Is the Fuji 16-55 f2.8 really = "a bag of primes" ?

[Marco Cinnirella]

I was recently reviewing my raws shot with this lens as I am trying to decide on a vacation kit and I find myself a bit underwhelmed with its performance on my X-T1, X-H1 and X-T3, especially compared to Fuji primes. I often read the "it's as good as a bag of primes" comment here and on other Fuji groups but honestly, my copy, in terms of resolution, contrast and overall rendering, really isn't. I am wondering if I was just unlucky and bought a bad copy (brand new by the way) or whether anyone else has found the "as good as primes" claim a bit exaggerated? I am even pondering if I might have more luck with the more recent offering from Tamron. Looking through my shots I would say resolution and contrast look "decent" but certainly no better than 24-70 full frame lenses I have owned/used and in some cases worse. I put up some shots in Capture One and compared them to full frame shots I have from my Tamron 24-70 f2.8 lens on my Sony a99 (24 MP old camera) and the Tamron shots look somewhat sharper and more contrasty. Certainly my Fuji primes seem to perform better in terms of 3D "pop" and tonal rendition, at least to my eyes. Hmm, try another copy or something else? Thought about 16-80 but don't think I would get on with those corners at wide angle.

 

[PLShooter]

...on each individual's acceptance of image quality. If you're not happy with yours, then either sell it and buy another, or trade it.

 

[Ap0ll0n]

My copy is really close without pixel peeping and I've done a few comparisons in this site against my primes. Biggest difference is at 55mm vs 56 mm prime. No idea vs. full frame. So, not a bag of primes, this is marketing, but very close.

 

[Erik Baumgartner]

Post some examples? Maybe you got a less than stellar copy? It happens.

The very best faster primes are going to have some IQ advantages over the 16-55, but I’d say the “bag of primes” moniker is still appropriate - a bag of older f/2.8 primes.

On the wide end, my 16-55 is as good as any of the 16mm prime alternatives and still excellent, but somewhat less so at the long end, especially in terms of OOF rendering. If isolated subject, shallow DOF portraits were a primary goal, I’d probably want a premium prime (my 56 f/1.2 is definitely better for that use), but otherwise I get very sharp results with great color, contrast, and freedom from CA/fringing issues throughout its focal range at any aperture. A great one lens solution, and great travel lens IMO. Bag of primes? Yeah, kinda, just not a bag of the best primes.

 

[razorfish]

It’s a good lens but aging design. There are tons of unexplored options with regards to the Fuji system and it’s a mystery to me why Fuji aren’t moving on much these days. First they need an f2 standard zoom, at least 16mm wide and 70mm on the long end. Then there are a multitude of f2.8 options; 13-55mm, 13-70mm, 16-80mm… It’s so easy to design lenses for APS-C compared to full frame, the corners are a lot closer on APS-C. Sony, Canon and Tamron are moving lens technology forward, pushing the limits of what’s possible on full frame. Fuji has the APS-C field wide open still, but does little.

 

[RobRoy22]

I was recently reviewing my raws shot with this lens as I am trying to decide on a vacation kit and I find myself a bit underwhelmed with its performance on my X-T1, X-H1 and X-T3, especially compared to Fuji primes. I often read the "it's as good as a bag of primes" comment here and on other Fuji groups but honestly, my copy, in terms of resolution, contrast and overall rendering, really isn't. I am wondering if I was just unlucky and bought a bad copy (brand new by the way) or whether anyone else has found the "as good as primes" claim a bit exaggerated? I am even pondering if I might have more luck with the more recent offering from Tamron. Looking through my shots I would say resolution and contrast look "decent" but certainly no better than 24-70 full frame lenses I have owned/used and in some cases worse. I put up some shots in Capture One and compared them to full frame shots I have from my Tamron 24-70 f2.8 lens on my Sony a99 (24 MP old camera) and the Tamron shots look somewhat sharper and more contrasty. Certainly my Fuji primes seem to perform better in terms of 3D "pop" and tonal rendition, at least to my eyes. Hmm, try another copy or something else? Thought about 16-80 but don't think I would get on with those corners at wide angle.

It depends. My primes are f2, f1.4, f1.2 & f1

 

[1000DTL]

I haven't compared the 16-55 directly against them but my Sigma 18-35 f1.8 and 50-100 f1.8 are bags of primes when I used them on my Nikon DSLRs and now on my Fuji bodies with the Fringer adapter. I use the Fuji 16-55 because of it's range compared to the Sigma 18-35 and it has better image quality than the Fuji 16-80. If I definitely need the best image quality and the 18-35 will cover what I am shooting, I use the Sigmas. The difference between f2.8 and f1.8 can be seen in the images.

 

[DJ STU-C]

I love mine, in fact i packed it for a Spain trip recently because the thought of leaving it behind to save weight seemed ridiculous when i look at my favourite shots and that most have been shot with it.

As above, im guessing its down to your expectations, and if its not meeting them look for an alternative. I always thought bag of primes was a slightly strange description of the lens anyway as they serve completely different purposes, but its certainly a very good lens across the range in my experience.

 

[maltmoose]

I think you misunderstood the moniker "a bag of primes"

When people say 16-55 is like a bag of primes, what they mean is that it weighs as much as "a bag of primes"

 

[biza43]

That comparison only means that the 16-55 is a good quality zoom, above the usual "kit zoom". To me, it is an exaggeration, because primes are faster and inly need to be good at one focal length.

In the end, we could also say that any zoom is like a bag of primes, because it replaces carrying 3 or 4 lenses, so offers more flexibility.

 

[fujiian]

I find myself a bit underwhelmed with its performance on my X-T1, X-H1 and X-T3, especially compared to Fuji primes. I often read the "it's as good as a bag of primes" comment here and on other Fuji groups but honestly, my copy, in terms of resolution, contrast and overall rendering, really isn't.

There's a chance you have a subpar copy, but everyone's mileage may vary. I am extremely happy with mine. There are some days I swear it's actually sharper than my 16mm 1.4.






This was AirDropped from Apple photos, so it might have some strange compression on it...

 

[Uncle Ricoh]

The 16-55 really is a good lens, but I have to agree that the “bag of primes” nickname is a bit misleading. You have to be realistic in your expectations for it. I just sold mine less than a month ago to fund another camera purchase. I got along with it okay. It certainly is not compact by any means, but it gets the job done. I just never enjoyed using it. The reason I got the lens in the first place was because at the time it was the only weather sealed lens with a standard zoom range in the Fuji lineup. Over time, I found that I wasn’t shooting as much with it. I only pulled it out to fill in the focal lengths I was missing on the wider end. Now on the wide end, I use my GR III, which is much more compact and provides significantly better image quality. In other words, I would never choose to shoot with the 16-55 if I had a prime lens at the focal length I needed.

I may be in the minority here, but I also had some strange focusing issues with mine from time to time. Most of the time AF was snappy, but every so often it would “lock on” with the green box on something, and later upon review, the photo was unacceptably out of focus. Firmware was up to date. Never happens with my 35mm F/1.4, which is an older lens oddly.

The last thing I’ll say about the lens is that it’s a fantastic video lens. There is little to no focus breathing, and it’s very quiet. I really liked the way it rendered scenes for videos.

I probably won’t pick up the successor to the lens unless it has significant improvements, but I don’t even know how Fuji would improve on it other than sharpness and perhaps a wider aperture.

 

[Marco Cinnirella]

The 16-55 really is a good lens, but I have to agree that the “bag of primes” nickname is a bit misleading. You have to be realistic in your expectations for it. I just sold mine less than a month ago to fund another camera purchase. I got along with it okay. It certainly is not compact by any means, but it gets the job done. I just never enjoyed using it. The reason I got the lens in the first place was because at the time it was the only weather sealed lens with a standard zoom range in the Fuji lineup. Over time, I found that I wasn’t shooting as much with it. I only pulled it out to fill in the focal lengths I was missing on the wider end. Now on the wide end, I use my GR III, which is much more compact and provides significantly better image quality. In other words, I would never choose to shoot with the 16-55 if I had a prime lens at the focal length I needed.

I may be in the minority here, but I also had some strange focusing issues with mine from time to time. Most of the time AF was snappy, but every so often it would “lock on” with the green box on something, and later upon review, the photo was unacceptably out of focus. Firmware was up to date. Never happens with my 35mm F/1.4, which is an older lens oddly.

The last thing I’ll say about the lens is that it’s a fantastic video lens. There is little to no focus breathing, and it’s very quiet. I really liked the way it rendered scenes for videos.

I probably won’t pick up the successor to the lens unless it has significant improvements, but I don’t even know how Fuji would improve on it other than sharpness and perhaps a wider aperture.

I have had that as well, the inexplicably out of focus shot even when the green AF confirm box was present and shutter speed and aperture should have been more than adequate for the job, and on static architectural subjects that are not moving

-- wwww

Marco Cinnirella

Explore Marco Cinnirella’s 476 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

"When words become unclear, I shall focus with photographs. When images become inadequate, I shall be content with silence." Ansel Adams.

 

[fujiian]

I may be in the minority here, but I also had some strange focusing issues with mine from time to time. Most of the time AF was snappy, but every so often it would “lock on” with the green box on something, and later upon review, the photo was unacceptably out of focus. Firmware was up to date. Never happens with my 35mm F/1.4, which is an older lens oddly.

I have had that as well, the inexplicably out of focus shot even when the green AF confirm box was present and shutter speed and aperture should have been more than adequate for the job, and on static architectural subjects that are not moving

May I ask which camera you are using? I haven’t really had these problems on my X-T2 (which I may have just killed, sadly :x) – but I’ve definitely heard of similar problems on newer cameras.

 

[JohnS59]

I was recently reviewing my raws shot with this lens as I am trying to decide on a vacation kit and I find myself a bit underwhelmed with its performance on my X-T1, X-H1 and X-T3, especially compared to Fuji primes. I often read the "it's as good as a bag of primes" comment here and on other Fuji groups but honestly, my copy, in terms of resolution, contrast and overall rendering, really isn't. I am wondering if I was just unlucky and bought a bad copy (brand new by the way) or whether anyone else has found the "as good as primes" claim a bit exaggerated? I am even pondering if I might have more luck with the more recent offering from Tamron. Looking through my shots I would say resolution and contrast look "decent" but certainly no better than 24-70 full frame lenses I have owned/used and in some cases worse. I put up some shots in Capture One and compared them to full frame shots I have from my Tamron 24-70 f2.8 lens on my Sony a99 (24 MP old camera) and the Tamron shots look somewhat sharper and more contrasty. Certainly my Fuji primes seem to perform better in terms of 3D "pop" and tonal rendition, at least to my eyes. Hmm, try another copy or something else? Thought about 16-80 but don't think I would get on with those corners at wide angle.

At f/8 or so I would say yes. Because f/8 or smaller is the great equalizer of all lenses. And at the center most wide angle zoom lenses are pretty sharp, sometimes even surpassing primes, strangely enough.

BTW, I am not so impresssed by the 16-55mm, an above average performer and very usable. But not stellar. But I am still very impressed by the 8-16mm f/2.8, which I would call a real bag of primes. I am pretty sure it's better than the 16mm f/2.8 prime (also better than the 16-55 f/2.8 at 16 mm, less color fringing) and it (almost) equals other 16 mm primes and the magnificent 14mm f/2.8. At all apertures, even wide open. It blows away the 8mm f/3.5 probably too, but I don't own this lens. And it's remarkable that the zoom is f/2.8 and the 8mm prime only f/3.5.

 

[Oregon Dawg]

I suppose the 16-55 f/2.8 is as good as a bag of f/2.8 primes.

I prefer a faster prime, so I have a 33mm f/1.4. But I pair that with a 16-80 zoom to have flexibility, so best of both worlds for me.

If you don't want to use any primes at all, then that 16-55 would be a nice choice. But if you want to use primes, then I'd opt for a smaller and lighter standard zoom to pair with a prime or two.

 

[Ap0ll0n]

I was recently reviewing my raws shot with this lens as I am trying to decide on a vacation kit and I find myself a bit underwhelmed with its performance on my X-T1, X-H1 and X-T3, especially compared to Fuji primes. I often read the "it's as good as a bag of primes" comment here and on other Fuji groups but honestly, my copy, in terms of resolution, contrast and overall rendering, really isn't. I am wondering if I was just unlucky and bought a bad copy (brand new by the way) or whether anyone else has found the "as good as primes" claim a bit exaggerated? I am even pondering if I might have more luck with the more recent offering from Tamron. Looking through my shots I would say resolution and contrast look "decent" but certainly no better than 24-70 full frame lenses I have owned/used and in some cases worse. I put up some shots in Capture One and compared them to full frame shots I have from my Tamron 24-70 f2.8 lens on my Sony a99 (24 MP old camera) and the Tamron shots look somewhat sharper and more contrasty. Certainly my Fuji primes seem to perform better in terms of 3D "pop" and tonal rendition, at least to my eyes. Hmm, try another copy or something else? Thought about 16-80 but don't think I would get on with those corners at wide angle.

At f/8 or so I would say yes. Because f/8 or smaller is the great equalizer of all lenses. And at the center most wide angle zoom lenses are pretty sharp, sometimes even surpassing primes, strangely enough.

BTW, I am not so impresssed by the 16-55mm, an above average performer and very usable. But not stellar. But I am still very impressed by the 8-16mm f/2.8, which I would call a real bag of primes. I am pretty sure it's better than the 16mm f/2.8 prime (also better than the 16-55 f/2.8 at 16 mm, less color fringing) and it (almost) equals other 16 mm primes and the magnificent 14mm f/2.8. At all apertures, even wide open. It blows away the 8mm f/3.5 probably too, but I don't own this lens. And it's remarkable that the zoom is f/2.8 and the 8mm prime only f/3.5.

Actually existing reviews indicate that the 8-16 and the 8 are similar in performance. Which is remarkable given the 8mm is so small and compact at 8mm and accepts filters too.

 

[v30]

Big fan of the 8-16 too. Reviews I saw said it was weak at 16 (lens tip for example), but I find it stellar at 16. Has more distortion than I would like at 8 but I’m assuming that’s just the nature of the beast at that width.

 

[trapezoid]

Some samples from my 16-55. All images SOOC jpgs.

http://imgsrv.sent.com/dpr/1655samples/DSCF3910.JPG

http://imgsrv.sent.com/dpr/1655samples/DSCF4403.JPG

http://imgsrv.sent.com/dpr/1655samples/DSCF4459.JPG

http://imgsrv.sent.com/dpr/1655samples/DSCF4521.JPG

http://imgsrv.sent.com/dpr/1655samples/DSCF4987.JPG

http://imgsrv.sent.com/dpr/1655samples/DSCF6730.JPG

 

[a_c_skinner]

If you are underwhelmed then the lens is defective as it is a very good lens. It isn't a bag of primes, but it is nearly. Mine shows very modest colour fringing which becomes more visible in some circumstances when strong processing is applied. This is supposed to be better with the latest lens firmware (??) but I've not tested that yet.