I am a girl and a complete novice. Should Fuji xt 10 buy the lens of 16-50 or 18-55? I bought a SLR, just to take pictures when I travel.

The quality of 18-55 is better, and the price of 16-50 is cheaper, but there is little difference between them in actual use.

I think the advantage of 18-55 is OIS. I tried it in the store. In the hand-held state, the shutter of 1 s took five shots, and two of them were successful, while 16-50 was slightly weak in this respect. 1 sec failed, falling back to 1/65438. Therefore, if shooting in low light without a tripod, obviously 18-55 is more suitable. Considering your travel needs, dusk, early morning and night are also the main themes of your shooting. As for the premise of sufficient light during the day, the two lenses are neck and neck, so it is recommended to choose 18-55, which has better shooting performance in low light.

18-55 also has shortcomings. The aperture ring is loose. If you are not careful, you may change the aperture file, but as long as you pay attention every day, there will be no problem. At the wide-angle end, 18 is not as good as 16, mainly because of the different vision. However, on the other hand, many experts only use 2 1 and 28 to shoot landscapes. As long as the composition is good and you are good at giving full play to your focal range, in fact, 18 and 18.

As for the telephoto end, it is obvious that 18-55 has more advantages and a larger aperture. 16-50 The 55th end is obviously better than the 50th end. You can still see some blurred backgrounds on the close-up bust. As for the close-up bust of 16-50, hehe, you will know that I don't speak ill.

Finally, there is the question of size and weight. This is a radish. Relax and click 16-50, or sacrifice some portability for better picture quality. After all, in the process of traveling, some scenery may only be experienced once in a lifetime. It is entirely up to LZ to choose to go into battle and shoot lightly, or to choose not only to shoot but also to shoot.