• Cameraderie, a friendly photography forum for photographers and camera enthusiasts!
    If you are looking for critique, tips, advice, buying recommendations, or just want to talk to fellow enthusiasts then join now for free!

Fuji Showcase Ordered th 16-55

I'm going to see this through. The 90 is going next along with the 18-55 if I can find a good deal on the 50-140. This was the plan all along and to hold onto my favorite primes which now is the 23 and 35 f2. I still have the Rokinon 12 for a super wide but my 16 was spending to much time in the bag and I have been shooting the 23 almost exclusively on landscapes so it may be my go to prime. The 35 is just dead nuts sharp and fast focus so it's a no brainer. Still have to work a 56 in there somehow.
 
It's big, it's heavy and you will be grateful for every painful moment you're carrying it. Yes, that sounded creepily masochistic. But we all pay a price to answer the muse. :D
I’ve been going through my work from the past few years comparing the stuff from the 50-140 to stuff from the 90. Shot at the same locations, events, etc. And portraits. The results being that the 90 is very good. And so much easier to carry around. But I prefer the results from the 50-140 much more. Every time. So it is worth the pain of lugging around.
 

Covey22

Hall of Famer
Feb 3, 2012
124
Loved the 90, and I got such a pristine 2nd hand copy it felt criminal to give it up. But the FL was killing me when my position was fixed, and in equal low light situations, I reached for the 56 more often.
 
Well by chance I was on the coast and ran into someone who had the 16-55. He agreed to let me mount it up and I'll have to admit the 18-55 was as sharp as the 16-55 and a lot less heavy. Hand Held the OIS made a ton of difference for me. Wavering a bit now. May have to cancel this and go for the 50-140. The top end is where I'm weakest anyway. I have a hard time trading glass.:confused-95:
 

Covey22

Hall of Famer
Feb 3, 2012
124
It's a lot heavier and bigger for sure. You'll always end up trading off those factors for more performance. I would strongly recommend getting to a store that stocks the 50-140 and try it for yourself first. If you thought the 16-55 is big, the telephoto is even more so. The 55-200 was such a tiny thing compared to it.
 
I've had the 55-200 and it's a great lens, but I've also shot Nikon 80-200 2.8 for years and 70-200 2.8 VR. The long end I'm prepared for it to be heavy, but I am so covered on the short end I need to back away for a bit. I ordered the 56 1.2 so that fills a hole and only leaves one to go. I didn't realize the 16-55 without OIS would be that different. I've always said the 18-55 is a hell of a lens and now I know it for sure. The 50-140 I will need in dark venues with no flash. This rules out about everything else, plus the 50-140 is OIS.
 

KillRamsey

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2012
124
Hood River, OR
The 18-55 is just such a stunning, classic design. I'm sorry. It does so much, so well, with so few trade-offs. I sometimes feel they shouldn't have made it so good, from a business perspective. It's like they don't know how to dial it back a notch.
 
Yeah , I cant tell my 18-55 from a prime really. I have a S load of lens and this one is on my camera 50% of the time. I do have a great copy, and it's light. I watched a video and the guy took it down to 1/10 @ 55mm and with good form and breathing it was tack sharp. I tried this with the 16-55 and my hit ratio was not as good ,with the 18-55 ,tack sharp. I know its not a super low light lens but that's what the 16 and now 56 is for. The 50-140 I will deal with, but hey that's Rock and Roll.
 
The 18-55 is just such a stunning, classic design. I'm sorry. It does so much, so well, with so few trade-offs. I sometimes feel they shouldn't have made it so good, from a business perspective. It's like they don't know how to dial it back a notch.
I'm not sorry , it just saved me 900.00 . I have the Roki 12, Fui 16 1.4, 23 f2, 35 f2 on the low end plus the 18-55. That's covered, the 50-140 I need to get through High School with the Grand kids.
 

Covey22

Hall of Famer
Feb 3, 2012
124
My last mid-range (and daily carry) zoom was the 17-55/2.8 DX. What a beast, and it didn't have VR. I got used to it, and the pull-out LCD on the XT-10 makes it easy to achieve low angle and other hand held wide shots with the 16-55. Honestly I don't miss the OIS, but I get it - you already have that range mostly covered. I do have to say though, 16 is 16, and man do I get a lot more interesting perspectives with it.
 

Latest threads

Top Bottom