An un-stabilized brick?

I'm sure there are some of you out there. What are your thoughts and experiences with shooting the non-OIS, XF 16-55, on an X body that has no IBIS? Do you find you frequently need to use a tripod or monopod to steady the beast? Are you having to constantly worry about keeping your SS at a high enough speed? I'm considering this to pair up with my XT3 and am not interested in either of the X bodies that offer IBIS.

Thank you in advance for your input.

-Rob

Mine works well on non-IS bodies, just like all unstabilised lenses.  Longer lenses benefit from IS more of course. As it has more mass it may acutally be better.

800 ISO works perfectly well on my bodies so in any daylight getting a high enough shutter speed isn't an issue.

HOWEVER if I were buying a new camera IBIS would be a point I'd strongly consider spending extra for.

Of course you need to know your own minimum shutter speed to use the lens, but I wouldn't say I "worry" about it. I generally shoot with Auto ISO minimum shutter speed set to 1/125 or faster. (My hands are shaky.) I also often use short bursts of 2-3 shots and keep the sharpest one. It's no big deal really -- I've used the 16-55 for years with non-OIS bodies. You simply need to know your own minimum shutter-speed limits.

Robmas4229 wrote:

I'm sure there are some of you out there. What are your thoughts and experiences with shooting the non-OIS, XF 16-55, on an X body that has no IBIS? Do you find you frequently need to use a tripod or monopod to steady the beast? Are you having to constantly worry about keeping your SS at a high enough speed? I'm considering this to pair up with my XT3 and am not interested in either of the X bodies that offer IBIS.

Thank you in advance for your input.

-Rob

I find it much easier to hold my camera steady with the hefty 16-55 than with a more petite lens. I almost never use a monopod or tripod and have no issues with the 16-55 at all with my IBISless cameras (X-T2/X-T20). I have a bunch of fast primes, but actually prefer the 16-55 for most indoor low light shooting - the super versatile focal range and excellent performance wide open make it great choice - I often need the DOF at f/2.8 and a SS suitable for moving subjects anyway. The OIS is a big help with the longer 50-140, but I don’t really miss it on the 16-55.

Worked perfectly well on my X-T1 and highly recommended as long as you don't mind the size and weight.  Like others, I often find those to be, on balance, an advantage.

Like others said, size and weight of the 16-55 rather help to keep it steady. In addition, I believe, the greater physical inertia of a heavier system rather helps against shutter shock.

I never use a tripod for "normal" photography, only for special purpose.

So, keep the usual shutter speed for non stabilized systems, and you'll be fine.

I like the lens and the images it produces. It is my standard "travel" lens. It is very well built, very solid. The aperture ring is excellent. 16 mm is really useful as a wide angle. Its AF is super fast and silent.

Regards,

Martin

Robmas4229 wrote:

I'm sure there are some of you out there. What are your thoughts and experiences with shooting the non-OIS, XF 16-55, on an X body that has no IBIS? Do you find you frequently need to use a tripod or monopod to steady the beast? Are you having to constantly worry about keeping your SS at a high enough speed? I'm considering this to pair up with my XT3 and am not interested in either of the X bodies that offer IBIS.

Thank you in advance for your input.

-Rob

When I bought the 16-55 I used a XT3. In December 2019, there was both a Black Friday deal and a double cashback on the new lens. Could not resist the offer at such a good price. I actually went into buy a 16-80, despite knowing of the then adverse comments about its IQ, but the 16-55 on the deal was far cheaper.

I really liked the16-55 on a XT3, but coming from the 18-55, which has OIS, I did find myself watching the shutter speed more. Not a big issue, because one should be aware of the exposure triangle anyway for every shot.  At 16mm, I set mentally a shutter speed of not slower than 1/25, and at 55mm at 1/80 and found that my shots handheld were fine in terms of sharpness. If the shutter speed indicated was going to be slower, I simply increased ISO accordingly (for a given aperture). I never used a tripod/monopod.

However, there were times when I wanted stabilisation, having been used to it on my 18-55. When the XT4 appeared with IBIS, I decided to upgrade and while IBIS with the 16-55 gives me more latitude with the shutter speed and is very nice to have, it is not essential.

I would say that so long as you have a good camera holding, standing, breathing and shutter rolling technique and get into a mindset of noting the shutter speed, which are both the basis of good skills anyway, then the XT3 will be fine.

Finally, given the cost of the lens, I would consider either loaning one or renting one. In the UK Fujifilm has an excellent loan service where one can loan a camera or lens (free for a weekend or a small charge for a week). The loan service is slick and easy with delivery, pick-up and packaging. One does put down a deposit, which was about a third of the value of the item, which was returned to me within 7 days of the item being returned to Fuji. I used it for a X100V, Alternatively, there are companies offering lens rentals. Suggest considering this trial before committing to buy.

Hope that helps.

Robmas4229 wrote:

I'm sure there are some of you out there. What are your thoughts and experiences with shooting the non-OIS, XF 16-55, on an X body that has no IBIS? Do you find you frequently need to use a tripod or monopod to steady the beast? Are you having to constantly worry about keeping your SS at a high enough speed? I'm considering this to pair up with my XT3 and am not interested in either of the X bodies that offer IBIS.

Thank you in advance for your input.

-Rob

Having shot with advanced digital camera systems since the early 2000s I can say that there is no need to have image stabilization in a lens of this focal length.

That is not to say that having stabilization wouldn't be a nice option to have available.  But in the interest of transparency, I don't take a lot of low light, ambient light photos.  If I'm taking indoor photos I'm using a flash.

Thanks to everyone who provided input.

As I had hoped, it seems that not having OIS isn't a deal-breaker for this lens. Having the f/2.8 constant aperture and the mass of the lens appear to be benefits. After all, we didn't always have stabilization in bodies or lenses, and photography survived.

I tried to love the 16-80 but after a year, it didn't work out for me. I didn't mention that in my OP because I didn't want the conversation to go down THAT road. It wasn't because of the size as I have the 18-55 and some primes for when I want to keep things compact.

Now I must determine if I can really justify the 16-55, or if my 18-55 is good enough for my needs. I'm not a pro and don't shoot events or weddings, mostly just landscapes, seascapes, scenery and general walk around in nature or occasional urbania.

Thanks again.

-Rob

I am also not a professional. All hobby photography. I had the 16-55mm, compared to the 18-55mm it's big, heavy and (on my lens) the rubber on the zoom ring dilated twice. I came to the conclusion that it would not make better photos than with the 18-55, so I sold it.
Now I am waiting for the stabilized brick: Tamron 17-70 f.2.8. Stabilized, water resistant, weighs less, reaches 70mm and is cheaper.

michaeladawson wrote:

Robmas4229 wrote:

I'm sure there are some of you out there. What are your thoughts and experiences with shooting the non-OIS, XF 16-55, on an X body that has no IBIS? Do you find you frequently need to use a tripod or monopod to steady the beast? Are you having to constantly worry about keeping your SS at a high enough speed? I'm considering this to pair up with my XT3 and am not interested in either of the X bodies that offer IBIS.

Thank you in advance for your input.

-Rob

Having shot with advanced digital camera systems since the early 2000s I can say that there is no need to have image stabilization in a lens of this focal length.

That is not to say that having stabilization wouldn't be a nice option to have available. But in the interest of transparency, I don't take a lot of low light, ambient light photos. If I'm taking indoor photos I'm using a flash.

I'm glad you qualified your statement in your last paragraph. I would strongly disagree with your [bolded] opening statement as something which might apply beyond your own personal needs. There is every need for stabilization with a lens like this if you happen to have a propensity (as I do) for shooting in low light situations... particularly those where a tripod might not be a viable option. The stabilization can be provided by the camera, but I can guarantee you that indoor shots in low light environments can be difficult or impossible without some assistance, and tripods are not always feasible. I think the real answer here depends completely on what you photograph and the environment/available light.