd be mad to even consider getting rid of the fabulous XF14. I do love this lens but it isn't being used as much as I'd like, because with young family I'm not getting as many opportunities to travel to scenic places or mountains like I used to. It's a special lens but if it's not being used much......and the 16-55 provides a fairly wide angle and f2.8.....

Thanks bowportes, are you using the 16-55 with an XPro or XT1, and if XPro are you using EVF entirely or also using 16-55 with OVF and ERF?

Xshooter wrote:

Thanks bowportes, are you using the 16-55 with an XPro or XT1, and if XPro are you using EVF entirely or also using 16-55 with OVF and ERF?

There is another thread with bowports on a similar discussion. I have the 16-55, XT1 and XP2. The zoom does not play well with the OVF in my opinion. The EVF of the XP2 is OK but clearly not as good as the XT1 especially if you wear glasses.

Xshooter wrote:

Thanks bowportes, are you using the 16-55 with an XPro or XT1, and if XPro are you using EVF entirely or also using 16-55 with OVF and ERF?

I'm using it with the XT1, but plan to try doing so with the Xpro2 (primarily with the EVF and LCD, I expect).  The reviews on the Xpro2 EVF are mixed, some underscoring that the magnification is less than the X-T1 making it more difficult for eye-glass wearers, while others speak of the faster refresh rate preventing lag in the X-pro2.

Reviews on the web generally speak highly of the X-pro2's EVF unless they are specifically comparing it with the X-T1.  One review contrasted the X-Pro2's standard movie screen to the X-T1's imax screen. I expect that I can do just fine without the Imax... and the optical viewfinder of the X-pro2 has its own advantages.

My thoughts for now...

bowportes wrote:

Xshooter wrote:

Hi I have X-Pro2 with a XF14 (little use), XF18 (some use), XF60 (v little use), XF18-55 (lots use), XF35 f1.4 (most use). I'm thinking of getting the XF16-55 to replace the XF18-55, XF60 and maybe the XF14 as it is an all in one wider angle to zoom, with fast f2.8 across the range. I can see it directly replacing everything the 18-55 can do (except it's bulkier), possibly replace the good portraiture of 60 f2.4 as it will be 55 f2.8, and at wide 16mm it will be wider than the 18-55 for normal use and unless I'm on holidays or touring I don't use the fabulous XF14 at all (not for everyday local photography). Thoughts? I would use the 16-55 with the EVF mostly and keep the OVF for the XF35 and my older XF18 f2.

My main question to the X world user is how does XF16-55 at 55mm f2.8 compare with XF60 f2.4, or the XF50-140 at 50mm f2.8, or XF56 f1.2 for portraits and separation, bokeh?

It holds up very well, but doesn't get nearly as much background blur as the 56 at f1.2.

I have all of the mentioned lenses save for the 50-140, and I agree with the above.

I briefly tried the 16-55 on an X-Pro2 today and it was the best AF performance I've experienced yet on a Fuji system.

Here are a couple of examples @55/2.8 from my X-T1, although none are specifically portraits:

Here it is @ 55 Wide Open

A couple more with a AD360 for light

It does alright, mainly because the minimum focus distance, especially compared with the 56 f1.2, is really close. Therefore, you can max the bokeh into 56 territory.

My old mate Steve.

Click4hope wrote:

A comparison I did with the 56 a while back

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56350950

Pretty amazing write-up

Thanks to all for your replies and also for posting some great photos too showing what the XF16-55 is capable of for taking candid portraits. Seems it is very suitable and up to the job! Decisions decisions.....and whether I'll want the 16-55 on the X-Pro2 most of the time meaning using EVF rather than option of OVF.....I guess the joy of the X-Pro2 is having both the EVF for some bigger wider lenses alongside the OVF/EVF for other smaller lenses.

Xshooter wrote:

Hi I have X-Pro2 with a XF14 (little use), XF18 (some use), XF60 (v little use), XF18-55 (lots use), XF35 f1.4 (most use). I'm thinking of getting the XF16-55 to replace the XF18-55, XF60 and maybe the XF14 as it is an all in one wider angle to zoom, with fast f2.8 across the range. I can see it directly replacing everything the 18-55 can do (except it's bulkier), possibly replace the good portraiture of 60 f2.4 as it will be 55 f2.8, and at wide 16mm it will be wider than the 18-55 for normal use and unless I'm on holidays or touring I don't use the fabulous XF14 at all (not for everyday local photography). Thoughts? I would use the 16-55 with the EVF mostly and keep the OVF for the XF35 and my older XF18 f2.

It all depends on how much you value OIS.  The XF16-55 doesn't have it.  It does go down to 24mm (FX equivalent) it also experiences some corner softness until f/4.  With the high price, the question is what focal length do you need the f/2.8 feature.  Since the FX18-55 is a very sharp lens, you are giving up some at the wide end if you stay with it.

My main question to the X world user is how does XF16-55 at 55mm f2.8 compare with XF60 f2.4, or the XF50-140 at 50mm f2.8, or XF56 f1.2 for portraits and separation, bokeh? Does anyone have the 16-55, 60, 50-140, 56 and can let me know how the 16-55 holds up at 55 for portraiture? I know it's a bulky heavy lens, but I'd not have to change lens as often and it is a faster wider all in one WR lens, good all rounder for hiking and general family photos indoors or outdoors. Your thoughts on all this would be appreciated, thanks.

I'm struggling with this question right now but since there is no OIS, I'm thinking I'll pass.

Cliff Fujii wrote:

Xshooter wrote:

Hi I have X-Pro2 with a XF14 (little use), XF18 (some use), XF60 (v little use), XF18-55 (lots use), XF35 f1.4 (most use). I'm thinking of getting the XF16-55 to replace the XF18-55, XF60 and maybe the XF14 as it is an all in one wider angle to zoom, with fast f2.8 across the range. I can see it directly replacing everything the 18-55 can do (except it's bulkier), possibly replace the good portraiture of 60 f2.4 as it will be 55 f2.8, and at wide 16mm it will be wider than the 18-55 for normal use and unless I'm on holidays or touring I don't use the fabulous XF14 at all (not for everyday local photography). Thoughts? I would use the 16-55 with the EVF mostly and keep the OVF for the XF35 and my older XF18 f2.

It all depends on how much you value OIS. The XF16-55 doesn't have it. It does go down to 24mm (FX equivalent) it also experiences some corner softness until f/4. With the high price, the question is what focal length do you need the f/2.8 feature. Since the FX18-55 is a very sharp lens, you are giving up some at the wide end if you stay with it.

You are also giving up the substantial additional subject isolation for portraits that f2.8 gives you as compared with f4. And also the weather sealing, marked aperture and zoom rings, speed of focus, and higher resolving power of the 16-55.

My main question to the X world user is how does XF16-55 at 55mm f2.8 compare with XF60 f2.4, or the XF50-140 at 50mm f2.8, or XF56 f1.2 for portraits and separation, bokeh? Does anyone have the 16-55, 60, 50-140, 56 and can let me know how the 16-55 holds up at 55 for portraiture? I know it's a bulky heavy lens, but I'd not have to change lens as often and it is a faster wider all in one WR lens, good all rounder for hiking and general family photos indoors or outdoors. Your thoughts on all this would be appreciated, thanks.

I'm struggling with this question right now but since there is no OIS, I'm thinking I'll pass.

-- hide signature --

Cliff

All things being equal, I would like to have the OIS, but I've had the lens for almost a year and I shoot about 75% of what I do with it. It's fantastic and for what I shoot I can't say that I've missed OIS that much. You rarely see anyone who has shot with it for a while who would want to give it up.

Thanks photo fan - I see you own several lenses, do ever use the 16-55 to take portraits at 55mm f2.8?

bowportes wrote:

Cliff Fujii wrote:

Xshooter wrote:

Hi I have X-Pro2 with a XF14 (little use), XF18 (some use), XF60 (v little use), XF18-55 (lots use), XF35 f1.4 (most use). I'm thinking of getting the XF16-55 to replace the XF18-55, XF60 and maybe the XF14 as it is an all in one wider angle to zoom, with fast f2.8 across the range. I can see it directly replacing everything the 18-55 can do (except it's bulkier), possibly replace the good portraiture of 60 f2.4 as it will be 55 f2.8, and at wide 16mm it will be wider than the 18-55 for normal use and unless I'm on holidays or touring I don't use the fabulous XF14 at all (not for everyday local photography). Thoughts? I would use the 16-55 with the EVF mostly and keep the OVF for the XF35 and my older XF18 f2.

It all depends on how much you value OIS. The XF16-55 doesn't have it. It does go down to 24mm (FX equivalent) it also experiences some corner softness until f/4. With the high price, the question is what focal length do you need the f/2.8 feature. Since the FX18-55 is a very sharp lens, you are giving up some at the wide end if you stay with it.

You are also giving up the substantial additional subject isolation for portraits that f2.8 gives you as compared with f4. And also the weather sealing, marked aperture and zoom rings, speed of focus, and higher resolving power of the 16-55.

It all depends on what f/l the op is trying to isolate at.  If it's 18mm then the 18-55 will have parity with the 16-55.  At 24mm-35mm , the 18-55 achieves f/3.2.  Above 35mm, the 18-55 achieves f/4.  So it all depends on what f/l the op is trying to get subject isolation at.  For me, OIS is a requirement since I use my Fuji camera for travel photography.  For the studio and landscapes, I have my Nikons.

At 9ft setting both cameras to their lowest f/number with a f/l of 35mm, The 18-55 has a DOF of 2.54ft where the 16-55 has a DOF of 2.22ft.  Not a whole lot of difference.  The Bokeh will be a bit more OOF with the 16-55 but for me, will this have as great an impact on my photography as not having OIS.  I did an experiment with the 18-55 turning off OIS and the keeper rate fell.  I tend to shoot at slower shutter speeds.

My main question to the X world user is how does XF16-55 at 55mm f2.8 compare with XF60 f2.4, or the XF50-140 at 50mm f2.8, or XF56 f1.2 for portraits and separation, bokeh? Does anyone have the 16-55, 60, 50-140, 56 and can let me know how the 16-55 holds up at 55 for portraiture? I know it's a bulky heavy lens, but I'd not have to change lens as often and it is a faster wider all in one WR lens, good all rounder for hiking and general family photos indoors or outdoors. Your thoughts on all this would be appreciated, thanks.

I'm struggling with this question right now but since there is no OIS, I'm thinking I'll pass.

-- hide signature --

Cliff

I do a lot of research before I purchase bodies or lenses and because of the photography I practice, I would rather have more keepers so that I have a richer field to choose from.

Xshooter wrote:

Thanks photo fan - I see you own several lenses, do ever use the 16-55 to take portraits at 55mm f2.8?

X shooter, I don't do a lot of portraits but I have done some with it and it's a great lens for that as well. If you are primarily a portrait shooter and want very shallow depth of field, the 56 is a nice lens. I had that lens and traded even for the 16-55 and it is much more useful to me. It focuses faster and the image quality is also excellent. Sorry I don't have anything handy to post in the portrait arena.