bought a 16-50

back alley

back alley

IMAGES
Local time
10:49 PM
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
41,289
after a bit of reading and looking at images on flickr i decided to go for the fuji 16-50…it looks pretty good to me.
at worst, i think it compares to the fuji 18 which i know many do not like but it's been more than acceptable to me.
eventually, i still want to get another copy of the fuji 14 just because it's so good but i'm hoping the plastic zoom will keep me happy till then or till fuji makes a 16 prime!
the 16-50 might be a good walk around lens...
 
The range of FL's covered by a 16-50mm on a non-full frame body just about covers most shooting needs. I have the equivalent zoom on a NEX6 and it covered my needs for a 3-week trip.
 
i want it mostly for the 16 (24) end of things…the 18 is ok but i prefer the 23 for walking around and really like the 16 better than an 18 pov.
should be an interesting experiment.
 
If this lens had been either a f2.8-4 or a straight f4, I probably would have been tempted. I know it would have been more expensive then the 18-55 given the wide end..

Right now I am either shooting the 21 fov and cropping to 24 or using my speedbooster plus the Nikon 24f2.8 or the 24-85f2.8-4.

Gary
 
Last edited:
to be truthful, i don't enjoy manual focus or non fuji lenses on the fuji bodies.
it's ok for a change, for something different but only occasionally.

i shoot mostly outdoors and during the day so slower lenses work ok for me…a straight 4 would be nice though...
 
It was a consideration, but with an 18-55 in the bag and the announcement of the new 10-24, it is just a waiting game for me now.
 
i preferred the 18 prime over the zoom (had the zoom briefly) but at least this one goes to 16mm.
the 10-24 is too pricey for me to play with.
if the 16-50 doesn't do it for me then i'll move to the 14 and keep it simple…14/23/60…love that 60!
 
depends on who you read…but most reviewers have pretty good things to say about both.
the advantage of the 16-50 is a wider fov, very light weight, sharp centers and soft corners untill about f5.6/8…better at 24 than 50…slower than the 18-55.

i wanted the wider fov and i am ok with softer corners…sonnar like, no?

looking at pics on the net this lens looks pretty darn good to me.
 
The difference in FOV between 18mm and 16mm is only 3mm equivalent. I was just testing the difference, it is really marginal. Do you still own the 18-55, and if not, why did you choose the 16-50?
 
nongfuspring said:
The difference in FOV between 18mm and 16mm is only 3mm equivalent. I was just testing the difference, it is really marginal. Do you still own the 18-55, and if not, why did you choose the 16-50?
Click to expand...

as you go wider the difference is bigger…read the thread above as to why i decided on the 16-50…
i had the 18-55 but prefer primes…yes the new zoom is not a prime…i'm being hopful...
 
nongfuspring said:
The difference in FOV between 18mm and 16mm is only 3mm equivalent. I was just testing the difference, it is really marginal. Do you still own the 18-55, and if not, why did you choose the 16-50?
Click to expand...

If u look at full frame.. On the tele end, small differences of 3 to even 9mm is really not noticeable. On the wide end however, once u get past 35, the wider the more noticeable, at least to me it is....l same holds true for apsc fov. But then again a lot depends on what type of shots u take. For tight spaces, if u need a 24 or 21, then the 28 just will not due because u cannot back up far enough.

Gary
 
GaryLH said:
If u look at full frame.. On the tele end, small differences of 3 to even 9mm is really not noticeable. On the wide end however, once u get past 35, the wider the more noticeable, at least to me it is....l same holds true for apsc fov. But then again a lot depends on what type of shots u take. For tight spaces, if u need a 24 or 21, then the 28 just will not due because u cannot back up far enough.

Gary
Click to expand...

Sure, it does become more noticeable on the wide end, but the point of view distance to achieve the same FOV is roughly 40cm, less than a step.

In any case, quite curious about the lens. They're selling super cheap on ebay, at around 200 bucks, presumably since they've been split from the kits.
 
I feel anxious at the thought of buying and selling as many different camera and lenses as you do Joe. I dont mean any offense but Im genuinely interested in what drives that?

Do you simply like to try everything and not mind the trade / acquisition side of it?

(Im eager to try the X100 wide converter even though Im fairly sure I wont use it so much.)
 
Some people are attached to inanimate objects and others are not. The only way to find out if you like something or not is to try it. Love em or leave em I say. ;)
 
Harry S. said:
I feel anxious at the thought of buying and selling as many different camera and lenses as you do Joe. I dont mean any offense but Im genuinely interested in what drives that?

Do you simply like to try everything and not mind the trade / acquisition side of it?

(Im eager to try the X100 wide converter even though Im fairly sure I wont use it so much.)
Click to expand...

I share the same sentiment as you Harry. If I went through the same number of lenses I'd dare not imagine the financial and probably personal difficulties it would cause me, not to mention I doubt I'd actually learn to genuinely master any of the gear with such a high turnover of photographic tools.

But I'm not Back Alley, and the difference between simple self indulgence and pathological addiction is the scale of the sacrifices you make to sustain the habit. I'm presuming/hoping BA's expendable income is significantly more than mine, and he doesn't have too much stress by way of financial dependents.

In any case, what ever the story is, from a selfish point of view it's nice to have someone testing ALL the lenses for our reviewing purposes :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom