back alley
IMAGES
anyone using the 16 - 55 instead of using the 16 and 56 primes?
anyone starting with the zoom and move into the primes or visa versa?
can you talk about your experience?
anyone starting with the zoom and move into the primes or visa versa?
can you talk about your experience?
sepiareverb
genius and moron
The 16~55 is quite something. I was skeptical, having left zooms behind many years ago after dumping all the Nikon, but wow. Better than the 18 prime.
The 16~55 at 16 or 18:
The 18:
The 18 is soft in the corners. Granted the first shot is all OOF in the corners, but I don't have anything else on Flickr from it full frame, and nothing else on this laptop.
The 16~55 at 16 or 18:
The 18:
The 18 is soft in the corners. Granted the first shot is all OOF in the corners, but I don't have anything else on Flickr from it full frame, and nothing else on this laptop.
MCTuomey
Veteran
joe, lucky to have and use both. zoom for events when light is adequate. a 16/1.4 and 56/1.2 for small music venues where light is often poor and flash is a no. horses for courses.
the 16-55 is a handful, but i get used to it, basically balancing it in my left hand. shoots well, fast AF (similar to the 16/1.4, faster than the 56), great IQ.
the primes get me shots that i couldn't make at f/2.8. the 56 isolates very well, AF is prone to hunt in high contrast. the 16 gets me great extension when it's tight and poorly lighted, AF's in near darkness with my trusty xt-1.
@bob nice isolation for an f/2.8 lens at 16-18, imho
the 16-55 is a handful, but i get used to it, basically balancing it in my left hand. shoots well, fast AF (similar to the 16/1.4, faster than the 56), great IQ.
the primes get me shots that i couldn't make at f/2.8. the 56 isolates very well, AF is prone to hunt in high contrast. the 16 gets me great extension when it's tight and poorly lighted, AF's in near darkness with my trusty xt-1.
@bob nice isolation for an f/2.8 lens at 16-18, imho
back alley
IMAGES
it's never simple eh?
if i do get the zoom i would keep the 2 primes also...part of my never sell a lens policy.
if i do get the zoom i would keep the 2 primes also...part of my never sell a lens policy.
narsuitus
Well-known
Originally, I purchased the Fuji X-Pro1 as my available light camera. Here are the lenses I purchased in order from first purchased to last purchased:
23mm f/1.4 Fujinon
56mm f/1.2 Fujinon
16mm f/1.4 Fujinon
12mm f/2 Rokinon
135mm f/2 Zeiss
I was so pleased with the performance of my available light kit that I purchased the 16-55mm f/2.8 for the times when I did not need to carry my 16, 23, and 56 or did not have time to switch lenses.
Five Prime Lens Mirrorless Kit by Narsuitus, on Flickr
Timmyjoe
Veteran
I love using manual focus prime lenses, especially on my Nikon Df camera. Unfortunately, when covering events, the changing of the primes, and having to go into the menu and change the non-CPU data for each lens when I swap them, just takes too much time. Have had to go back to the 24-70 on a regular DSLR for event coverage, which is not nearly as much fun, but I don't miss shots.
Best,
-Tim
Best,
-Tim
ptpdprinter
Veteran
How about one zoom for four primes? I use the 18-55 in lieu of the 18, 23, 35 and 56. I like the small size and versatility. I would rather bump up ISO two stops than carry around bulk and weight. I compose in camera rather than crop in software which favors the zoom. This is a carry over from my film days when I shot slides with 28-48 and 35-70 zooms.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
I am quite happily surprised by the higher ISO performance on the Xpro2.
back alley
IMAGES
with zooms i tend to think in terms of both ends of the focal length...my bad!
but when shooting a zoom i do use the range of it pretty much.
but when shooting a zoom i do use the range of it pretty much.
faris
Well-known
I have the 16-55. And the wife has the 18-55
But do not use it except for a small and short outing. Heavy for me.
I might get rid of it. But it is dam* good!
So 14/16, 35, 56 is my kit with the XP2 and the XH-1. I very rarely might add the 90/2 if the destination warrants the fl. But reluctantly, due to its weight.
I could do most of what I need with just the 35/56.
But do not use it except for a small and short outing. Heavy for me.
I might get rid of it. But it is dam* good!
So 14/16, 35, 56 is my kit with the XP2 and the XH-1. I very rarely might add the 90/2 if the destination warrants the fl. But reluctantly, due to its weight.
I could do most of what I need with just the 35/56.
back alley
IMAGES
i'm still mulling this over...i'm having a blast using the pancake 15-45...seems in great alignment with my own way of seeing things. if only it were a bit quicker!
the 16-55 would be a pretty good answer...similar coverage and a constant 2.8...but bigger & heavier.
the 16-55 would be a pretty good answer...similar coverage and a constant 2.8...but bigger & heavier.
While not sexy, why not the 18-55mm? It is lighter, faster, and still not huge compared to your 15-45mm. The 16-55mm is made for those coming from a DSLR and that are used to having this type of lens for work, etc. For those of us who use Fuji because it is the best compromise between price, size, and IQ, this lens generally is too large for us ultimately. Yes, I have used it and yes, it is very nice. Ultimately, I left it home though, so I went back to the 18-55m for when I need a zoom.
Out to Lunch
Ventor
I don't have the 16-55 but I believe that the 1.2/56 is one of the best Fuji lenses available.
NickTrop
Veteran
I'm am a 100% Nikon FF DSLR shooter and traded in all my other gear. I have flirted with zooms. I'm a prime lens guy. This is a preference based on what "feels right". Have nothing against zoom lenses. However, since this is "rangefinderforum", and you couldn't very well use a zoom on a film rangefinder, I would imagine most here opt for primes.
I limit myself to two focal length combinations -- sometimes only one.
One lens -- Nikon 50/1.4 AF-D. I call this "the poor man's "'Cron." (Actually, that would be the 'Lux in Leica speak, I think -- but whatever...) Beats the newer "G" by a hair surprisingly, if you care about DXOmark ratings. One of the very few lenses where max aperture = t-stop value. 1.4 = 1.4. No lost color or tonality information. 100% of the light/information captured makes its way to the film/sensor.
Combos:
50/1.4 AF-D + Sigma Ultrawide II 24/2.8 AF macro (95% of the time I just use the 50, but bring the 24 along for the ride. The Sigma is cheap compared to the Nikon and it's just fine -- around the same output as the Nikon version, imo. No use sinking money in focal lenghts you don't use a lot. Good enough is good enough, plus it's tiny. Takes no space in the small bag I use.)
Nikon 35/2 AF-D + Nikon 85/1.8G (The "wedding photographer" combo. Great combo for events. The 35 gets diss'd sometimes. Not a world beater spec-wise compared to ultra-corrected [high element count, large, heavy, pricey] modern 35's. But go on 500px and see what people do with this lens... Smaller, lighter, cheaper...).
One and Only Zoom
Tokina 17-35/4 ATX Pro (Strictly a landscape lens and, imo, an overlooked gem. Working apertures 8 on up as sharp as the rest, smaller, lighter, much less expensive...)
Boom. Done. No more lenses -- I swear it!
I don't diss zoomers. Output is fine. But -to me- the bigger the kit, the more likely it is to set on the shelf. One zoom -- an ultrawide. But they don't count. All the lenses I regularly use are small except the ultrawide and the 85, which is light. Torn between the 85 D and the G. But they were fairly close in price (even used) and the G is sharper at 1.8, and being this is a portrait lens 1.8 is a working aperture -- so I went with the G.
Oh -- one last lens I forgot! The Helios 44-4 58/2. Bought this as a manual portrait lens for crop sensor Nikon because 58mm ~ 85mm on cropped sensor, and it's know for the "swirly bokeh" characteristic. Small, light. Though I have a FF portrait lens, I kept this around. It was modified/machined to focus to infinity without those nasty M42-Nikon adapters, and was also professionally fitted with a Dandilion AF confirmation chip, so it's effectively a manual-focus Nikon that can focus to infinity and talks to the camera. Probably one of the very few Helios 44-4's in the US you can use just fine on a Nikon. Fun lens, but thinking of selling it off.
I limit myself to two focal length combinations -- sometimes only one.
One lens -- Nikon 50/1.4 AF-D. I call this "the poor man's "'Cron." (Actually, that would be the 'Lux in Leica speak, I think -- but whatever...) Beats the newer "G" by a hair surprisingly, if you care about DXOmark ratings. One of the very few lenses where max aperture = t-stop value. 1.4 = 1.4. No lost color or tonality information. 100% of the light/information captured makes its way to the film/sensor.
Combos:
50/1.4 AF-D + Sigma Ultrawide II 24/2.8 AF macro (95% of the time I just use the 50, but bring the 24 along for the ride. The Sigma is cheap compared to the Nikon and it's just fine -- around the same output as the Nikon version, imo. No use sinking money in focal lenghts you don't use a lot. Good enough is good enough, plus it's tiny. Takes no space in the small bag I use.)
Nikon 35/2 AF-D + Nikon 85/1.8G (The "wedding photographer" combo. Great combo for events. The 35 gets diss'd sometimes. Not a world beater spec-wise compared to ultra-corrected [high element count, large, heavy, pricey] modern 35's. But go on 500px and see what people do with this lens... Smaller, lighter, cheaper...).
One and Only Zoom
Tokina 17-35/4 ATX Pro (Strictly a landscape lens and, imo, an overlooked gem. Working apertures 8 on up as sharp as the rest, smaller, lighter, much less expensive...)
Boom. Done. No more lenses -- I swear it!
I don't diss zoomers. Output is fine. But -to me- the bigger the kit, the more likely it is to set on the shelf. One zoom -- an ultrawide. But they don't count. All the lenses I regularly use are small except the ultrawide and the 85, which is light. Torn between the 85 D and the G. But they were fairly close in price (even used) and the G is sharper at 1.8, and being this is a portrait lens 1.8 is a working aperture -- so I went with the G.
Oh -- one last lens I forgot! The Helios 44-4 58/2. Bought this as a manual portrait lens for crop sensor Nikon because 58mm ~ 85mm on cropped sensor, and it's know for the "swirly bokeh" characteristic. Small, light. Though I have a FF portrait lens, I kept this around. It was modified/machined to focus to infinity without those nasty M42-Nikon adapters, and was also professionally fitted with a Dandilion AF confirmation chip, so it's effectively a manual-focus Nikon that can focus to infinity and talks to the camera. Probably one of the very few Helios 44-4's in the US you can use just fine on a Nikon. Fun lens, but thinking of selling it off.
narsuitus
Well-known
Based on my experience with my 18-55mm Nikon zoom, I knew that I preferred constant aperture zooms to variable aperture zooms. Therefore, when I was looking for a zoom to use when I did not want to carry my three Fuji prime lenses, I chose the 16-55mm f/2.8 Fujinon.
16-55mm Fuji f/2.8 by Narsuitus, on Flickr
16-55mm Fuji f/2.8 by Narsuitus, on Flickr
Dogman
Veteran
One of the (several) reasons I like using Fuji cameras is the smaller size. The size and weight to quality and function ratio is pretty high. Big lenses weigh the system down for me, literally. I seldom use my 23/1.4 these days because of its size. I would love a 16mm but the Fuji 16/1.4 is never gonna happen for me because it's just too damn big. (Dear Fuji, call me when you introduce a 16mm f/2. I promise I'll answer the call.)
Both the 16/1.4 and the 56/1.2 are too large for me to consider. So for my purposes, the 16-55 is overkill deluxe.
Both the 16/1.4 and the 56/1.2 are too large for me to consider. So for my purposes, the 16-55 is overkill deluxe.
narsuitus
Well-known
back alley
IMAGES
i had the 18-55 once upon a time...good lens but i really like a 16 as my wide...otherwise i would use (and sometimes do) the fuji 18 along with the 27...small, light easy to carry.
back alley
IMAGES
it's a fantastic lens...when i carry it i usually also carry the 16...but lately the weight is getting to me.