Fuji 16-55 versus primes?

SsSsSsSsSnake

SsSsSsSsSnake

Suspended / Banned
Messages
9,886
Edit My Images
Yes
How would this stand up against the primes
18mm 23mm 27mm 35mm and 56mm?

Apart from low light usage and perhaps better bokeh on some of the primes what else would one give up by using just the zoom,
is the IQ of the primes a lot better?

Thanks
 
Generally Fuji zooms are comparable to prime quality and better in some cases. If you don't mind the weight and size and don't need the extra stops the zooms are the best way to go.
 
The zoom for me,then add an fast prime at the focal length you use most on your zoom,for really low light work :)
 
Last edited:
I own the 16-55 f2.8 and it is very sharp, although it is heavier than most lenses in the Fuji range, I find that it is very hand holdable on my X-T1 and in fact the weight seems to make it easier to hold steady. The other thing to remember that although the 16-55 weighs 655 gm, the total weight of the lenses detailed by the OP is 1,085 gm, some 430 gm heavier, and they all have to be carried in the camera bag to cover the same range. In addition when collected together they are of a much larger volume than the 16-55.
 
Hi Chris
How do you find the IQ compared to any zooms you've tried owned?
thanks
PS do you find no IS any issue?
 
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
Hi Chris
How do you find the IQ compared to any zooms you've tried owned?
thanks
PS do you find no IS any issue?
Click to expand...

My main interest is portrait photography so my comments are based on my usage of the lens, however I have used it for general photography and found it very satisfactory for that as well.

Before buying the 16-55 I took quite a number of sample shots, one advantage of having built up a good relationship with a local camera shop I have supported for a number of years, and compared the results with the 18-55 I owned. I found, others may have found differently, that the 16-55 was visibly sharper wide open. Of course the other advantages were having 16 mm instead of 18 mm at the short end and f2.8 at the long end.

I find that the 16-55 is too sharp at f4 to use on any female subject with less than perfect skin and/or makeup and either a soft focus filter or softening during processing is necessary. Another advantage is that when using the Nikon system, because of the aperture of the 28-105, I also had a 85 mm f1.4 D for shallow dof, owning the 16-55 I see no need for the 56 mm f1.2 and have bought a 90 mm f2 instead.

The only other similar zooms I can compare it with are the two Nikon ones I owned before moving completely to Fuji about a month ago. These were the the 24-85 f3-5-4.5, the discontinued one, not the current version, followed by the 28-105 3.5-4.5, which I bought secondhand in mint condition, after being so disappointed with the 24-120 f4 that I tried. Again others may find the 24-120 perfectly satisfactory, this is only my personal opinion. The Fuji 16-55 outperforms both of them by quite a margin when I look at similar shots taken with the Nikon lenses on my D700 and the 16-55 on my X-T1.

Because of the type of photography I mainly do I don't find the lack of IS to be a problem. I find that the weight of the lens to be an advantage at slower shutter speeds at it seems to make it easier to hold the lens steady, but if anyone regularly shoots in dim conditions requiring shutter speeds below 1/60th then I would recommend that they buy, or stick with if they already have one, the 18-55. I must admit that with the type of photography I do I don't really understand the obsession with IS, as none of the Nikon lenses I used for portraiture, those I mentioned above and the 105 DC I also owned, had it and I never had a problem. There has been a lot of talk about the 16-55 and the lack of IS, but the 56 f1.2 doesn't have it either, so why would the 16-55 be any less difficult to hand hold?

Hope these comments have helped.
 
Hey Chris
Thankyou very very much for a wonderfully explicit response to my question.you have clearly answered some of the questions i had in my head.
Always good to get some reviews from users especially as you had some nice Nikon glass to compare on your d700.

I will read your reply some more as I am drawn to the 35mm to use on my XE1 to compliment my X100 ,so still deciding at the moment but once again many thanks for your reply

Chris
 
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
Hey Chris
Thankyou very very much for a wonderfully explicit response to my question.you have clearly answered some of the questions i had in my head.
Always good to get some reviews from users especially as you had some nice Nikon glass to compare on your d700.

I will read your reply some more as I am drawn to the 35mm to use on my XE1 to compliment my X100 ,so still deciding at the moment but once again many thanks for your reply

Chris
Click to expand...

Just a thought Chris.

Although the 35mm is a fantastic lens, (I have owned 3 in the past when using Fuji). But...... would you be possibly better off with a zoom lens as the X100 and 35mm lens are close (ish) in focal length?....... Would a zoom give you more flexability or even consider a longer prime like the 60mm Macro. For me that was my sharpest lens corner to corner on the different lenses I have used, have a look at some of Peters photos on the Xpro1 thread.
 
Thankyou for that Simon,i will consider what you suggest and i do like all Peters photos lol ,thats one of the reasons i was looking at the 35mm but you do have a point .
Thanks
 
Simon you said the 60 was the sharpest,you had the 35,what else did you compare it with please?
Thanks
 
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
Simon you said the 60 was the sharpest,you had the 35,what else did you compare it with please?
Thanks
Click to expand...

Chris I have had,

2 x 18mm
3 x 35mm
2 x 16-50mm
2 x 50-230mm
2 x 18-55mm
2 x 60mm
1 x 55-200mm

Plus, I have used and owned about 60 manual focus lenses. I have been in and out with Fuji more or less since the XE-1 launch., but now with a Nikon D750.

IMO for the price, the 60mm is an excellent lens as they all are with Fuji even the cheaper XC lenses. I have just felt the 60mm was the sharpest corner to corner and a lot of people will say the same if you search for the original lenses review. I compared the 60mm against the 56mm and for me, there wasn't enough of an improvement to warrant the extra wonga for the little gains. I'm not the type of person who needs one eyelash in focus with a f1.2 lens. Also low light shooting wasn't a need for me.

It all depends on your shooting needs Chris, but I was trying to offer an alternative.
 
Swanseajack said:
Chris I have had,

2 x 18mm
3 x 35mm
2 x 16-50mm
2 x 50-230mm
2 x 18-55mm
2 x 60mm
1 x 55-200mm

Plus, I have used and owned about 60 manual focus lenses. I have been in and out with Fuji more or less since the XE-1 launch., but now with a Nikon D750.

IMO for the price, the 60mm is an excellent lens as they all are with Fuji even the cheaper XC lenses. I have just felt the 60mm was the sharpest corner to corner and a lot of people will say the same if you search for the original lenses review. I compared the 60mm against the 56mm and for me, there wasn't enough of an improvement to warrant the extra wonga for the little gains. I'm not the type of person who needs one eyelash in focus with a f1.2 lens. Also low light shooting wasn't a need for me.

It all depends on your shooting needs Chris, but I was trying to offer an alternative.
Click to expand...

Wow youve had some lenses Simon, much appreciate the advice,this isnt easy lol

Thanks again Simon
 
I own few Fuji lenses on of which is the 16-55mm f2.8. I have it with me on holiday alongside the 10-24, 35, 56 & 55-200. I m very happy with the 16-55 that I have barely used the other lenses so far. It's the heaviest but apart from that it's sharp, quiet and fast to focus. I have the large hand grip fitted on my xt-1 all the time so size and weight is not an issue at all.

I was about to trade it for the 16mm f1.4 but I didn't and I m glad I kept it
 
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
Jack i apologise for some reason ive been calling you Simon, senior moment me tginks lol
Click to expand...

Probably because his name is Simon? :P

I've had two 35's... Both crap. In comparison to the 23mm the 35mm is poor. Noisy, slower, not as sharp, especially wide open. Fuji's newer lenses are a step up compared to the older ones. Their zooms are simply superb. Well, the 50-140mm was. From what i have seen and read the 16-55 is one of the sharpest lenses they do.. Expensive and heavy though by comparison.
 
Earley Man said:
My main interest is portrait photography so my comments are based on my usage of the lens, however I have used it for general photography and found it very satisfactory for that as well.

Before buying the 16-55 I took quite a number of sample shots, one advantage of having built up a good relationship with a local camera shop I have supported for a number of years, and compared the results with the 18-55 I owned. I found, others may have found differently, that the 16-55 was visibly sharper wide open. Of course the other advantages were having 16 mm instead of 18 mm at the short end and f2.8 at the long end.

I find that the 16-55 is too sharp at f4 to use on any female subject with less than perfect skin and/or makeup and either a soft focus filter or softening during processing is necessary. Another advantage is that when using the Nikon system, because of the aperture of the 28-105, I also had a 85 mm f1.4 D for shallow dof, owning the 16-55 I see no need for the 56 mm f1.2 and have bought a 90 mm f2 instead.

The only other similar zooms I can compare it with are the two Nikon ones I owned before moving completely to Fuji about a month ago. These were the the 24-85 f3-5-4.5, the discontinued one, not the current version, followed by the 28-105 3.5-4.5, which I bought secondhand in mint condition, after being so disappointed with the 24-120 f4 that I tried. Again others may find the 24-120 perfectly satisfactory, this is only my personal opinion. The Fuji 16-55 outperforms both of them by quite a margin when I look at similar shots taken with the Nikon lenses on my D700 and the 16-55 on my X-T1.

Because of the type of photography I mainly do I don't find the lack of IS to be a problem. I find that the weight of the lens to be an advantage at slower shutter speeds at it seems to make it easier to hold the lens steady, but if anyone regularly shoots in dim conditions requiring shutter speeds below 1/60th then I would recommend that they buy, or stick with if they already have one, the 18-55. I must admit that with the type of photography I do I don't really understand the obsession with IS, as none of the Nikon lenses I used for portraiture, those I mentioned above and the 105 DC I also owned, had it and I never had a problem. There has been a lot of talk about the 16-55 and the lack of IS, but the 56 f1.2 doesn't have it either, so why would the 16-55 be any less difficult to hand hold?

Hope these comments have helped.
Click to expand...

Interesting comments about IS. I come from a background of using it on some lenses. I've recently had this obsession with going with an Olympus body to get IBIS. I do love the idea of having IBIS and stabilizing all my primes. But then....the other day I sat and thought about the times I would benefit from IS and...well....I don't think I would much. The scenes I shoot always seem to have movement in them, if only slight. I guess this is why I love primes. Fast and therefore ultimately have the ability to maintain a faster shutter speed more of the time. It's kind of funny....the times you really want IS tend to be on longer telephoto lenses I think it would be fair to say, but for me whenever I find myself using one, it's trying to capture something that moves and therefore often doesn't make much difference to the shot. IS for video...that's another matter.
 
minnnt said:
Probably because his name is Simon? :p

I've had two 35's... Both crap. In comparison to the 23mm the 35mm is poor. Noisy, slower, not as sharp, especially wide open. Fuji's newer lenses are a step up compared to the older ones. Their zooms are simply superb. Well, the 50-140mm was. From what i have seen and read the 16-55 is one of the sharpest lenses they do.. Expensive and heavy though by comparison.
Click to expand...

You are the first person I have seen to speak ill of a Fuji lens on here. About time! :) Most people tend to say things like "all Fuji X lenses are ace".
I thought the 35mm was massively improved by the latest v4 firmware in terms of focusing speed? As for IQ, again, I thought the 35mm was generally considered to be excellent along with most of their primes?
How would you rate the 56 out of interest and the 18-55 and 16-50 kit?

EDIT: That reminds me, any news on the new 35 f2 lens? ETA? Size? Length? Cost?
 
Last edited:
The V4 fw did improve it, but only for XT bodies. It was still nowhere as quick as the 23 or the 50-140. It was ok stopped down, but i buy fast lenses to be able to use them wide open... I don't want f2.

I haven't used the other 3 lenses you mention, but have used the 60mm and the IQ from that really has a nice lovely quality to it. Sharp wide open but slow to focus and also noisy. It can get very confused if the scene is backlit too. Rather annoying as its output is lovely.

The upcoming 35mm f2 may be worth waiting for i guess?
 
I would much prefer primes over big, bulky and heavy zooms for most stuff. Thus I do not own any general purpose zooms (16-55, 18-55 16-50). I use my combination of X100 and 60mm in most cases. I certainly wouldn't consider so many primes in first post. 18mm 23mm 27mm 35mm and 56mm? 18mm and 35mm, or 23mm and 56mm would be adequate. Then zoom with your feet.

Only reason to go for zoom, is when at the extremes and you need flexibility quickly. eg. 10-24mm gives flexibility for changing perspective quickly, also just 2mm change is very large at this focal length, so cannot covered by a single prime. 55-200 for zooming in and out quickly at airshows.
 
Thankyou yes. In my original post i was refering to all those primes available when say the 16-55 2,8 would cover them all at less cost, i consider my x100 at 35 to be ideal so maybe the 60 would be a good shot especially as i love to take flower shots, ive discounted a longer zoom as something i dont need.thought of 18-55 because its a good sharpish lens with iis. Very close to deciding between the 60 and 18-55 , i think the 16-55 may be too heavy and ott for wat i do
Thanks
 
How about the 16-50 and a Helios 44m 58mm with adapter? Would cost a little over £100 and cover a lot. Without exif data I'd be hard pushed to tell the difference in shots between the 16-50 & 18-55 (the 18-55 just looks and feels better)
 
Lol thankyou for reminding me David;) maybe my D3300 18-55 is enough and the 60 would be the way to go, watever im ordering today something gas is heavy on my stomach literally lol .
 
Barrysprout said:
How about the 16-50 and a Helios 44m 58mm with adapter? Would cost a little over £100 and cover a lot. Without exif data I'd be hard pushed to tell the difference in shots between the 16-50 & 18-55 (the 18-55 just looks and feels better)
Click to expand...
Thanks ;)
Just when im getting nearer you come along Barry lol, good idea but im edging toward the 60 ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top