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

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?

No. F2.8 to f2 is just one stop change, it will not provide a make or break difference in case you need a faster lens. Typically, f2.8 zooms are complemented by a fast f1.4 prime lens somewhere in the middle of the zoom range.

Matpan wrote:

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

The 56 is heavy. On an ASP-C the equivalent focal length is about 10 mm - which means the 50 would be a better choice for the street (in cases you have some room) than the 56.

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.

With your 2 lens combo, you don't cover 16 or 55. The 16-55, however, does. To get 16, you'd have to add a heavy third lens. To get 55 you'd have to add another prime. But even if you equate 50 and 55, the 16-55 gives you 16, 23, 35, and 50mm options, which are all quite different FOVs. Your 2 lens combo is much more limited.

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

One could as easily argue that primes are oversold. It's a matter of taste  and shooting style.

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.

-- hide signature --

Truman
www.pbase.com/tprevatt

Add two steps and you change perspective, and thus the photo. ... Not the same as standing still and selecting a different FL.

The 16-55 is an amazingly versatile, high quality lens. The weight doesn't bother many of us. I agree that it would be a good idea for the OP to rent first.

bowportes wrote:

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.

With your 2 lens combo, you don't cover 16 or 55. The 16-55, however, does. To get 16, you'd have to add a heavy third lens. To get 55 you'd have to add another prime. But even if you equate 50 and 55, the 16-55 gives you 16, 23, 35, and 50mm options, which are all quite different FOVs. Your 2 lens combo is much more limited.

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

One could as easily argue that primes are oversold. It's a matter of taste and shooting style.

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.

Add two steps and you change perspective, and thus the photo. ... Not the same as standing still and selecting a different FL.

Not if the images have the same field of view.  There will be be minor DOF difference but that is it.

The 16-55 is an amazingly versatile, high quality lens. The weight doesn't bother many of us. I agree that it would be a good idea for the OP to rent first.

There are two issues with zoom lenses.  The first is obvious.  A lens design is a trade off.  That trade of becomes very complex for a zoom with the complexity going up as the zoom range goes up.  While it is possible to design a zoom that has the same quality of a fix focal length at say the center of the zoom range - the quality will not be as good at the ends as a prime designed for those focal lengths.  The zoom - especially a constant aperture zoom is large because the aperture has to be designed for the longer focal length which determines the size of the glass and opening.  So a good constant aperture zoom lens will be quite expensive and quite large.  Because there are no fast zooms on the market.

But zooms can be handy.  I started long before zooms were worth the powder to load them up and blow their elements out so developed my skill craft based on fixed focal length.  I did try one on my Nikon - did nothing I could not do with a couple of primes and it looked like I was packing an elephant's leg on my camera so I sold it.  Should have rented it first and saved some money.

The second issue with zooms depends on the what you are shooting.  There is a reason the Leica became the mainstay of street photography.  People don't notice it.  People are not intimidated by it or put off by it when you take their shot.  Point a camera with a lens with a 77 or 82 mm opening at them - you will get their attention.  I could tell the difference in reception even between my Leica M4 and Nikon FM back in the 70's.

So it depends on what you want to do.  Thom Hogan once said that the mid range zoom was a total waste.  I expect Nikon slapped him around for that since I haven't seen him write that again.  But he is right.  Zooms are nice when they work for what you need.  I've just never seen the need.   If I were into birds or wildlife and wanted to use a Fuji for that - that's not a given but if I did - I am sure the 100-400 would be in my bag.

But for the street which is about all I use my Fuji for and the reason I got the Pro2 - I don't see any of the positives of a zoom out weight the negatives.  If for some reason I wanted to not have to change lenses - simply have two bodies.  About the same weight and a lot of flexibility.

For general event work I carry the 16-55, 50-140, and the 56 1.2. I went the second half of last year carrying just those and had no regrets. I've since added the 35 1.4 as a general carry around lens and when I carry it I do not carry the others.

In a fast reaction type situation many times a bag of primes just isn't optimal to switch around, or simply moving a few steps up or back in a room of tables with 1500 people in it isn't an option.

The 16-55 is much faster focusing and quieter than both the 35 1.4 and 56 1.2.

Just depends what your needs are and where you place the value based on your needs and preferences.

Have you noticed any IQ degradation of the 55-200 on 24mp sensor as it is one of the older lenses as well?

It probably most depends on what you shoot. I have both the 50mm and the 16-55mm. I haven’t made an IQ comparison between the two, because they’re very different lenses and not interchangeable - sorry for the pun

If you want to read a proper technical review on both and compare them, check out lenstip.com. They already reviewed the 16-55mm some time ago and should have the 50mm F2 review up in a couple of days - that’s how long it usually takes them to translate from Polish (http://www.optyczne.pl/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=416).

If you travel a lot, want to shoot everything and are often in challenging weather conditions - the zoom is the way to go. I just spent a week with it in Iceland and couldn’t be happier. The range was nearly enough to cover everything, my 50-140mm spent most of the time in the backpack. With the winds and rain, changing lenses was almost only possible in the car, so a no go for primes. I just downloaded the pictures to my computer, so a deeper evaluation has to wait, but from first looks the sharpness, contrast and color look great. It handled long exposures, northern lights, running horses and hand held landscapes just fine.

The 50mm lends itself due to size and weight more for light travel and places where you know what you want to shoot . No tripod, inconspicuous, considered fun. Together with the 23mm F2 they make a beautiful combo and weight together with the X-T1 only 200g more than the 16-55mm alone. The AF is IMO even a little bit faster than on the zoom, but not by much - both are more than sufficient for my needs. The IQ of the 50mm is beautiful. As with most primes, it has a little more character to its rendering than the zoom - probably a question of (micro-)contrast.

One last thing: if you mostly carry a backpack/shoulder bag, the weight difference isn’t very noticeable. If however you want to carry it mostly on a shoulder strap or in your hand the 450g make a ton of difference. Either of the X-Ts + 16-55 aren’t really heavy, but it’s a front heavy package, which means on the strap the camera doesn’t lean on your body with the LCD but tilts, making the experience less than optimal. The same thing goes for hand carrying - I barely notice my X-T1 with the prime, but after some time with the zoom my wrist gets tired…

Good luck with your decision,

Mike

Storare wrote:

georgehudetz wrote:

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.

My wife refuses to carry the camera

My wife refuses to even carry my sunglasses - forget the camera or an extra lens ;-).

Truman Prevatt wrote:

Storare wrote:

georgehudetz wrote:

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.

My wife refuses to carry the camera

My wife refuses to even carry my sunglasses - forget the camera or an extra lens ;-).

Mine too.  In fact, my wife dislikes stopping for lens swaps, which is one reason I like zooms.

georgehudetz wrote:

Truman Prevatt wrote:

Storare wrote:

georgehudetz wrote:

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.

My wife refuses to carry the camera

My wife refuses to even carry my sunglasses - forget the camera or an extra lens ;-).

Mine too. In fact, my wife dislikes stopping for lens swaps, which is one reason I like zooms.

Ditto. I travel quite a bit with my wife and it's a big reason I switched to zooms. You'll never adequately  explain to a non photographer why you need to stop to swap lenses all the time.

Ambulater wrote:

georgehudetz wrote:

Truman Prevatt wrote:

Storare wrote:

georgehudetz wrote:

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.

My wife refuses to carry the camera

My wife refuses to even carry my sunglasses - forget the camera or an extra lens ;-).

Mine too. In fact, my wife dislikes stopping for lens swaps, which is one reason I like zooms.

Ditto. I travel quite a bit with my wife and it's a big reason I switched to zooms. You'll never adequately explain to a non photographer why you need to stop to swap lenses all the time.

BTW, I should have said: the 16-55mm f/2.8 is now my main go-to lens. I absolutely love it.

georgehudetz wrote:

Truman Prevatt wrote:

Storare wrote:

georgehudetz wrote:

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.

My wife refuses to carry the camera

My wife refuses to even carry my sunglasses - forget the camera or an extra lens ;-).

Mine too. In fact, my wife dislikes stopping for lens swaps, which is one reason I like zooms.

My solution is to ditch the wife.  My camera time is my time.  She respects that.  I put up with her race horses - she puts up with my camera. But that doesn't mean she is going to let me put my sunglasses in her purse;-).  It has worked for 40 years so I guess it works.

Truman Prevatt wrote:

georgehudetz wrote:

Truman Prevatt wrote:

Storare wrote:

georgehudetz wrote:

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.

My wife refuses to carry the camera

My wife refuses to even carry my sunglasses - forget the camera or an extra lens ;-).

Mine too. In fact, my wife dislikes stopping for lens swaps, which is one reason I like zooms.

My solution is to ditch the wife. My camera time is my time. She respects that. I put up with her race horses - she puts up with my camera. But that doesn't mean she is going to let me put my sunglasses in her purse;-). It has worked for 40 years so I guess it works.

Yes, we do the same.

In that situation, I'm swapping from the 16-55 to the 10-24 or 50-140.