Fuji My thoughts switching from primes to the 16-55 2.8

Ty S. · Apr 12, 2017

Well, now I'm considering the 16-55 f/2.8 based on my current mostly event shooting, but I need to do some reshuffling of the inventory. I'm also concerned about the 10-24mm overlap at the short end. But I use that 10mm end quit a bit. And then there are the primes. Of those the 90mm definitely goes. It has seen almost no use since purchase. The shorter primes will be covered with the zooms. And does anybody know what the deal is with the "out of stock" situation on this lens? (USA) Any rumors on availability? Thanks!

Bobby T · Apr 12, 2017

A friend of mine in Long Island was able to order one today. So you may want to check all of the usual places, local shops, B&H, Amazon, etc.

Had Capture One not sent me on a roller coaster ride last year, I never would have switched back to primes. As soon as I figure out things out I re acquired the 16-55. Had it for two months and never touched a prime. So I sold them all. The 16-55/50-140 is a great event combo. Fuji will be releasing the 8-16 2.8. So at that point you may consider replacing the 10-24. Until then, I would not be concerned with some overlap.

KillRamsey · Apr 13, 2017

Wow - I hadn't heard about the pending 8-16 2.8 lens.

Bobby T · Apr 13, 2017

KillRamsey said:
Wow - I hadn't heard about the pending 8-16 2.8 lens.

It's listed on the roadmap as ultra wide angle zoom for 2018. But the sites have been saying 8-16mm. Which would make sense as an equivalent to the nikon 14-24 2.8.

Bernie Gibson · Apr 13, 2017

Also made the change from Primes to the Fuji 16-55mm lens. Used it a lot on the XE-1 and now it is on the Fuji X-T20 a lot.......here is an image from 16-55mm and XE-1......

Lightmancer · Apr 14, 2017

It's the weight of a single lens wot puts me off. It's taken me years to fettle my ideal kit, first in Leica M and now in Fuji X. 35-50-90 (or 23-35-50 in Fuji-speak) meets 90% of my shooting needs. If I need wider, I reach for the 14. The massive benefit to me of primes when travelling is that I can distribute the weight. I "get" zooms, honestly, and there are times when I'll just step out of the door with the 18-135 or the 50-230 or even the 100-400 but that's for specific reasons. Most of my photography is "reflective" so the time it takes to change lenses is an advantage not a disadvantage.

Bernie Gibson · Apr 14, 2017

BobbyT said:
It's listed on the roadmap as ultra wide angle zoom for 2018. But the sites have been saying 8-16mm. Which would make sense as an equivalent to the nikon 14-24 2.8.

I am saving my pennies for this one....

Bobby T · Apr 14, 2017

Lightmancer said:
It's the weight of a single lens wot puts me off. It's taken me years to fettle my ideal kit, first in Leica M and now in Fuji X. 35-50-90 (or 23-35-50 in Fuji-speak) meets 90% of my shooting needs. If I need wider, I reach for the 14. The massive benefit to me of primes when travelling is that I can distribute the weight. I "get" zooms, honestly, and there are times when I'll just step out of the door with the 18-135 or the 50-230 or even the 100-400 but that's for specific reasons. Most of my photography is "reflective" so the time it takes to change lenses is an advantage not a disadvantage.

I shot that way most of my life. Including weddings. A prime trilogy, usually 35/85/135 in FF terms. It is a wonderful way to shoot. And I agree that taking time is huge benefit to the images.

But the last few years it became much more advantageous for me to have a quality zoom kit. While heavy for a fuji kit, I find the 16-55/50-140 kit is still lighter in weight than my Canon 1D/3 prime kit by quite a lot. Lately I've been finding that I shoot with the 50-140 because I really love the images it produces. But the 16-55 is my workhorse by far.

When I want to go lightweight, and/or be a lot more incognito, I strip off the battery grip and use the 18-55.

rixpix · Apr 15, 2017

Lightmancer said:
... Most of my photography is "reflective" so the time it takes to change lenses is an advantage not a disadvantage.

What a great way of looking at this subject. This will stick with me and and will probably influence my decision (leaning towards primes) when choosing a kit for the day or trip (although the 18-55 will usually be close by, just in case, since the widest prime I have is 23). Thanks !

KillRamsey · Apr 19, 2017

Those last 4-5 posts are also inadvertently another plug for the humble 18-55... Where else do you get 2.8 (at one end), and 27-80mm range in something no bigger than (and sometimes smaller than) the primes? With OIS! It doesn't tug at me the way the primes do, but when I'm working (photographing while biking in urban settings), it just works so much better than the primes so much of the time that I have no real choice but to use it. It's smaller and lighter than the 23 f1.4 and the 56 1.2. It's pretty much identical to the 14 f2.8.

Bobby T · Apr 19, 2017

You can't really go wrong with the 18-55. Fuji really made a special lens, for the reasons that you stated. Plus the fact that it is super sharp. As stated above, I use it when I want to go light/incognito. Also it is a great backup to the 16-55 at events. Plus, there are times when the OIS is much more beneficial than a constant 2.8 aperture. One could get away with a kit consisting of the 18-55/55-200 combo at a lot of events due to their great OIS and decent aperture range. Maybe throw in a prime for really low light.

pixels4u · May 27, 2017

Enjoyed the write up and I agree that the 16-55mm is every good as the prime equivalents. I use mine on my X-T2 and X-Pro2 and the results are stunning. Out of my 9 Fuji lenses, my two that spend most of the time on the camera are the 16-55mm and the 10-24mm. Sublime results of the 16-55mm and equals if not betters anything my Nikon 16-35mm paired with my D800E.

My opinion of Fujinon lenses is so high I am slowly migrating away from Nikons!

Bobby T · May 28, 2017

I've been doing a lot of portraits with the 16-55 over the last few months. Traditional thinking would dictate using the 50-140, of the two lenses that I shoot with, for portraits. I really like the interaction with my subject I can get from being much closer to them using the 16-55. It makes for a more intimate feel in the images. Here is small example.