Should I trade the kit lens (with my X-T5) 16-80 for a 16-55

[sgoody1]

Hi,

I am still a bit of a novice - taking photos for some 40 years, but generally all programme mode.

Just bought an X-T5 with a 16-80.

Went to a beginners training session at Fuji last week, and was strongly advised by the instructor to get myself the 16-55 lens instead of my 16-80.

I did have a look at it, and its a lot heavier, larger and less "zoom" with no IBIS.

So is it worth trading those benefits for much better quality photos, via the optics, and the benefit of f2.8 vs f4. Is the difference that significant?

The instructor was pretty insistent that its worth me doing this - that being the main thing she wanted me to take away from the day.

For context - I also have an iPhone 14 pro - so I do want my X-T5 pictures to be stunning in comparison, otherwise what's the point?

Also, the option of going for a prime lens for portraits doesn't work for me really - I am more of a zoom person, than moving back and forwards to get the right framed shot (although maybe later in my journey I will get a prime to try again)

Hopefully I am not too late to get views on this post (its such a tragedy they are closing this site - its an amazing resource)!!

Many thanks

 

[GMacF]

Unless your instructor knows you very well (or knows your type of photography) then I think that is terrible advice! To me, it doesn't look like he/she has provided any sort of objectivity at all.

Here is my experience and you can decide for yourself if it relates to your need(s):
I had both lenses and made this same switch. Now, in nutshell I found the 16-80 to be an excellent lens and when stopped down to f5.6 it was as sharp as the 16-55 throughout the zoom range - save for possibly the 70-80mm but it was still very good.

The ONLY reason I changed to the 16-55 was for my freelance press work - I needed the extra stop of light afforded by the f2.8 aperture.
IF the f2.8 aperture is not important to you then in terms of image quality and general output there really is nothing to pick between the 2 lenses. In fact, the 16-80 has the added benefit of an extra 25mm of zoom range.

I come back to not knowing your full use case. If it's landscapes or scenarios where you don't NEED the extra aperture then the 16-80 will serve you really well.

I would suggest keep the 16-80 and use the spare cash to buy one of the f2 primes - but I know you've said that isn't for you.

 

[Jeff Biscuits]

Hi,

I am still a bit of a novice - taking photos for some 40 years, but generally all programme mode.

Just bought an X-T5 with a 16-80.

Went to a beginners training session at Fuji last week, and was strongly advised by the instructor to get myself the 16-55 lens instead of my 16-80.

I did have a look at it, and its a lot heavier, larger and less "zoom" with no IBIS.

So is it worth trading those benefits for much better quality photos, via the optics, and the benefit of f2.8 vs f4. Is the difference that significant?

The instructor was pretty insistent that its worth me doing this - that being the main thing she wanted me to take away from the day.

As far as I can see, there are only a few reasons you might want to make that switch:

• You have a bad copy of the 16-80 (though that’s also fixable by finding a good copy)
• You take a lot of photos of moving subjects in low light and one stop more light will make a substantive difference to how well those shots work out
• The artistic quality of your photos is already top-notch and the limiting factor in your your output is a very marginal shortcoming in optical quality
• You have a pile of cash and you want to spend it (but then, go buy a Leica)

But there are plenty of reasons to keep the 16-80:

• You value portability
• You find it useful to handhold shots down to around 1/3sec
• You want to use focal lengths beyond 55mm
• You don’t want to spend cash unnecessarily

Frankly, if the context is a beginners’ session, the advice to replace a perfectly good lens with a professional-level lens is depressingly misguided.

I would keep your money, use the 16-80 for what it is—which is a hugely versatile, highly usable, and very capable lens—and wait until you start thinking things like “this is an amazing shot that I took—but even after processing, I just wish it was a teeny tiny bit sharper”.

I would probably go further and say that if you feel like a prime is not for you then that’s not a reason not to try one. If you limit your options in that way, it takes you out of your comfort zone and you have to find creative ways to make a good image—it will hone your visualisation and in time you will see images that you wouldn’t have seen with a zoom. Buy a secondhand one, keep it for a while, force yourself to use it and leave the zoom at home every so often. Worst case scenario is you can sell it privately and you’re unlikely to lose money; best case is you get a new eye on things.

 

[miles500]

You have had some good advice from expert people but my take is this. I had the 16-80 and the corners were not at all good wide open. Because of this I moved on to the 16-55 which does not disappoint in any way. I switched to the Tamron 17-70 because I wanted the slightly wider range and this lens also does not disappoint so that is also an option worth considering. The latter is also stabilised and WR.

 

[John Gellings]

Hi,

I am still a bit of a novice - taking photos for some 40 years, but generally all programme mode.

Just bought an X-T5 with a 16-80.

That's a perfectly fine camera for your level. If you want to see a bigger improvement than buying a new lens, I would recommend getting out of program mode.

Went to a beginners training session at Fuji last week, and was strongly advised by the instructor to get myself the 16-55 lens instead of my 16-80.

Seems like it was a selling event.

I did have a look at it, and its a lot heavier, larger and less "zoom" with no IBIS.

This is certainly true.

So is it worth trading those benefits for much better quality photos, via the optics, and the benefit of f2.8 vs f4. Is the difference that significant?

It is a lens with better IQ, but do you need the best of the best?

The instructor was pretty insistent that its worth me doing this - that being the main thing she wanted me to take away from the day.

Sounds like she was going to get some commission from your purchase.

For context - I also have an iPhone 14 pro - so I do want my X-T5 pictures to be stunning in comparison, otherwise what's the point?

Well, great photography takes a lot of work. The camera is only one piece of the puzzle. Unless people take time learn about photography, one could make better photos with an iPhone believe it or not. It is designed to be fool proof.

Also, the option of going for a prime lens for portraits doesn't work for me really - I am more of a zoom person, than moving back and forwards to get the right framed shot (although maybe later in my journey I will get a prime to try again)

You can certainly make portraits with the long end of the lens you already have.

--
https://www.johngellings.com
Instagram = @johngellings0

 

[Flying Fijian]

As others have said, that is poor advice from the instructor especially in a beginners session. You can use whichever lens you want.

The 16-80mm f4 kit lens is not bad if you know it's strengths and weaknesses (has OIS but it's weak at the extremes). The 16-55mm f2.8 is great at all focal lengths even at f2.8 but much bigger and expensive.

I'd say keep your lens for now until you've figured out what you actually need. If you really need a faster zoom, the third alternatives are the Tamron 17-70mm f2.8 or Sigma 18-50mm f2.8. The Tamron has a bigger range and OIS while you Sigma is tiny and compact.

 

[G Rash]

I'd hold off on purchasing a 16-55. It's a nice lens, but big and heavy. Depending on your uses, you may ultimately be better off with something else, but for now your 16-80 is a good place to start. If you want wider aperture and better sharpness, you may end up preferring one of the nice Fuji primes. I bought my older version of the 56mm f/1.2 for less than $400 and it is excellent for portraits. I also really like the f/2 and f/2.8 primes for both their small size and good image quality. For a fast zoom, I eventually bought the Tamron 17-70 and it is very good. No doubt the build quality is better on the 16-55, but I got the new Tamron for about $550 less than the 16-55 and I like the additional telephoto side of the Tamron for portraits.

 

[sgoody1]

You have had some good advice from expert people but my take is this. I had the 16-80 and the corners were not at all good wide open. Because of this I moved on to the 16-55 which does not disappoint in any way. I switched to the Tamron 17-70 because I wanted the slightly wider range and this lens also does not disappoint so that is also an option worth considering. The latter is also stabilised and WR.

Thanks @miles500.

I did actually spot a You Tube video about the Tamron today - and will need to try and have a go with that, but my understanding is the clarity of the Fuji 16-55 is superior.

 

[sgoody1]

Unless your instructor knows you very well (or knows your type of photography) then I think that is terrible advice! To me, it doesn't look like he/she has provided any sort of objectivity at all.

Here is my experience and you can decide for yourself if it relates to your need(s):
I had both lenses and made this same switch. Now, in nutshell I found the 16-80 to be an excellent lens and when stopped down to f5.6 it was as sharp as the 16-55 throughout the zoom range - save for possibly the 70-80mm but it was still very good.

The ONLY reason I changed to the 16-55 was for my freelance press work - I needed the extra stop of light afforded by the f2.8 aperture.
IF the f2.8 aperture is not important to you then in terms of image quality and general output there really is nothing to pick between the 2 lenses. In fact, the 16-80 has the added benefit of an extra 25mm of zoom range.

I come back to not knowing your full use case. If it's landscapes or scenarios where you don't NEED the extra aperture then the 16-80 will serve you really well.

I would suggest keep the 16-80 and use the spare cash to buy one of the f2 primes - but I know you've said that isn't for you.

The instructor doesn't know me well - I spent the day with her in a group with 5 others. She did look at some of my past photos, and also watched me compose and take some pictures. And I discussed with her about what I am currently using my camera for, but I do want to develop and broaden my skills.

Looking at my historical photos, I do tend to do lots of portraits, and like to zoom in close (although the people I photograph, friends and family - tend to prefer me to do pictures from further away!!)

Also, in terms of zoom I was thinking at some point to also possibly buy the 50-140 f2.8, but need to have a go with that, as I think it may just be too cumbersome for me.

And I try and take pictures of cars - but always struggle to find a good interesting angle that I am happy with.

If I were to get an f2 prime - is there one you would recommend?

I attach a picture I took yesterday of my dog, (which I was quite happy with) just trying things out. I do think the f2.8 might help (although I guess it might also mean more of the dog is out of focus?)

 

[sgoody1]

I'd hold off on purchasing a 16-55. It's a nice lens, but big and heavy. Depending on your uses, you may ultimately be better off with something else, but for now your 16-80 is a good place to start. If you want wider aperture and better sharpness, you may end up preferring one of the nice Fuji primes. I bought my older version of the 56mm f/1.2 for less than $400 and it is excellent for portraits. I also really like the f/2 and f/2.8 primes for both their small size and good image quality. For a fast zoom, I eventually bought the Tamron 17-70 and it is very good. No doubt the build quality is better on the 16-55, but I got the new Tamron for about $550 less than the 16-55 and I like the additional telephoto side of the Tamron for portraits.

Thanks G Rash.

I think I should probably hold off, as I am still learning how to use the camera. The instructor was also suggesting a Prime - but I ust feel I am more of a zoom person - than a "moving backwards and forwards" person. On my last camera - a Nikon D7500, I did have a 50mm prime, and although the quality of the pictures were definitely superior to my 18-200 zoom, I just found it much easier to take pictures with the zoom.

But I am prepared to give it another go - I can always sell the lens if it doesn't work out.

I have asked elsewhere - but do you think the 56mm 1.2 is the prime to get?

And I am also possibly going to add a 50-140 f 2.8 at some point - if I really get into this.

Thanks again for your thoughts.

 

[sgoody1]

Hi,

Went to a beginners training session at Fuji last week, and was strongly advised by the instructor to get myself the 16-55 lens instead of my 16-80.

I did have a look at it, and its a lot heavier, larger and less "zoom" with no IBIS.

So is it worth trading those benefits for much better quality photos, via the optics, and the benefit of f2.8 vs f4. Is the difference that significant?

As far as I can see, there are only a few reasons you might want to make that switch:

• You have a bad copy of the 16-80 (though that’s also fixable by finding a good copy)
• You take a lot of photos of moving subjects in low light and one stop more light will make a substantive difference to how well those shots work out
• The artistic quality of your photos is already top-notch and the limiting factor in your your output is a very marginal shortcoming in optical quality
• You have a pile of cash and you want to spend it (but then, go buy a Leica)

But there are plenty of reasons to keep the 16-80:

• You value portability
• You find it useful to handhold shots down to around 1/3sec
• You want to use focal lengths beyond 55mm
• You don’t want to spend cash unnecessarily

Frankly, if the context is a beginners’ session, the advice to replace a perfectly good lens with a professional-level lens is depressingly misguided.

I would keep your money, use the 16-80 for what it is—which is a hugely versatile, highly usable, and very capable lens—and wait until you start thinking things like “this is an amazing shot that I took—but even after processing, I just wish it was a teeny tiny bit sharper”.

I would probably go further and say that if you feel like a prime is not for you then that’s not a reason not to try one. If you limit your options in that way, it takes you out of your comfort zone and you have to find creative ways to make a good image—it will hone your visualisation and in time you will see images that you wouldn’t have seen with a zoom. Buy a secondhand one, keep it for a while, force yourself to use it and leave the zoom at home every so often. Worst case scenario is you can sell it privately and you’re unlikely to lose money; best case is you get a new eye on things.

Dear Jeff,

Thank you for your thoughts and advice.

My reasoning is that I have already invested a fair lump into my new kit. (although I did sell my old Nikon DSLR and 50mm lens and 18-200 zoom to partly fund it).

If I sold my 16-80 in favour of a 16-55, the marginal additional cost may be approx £400 or so, and if that results in a camera and lens package that is significantly better than what I have now - then maybe its worth doing.

I have mentioned elsewhere that when I had a 50mm on my old camera I almost never used it, as the 18-200 was always there on my camera, so much more versatile and fun to use. Granted - the 50mm did give better results - but I just didn't enjoy using it, as I found it hard to get the composition I wanted without moving all over the place. However, I have been recommended to give it a go by so many people here - I think I will have to try again (probably the 56mm 1.2)

BUT - as I understand it the 16-55 is like having a "whole bag of primes" - so maybe it is the lens for me.

I think I will try the prime first as its probably something I should have a go at again - and as you say, I can always sell it again.

Thanks again.

 

[sgoody1]

Hi,

I am still a bit of a novice - taking photos for some 40 years, but generally all programme mode.

Just bought an X-T5 with a 16-80.

That's a perfectly fine camera for your level. If you want to see a bigger improvement than buying a new lens, I would recommend getting out of program mode

The lesson was to try and get me out of programme mode. We were learning how to adjust ISO and shutter speed on the go with the wheels rather than the dials, and also a number of other functions on the X series cameras.

Went to a beginners training session at Fuji last week, and was strongly advised by the instructor to get myself the 16-55 lens instead of my 16-80.

Seems like it was a selling event.

It really wasn't. I didn't feel that at all. She was just interested on what I am trying to achieve, listed to how I like to take photos, and of what, and watched me take some in the class, and just felt that would be right for me - there was no pressure at all.

I did have a look at it, and its a lot heavier, larger and less "zoom" with no IBIS.

This is certainly true.

I did have a brief go with it - but not enough to know if the lack of IBIS is detrimental.

So is it worth trading those benefits for much better quality photos, via the optics, and the benefit of f2.8 vs f4. Is the difference that significant?

It is a lens with better IQ, but do you need the best of the best?

I do like having excellent gear, but within reason. I didn't think I need to spend Leica money to get great results, and when I heard about the X-T5, I thought that it will be a big jump up from my old Nikon D7500, and smaller, and lighter. I have a good iPhone to do day-to-day snaps, so when I decide I want to take "quality pictures" I may as well have kit that will give noticeably better results - otherwise what's the point?

The instructor was pretty insistent that its worth me doing this - that being the main thing she wanted me to take away from the day.

Sounds like she was going to get some commission from your purchase.

Honestly - I dont think that at all. And my course was at Fuji, but I tend to buy my equipment from a specialist retailer that would have nothing to do with the instructor.

I did enjoy the day - but actually feel a one-to-one session would be much more helpful.

For context - I also have an iPhone 14 pro - so I do want my X-T5 pictures to be stunning in comparison, otherwise what's the point?

Well, great photography takes a lot of work. The camera is only one piece of the puzzle. Unless people take time learn about photography, one could make better photos with an iPhone believe it or not. It is designed to be fool proof.

yes - I have taken great photos with my iPhone - but I am not sure the blow up well. I also think I can crop more with the Fuji if I want. My thought is to start taking some pictures I am really proud of, and having them printed and framed to have on display at home.

Also, the option of going for a prime lens for portraits doesn't work for me really - I am more of a zoom person, than moving back and forwards to get the right framed shot (although maybe later in my journey I will get a prime to try again)

You can certainly make portraits with the long end of the lens you already have.

I can - and have. But often I am taking pictures in the evening, or indoors at parties or dinners etc, so the better f stops might help. I have just posted this - but I tried taking some pictures of my dog yesterday. It was natural light - and although I was quite pleased with the result, I just have a feeling the extra stops, and clearer optics would have given better results. I just dont know till I try!

Thanks again for your thoughts - much appreciated.

 

[sgoody1]

As others have said, that is poor advice from the instructor especially in a beginners session. You can use whichever lens you want.

The 16-80mm f4 kit lens is not bad if you know it's strengths and weaknesses (has OIS but it's weak at the extremes). The 16-55mm f2.8 is great at all focal lengths even at f2.8 but much bigger and expensive.

I'd say keep your lens for now until you've figured out what you actually need. If you really need a faster zoom, the third alternatives are the Tamron 17-70mm f2.8 or Sigma 18-50mm f2.8. The Tamron has a bigger range and OIS while you Sigma is tiny and compact.

Thanks FF

I will look at both the lenses you have suggested - I had not heard about the Sigma, that could be interesting to try.

What is the exact model number / details - I should look up to find the Sigma? (there seem to be different types on-line)

Thanks

 

[Erik Baumgartner]

As othes have said, it depends.

Personally, I love the 16-55, it is on the hefty side, but I carry mine all over the place in a small sling bag on my X-t2 or X-t20 with no trouble at all - but that's me, not you. There's nothing wrong with (a good copy of) the 16-80 either. Like the 16-55, it covers an especially useful focal range with even a little extra reach. The big advantage of the 16-55 is the constant f/2.8 aperture which allows you to leave the bag of fast primes at home and shoot pretty much anything, all day or night, indoors and out with just the one lens, and shoot it well. The image quality is typically noticeably better too, especially at wide apertures, but even stopped down too (the 16-55 being an excellent landscape lens). it's not a petite lens at all, but it's a lot smaller than folks make it out to be and certainly smaller, lighter, and more convenient than the bag of primes you won't have to lug around and swap between.

You were given bad advice, both lenses are good options, but you'll have to figure out what's right for you.

 

[Flying Fijian]

As others have said, that is poor advice from the instructor especially in a beginners session. You can use whichever lens you want.

The 16-80mm f4 kit lens is not bad if you know it's strengths and weaknesses (has OIS but it's weak at the extremes). The 16-55mm f2.8 is great at all focal lengths even at f2.8 but much bigger and expensive.

I'd say keep your lens for now until you've figured out what you actually need. If you really need a faster zoom, the third alternatives are the Tamron 17-70mm f2.8 or Sigma 18-50mm f2.8. The Tamron has a bigger range and OIS while you Sigma is tiny and compact.

Thanks FF

I will look at both the lenses you have suggested - I had not heard about the Sigma, that could be interesting to try.

What is the exact model number / details - I should look up to find the Sigma? (there seem to be different types on-line)

Thanks

It's the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 DC DN Contemporary Lens for FUJIFILM X. There should be only one.

Loading…

www.bhphotovideo.com

It's fairly reasonably priced too. I have have to say it's my favorite standard zoom especially due to the size and weight (290g). I used to have both the Fuji 16-80mm and the 16-55mm and sold them both.

The main downside of the Sigma may be a lack of aperture ring but that doesn't bother me.

Anyways I'd suggest not looking at other lenses at this point unless you are unhappy with the 16-80mm. You can do a lot with it. The 50-140mm f2.8 is an even larger lens...what are you planning to shoot with that? It's more for pros doing sports or event photography. I have the 70-300mm f4-5.6 which is pretty good and also works with the Teleconverters giving even more reach if that's what you want.

The pic of your dog looks good to me at 50mm f4...although it would be safer to use a faster shutter speed than 1/80s. F2.8 would have allowed you to do that or to reduce the ISO but as you mentioned, the depth of field would be less (ie less things in focus).

Good luck and have fun with your 16-80mm...the OIS is great for static subjects!

 

[Katzen Muscony]

Hi,

I am still a bit of a novice - taking photos for some 40 years, but generally all programme mode.

Just bought an X-T5 with a 16-80.

Went to a beginners training session at Fuji last week, and was strongly advised by the instructor to get myself the 16-55 lens instead of my 16-80.

I did have a look at it, and its a lot heavier, larger and less "zoom" with no IBIS.

So is it worth trading those benefits for much better quality photos, via the optics, and the benefit of f2.8 vs f4. Is the difference that significant?

The instructor was pretty insistent that its worth me doing this - that being the main thing she wanted me to take away from the day.

For context - I also have an iPhone 14 pro - so I do want my X-T5 pictures to be stunning in comparison, otherwise what's the point?

Also, the option of going for a prime lens for portraits doesn't work for me really - I am more of a zoom person, than moving back and forwards to get the right framed shot (although maybe later in my journey I will get a prime to try again)

Hopefully I am not too late to get views on this post (its such a tragedy they are closing this site - its an amazing resource)!!

Many thanks

Do whatever you want to do...not what someone else says that you should do.

 

[sgoody1]

As othes have said, it depends.

Personally, I love the 16-55, it is on the hefty side, but I carry mine all over the place in a small sling bag on my X-t2 or X-t20 with no trouble at all - but that's me, not you. There's nothing wrong with (a good copy of) the 16-80 either. Like the 16-55, it covers an especially useful focal range with even a little extra reach. The big advantage of the 16-55 is the constant f/2.8 aperture which allows you to leave the bag of fast primes at home and shoot pretty much anything, all day or night, indoors and out with just the one lens, and shoot it well. The image quality is typically noticeably better too, especially at wide apertures, but even stopped down too (the 16-55 being an excellent landscape lens). it's not a petite lens at all, but it's a lot smaller than folks make it out to be and certainly smaller, lighter, and more convenient than the bag of primes you won't have to lug around and swap between.

You were given bad advice, both lenses are good options, but you'll have to figure out what's right for you.

Thanks for the advice.

I kind of do like having a do everything lens, as I am unlikely to carry a sack of lenses with me. When I take my Fuji out, I will be making a conscious decision to take nice pictures. So I do want those pictures to be as nice as possible. Thats why I think the advice of the instructor may have been right.

However, I may get a prime to experiment with, and also see if I can borrow a 16-55 for a few days to see how I get on with it. Or buy one, with a view to selling whichever I like less out of the two after a more prolonged trial (16-55 & 16-80). I would have thought I wouldn't lose too much if I did just sell the 16-55 after a month or two?

 

[sgoody1]

Hi,

I am still a bit of a novice - taking photos for some 40 years, but generally all programme mode.

Just bought an X-T5 with a 16-80.

Went to a beginners training session at Fuji last week, and was strongly advised by the instructor to get myself the 16-55 lens instead of my 16-80.

I did have a look at it, and its a lot heavier, larger and less "zoom" with no IBIS.

So is it worth trading those benefits for much better quality photos, via the optics, and the benefit of f2.8 vs f4. Is the difference that significant?

The instructor was pretty insistent that its worth me doing this - that being the main thing she wanted me to take away from the day.

For context - I also have an iPhone 14 pro - so I do want my X-T5 pictures to be stunning in comparison, otherwise what's the point?

Also, the option of going for a prime lens for portraits doesn't work for me really - I am more of a zoom person, than moving back and forwards to get the right framed shot (although maybe later in my journey I will get a prime to try again)

Hopefully I am not too late to get views on this post (its such a tragedy they are closing this site - its an amazing resource)!!

Many thanks

Do whatever you want to do...not what someone else says that you should do.

I will, but getting advice from users who have tried these lenses will help me make the right choice.

Everyones input has been really helpful.

 

[Jerry-astro]

Hi,

I am still a bit of a novice - taking photos for some 40 years, but generally all programme mode.

Just bought an X-T5 with a 16-80.

Went to a beginners training session at Fuji last week, and was strongly advised by the instructor to get myself the 16-55 lens instead of my 16-80.

I did have a look at it, and its a lot heavier, larger and less "zoom" with no IBIS.

So is it worth trading those benefits for much better quality photos, via the optics, and the benefit of f2.8 vs f4. Is the difference that significant?

The instructor was pretty insistent that its worth me doing this - that being the main thing she wanted me to take away from the day.

For context - I also have an iPhone 14 pro - so I do want my X-T5 pictures to be stunning in comparison, otherwise what's the point?

Also, the option of going for a prime lens for portraits doesn't work for me really - I am more of a zoom person, than moving back and forwards to get the right framed shot (although maybe later in my journey I will get a prime to try again)

Hopefully I am not too late to get views on this post (its such a tragedy they are closing this site - its an amazing resource)!!

Many thanks

The 16-55 is probably one of my most frequently used lenses, and has been since I purchased it years ago. It’s certainly not a lightweight lens, and that’s a function of the optics and build quality required to yield the superb performance that it delivers. I waited a while to acquire it because I do a lot of low light work and rely on IBIS to enable hand held shots in less than optimal light. Thus, I didn’t acquire the lens until Fujifilm introduced a camera that could provide that stabilization (initially X-H1, followed later by the X-H2s which I currently use). The fact that the lens was given the nickname “the brick” by one of our long lost forum members probably didn’t help much either in terms of providing an incentive to acquire it.

Overall, it’s probably my most frequently used lens (right along with my 150-600). Like you, I’m more of a “zoom guy” and have only tended to use primes for specialized work. The 16-55 is arguably one of Fuji’s best lenses and I doubt you’d be disappointed with the trade you’re considering.

--
Jerry-Astro
Fuji Forum co-Mod

 

[Erik Baumgartner]

As othes have said, it depends.

Personally, I love the 16-55, it is on the hefty side, but I carry mine all over the place in a small sling bag on my X-t2 or X-t20 with no trouble at all - but that's me, not you. There's nothing wrong with (a good copy of) the 16-80 either. Like the 16-55, it covers an especially useful focal range with even a little extra reach. The big advantage of the 16-55 is the constant f/2.8 aperture which allows you to leave the bag of fast primes at home and shoot pretty much anything, all day or night, indoors and out with just the one lens, and shoot it well. The image quality is typically noticeably better too, especially at wide apertures, but even stopped down too (the 16-55 being an excellent landscape lens). it's not a petite lens at all, but it's a lot smaller than folks make it out to be and certainly smaller, lighter, and more convenient than the bag of primes you won't have to lug around and swap between.

You were given bad advice, both lenses are good options, but you'll have to figure out what's right for you.

Thanks for the advice.

I kind of do like having a do everything lens, as I am unlikely to carry a sack of lenses with me. When I take my Fuji out, I will be making a conscious decision to take nice pictures. So I do want those pictures to be as nice as possible. Thats why I think the advice of the instructor may have been right.

However, I may get a prime to experiment with, and also see if I can borrow a 16-55 for a few days to see how I get on with it. Or buy one, with a view to selling whichever I like less out of the two after a more prolonged trial (16-55 & 16-80). I would have thought I wouldn't lose too much if I did just sell the 16-55 after a month or two?

There's nothing wrong with primes, I love shooting with those too, but if I don't know what I'll be shooting and I want maximum flexibility, the 16-55 is always my go-to (especially while travelling). I have no real issues using mine without any stabilization at all on my X-T2, so it would be even more versatile on your IBIS-equipped X-T5.

The Tamron 17-70 would also be worth a look, the CA/fringing doesn't seem as good as the 16-55 but, by most accounts, it seems to be an excellent lens overall (no aperture ring, though). As 16mm has been "just" wide enough on so many occasions, I wouldn't want to give up anything on the wide end (but again, that's me).

Lots of folks seem to like the new Sigma 18-50 f/2.8, it's small, decent and affordable, but with the limited range, backwards zoom ring, no aperture ring, and just "OK" image quality (from what I've seen, anyway), I think I'd rather keep the 16-80, you seem to have gotten a good one.

Erik