Sharp, but too bulky and heavy

Truman Prevatt wrote:

There is a reason it is called "the Brick." It is about the same wait as a brick. A lot of people turned to Fuji because the didn't want to have to hire a Sherpa or rent a pack mule or be a pack mule to carry their camera kit. I am one of those.

LOL... exaggerate much, Truman? I function well as my own “pack mule” and really have no issues whatsoever carrying around that “brick” along with my X-H1 (at times even accompanied by my 100-400). However, it totally get the fact that street photographers and others who highly value size, stealth, and portability might find it a bit over the top. It’s nice to have choices and I find having a single (albeit a bit heavier) zoom with near prime quality across its range is by far and away a superior solution to hauling around a few primes and swapping lenses periodically. But, to be clear, this is absolutely a matter of personal preference. I’ve favored high quality zooms for years now and tend to employ primes more for specialty use. I will stick by my assertion that the weight of “The Brick” (no thanks to The Greg, who gave it that name) is a bit overplayed here... but again, we’re in the realm of personal preference, and there’s no right or wrong in that context.

Bottom line: for me, the prime level IQ across the 16-55’s focal length range and the convenience of having that in a single lens far outweighs (so to speak) the disadvantage of it’s weight. Another YMMV issue.

jaberg wrote:

Truman Prevatt wrote:

There is a reason it is called "the Brick." It is about the same wait as a brick. A lot of people turned to Fuji because the didn't want to have to hire a Sherpa or rent a pack mule or be a pack mule to carry their camera kit. I am one of those.

And a lot of us came for the image quality and direct controls. I am one of those.

Nice that Fuji makes lenses to suit all types.

Direct controls I agree but IQ - oh come on a 24 to 70 on a high end FF probably gives you a better IQ.  I agree that it is nice that Fuji gives options.  But I did not give this lens the name "the Brick."  It was well established when I got my Pro2 and logged onto this list.  When I look at the specs I get the reason it is called the brick - well it is a brick.  A FF 24-70 f4 is going to be lighter than the Brick.  For example the Nikon Z 24-70 f4 goes for 500 g. The Brick goes for 655 g.  That is the Brick weighs 30% more than it's FF equivalent  and is actually a little slower.

Glad you like it.  If I wanted to use a normal zoom - I would not be using Fuji.  I would stuck with Nikon.  But that's just me.  If you like the Brick - fine by me.

Truman Prevatt wrote:

jaberg wrote:

Truman Prevatt wrote:

There is a reason it is called "the Brick." It is about the same wait as a brick. A lot of people turned to Fuji because the didn't want to have to hire a Sherpa or rent a pack mule or be a pack mule to carry their camera kit. I am one of those.

And a lot of us came for the image quality and direct controls. I am one of those.

Nice that Fuji makes lenses to suit all types.

Direct controls I agree but IQ - oh come on a 24 to 70 on a high end FF probably gives you a better IQ. I agree that it is nice that Fuji gives options. But I did not give this lens the name "the Brick." It was well established when I got my Pro2 and logged onto this list. When I look at the specs I get the reason it is called the brick - well it is a brick. A FF 24-70 f4 is going to be lighter than the Brick. For example the Nikon Z 24-70 f4 goes for 500 g. The Brick goes for 655 g. That is the Brick weighs 30% more than it's FF equivalent and is actually a little slower.

Glad you like it. If I wanted to use a normal zoom - I would not be using Fuji. I would stuck with Nikon. But that's just me. If you like the Brick - fine by me.

Why do you say the Fuji 16-55 f 2.8 is slower than the Nikon 24-70 f4?

Then the solution is to carry 3 small XF primes 16 23 and 50mm  

notchy wrote:

basleigh wrote:

Exactly....Fujifilm more interested in their GFX range in 5 years after Sony Canon Nikon take FF to the next level. APS-C squeezed out. The wagons are circling.

It's obviously true that Fujifilm are devoting significant resources to the GFX range, but given the continuing releases of X Series cameras, lenses and firmware fixes (if not, debatably, quite the same commitment to kaizen), it seems far-fetched to state that the X Series is being neglected.

As for circling wagons, got any data to support that assertion? Evidence of the senses and anecdotal evidence suggests that (here in the UK at least) the X Series is selling extremely well. It seems to me that far from being squeezed out, Fujifilm has spent most of the last decade muscling its way in.

Yep and hobbyist like me won't pay more than 2k $ on a camera body + extra weight and size, when I switched back from the Z6 to x-t3 ,I couldn't believe how much I was happy to get these 135grm less! So no , if Fuji think we will get GFX cameras instead of apsc they are very wrong. Only Pro photographers who really need the extra MP and DR and have the $$ will do it. Don't believe the angry photographer, he got his gfx cameras for free.

What was making me perplex about Fuji vision on apsc is the answer a Fuji manager gave to ''fujirumors'' website, that they won't make an X-H2 before a ''leap in technology'' meaning new apsc sensor, apparently the IMX510 32mp sensor was deceiving for Fuji and they are waiting for another sensor. So it will take a long time before they release an x-H2 or X-T5, because you have also to count months of adapting and prototyping the new camera once the new sensor is out. Add to that the other answer saying that they are not planning to do another Mk II , the 27mm and 10-24mm are the only ones. The 18 f1.4 though could be a bomb if it will be a refined Mighty 16 in a 18mm cloth, I am waiting for this lens to see if it will replace my Mighty 16

vegetaleb wrote:

Yep and hobbyist like me won't pay more than 2k $ on a camera body + extra weight and size, when I switched back from the Z6 to x-t3 ,I couldn't believe how much I was happy to get these 135grm less! So no , if Fuji think we will get GFX cameras instead of apsc they are very wrong. Only Pro photographers who really need the extra MP and DR and have the $$ will do it. Don't believe the angry photographer, he got his gfx cameras for free.

What was making me perplex about Fuji vision on apsc is the answer a Fuji manager gave to ''fujirumors'' website, that they won't make an X-H2 before a ''leap in technology'' meaning new apsc sensor, apparently the IMX510 32mp sensor was deceiving for Fuji and they are waiting for another sensor. So it will take a long time before they release an x-H2 or X-T5, because you have also to count months of adapting and prototyping the new camera once the new sensor is out. Add to that the other answer saying that they are not planning to do another Mk II , the 27mm and 10-24mm are the only ones. The 18 f1.4 though could be a bomb if it will be a refined Mighty 16 in a 18mm cloth, I am waiting for this lens to see if it will replace my Mighty 16

So, I think your statement about the significant time required to develop, test, and bring a new sensor to market is quite accurate. It certainly doesn't happen overnight. However, what neither you, nor anyone else here, would have is any visibility whatsoever on Fujifilm's development pipeline and timing, beyond what they are prepared to discuss. We can speculate here until the cows come home, but I think I can safely say that no one participating in this (or any) thread here really knows where that development effort is in that pipeline nor can they accurately estimate when it might actually hit the market. Assuming that sensor development (or any such R&D effort for that matter) is strictly a serial process is also quite likely a bad assumption.

So bottom line: without really knowing the details of where they are in the development process, and their priorities, no one here can estimate, with any degree of accuracy, when products based on a new sensor will actually "hit the streets." So, you can interpret the Fujifilm manager's feedback any way you wish, but I think trying to draw a conclusion such as yours is simply guesswork, and IMHO, not supportable with what little information we currently have. So, as one of those [not so] patiently awaiting a successor to my X-H1, I will continue to hold out some hope that we'll see something next year... likely well into the year I would guess. But, again, I'll emphasize the word "guess" here. And, honestly, my current camera continues to serve me well, so in the meantime, so I simply have no intention of stressing over this. I'll just keep my popcorn supply well stocked for all the speculation and guesswork here in the forum.

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.

To each their own. I don’t walk around town with the 16-55 mounted on my camera, it isn’t a street lens by any means. It needs a tripod. Excellent landscape lens.

Pan50 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.

To each their own. I don’t walk around town with the 16-55 mounted on my camera, it isn’t a street lens by any means. It needs a tripod. Excellent landscape lens.

You need a tripod if the 16-55 is on your camera? What, do you exclusively used low ISO and/or low shutter speeds? Unsteady hands?

Jerry-astro wrote:

Bottom line: for me, the prime level IQ across the 16-55’s focal length range and the convenience of having that in a single lens far outweighs (so to speak) the disadvantage of it’s weight. Another YMMV issue.

I agree. As one late to the 16-55 party (December 2019) and having used a 18-55 for most of my images, I do not find its added weigh or bulk material. Yes, it is of course a bit heavier, but with a reasonable strap and carrying method (I use a Peak Design Lite and carry it over a shoulder Sam Browne style) it is perfectly manageable on hikes. The convenience when walking with the family of getting the shot without stopping to change a lens is, for me, worth it.

What is great is that we have choices of zooms and primes, so each us of can be happy teddies.

Pan50 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.

To each their own. I don’t walk around town with the 16-55 mounted on my camera, it isn’t a street lens by any means. It needs a tripod. Excellent landscape lens.

That is strange, I seem to managed handling my X-T3 + 16-55 just fine without needing a tripod.

...and I agree, it is an excellent landscape lens. I also find it to be a great general purpose, workhorse, walk around lens.

Pan50 wrote:

To each their own. I don’t walk around town with the 16-55 mounted on my camera, it isn’t a street lens by any means. It needs a tripod. Excellent landscape lens.

Like others, I really have to disagree with your tripod comment. I shoot far more often without than with a tripod using that lens, and it’s plenty fast enough to yield perfectly reasonable shutter speeds for handheld use in decent light. It’s not a “stealth” lens, so perhaps not the best choice for street photography. However, the vast majority of the times I use it, it’s handheld, and it’s fast enough to yield manageable shutter speeds (particularly with the help of IBIS) even in somewhat diminished light. And yes, it definitely is an excellent landscape lens, but far from being only usable for that purpose.

Pan50 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.

To each their own. I don’t walk around town with the 16-55 mounted on my camera, it isn’t a street lens by any means. It needs a tripod. Excellent landscape lens.

Oh man - don your flame retardant undies.     You will hear all sorts of responses. But most will respond with out reading your "isn't a street lens" which means the ability to shoot in low light rapidly with a fast lens.  It is a fine lens for a zoom and zooms are slow.  This lens is two stops slower than the 35 f1.4 23 f1.4 and 56 f1.2.  It is stop slower than the the 50 f2.  It is also the size of an elephant's leg and weights about as much so street - not really particularly in marginal light or indoors.

But on the other hand I've never seen any street photographer use a tripod.  On the other hand for landscape a dawn or dusk - a tripod would be recommended I suspect.

It is one of Fuji's top general purpose zoom lenses, the 50-140 being the second.  It is a normal range zoom which I personally find about the most ridiculous concept I can think of and have no use for but other people just love the concept so much that Fuji has not one but two options.

So while I agree with you - a lot of others won't.  As far as landscape - the only true good land scape lens is a tilt-shift lens and Fuji doesn't make one of those.  So for a fixed lens axis this zoom it is as good as any Fuji.

Truman Prevatt wrote:

Pan50 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.

To each their own. I don’t walk around town with the 16-55 mounted on my camera, it isn’t a street lens by any means. It needs a tripod. Excellent landscape lens.

But on the other hand I've never seen any street photographer use a tripod. On the other hand for landscape a dawn or dusk - a tripod would be recommended I suspect.

It only needs a tripod in certain conditions, or chasing absolute perfection in certain scenes, or if one's holding and breathing technique is poor and one cannot hold it steady to get a sharp image above say (on a non-IBIS body for the 16-55) 1/25sec at 16mm and 1/80sec at 55mm. But these scenarios apply to any lens.

It is one of Fuji's top general purpose zoom lenses, the 50-140 being the second. It is a normal range zoom which I personally find about the most ridiculous concept I can think of and have no use for but other people just love the concept so much that Fuji has not one but two options.

Is it ridiculous to have a requirement for flexibility and convenience when using oft used focal lengths?  When photography plays second fiddle to another activity and one shoots anywhere from mild wide to mild tele focal lengths, then is such flexibility, which is also able to deliver great images, ridiculous?

The activities where I appreciate both the flexibility of focal length, good IQ and the convenience of a zoom include, for example: walking and hiking with family and friends (they do not appreciate the father photographer stopping often to change the lens); days out with families; at sports events where the distance from oneself to the action various quickly (school sports for example, children on ponies, etc); when on holiday with the family; and even visiting cities on breaks where I want to take one lens.

Yes, in all these scenarios I could get better IQ with similar primes from mild wide (I also have the 16/2.8 (and the 23/2)) to mild tele (and the 50/2) focal lengths, but I would lose the flexibility and convenience, not to mention the patience of my family.

So while I agree with you - a lot of others won't.

I don't. I suspect that the number of high quality zooms lenses in this broad focal range across the brands indicates that there is both a desire for this type of lens and a market for it. I am fortunate to have both the 16-55 and a suite of primes, but for my circumstances were I forced to go down one route it would undoubtedly be the zoom route (if all my photography was conducted solo then I might reverse that choice.) My zoom gets far more use than my primes.

Fortunately, we have choices, choices to be celebrated rather than knocked.

jhorse wrote:

Truman Prevatt wrote:

Pan50 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.

To each their own. I don’t walk around town with the 16-55 mounted on my camera, it isn’t a street lens by any means. It needs a tripod. Excellent landscape lens.

But on the other hand I've never seen any street photographer use a tripod. On the other hand for landscape a dawn or dusk - a tripod would be recommended I suspect.

It only needs a tripod in certain conditions, or chasing absolute perfection in certain scenes, or if one's holding and breathing technique is poor and one cannot hold it steady to get a sharp image above say (on a non-IBIS body for the 16-55) 1/25sec at 16mm and 1/80sec at 55mm. But these scenarios apply to any lens.

It is one of Fuji's top general purpose zoom lenses, the 50-140 being the second. It is a normal range zoom which I personally find about the most ridiculous concept I can think of and have no use for but other people just love the concept so much that Fuji has not one but two options.

Is it ridiculous to have a requirement for flexibility and convenience when using oft used focal lengths? When photography plays second fiddle to another activity and one shoots anywhere from mild wide to mild tele focal lengths, then is such flexibility, which is also able to deliver great images, ridiculous?

The activities where I appreciate both the flexibility of focal length, good IQ and the convenience of a zoom include, for example: walking and hiking with family and friends (they do not appreciate the father photographer stopping often to change the lens); days out with families; at sports events where the distance from oneself to the action various quickly (school sports for example, children on ponies, etc); when on holiday with the family; and even visiting cities on breaks where I want to take one lens.

Yes, in all these scenarios I could get better IQ with similar primes from mild wide (I also have the 16/2.8 (and the 23/2)) to mild tele (and the 50/2) focal lengths, but I would lose the flexibility and convenience, not to mention the patience of my family.

So while I agree with you - a lot of others won't.

I don't. I suspect that the number of high quality zooms lenses in this broad focal range across the brands indicates that there is both a desire for this type of lens and a market for it. I am fortunate to have both the 16-55 and a suite of primes, but for my circumstances were I forced to go down one route it would undoubtedly be the zoom route (if all my photography was conducted solo then I might reverse that choice.) My zoom gets far more use than my primes.

Fortunately, we have choices, choices to be celebrated rather than knocked.

The truth is that for most types of shots the skills of the photographer are much more important than the IQ of the lens. Understanding light, composition, avoidance of extraneous objects or busy backgrounds, time of day shooting and how shadows play into it are what allow a photographer to maximize number of keepers. I can produce some pretty good shots with my 18-55 mm kit lens and therefore it’s on my camera a lot because it is versatile and light.

sunsets ahumboldt county.

Len-O wrote:

Meetmer wrote:

Len-O wrote:

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.

What was it that you liked better about the 16-55 compared to the 18-55 and why did you feel it was worth the weight trade off?

Start with the lens features, and construction, the constant aperture f/2.8, and WR. Then there is the undeniable image quality results in any comparison between the 16-55 and the 18-55. The lack of OIS in the 16-55 has never been an issue, but without IOS the 18-55 would be a mediocre lens

As I said earlier I was quite happy with the 18-55, but I could never understand why the 16-55 got such praise, until I got a copy to use for myself. The IQ of the 16-55 is an eye opening revelation.

I can understand how those are all potentially useful features, but I would wonder how easy it would be to differentiate between the output of both lenses shooting landscape at F8. Granted if you want F2.8 at 55 mm because you have a person as the subject then the 16-55 would work better, but for most other shots I find the 18-55 more than good but also very light. I think the absence of OIS on that 16-55 is a deal breaker for me, otherwise I might have bought one by now.

BTW: I seem to have ignored the big lens on the X-E3 issue, as I find myself using the 16mm f/1.4 on my X-E3 more, and more. Again the characteristics , and image quality delivered by the lens overrides any balance issue. so much so that I haven't used the 18-55 on any of my Fuji cameras in over a year.