Priced at USD 1199. Not too bad. weighs 410g, even lighter than the 16-80. I can see many people opting to this one rather than the 16-80 if tests are positive, esp. that the latter is not stellar in the 55-80 range.
foto16 wrote:
Priced at USD 1199. Not too bad. weighs 410g, even lighter than the 16-80. I can see many people opting to this one rather than the 16-80 if tests are positive, esp. that the latter is not stellar in the 55-80 range.
Yeah, 30g lighter than my workhorse 16-80mm. I sold my v1 of the 16-55 because the 16-80 was "good enough" and a lot smaller and lighter. If the new v2 is as good as the original I might need to change my tune. (And really, it ought to be *better* -- the competition is killing it with new high end professional lens designs.)
From what I saw in the release was it appears at least longer than the old model, but I couldn't find any actual specs on size. Anybody find them? For sure the lighter weight is welcome. For myself, I have a copy of the 16-55 I am very happy with, so the new lens will have to be visibly superior for me to upgrade -- but upgrade I will if it is indeed a superior optic!
I just traded in a bunch of old gear for original version a few days ago. I knew that as soon as I did it would compel Fuji to make the announcement. I haven’t even got it yet. Oh well. I have specific needs for the v1 for the next two months and I got it for about half the v2.
Sounds and looks like a nice lens — smaller, lighter, and with some optical improvements. (Though independent testing will tell us more eventually.)
I'll likely stick with my existing 16-55mm f/2.8 though, since it is a fine lens, too, and I'm not sure if the improvement is worth the costs of upgrading. (If I did not already have that lens and and was in the market for such a thing, I’d be looking at the new version.)
An X-T5 plus the 16-55II could be one of the most formidable pound for pound one-lens travel kits...assuming Fuji can pull their software engineers' heads out of their asses and fix the AF-C ridiculousness.
Yes, debating giving one a try as well. I feel like there is at least once during every hike where I use the 16-80 at 80 but I suppose a slight crop would get me there.
Geoff D F wrote:
Only 100g more than my venerable 18-55. This is tempting but for the price, which is close to two thirds of a GFX 50Sii.
That’s where I think I’ll likely come down on this. There’s no question that the smaller, lighter option is attractive if the IQ is equal or even better. But since he starting point (the existing lens) is already pretty good, there is a cost/benefit question to consider.
My conundrum is the copy of the V1 lens I have is excellent. From what I saw in the online "test" video, the lenses are so close performing as to be *almost* irrelevant. They claimed "better AF" which I am dubious of, but will see in hard reviews by actual users, not net influencers. But all that aside, the weight and size reductions are attractive, with perhaps slightly better bokeh, another trait I like. But are those worth the $500-$600 delta to upgrade? IDK about that...
I used to have the Mk1 version of the 16-55mm, but ultimately sold it because of size and weight. I since use my trusted copy of the 18-55 most of the time when I do not use primes.
The new 16-55 is of course attractive bc of it's weight, however I personally hesitate to spend 1300 for a zoom lens that at the end of the day, is still not really fast and has limited DOF capabilities. This could buy you a used XF23/1,4 II + a used XF90f2, or an 18/1,4.
Me too I have been thinking about going into the Gfx system (used 50S II or 100s have come down to little over 2k), however I haqve to say that with my X-T5 paired with the best prime lenses for that system like the 33/1,4 or 56WR, image quality has become damn fine: Dynamic range, color and sharpness are impeccable. If one shoots and exposes carefully (which I do anyway), add a good converter (for X-Trans sensors), like Dxo PureRaw or C1, image quality becomes hard to obsess about. Obviously a 100S (even a 50S file) can be tossed around much harder without breaking, but in 95% of all cases, the XT5/ H2 gives enough latitude for my needs.
Plus, in the iPhone age, even an APSc system with 2 lenses in the bag can feel heavy these days, a Gfx with 2 lenses would feel like a f****ng bag of bricks to my shoulders :-)
It's fantastic that Fuji is doing this, but it doesn't mean everyone should to rush out to get it. A new lens needs to fill a gap in your photographic need. I didn't buy the initial Fuji f2.8 zooms because of the size, but now after the excitement about the new announcement, I'm still leaning toward the Sigma 18-50. It will be a lesser lens than the Fuji, but it's even more compact that suits my specific street photography need which also doesn't require 16mm. If I were filling a gap in a landscape and travel photography setup, the new Fuji will be more attractive.
Its pretty wild how close the envelope of the MkII is to the Xf16-80. Within a few millimeters of length, same diameter, and within 30g of weight. Even shares filter thread size now. I think I will likely end up with the MkII, just a question of how soon. Do I sell off some seldom used lenses for it new or wait for a copy to show up in the classifieds? Its fixing a problem I don't have but I doubt I can resist.
OTOH, some of us are at that stage in life where “it’s only money, and we can’t take it with us.”
As I reflect on this, I will probably get one reasonably early and test it for myself as opposed to relying on web influencers. That way I’ll “know” and it’s not a significant delta cash outlay at my stage in life. Of course the delta will increase as sales prices for the older lens flail, oh well… The harder question I have to ask myself is, will it make me a better photographer? And the even harder answer is, not likely… But then it’s a hobby and trying new stuff is part of it. We will see.
Jack Flesher wrote:
OTOH, some of us are at that stage in life where “it’s only money, and we can’t take it with us.”
My father in law worked overseas all his life, saved up, and retired at 63. 1 year later he's dead. All those years saving up for retirement just to leave it behind. We just gotta enjoy it while we still can. I read a quote the other day that made me laugh, and sad at the same time. It says: "It's not that life is too short, it's that you're dead for so long."
