16-50 zoom - OK ?

[dee]

OOPs ! Much as I appreciate the 27mm ,I would like a modest zoom for the X-Pro 1 - the 16-50 , which would provide a useful 75mm for architectural details .
It would mean the sacrifice of a Leica IIIc body for a £150 used example .
Bearing in mind that my zooms are typical DSLR kit lenses , would it be worth having ?
I have a similar 20-50 for my Samsung NX !000 which suits me perfectly .
Thanks
dee

 

[zuikologist]

It is a pretty good lens, compact, stabilised and quiet focus. Are you ok using the evf for this lens?

 

[gavinlg]

Stretch to the 18-55mm I would say. It's a great lens. The 16-50mm is okay, but it's fuji's cheapest lens in every way.

 

[dee]

Thanks .
I am fine with the EVF these days , and funds are , well , have to sell a Barnack or two and the range suits me . I realise that the 18-55 is a much superior lens , but what the heck , I have been using kit lenses on a K10D / Sony A290 / L1 Olympus 14-42 , so my expectations are probably less than most !!
dee

 

[f16sunshine]

Stretch to the 18-55mm I would say. It's a great lens. The 16-50mm is okay, but it's fuji's cheapest lens in every way.

It's quite a lens the 18-55 I second Gavin on this.
The financial reach is pretty short considering the upgrade.
If you're at all like me, this zoom is pretty much that stops the search for zooms in this range. The 16-50 would leave some doubt. 😱

 

[Pablito]

If at all manageable, the 18-55 is really great. I think of the 16-50 as a toy, kinda.

 

[Jdi]

The difference in IQ between the 16-50 and 18-55 is negligible. I had both for years and ended up selling the 18-55 as I preferred the slightly lower contrast of the 16-50.

Pros for the 16-50: IQ, size (a touch smaller), weight (a lot lighter), a lot less expensive, especially used, and it's sharp. Cons for the 16-50: feels cheap, with all the corrections taking place at the wide end, its more a 17 or 17.5 than a 16.

The OIS is excellent in both. f2.8 doesn't buy much more in terms of separation and OIS takes care of low light.

If you like the draw of your 27 you might look at the 18-55. They are close. The 16-50 is slightly less contrast and presents a more delicate image.

 

[FrankS]

Economics and happenstance conspired to stick me with the 16-50. I miss the closer focusing ability and the aperture ring of the 18-55, but appreciate the slightly wider wide end of the 16-50.

I also have the 27 (no aperture ring either!) and a Rokinon 12mm to go on my XE2 and XM1 bodies.

 

[MCTuomey]

if money is an issue, just get the 16-50 because it's good and won't hurt as much
it's nice to have a couple more mm on the wide end
both the 18-55 and 16-50 need to be stopped down a bit to be sharp on the long end

 

[konicaman]

I have both the 16-50 and the 18-55 and yes the 18-55 is a tad better. But the 16-50 is way superior to all other kit lenses (read Canon and Nikon) that I have used. Go for it 🙂

 

[dee]

Thanks everyone , I guess the telling point is that the 16-50 is superior to other kit lens .
That , and 50 and 75 settings , is all I need.

dee

 

[taemo]

was just going to post a thread about photos I took with the XC 16-50 on my Mount Assiniboine trip instead of the 18-55.
the XC lens build is definitely questionable and plastic, but from my tests, IQ between the 2 is very similar, especially at f/11.

the pros and cons of each lens

XC 16-50
+small
+light
+24-75 35mm equiv focal length
+good IQ stopped down F8-11
-plastic build
-no IS

XF18-55
+great IQ
+great build
+at 18mm, max aperture at f/2.8
+has IS
-heavier than the 16-50

i might keep the 18-55 for now as it could be useful for video but if i dont use it after a couple of weeks or months, I might sell it.

 

[Jdi]

Both the I and II versions of the xc16-50 have OIS.

 

[taemo]

^lol that is good to know! i think i totally forgot that it did have OIS as it's a feature that you access deep within the menu system instead of the lens.

 

[dee]

I am now thinking - keep the X-Pro 27mm because it is a perfect balance etc , maybe sell/save and wait for a used Panasonic LX 100 as second camera with the zoom range I prefer ...

I looked out that Leica IIIc to sell , but it's just too perfect , with just minimal scratching and bracing on the accessory shoe ... seeing the cameras for sale on e-bay , I realise that I have a great example ...

Therefore no funds !!

dee

 

[dee]

Just the eventual culmination of this old post .
I picked up an X-M 1 with 16-50 , customer return ,no accessories mid 2017 @ £200.
The ex-dem X-T 1 18-55 followed in mid 2018 .
Finally , I was gifted with an X-T100 with 15-45.
So pretty well sorted with my prefered focal lengths .