crazy question how does the 16-55 f2.8 compare to the 50mm f2?

I'm wondering about getting the 50mm f2 or splashing out and getting the 16-55 f2.8. ok the first thing you will say is they are completely different lenses at different price points.. ones a prime ones a zoom - its a different type of photography etc...but I'm wondering if i need the 50 if i get the 16-55?

seems to me the 50 might be sharper and faster to focus - but the zoom is much more versatile and only a little slower in f stop?

so question - any one got a comparison of optical quality at 50mm? anyone know the relative focusing speeds?

i have the 23mm f2 and love it as a walk around lens - reminds me of my original x100. but sometimes i want to zoom in... and i wonder if changing lens or using a zoom would be better...

DrNeil wrote:

I'm wondering about getting the 50mm f2 or splashing out and getting the 16-55 f2.8. ok the first thing you will say is they are completely different lenses at different price points.. ones a prime ones a zoom - its a different type of photography etc...but I'm wondering if i need the 50 if i get the 16-55?

seems to me the 50 might be sharper and faster to focus - but the zoom is much more versatile and only a little slower in f stop?

so question - any one got a comparison of optical quality at 50mm? anyone know the relative focusing speeds?

i have the 23mm f2 and love it as a walk around lens - reminds me of my original x100. but sometimes i want to zoom in... and i wonder if changing lens or using a zoom would be better...

One major difference is it is called "the brick" for a reason as it weights like a brick around you neck.  The zoom goes at about 1.5 pounds.  The 50 is less than 1/3 the weight of the brick.   So if you are looking for a street lens or a "walking around lens" - you have ask yourself if packing around a pound and 1/2 lens is something you want to do.

Truman Prevatt wrote:

DrNeil wrote:

I'm wondering about getting the 50mm f2 or splashing out and getting the 16-55 f2.8. ok the first thing you will say is they are completely different lenses at different price points.. ones a prime ones a zoom - its a different type of photography etc...but I'm wondering if i need the 50 if i get the 16-55?

seems to me the 50 might be sharper and faster to focus - but the zoom is much more versatile and only a little slower in f stop?

so question - any one got a comparison of optical quality at 50mm? anyone know the relative focusing speeds?

i have the 23mm f2 and love it as a walk around lens - reminds me of my original x100. but sometimes i want to zoom in... and i wonder if changing lens or using a zoom would be better...

One major difference is it is called "the brick" for a reason as it weights like a brick around you neck. The zoom goes at about 1.5 pounds. The 50 is less than 1/3 the weight of the brick. So if you are looking for a street lens or a "walking around lens" - you have ask yourself if packing around a pound and 1/2 lens is something you want to do.

Another major difference is it doesn't require you to carry multiple lenses and take the time to swap them while you miss your shot. That's why the 16-55 is referred to as the "bag of primes" zoom. A single lens that gives you what it might take 3-4 lenses to get otherwise.

I own the 18-55mm (kit lense) and don't see much of a difference between it at 50mm and the 50mm F2---Given that, I would think the 16-55 is probably even a tad sharper then the 18-55mm.

Truman Prevatt wrote:

DrNeil wrote:

I'm wondering about getting the 50mm f2 or splashing out and getting the 16-55 f2.8. ok the first thing you will say is they are completely different lenses at different price points.. ones a prime ones a zoom - its a different type of photography etc...but I'm wondering if i need the 50 if i get the 16-55?

seems to me the 50 might be sharper and faster to focus - but the zoom is much more versatile and only a little slower in f stop?

so question - any one got a comparison of optical quality at 50mm? anyone know the relative focusing speeds?

i have the 23mm f2 and love it as a walk around lens - reminds me of my original x100. but sometimes i want to zoom in... and i wonder if changing lens or using a zoom would be better...

One major difference is it is called "the brick" for a reason as it weights like a brick around you neck. The zoom goes at about 1.5 pounds. The 50 is less than 1/3 the weight of the brick. So if you are looking for a street lens or a "walking around lens" - you have ask yourself if packing around a pound and 1/2 lens is something you want to do.

Calling the 16-55 F2.8 a brick is common but rather unfair. Yes its large and heavy compared to the 18-55 which is almost as good IQ-wise but its rather small and light compared to full frame F2.8 24-70 zooms.

F2.8 full zoom range, a slightly more even look to the images (the 18-55 is a bit centre oriented on XT2 - didn't notice it on the XT1 but higher resolution sensors start showing up weaknesses not noticed before - commonplace with the Sony A7r2). I see the centre areas being sharper than the outer areas and it tends to draw your attention in to the centre area whereas when I use the 16-55 its more even across the frame with no bias or attention being drawn to any area by the lens itself. Otherwise yeah, the 18-55 is not far off the 16-55 IQ. Its these little things and differences that captures my attention. I aim for the best gear and the best results and often that little bit extra in your images comes from that last little bit of performance in your gear. That usually costs more or comes with a penalty like larger and heavier.

Generally speaking, as sensors get more and more megapixels lenses are going to get a hiding trying to cope. You only have to look at DXO scores and how much they vary with different sensor megapixels.

The 18-55 is starting to show signs of weakness at 24mp. The 16-55 does not.

Once Fuji hits 36 or 42mp the 18-55 will probably not be considered good enough anymore.

Sony GM lenses are rated up to 100mp and as Sony is the one making the sensors and has a sensor roadmap like Fuji has for lenses then you can see where the future is heading.

Greg.

DrNeil wrote:

yes id not really considered weight. but i guess it replaces carrying 2-3 primes..

If we do a bean count on weight - between 16 and 50 Fuji has a few primes.  One probably would not want to carry all of them.  Why carry an 18, 23 and 27?  A 23 and 35 are quite close in reality - about a step or two. So unless you are really interesting in the lower range a 23 f2 (which I think you have) and 50 would and a step or two would do it. So the two lenses are probably together 1/2 the weight of the brick and both are one stop faster (on ASP-C 2.8 is quite slow) not to mention the bird is about 2K.

Zoom lenses are over sold - they make the camera makers lots of money.  In a weaken moment I got talked into the Nikon holy lens for my D800E, the 24-70 f2.8 which is about the same FOV range as the brick.  It to is a brick.  I made the mistake of not renting it which I usually do and sold it at a loss after the back pains of lugging it around all day.  Sure the argument goes - it replaces a lot of primes.  However, add two steps and it replaces fewer.  I sold the puppy (losing money in the process) and am quite happy using a 28 and 50 on my Nikon.  I don't miss the Nikon brick.

My kit is stratified by lens type.

X-Pro2 for primes.

X-T2 for zooms.

I used to think the 16-55 was overkill for a mirrorless setup. Now it is the perfect everyday lens paired with the X-T2.

No experience with the 50 F2 but AF on the 16-55 is about the fastest of any Fuji lens.

Truman Prevatt wrote:

DrNeil wrote:

yes id not really considered weight. but i guess it replaces carrying 2-3 primes..

If we do a bean count on weight - between 16 and 50 Fuji has a few primes. One probably would not want to carry all of them. Why carry an 18, 23 and 27? A 23 and 35 are quite close in reality - about a step or two. So unless you are really interesting in the lower range a 23 f2 (which I think you have) and 50 would and a step or two would do it. So the two lenses are probably together 1/2 the weight of the brick and both are one stop faster (on ASP-C 2.8 is quite slow) not to mention the bird is about 2K.

Zoom lenses are over sold - they make the camera makers lots of money.

Take a look at the statistics relative to what lenses people use to take pictures - at least, pictures that are posted on-line, and you will see that if anything, primes lenses are oversold.

The vast majority of images made with DSLRs are with zoom lenses.

liggy wrote:

My kit is stratified by lens type.

X-Pro2 for primes.

X-T2 for zooms.

I used to think the 16-55 was overkill for a mirrorless setup. Now it is the perfect everyday lens paired with the X-T2.

Yup.  Did a 4+ hour walkabout with my wife today with that setup, using a Peak Design strap, and weight wasn't an issue at all for me.

I only own primes....
I don´t like zooms, they make me feel lazy. I can only understand a zoom in the longer end, 100-400 or maybe even 50-140 and in the wider range 10-24. I find that in the normal-wide / normal spectrum, I always prefer a prime
Going out for a walk with a chosen prime, in my opinion, gives character to the set of pictures you come back with. It forces you to think a bit more about the shot, makes you get used to its framing, and you train your eye.  But that is just my opinion. Others will prefer the versatility of a zoom.
I don´t own the 50/2 though... having used the other F2 primes briefly, they seem a pleasure to work with... I´d much rather walk around with a small bag and a the 23, 35 and 50 F2 primes than with the zoom.
The 16-55 is a superb lens... I just don´t like using it.

georgehudetz wrote:

Yup. Did a 4+ hour walkabout with my wife today with that setup, using a Peak Design strap, and weight wasn't an issue at all for me.

+1

X-T2 on Peak Slide Lite with 16-55 makes for a really easy walkabout rig.

We share the same weather too - I'm in Seattle.

DrNeil wrote:

to be frank - I'm thinking of going for the 16-55 - everyone seems to rate it - despite weight and even though its more expensive - I'm not sure the 50 gives me much..if i didnt have access to a friends 56... it might be different.

If you have access to a 56 then the 16-55 makes sense

Having both I probably use the 16-55 20x more than the 56mm   The 56 is magic but a very specialized tool IMO.

Having access to a 56 renders the 50 a bit moot, true.

liggy wrote:

My kit is stratified by lens type.

X-Pro2 for primes.

X-T2 for zooms.

I used to think the 16-55 was overkill for a mirrorless setup. Now it is the perfect everyday lens paired with the X-T2.

No experience with the 50 F2 but AF on the 16-55 is about the fastest of any Fuji lens.

This is exactly how I roll as well.  16-55 on XT-2 and 23/1.4 on X-Pro 2.