I Bought The One FUJIFILM Lens I Said I'd NEVER Buy! 

Once I understood the different focal lengths, a high-end zoom is just the better choice imo. I started with the 16-55, sold it for prime lenses and a couple years later I'm back to the 16-55 😅

Have had this lens for a few months, was the first I got when I moved to Fuji (the second being a macro from Laowa). It is a magnificent lens, sharp (too sharp?), quiet, nails the focus, super versatile, and really is a bag of primes. Do I miss faster capabilities, not really, as I shoot for the most part during light hours, and if I need to shoot at night, I have a small light tripod with me for some longer shutters. You will love it!

I need one, I grabbed the Viltrox 75 first to do portrait work and it’s fantastic and I ended up grabbing the 27 when the announced it because it was hard to find the 16-55 at a good price. I also want the Viltrox 13 and the Fuji 90 to round things out.

My absolute FAVORITE lens. I've used it on the X-T4 religiously, but have also thrown it on the X-Pro 1 and the X-T30.

I bought one of these about 18 months ago to replace my 16-80mm and I love it. It doesn't get used as much as I'd like but when I do use it, I love the images I can create with it. It's surprisingly good for video too.

I’m also travelling to Southern Asia in April and have been thinking about which lenses to take. The 16-55mm was one of my options and watching your video confirmed it for me. Will probably add my 35mm 1.4 for low light. Enjoy your trip

Thanks for sharing, I can just say that I bought the 16-55mm about a year ago in very good condition used for a fair price and I absolutely love it for my landscape work. And here in my experience you do see a quality difference to the 18-55mm and to the 16-80mm which I found pretty soft at the wide and the long end.

I use the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 for basketball, low light events and video for the beautiful smooth manual focusing, the 16-55 f2.8 is the backup and do everything else with the 50-140 f2.8 and the Nikkor AF-S 80-400 4.5-5.6. Just a great around solid workhorse unlike some of the plasticy 3rd party zooms I just couldn't trust for paid work,

The same story with the RF28-70 F2.0. Everyone said they love prime lenses until they tried that lens :))

Planning on getting one as well. I am not one of those photographic snob that think prime is the one and only be all.

I bought this lens nearly 4 years ago while on a job with a client. We were shooting some static green screen footage and I was using the 18-55 kit at the time. After wrapping day one of our green screen filming the creative director on the project wasn't happy with the fall off and softness in the corner of the frames. Being a young and a generally new freelancer at the time I promised to fix it feeling it was mine and my gears fault. In retrospect, I could've just rented but I hastily bought this lens telling myself it was an investment even though it put me in the negative for this gig. I will admit I found the 16-55mm lens extremely boring and only used it for "less creative" paid work but over time I came to really enjoy this lens especially when hiking or on roadtrips. It's also made it's money back tenfold through gigs. If I could only have one lens on my XT5 this one is tied very closely with my 33mm 1.4 WR at the moment; which I would also highly recommend.

Great video! Did you try it with the 40 mpx sensor? Thanks!

Mine arrives early next week. I went through the same thought process and when I saw a good deal on a used one I jumped. Hoping I made the right decision!

My go-to lens on the Xt5 or XS20.

I love this lens. Really versatile. Yes it's a chunker, but 1 lens v 3 primes to cover that focal range. One lens I'd never part with.

Having rented it out for a couple trips to take the place of my Sigma 18-50, the size ruins it for me. But the photos you get out of it are lovely. No complaints on the image quality. And having the linear motors over the sigma is another massive pro. At 40fps continuous shooting on the XH2S, the 16-55 can keep up. Sigma 18-50 will not

Been eyeing this lens for a WHILE now but even used, it's still crazy expensive... Which is saying something bc almost every other Fuji lens that cost around the same as the 16-55 NEW can almost all be found for 50% or even less on the used market. Heck, I just recently scored a mint Fuji 16MM 1.4 for $400, which is crazy bc its MSRP is still $900. The 16-55 on the other hand? The cheapest used copy I ever saw was like $750 I believe, which is crazy. But imo that's just a testament to this lens. It's almost 10 years old at this point and it REFUSES to go down in value haha

I don’t shoot Fuji anymore but that lens was my favorite

Did you look at the tamron 17-70 ?

I think you should have gotten the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8. It is half the size, weight, and price, with very similar IQ on the 26 MP sensor in your XH2s.

Yeh, I am a Sigma 18-35+XH2S kinda guy as well, and I just can't bring myself to buy the 16-55 (at any decent price), there's just too many deal breakers for me. 1) Not internal zooming. I'm sorry but if the 50-140 can sort this then so should the 16-55. Lenses should be long term investments, I would not feel great about my weather sealing investment on a lens that is not internal zooming (I'd almost risk my 18-35 more than the 16-55 :S 2) Lens creep. Again, not internal zooming this is an issue. These two things I think really are quite significant and frankly I'm a little surprised Fuji have slapped a red badge on a lens that suffers both of these issues. 3) F2.8. Now... f2.8 in and of itself is not a totally terrible thing, but it matters WHERE that f2.8 exists on the focal length. For the 50-140 we're starting to get the benefits of tele compression to assist with (sufficient) subject isolation shots at 2.8, but on a wide to normal zoom, f2.8 on a zoom... urgh... its rendering depth like an f4 lens on FF. It's a hard pill to swallow and for me makes it more of a landscape zoom lens than an event/portraiture lens. That Sigma f1.8 look is SO good! I have owned both the XF23/2 and Touit 32/1.8 and the Sigma matches them for speed, now THAT is a bag of primes! I dunno man... I think I would even consider the new forthcoming 16-50/2.8-4.8 kit lens replacement than the 16-55... But... if you got the lens at a good price then none of what I said really matters. I just get completely confused when people say the 50-140 needs a mkII version and yet everyone thinks the 16-55 is perfect... I don't get it... like there is literally nothing that can be improved on the 50-140, maybe make it parfocal (it is pretty near damn parfocal as is!). The way I see it the 16-55 needs to be faster and internal zooming, then it becomes a significant consideration. Sadly a lot of the lens innovation seems to be on FF mounts. 28-70/2, 35-150/2-2.8, 24-105/2.8. Imagine this level of commitment for APS-C! We should in theory be capable of similar zoom specs with lighter weight and sizes if we only need to cover a smaller image circle, or even if we had them similar size and weight our IQ should be better corner to corner. But where are they??... We're all pining our hopes on Sigma to give us the 18-35 in X mount... Anyway, I do have some decisions to make myself, I have the Sigma 50-100/1.8 also now and really I ought to not have both the 50-140 and this lens (as its doubling up a little, much like you with your 16-55+18-35), so I have no place to judge! 😁

Thinking about it. Upgrade from the Tamron 17-70mm f2.8. Don't think I'll be satisfied with the new 16-50mm f2.8- f4.?

Have never used one but on trips I do miss a good zoom nowadays

What adapter do I need to get the sigma 8-35 1.8 to work on my xh2?

I would happily buy a much larger lens for an equivalent to a 24 70 2.8 full frame

i want this because of weather sealing, because I am based in Finland and winter here is unforgiving. But its out of my budget for now😭

What about tamron 17-70 2.8 IS ? Or Maybe 16-55 better in quality and details ? Chrom.abberation and other ..

why not the 16-80? asking because I am thinking about getting something better than 18-55 but still light to travel, I don't really need 2.8 to shoot street and landscape...

It may work for your use case but for me, all the sharpness in the world doesn't make up for the lack of stabilization -Fuji ibis is definitely subpar for video use, and the sheer size and weight.

Can you compare the 16-55 to the sigma 18-35

I just picked one up today for a great deal and It's pretty much like new. Now I'm in a dilemma. I have too many lenses and I will need to pick what to sell. This lens pretty much covers all the focal ranges and very close in aperture to the ones that I have of the 35 F2, 50 F2, and 16 F2.8. I also have the 35 F1.4 but debating if I should sell it off as well. I like the compactness of the F2/F2.8 primes but I hardly use the 50 F2. The 16 F2.8 was more recent but not really used as much either. I do like the 35 F1.4 so that's why I'm debating if I should sell to get the 33 F1.4. I've been wanting the 50-140, too, so if I sell the F2/F2.8 primes, I could use that money towards a used one and either keep the 35 F1.4 or sell it to get the 33 F1.4. Decisions, decisions.

It's not the size at all. It's a brilliant lens in almost all ways, and it was my main lens for all my paid events and work for a long time. The thing that ended up killing it for me is the 2.8 aperture. Being APSC the 2.8 is not really 2.8 (when thinking about depth of field). It's more like F4, so even up close, I couldn't separate my subject from the background, which was a real problem. I now use the 18mm 1.4 - and problem solved!

I've have a fujifilm Xh-1 for about two and a half years now and I had a 18-55mm to start as it was nice and cheap but seen all the reviews on the 16-55mm so I saved up and got one and I got to say its on my Xh-1 90% of the time now, its that good im thinking of the 50-140mm as that's a red badge lens too.

There's a reason why it's known as the Prime Zoom

Its heavy but it is the only lens that is usually stuck at my camera.

Nice lens but Not on my xpro3

What beach is that son

I've bought & sold this lens twice; I'll not be buying it again. I like the Sigma, although I don't have one. If I'd been in your position, I'd have bought a prime, probably the new 33mm F/1.4, (I have the 23mm F/1.4 WR) or possibly the 18/F1.4 (which with X-H2 you have plenty of room to crop) and/or used my feet to zoom. For a Hybrid shooter the 16-55mm F2.8 is wrong on so many levels. If you want a mid range zoom then buy the excellent 16-80mm F/4 (which I have, but don't love). Yes the 16-55mm can be considered as a bunch of primes, but the latest F/1.4 Fujifilm lenses are lighter, quicker, quieter and so much more pleasant to use! I've been there; thinking I need a good middle/standard range zoom, (not just Fujifilm, but also in the past both Nikon & Canon Canon), and I've always been disappointed. By all means but the excellent 50-140mm F/2.8, which I have, but it's best teamed up wide a good wide angled zoom and/or a pair of excellent primes!

Sigma 1850 f2.8 is a much better choice than 1655 in most circumstances.

...wait... the 18-35 doesn't even exist for Fujifilm

too big too expensive skip get the sigma 18-50 f2.8