Fuji 18-55 vs 16-55

[Karl]

Posted a question about this in another section, but figured I'd ask here to see if anyone else had input.

I'm looking at these two choices to go on an XT-1. I'm a Nikon user used to big heavy glass, but I would like to drastically cut down what I'm carrying. This is going to be a traveling camera, so 90% handheld, a fair share of low-light situations, and variety of shooting distances/widths.

So, I see at as the sharpness and wider aperture of the 16-55, vs the OIS of the 18-55. Is it a wash here?

Also, is there a real difference in minimum focusing distances with these? I suspect not.

I've considered primes, but I have a tendency to shoot close up details of things, so I'd probably be shooting more with the 56 than the 35 if I went with primes, but would still need wider.. then suddenly I'm bringing a lot of lenses again.

Thoughts?

 

[Koban]

I have both and using both. When needed a f/2.8 and Wheather seal you go for the 16-55. When you do not need all of these. Then the 18-55 is a great option. I had very nice results with it.

Yes the 16-55 is damn sharp but this will not make the 18-55 a bad lens. Only that the 16-55 is a bit beter. That much beter? It is a bit sharper etc. Best thing to do go to a shop make some test shots with both from a tripod and go home and examen the files on your own computer. Do you see huge differences?

Made wit a 18-55 + cpl
https://www.flickr.com/photos/superdaantje/14113438569/

Made with the 18-55
https://www.flickr.com/photos/superdaantje/13738955055/in/photostream/

18-55 + lee filters
https://www.flickr.com/photos/superdaantje/13581629684/in/photostream/

16-55
https://www.flickr.com/photos/superdaantje/16559927379/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/superdaantje/16556292220/in/photostream/

 

[Lightmancer]

So, I'm missing a dog in this fight since I have the 18-55 and the 18-135 but there are a couple of general comments I would make. You may be used to "big heavy glass" but, like all of us, you are not getting any younger I have lugged around some considerable weight in the past, including Nikon, but now realise that every extra kilogram equates to a kilometre not walked, so I prefer to err to the travelling light side.

Example. I have the X-Pro1 and the X-T1 and both lenses as previously mentioned. I am about to go to Florence and Pisa for a few days. I will take the X-Pro and the 18-55 (together with the 35mm for speed and the 14mm for coverage) as my core kit. I'll leave everything else at home. If I was out for the day and the day was overcast and rainy, I would take the X-T1 and the 18-135 to take advantage of the weather-sealing. Although I do use the 18-135 on the X-Pro I use it as a single-lens kit when I do, thereby negating the weight by not carrying anything else.

D'you see where I'm going with this? It's all about intended use, and about how much you are happy to carry for how long over what distances in what weather. The problem is that your options are quite sharply polarised in terms of weight and features; the similarity in focal lengths is a red-herring.

If I were you I would buy the 16-55 and look to pick up the 18-55 pre-owned; there are a number on the secondhand market and it shouldn't be hard to snag a good one at a good price. You then have the best of both worlds and your decision is made at the start of the day (or the trip) rather than here and now.

 

[KillRamsey]

A gently used 18-55 (like a gently used 35 f1.4) remains one of the best lens bargains out there today, period. Price-to-performance is off the scale.

 

[Karl]

Thanks all for the input!

I'm considering the 18-135 in the mix as well. Really need to get to a shop and do some hands-on.

 

[cpt000]

Pardon my ignorance, but the 18-55 can be used on a x-a1 body, right?

 

[Koban]

yes can be used ;-)

 

[Lightmancer]

Well, here's a quick postscript to my earlier post, based upon real-world usage. I took exactly the kit I listed above to Florence and Pisa (18-55, 35, 14). What I found was that I could have done with a bit more speed at the wide end (dark church and gallery interiors) and a bit more reach at the long end. Knowing what I do now, if I was repeating the trip tomorrow I would replace the 18-55 with the 18-135 and seriously consider taking a Samyang 12mm f2 instead of the 14.

 

[KillRamsey]

Very interesting, Bill. Makes that 16mm f1.4 even more compelling.

 

[KillRamsey]

Pardon my ignorance, but the 18-55 can be used on a x-a1 body, right?

Yes indeed. All of the XC and XF lenses will work on all of the X bodies that take lenses.

 

[Karl]

Very interesting, Bill. Makes that 16mm f1.4 even more compelling.

Yeah.. if I do sell off my Nikon gear, probably going to look at this as well..

 

[Tim Williams]

While I will concede the 16-55 is better in certain areas for me this reaffirms what I have learned. The 18-55 is fantastic as a zoom. Good enough for me..

Fstoppers Compares the Fujifilm XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 and XF 16-55mm f/2.8

Fujifilm has become quite well known for it’s excellent APS-C lens lineup and now has enough lenses that several of them overlap significantly. One pair of lenses that bare consideration for many getting into the Fujifilm X system are the “kit” XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 R LM OIS and the “professional” XF 16-55mm f/2.8 R LM WR. Let’s take a look at the differences between them. The XF 18-55mm is a renowned lens among the kit lenses of the world. It is known for being fast, silent, and having excellent i

fstoppers.com

 

[Bobby T]

The 18-55 is far above and beyond any kit lens. And a great option in the zoom lineup.