XF16-55 or prime set-up?

[Gamboo88]

Dear photographers, I am struggling. Again!

Before I moved to Australia, I lost the joy of photographing. Initially, I sold my photography equipment as I left Germany. I owned the Canon R5 and the RF 2.8 24-70 lens. You will probably think, "how could this guy sell this equipment"? Well, it was too much. I didn't have much money when I was young. Accordingly, I always treated my photography equipment with kid gloves. That took the fun out of it for me. Since I photographed abroad, even in dusty and wet areas, my worry was always great.

Enough life story. I recently decided to take up photography again. I shot the Fujifilm X-H2 for a sensational price in Australia. Now the question revolves around the lens. Originally I wanted to start with the XF18 1.4 and XF33 1.4, but now more and more doubts have come up. I have already been able to take some pictures with the XF33. Great:





(Just some generic test shots, but the lens and the editing in Capture Pro created a magical atmosphere).

I really love the Fujifilm camera and lenses so far. I am not sad about selling my Canon gear at all. The colours are definitely on another level and I do not even miss the full frame advantages.

In addition, I shot the XF100-400, which ended up at about 800€/750USD after deducting the cashback.

I see the advantage of prime lenses; however, I miss the zoom a little bit. I don't like changing lenses outside that much, especially with mirrorless cameras. Would the XF16-55 2.8 be a big disappointment compared to the prime lenses? After cash back it would be around 750€/700USD. Years ago, a zoom lens could never win against a prime lens in terms of quality and sharpness, but I would like to know if things have changed or if the 16-55 is very competitive when it comes to a battle against the afore-mentioned prime lenses.

I'm a pixel peeper who also shoots videos occasionally. So far, though, it's been more in the drone realm. Nevertheless, I will definitely do some videos in 8K/4K in future, next to photography. I travel a lot and have a diverse mix of the street, macro, and landscape, where I simply prefer to capture the moment.

Any thoughts, my friends?

 

[nightowlnz]

I haven't owned any of the primes so I can't compare it on IQ. But, if you want a standard zoom, the 16-55/2.8 is hard to beat. It's not small, it's not lightweight, but it's built solid, focuses fast, and to my very untrained eye, it's output is fantastic - very worthy of it's red badge.

 

[Barbarus]

The XF16-55 doesn't disappoint. Pixel peep away - your results will be as good as your technique and composition. On an X-H2, you'll want a comfortable neck strap as this will be a stout combo, but it's a fantastic setup.

 

[Oregon Dawg]

It's really a personal and subjective decision. FWIW I have landed with using a zoom (16-80mm f4) and a prime (33mm 1.4) and am happy with this combination.

Good luck!

 

[MDHGGraph]

The 16-55 doesn't get referred to as the 'bag of primes' for no reason.

I sold all of my prime lenses when I bought the 16-55 as I, like you, hated constantly having to change lenses in the field and preferred the convenience of the zoom. I'm sure that technically the primes sometimes have a marginally better IQ, but, in the real world, I have yet to regret the change.

 

[jhorse]

The XF16-55 doesn't disappoint. Pixel peep away - your results will be as good as your technique and composition. On an X-H2, you'll want a comfortable neck strap as this will be a stout combo, but it's a fantastic setup.

Hi, that is my experienced too (using a XT5, so same sensor). It is a great zoom. Its output is similar to my f2 Crons. I suspect, but have no experience, that the f1.4 primes will be a tad sharper across the frame and better for isolating subjects, but for sharpness one would really have to look very closely to see a difference. For me, my 16-55 is my go-to lens for most subjects due to its convenience, high IQ, f2.8, WR and tactile feel.

Hope that helps.

 

[justin_time]

If funds permit get the 16-55 and at least one f1.4 (or f1.2) prime. Two stops wide aperture is useful for low light and narrow depth of field to isolate subject.

 

[biza43]

The zoom is excellent, if you don't need faster than f/2.8.

 

[Rod McD]

Hi,

I lot of people here swear by the 16-55. I'm not one of them. I started life with the 18-55, then went to primes, then tried the 16-55 for about 6 months, then sold it and went back to primes. No regrets.

I spent a lot of time carefully comparing my lenses. I found the 16-55 excellent in the wide half, very much worth the 'bag of primes' tag. I didn't find my sample matched either my 50/2 or 60/2.4, so not worth the same tag at the long end. That may simply have been my sample. There were other reasons I didn't like the zoom.

• I didn't mind the carried weight - it weighed less than the four primes it potentially replaced. I really didn't like the weight and forward balance on-camera. A 1300g camera/lens is not what I left the DSLR world for.
• it's not a discreet lens.
• its weakness is that it does not focus close and does not integrate well with close-up accessories - either or tubes or CU lenses. That may not matter to you. It did matter to me and prevented the lens being a one-lens-does-all solution for me.
• I didn't enjoy buying expensive 77mm filters. If you happen to like a good quality set of grad ND, CPL and couple of ND stoppers, you're looking at several hundred dollars.
• the camera and lens combo was taxing for light weight tripods and ball heads - especially tipped on its side or with column extension. Depending on what you have, you may need to beef up your support.

In the end, there's no right answer - it simply comes down to personal preference.

Hope that helps.

Cheers, Rod

 

[Studio_Melon]

I recently got the 16-55 after years of shooting with the XF 18 F2, XF 23 F1.4 and XF 35 F1.4 (and a basket of other lenses.)

I'll admit, since getting the lens I find its on my camera A LOT. A lot more than my primes for casual shooting (and sports!). To be fair though, that was also somewhat true of my XF 18-55 F2.8-F4. Zoom lenses in general are just more flexible.

That said I also just got the XF 56 1.2 APD (as well as the non APD) and my god what a wonderful portrait lens. It has happily joined the XF 90 F2 as a lens I actually make money with. I also really enjoy shooting both of those lenses (as well as my other primes) more casually.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, zooms and primes should both have their place in a balanced camera bag. If you have to choose between one or the other you may well be better served by the 16-55 as it's a really useful focal length. OTOH you might find that an even better combo would be the Sigma 18-50 F2.8 or Fuji 18-55 F2.8-F4 paired with a nice prime or two (or three). Do note that if you want maximum resolve from the 40MP sensor that will limit your options somewhat.

 

[raybehindthecam]

I recently got the 16-55 after years of shooting with the XF 18 F2, XF 23 F1.4 and XF 35 F1.4 (and a basket of other lenses.)

I'll admit, since getting the lens I find its on my camera A LOT. A lot more than my primes for casual shooting (and sports!). To be fair though, that was also somewhat true of my XF 18-55 F2.8-F4. Zoom lenses in general are just more flexible.

That said I also just got the XF 56 1.2 APD (as well as the non APD) and my god what a wonderful portrait lens. It has happily joined the XF 90 F2 as a lens I actually make money with. I also really enjoy shooting both of those lenses (as well as my other primes) more casually.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, zooms and primes should both have their place in a balanced camera bag. If you have to choose between one or the other you may well be better served by the 16-55 as it's a really useful focal length. OTOH you might find that an even better combo would be the Sigma 18-50 F2.8 or Fuji 18-55 F2.8-F4 paired with a nice prime or two (or three). Do note that if you want maximum resolve from the 40MP sensor that will limit your options somewhat.

I agree with the thought of the Sigma and adding a few primes.

Looking at value and cost, a Sigma 18-50 f2.8 and Sigma 56 f1.4 can be purchased for roughly the same price of an XF 16-55 f2.8.

 

[Gamboo88]

I recently got the 16-55 after years of shooting with the XF 18 F2, XF 23 F1.4 and XF 35 F1.4 (and a basket of other lenses.)

I'll admit, since getting the lens I find its on my camera A LOT. A lot more than my primes for casual shooting (and sports!). To be fair though, that was also somewhat true of my XF 18-55 F2.8-F4. Zoom lenses in general are just more flexible.

That said I also just got the XF 56 1.2 APD (as well as the non APD) and my god what a wonderful portrait lens. It has happily joined the XF 90 F2 as a lens I actually make money with. I also really enjoy shooting both of those lenses (as well as my other primes) more casually.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, zooms and primes should both have their place in a balanced camera bag. If you have to choose between one or the other you may well be better served by the 16-55 as it's a really useful focal length. OTOH you might find that an even better combo would be the Sigma 18-50 F2.8 or Fuji 18-55 F2.8-F4 paired with a nice prime or two (or three). Do note that if you want maximum resolve from the 40MP sensor that will limit your options somewhat.

Thank you! Yes, zoom lenses really do have certain advantages. You really have an interesting lineup. I've also been interested in the 90mm for a while. May I ask what kind of photography you do for a living?

 

[Gamboo88]

Hi,

I lot of people here swear by the 16-55. I'm not one of them. I started life with the 18-55, then went to primes, then tried the 16-55 for about 6 months, then sold it and went back to primes. No regrets.

I spent a lot of time carefully comparing my lenses. I found the 16-55 excellent in the wide half, very much worth the 'bag of primes' tag. I didn't find my sample matched either my 50/2 or 60/2.4, so not worth the same tag at the long end. That may simply have been my sample. There were other reasons I didn't like the zoom.

• I didn't mind the carried weight - it weighed less than the four primes it potentially replaced. I really didn't like the weight and forward balance on-camera. A 1300g camera/lens is not what I left the DSLR world for.
• it's not a discreet lens.
• its weakness is that it does not focus close and does not integrate well with close-up accessories - either or tubes or CU lenses. That may not matter to you. It did matter to me and prevented the lens being a one-lens-does-all solution for me.
• I didn't enjoy buying expensive 77mm filters. If you happen to like a good quality set of grad ND, CPL and couple of ND stoppers, you're looking at several hundred dollars.
• the camera and lens combo was taxing for light weight tripods and ball heads - especially tipped on its side or with column extension. Depending on what you have, you may need to beef up your support.

In the end, there's no right answer - it simply comes down to personal preference.

Hope that helps.

Cheers, Rod

Thanks Rod! Definitely good arguments. I do not have any issues with weight, fortunately. I remember to times when I had to carry the 5DSr and all the lenses. That was a nightmare. I definitely see you points and will consider them, thanks a lot!

 

[Jerry-astro]

Hi,

I lot of people here swear by the 16-55. I'm not one of them. I started life with the 18-55, then went to primes, then tried the 16-55 for about 6 months, then sold it and went back to primes. No regrets.

I spent a lot of time carefully comparing my lenses. I found the 16-55 excellent in the wide half, very much worth the 'bag of primes' tag. I didn't find my sample matched either my 50/2 or 60/2.4, so not worth the same tag at the long end. That may simply have been my sample. There were other reasons I didn't like the zoom.

• I didn't mind the carried weight - it weighed less than the four primes it potentially replaced. I really didn't like the weight and forward balance on-camera. A 1300g camera/lens is not what I left the DSLR world for.
• it's not a discreet lens.
• its weakness is that it does not focus close and does not integrate well with close-up accessories - either or tubes or CU lenses. That may not matter to you. It did matter to me and prevented the lens being a one-lens-does-all solution for me.
• I didn't enjoy buying expensive 77mm filters. If you happen to like a good quality set of grad ND, CPL and couple of ND stoppers, you're looking at several hundred dollars.
• the camera and lens combo was taxing for light weight tripods and ball heads - especially tipped on its side or with column extension. Depending on what you have, you may need to beef up your support.

In the end, there's no right answer - it simply comes down to personal preference.

Hope that helps.

Cheers, Rod

Always nice to see a balanced view. My experience would be dead opposite to that of Rod's. I don't find the weight or "discretion" to be any sort of an issue at all. Worth noting that this is very much a matter of individual preference and the sort of photography you do. I do use a tripod on occasion, but much of my photography is handheld and the combined weight of my camera (with battery grip) and lens has proven to be very reasonable for me to handle, for years now. The close focus issue (as Rod pointed out) is a very individual thing and it has never "bitten" me at all. I find the operational FL range of the lens to be almost ideal. Similarly, I only use filters occasionally, and having the few 77mm filters that I might occasionally need for that lens really hasn't turned out to be an issue. If you happen to use filters a lot, then this might be a larger issue for you.

So, best bet would be to carefully look at the individual concerns that are being raised and decide how much that might impact your own needs as a photographer. The 16-55 is one of my most frequently used lenses and has never proved to be an problem with respect to handling. It's also very popular with many photographers who contribute to this forum. Admittedly, however, if you tend to use primes for the most part and/or are very sensitive to weight, then your own tolerance may prove to be quite different. Best bet is to find a local store (if one is available) and see for yourself whether the combo's weight and size can meet your needs. It's also worth noting that favoring zooms vs. primes is also very much a matter of individual preference and you'll find people with strong views on both sides of the argument here as well. That can definitely have an impact on the weight and handling of your kit.

--
Jerry-Astro
Fuji Forum co-Mod

 

[deednets]

Hi,

I lot of people here swear by the 16-55. I'm not one of them. I started life with the 18-55, then went to primes, then tried the 16-55 for about 6 months, then sold it and went back to primes. No regrets.

I spent a lot of time carefully comparing my lenses. I found the 16-55 excellent in the wide half, very much worth the 'bag of primes' tag. I didn't find my sample matched either my 50/2 or 60/2.4, so not worth the same tag at the long end. That may simply have been my sample. There were other reasons I didn't like the zoom.

• I didn't mind the carried weight - it weighed less than the four primes it potentially replaced. I really didn't like the weight and forward balance on-camera. A 1300g camera/lens is not what I left the DSLR world for.
• it's not a discreet lens.
• its weakness is that it does not focus close and does not integrate well with close-up accessories - either or tubes or CU lenses. That may not matter to you. It did matter to me and prevented the lens being a one-lens-does-all solution for me.
• I didn't enjoy buying expensive 77mm filters. If you happen to like a good quality set of grad ND, CPL and couple of ND stoppers, you're looking at several hundred dollars.
• the camera and lens combo was taxing for light weight tripods and ball heads - especially tipped on its side or with column extension. Depending on what you have, you may need to beef up your support.

In the end, there's no right answer - it simply comes down to personal preference.

Hope that helps.

Cheers, Rod

Always nice to see a balanced view. My experience would be dead opposite to that of Rod's. I don't find the weight or "discretion" to be any sort of an issue at all. Worth noting that this is very much a matter of individual preference and the sort of photography you do. I do use a tripod on occasion, but much of my photography is handheld and the combined weight of my camera (with battery grip) and lens has proven to be very reasonable for me to handle, for years now. The close focus issue (as Rod pointed out) is a very individual thing and it has never "bitten" me at all. I find the operational FL range of the lens to be almost ideal. Similarly, I only use filters occasionally, and having the few 77mm filters that I might occasionally need for that lens really hasn't turned out to be an issue. If you happen to use filters a lot, then this might be a larger issue for you.

So, best bet would be to carefully look at the individual concerns that are being raised and decide how much that might impact your own needs as a photographer. The 16-55 is one of my most frequently used lenses and has never proved to be an problem with respect to handling. It's also very popular with many photographers who contribute to this forum. Admittedly, however, if you tend to use primes for the most part and/or are very sensitive to weight, then your own tolerance may prove to be quite different. Best bet is to find a local store (if one is available) and see for yourself whether the combo's weight and size can meet your needs. It's also worth noting that favoring zooms vs. primes is also very much a matter of individual preference and you'll find people with strong views on both sides of the argument here as well. That can definitely have an impact on the weight and handling of your kit.

--
Jerry-Astro
Fuji Forum co-Mod

Jerry, I always saw you as a distance shooter, internal architecture and bazooka wildlife plus some landscapes. Maybe. Anti intimacy if you like

Size and general appearance would be of little importance to you. But your views I would consider somewhat exotic as most people go close at some stage, partners, lovers, family and kids in particular. Restaurants after dark where a few stops do matter.

On a lighthearted side note: you want to go for a walk in Bondi Beach with your 16-55/2.8??? Discrete that hammer of a lens is not.

The OP now lives in OZ, Rod is from Adelaide. Walking some distances in OZ is part of who they are. But, hey, who knows, you might not get to do any hikes after your beach walk with your standard zoom. Will leave it to your imagination to figure out why not

 

[Jerry-astro]

Hi,

I lot of people here swear by the 16-55. I'm not one of them. I started life with the 18-55, then went to primes, then tried the 16-55 for about 6 months, then sold it and went back to primes. No regrets.

I spent a lot of time carefully comparing my lenses. I found the 16-55 excellent in the wide half, very much worth the 'bag of primes' tag. I didn't find my sample matched either my 50/2 or 60/2.4, so not worth the same tag at the long end. That may simply have been my sample. There were other reasons I didn't like the zoom.

• I didn't mind the carried weight - it weighed less than the four primes it potentially replaced. I really didn't like the weight and forward balance on-camera. A 1300g camera/lens is not what I left the DSLR world for.
• it's not a discreet lens.
• its weakness is that it does not focus close and does not integrate well with close-up accessories - either or tubes or CU lenses. That may not matter to you. It did matter to me and prevented the lens being a one-lens-does-all solution for me.
• I didn't enjoy buying expensive 77mm filters. If you happen to like a good quality set of grad ND, CPL and couple of ND stoppers, you're looking at several hundred dollars.
• the camera and lens combo was taxing for light weight tripods and ball heads - especially tipped on its side or with column extension. Depending on what you have, you may need to beef up your support.

In the end, there's no right answer - it simply comes down to personal preference.

Hope that helps.

Cheers, Rod

Always nice to see a balanced view. My experience would be dead opposite to that of Rod's. I don't find the weight or "discretion" to be any sort of an issue at all. Worth noting that this is very much a matter of individual preference and the sort of photography you do. I do use a tripod on occasion, but much of my photography is handheld and the combined weight of my camera (with battery grip) and lens has proven to be very reasonable for me to handle, for years now. The close focus issue (as Rod pointed out) is a very individual thing and it has never "bitten" me at all. I find the operational FL range of the lens to be almost ideal. Similarly, I only use filters occasionally, and having the few 77mm filters that I might occasionally need for that lens really hasn't turned out to be an issue. If you happen to use filters a lot, then this might be a larger issue for you.

So, best bet would be to carefully look at the individual concerns that are being raised and decide how much that might impact your own needs as a photographer. The 16-55 is one of my most frequently used lenses and has never proved to be an problem with respect to handling. It's also very popular with many photographers who contribute to this forum. Admittedly, however, if you tend to use primes for the most part and/or are very sensitive to weight, then your own tolerance may prove to be quite different. Best bet is to find a local store (if one is available) and see for yourself whether the combo's weight and size can meet your needs. It's also worth noting that favoring zooms vs. primes is also very much a matter of individual preference and you'll find people with strong views on both sides of the argument here as well. That can definitely have an impact on the weight and handling of your kit.

Jerry, I always saw you as a distance shooter, internal architecture and bazooka wildlife plus some landscapes. Maybe. Anti intimacy if you like

Size and general appearance would be of little importance to you. But your views I would consider somewhat exotic as most people go close at some stage, partners, lovers, family and kids in particular. Restaurants after dark where a few stops do matter.

On a lighthearted side note: you want to go for a walk in Bondi Beach with your 16-55/2.8??? Discrete that hammer of a lens is not.

The OP now lives in OZ, Rod is from Adelaide. Walking some distances in OZ is part of who they are. But, hey, who knows, you might not get to do any hikes after your beach walk with your standard zoom. Will leave it to your imagination to figure out why not

LOL. No question that if discretion is an issue, the 16-55 is far from the best choice. While a good portion of what I might post here involves a longer FL lens, I still do a fair amount of photography with my 16-55, and more occasionally, my 8-16. Again, the genres I tend to enjoy don't really require much in the way of discretion, so if that's any sort of a factor in one's photography, my kit choices would be a supremely bad decision. I think the appropriate American expression for this would be "different strokes for different folks."

 

[gdanmitchell]

I use the 16-55mm f/2.8 for some purposes, and I also use a range of Fujiflm primes for others: 14mm f/2.8, 23mm f1/4, 27mm f/2.8, 35mm f/1.4, 60mm f/2.4 macro, 80mm f/2.8 macro, 90mm f/2.

I don't select zoom or prime for supposed image quality reasons — more for practical considerations related to the kinds of photography I am doing. For street photography I lean toward the 27mm f/2.8 WR, which his an excellent performer. For night street photography I move to the f/1.4 lenses. Reasons for using the macros are mostly obvious. I use the zoom (along with the 50-140) for events and for some hiking and backpacking (wilderness) purposes.

All of these lenses produce excellent image quality.

To my way of thinking, the real question here isn't whether primes or zooms are better in some generic way. Rather the questions are more about their suitability to the kinds of photography you will do. If you are trying for a very tiny system, that 27mm f/2.8 could be the right choice. If you need much more flexibility the 16-55 could be ideal, even though it is quite large. And so on...

One option that sort of splits the difference is to get the very good 18-55mm f/2.8-f/4 zoom for when you need the flexibility (it is quite good) and augment that with one of the smaller primes for when you want a smaller system.

Dear photographers, I am struggling. Again!

Before I moved to Australia, I lost the joy of photographing. Initially, I sold my photography equipment as I left Germany. I owned the Canon R5 and the RF 2.8 24-70 lens. You will probably think, "how could this guy sell this equipment"? Well, it was too much. I didn't have much money when I was young. Accordingly, I always treated my photography equipment with kid gloves. That took the fun out of it for me. Since I photographed abroad, even in dusty and wet areas, my worry was always great.

Enough life story. I recently decided to take up photography again. I shot the Fujifilm X-H2 for a sensational price in Australia. Now the question revolves around the lens. Originally I wanted to start with the XF18 1.4 and XF33 1.4, but now more and more doubts have come up. I have already been able to take some pictures with the XF33. Great:





(Just some generic test shots, but the lens and the editing in Capture Pro created a magical atmosphere).

I really love the Fujifilm camera and lenses so far. I am not sad about selling my Canon gear at all. The colours are definitely on another level and I do not even miss the full frame advantages.

In addition, I shot the XF100-400, which ended up at about 800€/750USD after deducting the cashback.

I see the advantage of prime lenses; however, I miss the zoom a little bit. I don't like changing lenses outside that much, especially with mirrorless cameras. Would the XF16-55 2.8 be a big disappointment compared to the prime lenses? After cash back it would be around 750€/700USD. Years ago, a zoom lens could never win against a prime lens in terms of quality and sharpness, but I would like to know if things have changed or if the 16-55 is very competitive when it comes to a battle against the afore-mentioned prime lenses.

I'm a pixel peeper who also shoots videos occasionally. So far, though, it's been more in the drone realm. Nevertheless, I will definitely do some videos in 8K/4K in future, next to photography. I travel a lot and have a diverse mix of the street, macro, and landscape, where I simply prefer to capture the moment.

Any thoughts, my friends?

--
When in doubt, doubt.
www.gdanmitchell.com

 

[bastibe]

One of the major aspects I enjoy about primes is their simplicity and compactness.

The 16-55 was actually kind of a huge letdown to me, as it is cumbersome and huge. No amount of sharpness can make up for that, to me. And then it's not stabilized and has a bit of a busy bokeh.

I've gone back to my 16-80, and am much happier.

 

[Oregon Dawg]

I use the 16-55mm f/2.8 for some purposes, and I also use a range of Fujiflm primes for others: 14mm f/2.8, 23mm f1/4, 27mm f/2.8, 35mm f/1.4, 60mm f/2.4 macro, 80mm f/2.8 macro, 90mm f/2.

I don't select zoom or prime for supposed image quality reasons — more for practical considerations related to the kinds of photography I am doing. For street photography I lean toward the 27mm f/2.8 WR, which his an excellent performer. For night street photography I move to the f/1.4 lenses. Reasons for using the macros are mostly obvious. I use the zoom (along with the 50-140) for events and for some hiking and backpacking (wilderness) purposes.

All of these lenses produce excellent image quality.

To my way of thinking, the real question here isn't whether primes or zooms are better in some generic way. Rather the questions are more about their suitability to the kinds of photography you will do. If you are trying for a very tiny system, that 27mm f/2.8 could be the right choice. If you need much more flexibility the 16-55 could be ideal, even though it is quite large. And so on...

One option that sort of splits the difference is to get the very good 18-55mm f/2.8-f/4 zoom for when you need the flexibility (it is quite good) and augment that with one of the smaller primes for when you want a smaller system.

Sensible advice.

Choosing lenses for the kind of photography you want to do is sensible. And also the focal lengths you enjoy or require for that photography. I'm an old dawg hobbyist and my favorite old dawg focal length is 50mm-e. So for me, the 33mm f/1.4 is my main lens. But I've also had my bag bottom out with primes, and the 16-80mm f/4 has solved that problem for me. These are the only two lenses I really need, unless I again get the urge to photograph squirrels, then I suppose I will need the 70-300mm.

 

[jli_jon]

I've wrestled with this dilemma too, for several years now. I tend to travel a lot, do landscape primarily, and I still prefer the convenience of the zooms over the DoF advantage of a prime. I tried traveling with 2 camera bodies each with a prime, like 16 and 33mm for instance vs the 16-55. I still prefer the one camera, one zoom approach. Yes it is front heavy and can get tiring after a 1 or 2 week trip, but I havent really been disappointed when I look back at the images. With 2 bodies, it was still annoying to swap cameras in my bag or sometimes I wanted a focal length in between or a little longer. Then sorting the images out later among 2 memory cards was annoying.

I have sort of settled on zooms for my travels and primes when I am at home and day to day out and about activities.