Benefits of a zoom 16-55

[Leebristol33]

Just bought the 16-55. I’ve been shooting with primes and convinced myself that this was the way to go. Clearly there are advantages but using the 16-55 over the last week I’ve began to appreciate the convenience of a decent standard zoom. Plus I really like this lens. I know it’s big, but it balances well on the XT3 and has a bit of an X factor in terms of image quality and also useability IMHO. I did have the 18-55 and I know this is a good lens but TBH I was never motivated to shoot with it.



Any views?

 

[Nielk Mike]

Just bought the 16-55. I’ve been shooting with primes and convinced myself that this was the way to go. Clearly there are advantages but using the 16-55 over the last week I’ve began to appreciate the convenience of a decent standard zoom. Plus I really like this lens. I know it’s big, but it balances well on the XT3 and has a bit of an X factor in terms of image quality and also useability IMHO. I did have the 18-55 and I know this is a good lens but TBH I was never motivated to shoot with it.

Any views?

Zoom or primes - does it reall matter?

The 1655 is a great lens. But it is big and for somehow takes away the appeal of the x-system. Certainly using the smaller cameras like the X-E3. But even on the X-T3. There is onbe zoom that I use a lot - on teh Sony a7c. It is the Tamron 18200. It is also big, but light and quite good. It is my go to lens for travel and walks in nature.

There is no zoom with that range and speed and quality for Fuji (yet). The 1855 as well as thr 1655 have a limited zoom range. While I spend most of my life in photography with a 2470 zoom on my cameras, I am now at a stage where I value the small size and extra f-stop. I have two X-E3s and the 16f2.8 is on one, the 50f2 on the other. Some times I take the X-E1, too, with the 27f2.8. No need to change lenses, alwas small sand unobstrusive footprint.

Whatever you feel good with. That is the most important part of taking good pictures.

 

[JeffryZ]

Just bought the 16-55. I’ve been shooting with primes and convinced myself that this was the way to go. Clearly there are advantages but using the 16-55 over the last week I’ve began to appreciate the convenience of a decent standard zoom. Plus I really like this lens. I know it’s big, but it balances well on the XT3 and has a bit of an X factor in terms of image quality and also useability IMHO. I did have the 18-55 and I know this is a good lens but TBH I was never motivated to shoot with it.

Any views?

I completely agree. Zooms have had a bad name- that was valid in the past because while they offered convenience of not having to change a lens, the image quality was not up to that of a single focal length lens. But zooms have come a long way and can now compete very well. The 16-55mm has amazing quality. Weight is a relative thing- if you are coming from a DSLR with a comparable zoom lens, it is lighter and easier to handle. If you are used to the smaller Fuji prime lenses, yes it is heavier and bigger. Toss three prime lenses into a bag to cover the range of this one lens and without checking, you are probably not saving much if any weight and add the requirement of changing the lens every time you want a different focal length- with the zoom you can immediately respond to the changing situation and not miss any shots. Loving the 16-55mm f/2.8 on my Fuji X-T4. Previously was using Nikon D500 with Sigma Art 18- 35mm f/1.8 lens. That camera will now mostly be my sports/ animals (zoo) camera with its 200- 500mm f/5.6 lens.

 

[Barbarus]

It's tiny, compared to a reasonable collection of comparable primes.

--
Du jour en jour, en apprenant, mourant.

 

[Morris0]

When it comes to shooting portraits I like to use fast primes (on 2 bodies) for the bokeh and subject isolation. For most other subjects I prefer a zoom for the convince

Morris

 

[Jerry-astro]

Just bought the 16-55. I’ve been shooting with primes and convinced myself that this was the way to go. Clearly there are advantages but using the 16-55 over the last week I’ve began to appreciate the convenience of a decent standard zoom. Plus I really like this lens. I know it’s big, but it balances well on the XT3 and has a bit of an X factor in terms of image quality and also useability IMHO. I did have the 18-55 and I know this is a good lens but TBH I was never motivated to shoot with it.

Any views?

My most frequenty used lens, particularly when traveling. Fast enough for most of my needs (and a prime or two to accompany it (or a longer lens if needed) when deeper DOF or other uses makes for a great combo).

 

[GossCTP]

It pairs well with the X-H1. Sharpness, rendering and flare resistance are really good. It's biggest weakness (like many x lenses I've read) is distortion. I was rather surprised that at 16mm it has double the barrel distortion of the Pentax 16-85 (my walk around zoom for that system.)

Since the body does mandatory distortion correction for jpegs, it shows as small unsharp areas a bit inside the 4 corners at the wider end. Rarely an issue, but still disappointing for a lens that would otherwise seem to be built without compromise.

 

[brownie314]

Just bought the 16-55. I’ve been shooting with primes and convinced myself that this was the way to go. Clearly there are advantages but using the 16-55 over the last week I’ve began to appreciate the convenience of a decent standard zoom. Plus I really like this lens. I know it’s big, but it balances well on the XT3 and has a bit of an X factor in terms of image quality and also useability IMHO. I did have the 18-55 and I know this is a good lens but TBH I was never motivated to shoot with it.

Any views?

What is to argue with? Does anyone disagree with the usefulness of a zoom lens?

 

[Oregon Dawg]

My most frequenty used lens, particularly when traveling. Fast enough for most of my needs (and a prime or two to accompany it (or a longer lens if needed) when deeper DOF or other uses makes for a great combo).

I like the notion of a zoom paired with a prime. That covers a lot of bases. I think that would be a nice set up for travel.

I'd personally opt for the 16-80mm for travel. If the idea is to not have your bag bottom out with a bunch of primes, then the 16-55 is a great solution.

 

[lewiedude2]

It's tiny, compared to a reasonable collection of comparable primes.

It’s also tiny compared to the 24-70 gmaster. I still don’t understand the size ‘issue׳…

 

[Raymond L]

Just bought the 16-55. I’ve been shooting with primes and convinced myself that this was the way to go. Clearly there are advantages but using the 16-55 over the last week I’ve began to appreciate the convenience of a decent standard zoom. Plus I really like this lens. I know it’s big, but it balances well on the XT3 and has a bit of an X factor in terms of image quality and also useability IMHO. I did have the 18-55 and I know this is a good lens but TBH I was never motivated to shoot with it.

Any views?

I used to be a prime snob, but when I started learning photography and composition it changed my perspective (beyond the gear).

The one video that changed my perception was from Scott Kelby talking about composition. The element that I loved the most was the raw insights on how he struggles with working a scene, but with patience / determination of working and problem solving... You can end up with a very good image.

video - https://takhtesefid.org/watch?v=950789213887 (at 13:00 onwards)

How does it relate to this thread ? if you are technically competent and work the scene it doesn't matter what you use. But I often get confused with zooms.. So many focal lengths what should I start with... I have found start the composition at 35mm and work it from there ... Unsure about others.. If they have this 'problem'.

 

[Erik Baumgartner]

It pairs well with the X-H1. Sharpness, rendering and flare resistance are really good. It's biggest weakness (like many x lenses I've read) is distortion. I was rather surprised that at 16mm it has double the barrel distortion of the Pentax 16-85 (my walk around zoom for that system.)

Since the body does mandatory distortion correction for jpegs, it shows as small unsharp areas a bit inside the 4 corners at the wider end. Rarely an issue, but still disappointing for a lens that would otherwise seem to be built without compromise.

Despite the electronic correction, my 16-55 is at least as good or better in the corners at the wide end than were two very good copies of the 16mm f/1.4 primes I've had.

Within DOF limits, it's quite good in the corners, even wide open at f/2.8.




16-55 at 16mm, f/2.8

 

[GMacF]

The overall thing I noticed from from my 16-55 compared to my primes is the sharpness you get across the whole frame - it's night and day. The zoom is very sharp even at 2.8 but from f4 onwards it's pin sharp. My primes (Viltrox 23, XC 35, XF 50 and Viltrox 56) all compete on centre sharpness from f2/2.8 and beyond but only the XF 50mm comes close to the edge/corner sharpness of the 16-55. Although admittedly in most use cases primes don't need to be sharp in the corners (IMO) as your subject will tend to be in the centre if you're shooting portraits.

The other advantage of the zoom is there just are situations where a zoom is your only option and that's a fact of life. I do occasional freelance press work and there's no way you attempt that sort of work with a prime, at least not easily and effectively.

For me, the main reason I keep my primes is for the extra aperture. The zoom, while excellent and more than adequate at f2.8 just doesn't compete with a good f1.4 prime. With the f2 primes the gap obviously isn't as big but those Fuji f2 primes are just a joy to use.

The one final thing I noticed with my 16-55 (over the 16-80) is it does seem to deal with distortion considerably better. I did some extensive testing between the two when I got my 16-55 which I have posted on this forum. This testing only showed to me how good the 16-80 was and in all honesty there wasn't much between the two. It's only once you get into the field you appreciate how good the 16-55 is (I also put the 50-140 in that bracket).

I have noticed that my group shots are sharper towards the edges and I'm pretty sure this down to the corrections are dealt with on the 16-55 over the 16-80.

 

[Jules Winnfield]

I took the 16-55 on vacation. My thinking was that I didn't want to waste time fumbling around changing lenses. My wife has already been subjected to that enough. I wanted to reach in my camera bag, pull it out, and put my efforts into composition.

The only drawback of the 16-55 that I can think of is that it is a heavier lens, which was noticeable in comparison to the X100s that I also took. I have since realized that I prefer shooting with primes due to the smaller size.

As you have probably already figured out, the 16-55 is a quality lens. I had no issues there.

 

[Atsel]

16-55 is a behemoth and was designed with priorities I wish I could understand

It has to have some advantages compared to, say, Sigma 18-50/2.8 which is twice smaller & cheaper; but what these advantages are?

 

[GMacF]

16-55 is a behemoth and was designed with priorities I wish I could understand

It has to have some advantages compared to, say, Sigma 18-50/2.8 which is twice smaller & cheaper; but what these advantages are?

Aside from the extra 7mm in focal range I’m not sure myself. Beyond that, Fuji better hope the 16-55 performs better in terms of sharpness and AF speed/accuracy etc because if it isn’t then it makes little sense to own one.

 

[Loganberry]

I have the 16-55, not bothered about the weight on my s10. If you want quality, you pay the price. Wouldn’t use anything else. I used to think I will buy this lens oneday. Now oneday may not happen, so have it now. If not, use an iPhone!! But you will not be impressed!

 

[DarnGoodPhotos]

It's tiny, compared to a reasonable collection of comparable primes.

It’s also tiny compared to the 24-70 gmaster. I still don’t understand the size ‘issue׳…

It's much larger on the camera.