Sharp, but too bulky and heavy

Great optics throughout the entire zoom range. I gave it up since it is too large and heavy. I switched from Canon FF to Fuji X to reduce weight and this lens goes against that ethos.

Would be an excellent choice for those that prefer not to carry around a set of primes, but I personally am going for a more low-key look and this lens screams PHOTOG.

Aside from already having an 18-55 which I like, the size is the reason I've never bought the 16-55.

lasd wrote:

Great optics throughout the entire zoom range. I gave it up since it is too large and heavy. I switched from Canon FF to Fuji X to reduce weight and this lens goes against that ethos.

Would be an excellent choice for those that prefer not to carry around a set of primes, but I personally am going for a more low-key look and this lens screams PHOTOG.

No problem at all with your opinion and statements, nevertheless I dare to state:

- The lens may be "too large and heavy" for you (again, nothing wrong with that opinion), but phrasing it in an universal "valid" term doesn´t cut it for me. For me the lens is just fine!

- Also, it may for you go against the idea of reducing weight, but for others it may exactly do that compared to other gear (e.g. FF).

- Hmm, you honestly think this lens screams PHOTOG and other lenses don´t do so? From my point of view: Everybody who knows about photography gear will recognize valuable gear immediately, no matter how it looks. And not screaming PHOTOG is not just about how your gear looks but also how you behave while taking photos.

So the lens is not for you? No problem, that´s fine... we all are different, have different requirements, different opinions. And therefore there is a variety of gear we can select from... so everybody will find something that suits his needs.

Herbert

crowley213 wrote:

lasd wrote:

Great optics throughout the entire zoom range. I gave it up since it is too large and heavy. I switched from Canon FF to Fuji X to reduce weight and this lens goes against that ethos.

Would be an excellent choice for those that prefer not to carry around a set of primes, but I personally am going for a more low-key look and this lens screams PHOTOG.

No problem at all with your opinion and statements, nevertheless I dare to state:

- The lens may be "too large and heavy" for you (again, nothing wrong with that opinion), but phrasing it in an universal "valid" term doesn´t cut it for me. For me the lens is just fine!

- Also, it may for you go against the idea of reducing weight, but for others it may exactly do that compared to other gear (e.g. FF).

- Hmm, you honestly think this lens screams PHOTOG and other lenses don´t do so? From my point of view: Everybody who knows about photography gear will recognize valuable gear immediately, no matter how it looks. And not screaming PHOTOG is not just about how your gear looks but also how you behave while taking photos.

So the lens is not for you? No problem, that´s fine... we all are different, have different requirements, different opinions. And therefore there is a variety of gear we can select from... so everybody will find something that suits his needs.

Herbert

Herbert, thanks VERY much for saying exactly what I was thinking (and had almost decided to post) after reading all this. If lightweight is your priority, then there may be better choices. If optimum IQ and a fast zoom is perhaps a tad more important, you'll have a hard time doing better. I personally don't find the handling of that lens, particularly paired with the X-H1, to be a problem at all. Obviously YMMV.

I appreciate the discourse. I disagree that my statements are made as a universal valid conclusion. In my mind, any review is subjective by nature and therefore does not need to be qualified as such. Perhaps I'm not sensitive to the nuances of this community yet.

Regardless, I still think it's an excellent lens that I wish I could keep and I hope that comes across with my 4.5 rating.

okay, if you just got out of a serious car accident and you hurt your back and neck then I honestly can understand that but it is an exaggeration to say that it is “heavy”.  It is “heavier” than other smaller Fuji lenses but it is not heavy.

When I had the Nikon 17-55 2.8 on the D200 THAT was heavy 😁

i did rent this Fuji 16-55 recently and used it for five days eight hours straight and It was not a problem, with the injured back I have.

lasd wrote:

I appreciate the discourse. I disagree that my statements are made as a universal valid conclusion. In my mind, any review is subjective by nature and therefore does not need to be qualified as such. Perhaps I'm not sensitive to the nuances of this community yet.

Regardless, I still think it's an excellent lens that I wish I could keep and I hope that comes across with my 4.5 rating.

Since each of us has a valid opinion I can only address the 16-55 "too bulky and heavy" issue from my experience. Initially the 16-55 was a lens I didn't believe I would find suitable for me, after all I had a perfectly good 18-55, and some fine primes. Then I had an opportunity to buy a used 16-55 in great as new condition for $749. I figured I had nothing to lose, if it didn't work for me I could always sell it.

It has turned out to be my day to day working lens on my X-T3, and while it certainly adds weight, and bulk to that camera, and I don't see using it on my X-E3 due to obvious balance issues. At this point I just don't see giving up on it when paired with my X-T3.

If I need compact, and not so bulky I go to my X-E3, the 18-55, and a variety of not so bulky primes.

I tried it .... same conclusions. Heavy for me but awesome, sharp etc.

Again my conclusions: Fuji works for "me" due to light weight, better SOOC and razor sharp primes shot wide open (family portraits and events).

For someone used to Canikon 24-70/2,8 its not a big deal.

I think your H1+16-55 is around 1300g excluding the grip. Include the grip with 2 batteries (to get performance). The price/performance on the combo is unbeatable IMO ..... but you get a little extra heft in return

Now lets check some mirrorless options:

Nikon Z 600g, 24-70/4: 500g

Sony A7III/A7Riii 675g, 24-70/4 435g (granted the GM lenses are much heavier but they are FF f/2.8 (900+g)

All the above combos are more expensive given the sale prices of the Fuji combo. Personally - I was torn and cancelled the H1+16-55 order. I will be happy with my T30 (maybe pick up a T3 for better EVF) and 18-55 and might replace the 18-55 with a 16-80.

I guess if you are used to carrying a D4 or a D850 its not heavy but from my vantage point of a T30+18-55 it was heavy I got into Fuji for compact lightweight and awesome optics.

I like Fuji, but their professional zooms are sometimes as heavy or heavier than their FF equivalents. I think it's fair to criticize the weight of something that's heavier than the competition. This is a review after all. I see where you are coming from with saying that OP shouldn't buy a professional zoom if he doesn't want the weight, though.

All of these are examples of fuji lenses weighing more than their FF counterparts, which should be larger.

The 100-400 weighs the same as sony's GM 100-400 with the same aperture range.

The 50-140 weighs much more than the canon 70-200 f/4.

The 16-55 weighs more than the nikon 24-70 f/4.

I just pulled these particular lenses off of what I know. I'm sure there are many more that Fuji is heavier than.

Screams PHOTOG?! What does that mean?! Yes, your opinion is your opinion and I respect that and sure, your appreciation for the lens sort of comes across in your ratings. But, I think I don’t understand your point with the lens screaming anything...for that matter. Care to elaborate the point you are trying to make?

For the record, it is the only lens I use and in every situation I can think of, it doesn’t scream anything.

lasd wrote:

I appreciate the discourse. I disagree that my statements are made as a universal valid conclusion. In my mind, any review is subjective by nature and therefore does not need to be qualified as such. Perhaps I'm not sensitive to the nuances of this community yet.

Regardless, I still think it's an excellent lens that I wish I could keep and I hope that comes across with my 4.5 rating.

Again, nothing wrong with your opinion and statements in general, but...

- your statement (I referred to one of your statements as universal valid) may not be intended as such but may be read as such, especially from people who are still unsure about the lens

- this particular lens has quite a “controversial history” of discussions, also in this forum (called the brick, for example), which at least in my personal opinion is not doing justice to this really fine and versatile lens.

Yes, some people may be more sensitive to such wordings than others, but I also do not see a problem to (at least try) phrase things as clear as possible.

Herbert

decaf14 wrote:

I like Fuji, but their professional zooms are sometimes as heavy or heavier than their FF equivalents. I think it's fair to criticize the weight of something that's heavier than the competition. This is a review after all. I see where you are coming from with saying that OP shouldn't buy a professional zoom if he doesn't want the weight, though.

All of these are examples of fuji lenses weighing more than their FF counterparts, which should be larger.

The 100-400 weighs the same as sony's GM 100-400 with the same aperture range.

The 50-140 weighs much more than the canon 70-200 f/4.

The 16-55 weighs more than the nikon 24-70 f/4.

I just pulled these particular lenses off of what I know. I'm sure there are many more that Fuji is heavier than.

Apples and oranges. All these Fuji lenses are constant f/2.8's. The Sony is f/4-5.6 and the others are F/4's. Of course the F/2.8's will be bigger........ Just saying.

Marc

The versatility & quality of this lens are excellent, so this thing is almost always on my camera.

I can see it’s softer at 55mm, and at 16mm the distortion noticeably rounds people’s faces.  So I compliment this zoom with the 90f2 & 14f2.8 primes for when I want perfection.

Sunstars & flare mitigation are awesome with this lens.

The fuji 100-400 is not a constant f2.8. It goes to 5.6 as does the sony. The sony is just as light despite being full frame.

The full frame lenses collect the same light while being lighter and having the DR advantage that FF gives.

Again, not trying to bash Fuji. A little competition between brands will only benefit us, the end user.

Christian Scarlet wrote:

crowley213 wrote:

lasd wrote:

Great optics throughout the entire zoom range. I gave it up since it is too large and heavy. I switched from Canon FF to Fuji X to reduce weight and this lens goes against that ethos.

Would be an excellent choice for those that prefer not to carry around a set of primes, but I personally am going for a more low-key look and this lens screams PHOTOG.

No problem at all with your opinion and statements, nevertheless I dare to state:

- The lens may be "too large and heavy" for you (again, nothing wrong with that opinion), but phrasing it in an universal "valid" term doesn´t cut it for me. For me the lens is just fine!

- Also, it may for you go against the idea of reducing weight, but for others it may exactly do that compared to other gear (e.g. FF).

- Hmm, you honestly think this lens screams PHOTOG and other lenses don´t do so? From my point of view: Everybody who knows about photography gear will recognize valuable gear immediately, no matter how it looks. And not screaming PHOTOG is not just about how your gear looks but also how you behave while taking photos.

So the lens is not for you? No problem, that´s fine... we all are different, have different requirements, different opinions. And therefore there is a variety of gear we can select from... so everybody will find something that suits his needs.

Herbert

I think EVERYONE gets that was his personal review based on HIS requirements.

Perhaps I am somewhere in the middle?

I first demo'd the lens with my X-E3 and X-T10. Did not find it worked very well on those bodies. So I returned it. But then I bought an X-T3 and began to notice that many of my favourite pictures from last fall were from the brief time with the 16-55... so I bought a used copy and am very happy with it on my X-T3. As with others, it's on my camera for most of my pictures now.

And, I understand the comment, "screamed PHOTOG". From personal experience...

-One extreme I have is my X-E3 with 15-45 -it can almost pass as a compact camera, and you will often not get noticed.

-In the middle is my X-T10 with the 18-55 -now you will get noticed more and I think it starts to look like a "serious camera", but in a crowd of tourists you will blend in with the cheap DSLR crowd.

-But, with the X-T3 and 16-55, you will definitely get noticed more. Even in the tourist crowd you start to stand out as one of the "serious photographers". I've had a number of people photos where I've gotten the hairy eyeball. I just own it; so I'm a serious photog, so what? I do take it seriously, even if I often feel that there are so many better Fuji photographers on this forum...

So, I do sympathize with the OP. A careful reading of his original language would strongly suggest that he was expressing his opinion and not intended as sweeping comments ("I gave it up" and "I switched... to reduce weight..."). I honestly think the backlash was a bit over exuberant

As for my opinion? I did not like it on the smaller bodies but it balances fine on the X-T3. It does start to go against the small and light ideals, so I see how some would not like it. But, for me, I just cannot get past the fact that I get noticeably better quality photos with it on. I guess I'm a zoom guy, and it's the best one I've used so far.

A big part of why something feels bulky and heavy is how it is carried.

I use a cheap harness that goes around my back sort of like a backpack.  When the camera is not in use, it's not in my hands feeling heavy.  I can wear this all day, no problem.  So that's the case when it's NOT in use.

When it IS in use, it's on my X-H1.  With the bigger hand-grip.  It feels much better on the X-H1 than it does on my X-T2.  So again, it matters how it's carried.

I don't mind if it somehow signals that I'm a photographer.  There are very few situations where that is some sort of debilitating factor.   Like VERY few.

Maybe for candid street?  But if that's the case my X-T10 and 18-55 is pretty noticeable too.

Hell, EVERY Fuji is noticeable because--newsflash--the X100 series is not that small either!

I'm not sure if the OP gave it a good chance but (at least for me) the 16-55 needs some time to grow on you.  Now, it's my number 1 go-to lens.  I can take it into nearly any shooting situation and know that it will give me very nice results.