Fuji 16-55mm f2.8 (at 16mm/f2.8) vs 16mm f2.8 prime lens

Hi everyone!

I'm new here, but have over the years used this lively forum as a source of insight, expertise and wonderful sample images. Happy to meet you all.

I'm new to the X-mount system, but my first APS-C camera was a Fuji X100 (the original)—beautiful camera. Used it for 8 years!

My wife gave birth to our first child a few months ago and it was time for an upgrade—so far I've gotten the amazing X-T2, the 23mm f2 and the 35mm f2 (two of the famed "Fujicrons"). Right now, I am looking to get either a wide lens or a zoom.

As I'm on a budget, was wondering if the Fuji 16-55mm f2.8 at 16mm/f2.8 is identical to the 16mm f2.8 prime lens? Is there a material difference in output?

Any greater advantage to getting one or the other (given my current stable of lenses)?

Thank you all in advance for your infinite wisdom and advice!

Best, Larry

Hi,

Congratulations!

In your case I would definitely get the zoom. I think at 16mm it is at least as good as the 16/2.8 but more important it is has very fast AF and it is a zoom. With a small kid you don't want to switch lenses. You want to focus on your kid.

With the 16-55 you can go from wide to tele with one quick turn. 55/2.8 allows for some subject isolation.

chopsteeks wrote:

Get the 16-55mm, you will not be disappointed.

I have both lenses and they are both excellent, but the 16-55 is much more versatile, so for your stated use-case, it is the clear winner.

The 16/2.8 is what I turn to when either I am hiking, or I want to constrain myself a little bit (usually by taking just this and the 50/2), as I think this helps a bit with creativity.

If you are on a budget get the 18-55 (or even the 15-45).  OIS will be a big bonus for child snapshots.  Both review well though there are reports of some 18-55s not being optically good so if you do get one give it a good test before you use it.

"on a budget" doesn't play well with advice on here.

a_c_skinner wrote:

OIS will be a big bonus for child snapshots.

Only for a stationary child, which is not usually the case once they discover their legs

IMO, it does not make sense to get a zoom that already covers the focal range of your two 23 and 35mm lenses. Aperture from F/2.8 to F/2 is not a big difference.

Taking that point children are sometimes still when awake and moving targets bring their own problems of focussing.

Why get the zoom when you already have the 23 and 35? Go for the 16/2.8. Perhaps you can upgrade to the 16/1.4 later on.

.lars

The 16-55 is preferable to the 16 f/2.8 in every way except for size and weight, fortunately your wallet will be lighter to make up for it. It is an outstanding performer at 16mm, even wide open.

LarsRost wrote:

Why get the zoom when you already have the 23 and 35? Go for the 16/2.8. Perhaps you can upgrade to the 16/1.4 later on.

.lars

Just guessing here as OP didn't specify, but as he's on a budget I reckon it'll be a case of selling the primes to get the zoom.

I don't get this 'too heavy' thing re the 16-55, it's a lot lighter than a 24-70 2.8 for full frame for one and we don't see the 1000s that use those complain.  It's only heavy in comparison to individual primes, but the fact is it's no heavier than having 3-4 small primes in your bag.

I replaced a couple of primes with the 16-55 a while back, I was itching for the 16 1.4 too but can't have it all! I opted for the versatility and it's been excellent for family day trips and general shooting.  I haven't missed having a prime at all [had a 35F2 and a 50mm] - I also considered just adding the 16 2.8 but from what I've seen around, the 16-55 is sharper at 16 2.8 than the prime, it's certainly a lot sharper when close focusing.  Even the 35 F2 is soft between F2 and 2.8 when you close focus, it needs stopping down.  The only advantage of primes is when you're actually using one at a time of course they are lighter, but then you're switching lenses and missing moments far too often with a baby.

If you can get the right price for your primes you won't be sorry with the zoom, it's a phenomenal lens.

Cagey75 wrote:

LarsRost wrote:

Why get the zoom when you already have the 23 and 35? Go for the 16/2.8. Perhaps you can upgrade to the 16/1.4 later on.

.lars

Just guessing here as OP didn't specify, but as he's on a budget I reckon it'll be a case of selling the primes to get the zoom.

I don't get this 'too heavy' thing re the 16-55, it's a lot lighter than a 24-70 2.8 for full frame for one and we don't see the 1000s that use those complain. It's only heavy in comparison to individual primes, but the fact is it's no heavier than having 3-4 small primes in your bag.

I replaced a couple of primes with the 16-55 a while back, I was itching for the 16 1.4 too but can't have it all! I opted for the versatility and it's been excellent for family day trips and general shooting. I haven't missed having a prime at all [had a 35F2 and a 50mm] - I also considered just adding the 16 2.8 but from what I've seen around, the 16-55 is sharper at 16 2.8 than the prime, it's certainly a lot sharper when close focusing. Even the 35 F2 is soft between F2 and 2.8 when you close focus, it needs stopping down. The only advantage of primes is when you're actually using one at a time of course they are lighter, but then you're switching lenses and missing moments far too often with a baby.

If you can get the right price for your primes you won't be sorry with the zoom, it's a phenomenal lens.

Agreed. I resisted getting the 16-55 for a while, just like I did with the Nikon 24-70, but reality is these are cracking lenses, aimed at pros because they are very, very good at getting the job done with great results in all sorts of challenging situations.

One of the beauties of the X system is flexibility - last week I was shooting with a gripped X-T2 and 16-55/50-140, which is not a light setup. This week I have ditched the grip and will just take the 16 & 50. It's like a different camera, more suited to the circumstances.