Fujifilm XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II vs XF 18mm f/1.4 WR: Do You Actually Want the Prime?

Since its launch, I’ve heard the declare repeated many occasions that the Fujifilm XF 16-55mm f/2.8 R LM WR II is like having a bag filled with prime lenses in a single package deal. As somebody who owns each the zoom and several other of Fujifilm’s premium primes, I wished to place that declare to the check.

This article is the primary in a sequence the place I’ll be evaluating the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II in opposition to the XF 18mm f/1.4 WR, XF 23mm f/1.4 WR, XF 33mm f/1.4 WR and XF 56mm f/1.2 WR. Using each managed exams and real-world images, I’ll be taking a look at how the zoom compares when it comes to sharpness, rendering, topic separation and general picture high quality.

We’ll begin with the XF 18mm f/1.4 WR.

This article comprises affiliate hyperlinks. If you purchase one thing via these hyperlinks, I’ll earn a small fee at no additional value to you.

A fast be aware on dimension and weight

Although the Fuji 16-55mm f/2.8II is barely bigger and heavier than Fujifilm’s 18mm 1.4wr, in my expertise, the variations aren’t significant sufficient to base a purchase order choice on. The 16-55mm f/2.8II is now so mild and compact for knowledgeable degree zoom that in use, it feels very shut when it comes to dealing with to the f/1.4 sequence of prime lenses. Bear in thoughts although that it does lengthen when zooming although the focal vary which impacts the stability of the lens on the digicam physique.

How I Tested the Lenses

To evaluate the 2 lenses, I took them with me on a current stroll round a neighborhood nation property.

Using my Fujifilm X-T5 mounted on a tripod, I photographed the identical part of a dry stone wall with each lenses. The digicam place remained unchanged all through the check, and every picture was targeted on precisely the identical level of the wall (the central white paint mark), which I’ve highlighted beneath.

I repeated the check at f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6 and f/8, permitting me to match the lenses throughout the apertures most photographers are probably to make use of in real-world capturing.

Below are screenshots of 100% crops from each the centre of the body and the far left of every body.

At f/2.8, the outcomes from each lenses are extremely related within the centre of the body, because the 100% crops above present. I needed to zoom in to 200% in Lightroom to seek out any significant distinction in sharpness between the 2 lenses.

If something, the 16-55mm f/2.8 II confirmed a fraction extra distinction, which gave the look of being very barely sharper.

Bear in thoughts that this efficiency from the 16-55mm f/2.8 II comes at what needs to be its weakest aperture — vast open at f/2.8 — whereas the 18mm f/1.4 WR is already stopped down by this level.

Quite frankly, I’m very impressed that the 16-55mm f/2.8 II matches, or arguably even barely exceeds, the 18mm f/1.4 WR right here. The variations, the place there are any, are so small that I’d primarily name it a draw, which is exceptional for a zoom lens.

It’s a really related story once I take a look at the far left-hand fringe of the body, with each lenses producing very related outcomes. This time, I’d give the 18mm f/1.4 WR a slight benefit, however once more the variations are extremely small.

Even when viewing the 2 photographs aspect by aspect at 100% in Lightroom, the hole is marginal and tough to identify with out cautious inspection.

At f/5.6, the 16-55mm f/2.8 II now has the benefit of being stopped down from vast open, which ought to assist efficiency. However, each lenses proceed to point out very related ranges of sharpness, with the 16-55mm f/2.8 II exhibiting a tiny fraction extra distinction.

I ought to be aware at this level that, when it comes to element and sharpness, they’re mainly a wash. Although the photographs had been taken inside a minute or so of one another, these small variations in distinction may merely be the results of very delicate adjustments within the mild between exposures.

In phrases of element, the 2 lenses are exceptionally shut. Even when seen at 100% and 200%, the variations are so small that I wouldn’t select one over the opposite primarily based purely on sharpness, as each are wonderful.

The far left fringe of the body at f/5.6 exhibits the nook sharpness of the 16-55mm f/2.8 II closing the tiny hole to the 18mm f/1.4 WR. In reality, I’d now say it has taken a slight lead when it comes to edge sharpness.

Once once more, the distinction may be very small, however stopping the 16-55mm f/2.8 II down does seem to enhance nook and edge sharpness in comparison with capturing it vast open. While the hole isn’t massive sufficient to matter in most real-world conditions, the zoom does appear to carry a small benefit right here.

The outcomes at f/4 and f/8 had been nearly equivalent to these at f/5.6. Both lenses remained exceptionally sharp throughout the body, with solely tiny variations seen when seen aspect by aspect at excessive magnification. At these apertures, I’d haven’t any hesitation utilizing both lens for panorama images or some other software the place most sharpness is required.

Based alone sharpness exams, each lenses are exceptionally sharp throughout the body and so shut in efficiency that, when it comes to pure sharpness, it’s mainly a draw. If something, I’d give a really slight edge to the 16-55mm f/2.8 II, however the variations are tiny and solely actually seen when evaluating the information aspect by aspect.

Close Focusing and Bokeh Test

To check the close-up sharpness of every lens, in addition to their bokeh efficiency, I mounted each lenses on my tripod and photographed the identical check scene.

Once once more, the photographs had been taken lower than a minute aside, and neither the digicam nor the tripod was moved between exposures.

For the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II, I set the lens to 18mm and moved the digicam as near the topic as doable till the lens would now not focus. I then backed off in very small increments till focus was acquired. According to Fujifilm, the minimal focusing distance at 18mm is 30cm.

I then mounted the 18mm 1.4wr and took check photographs with it from precisely the identical place with out transferring the digicam or tripod.

To present every lens at its finest on this state of affairs, I shot the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II vast open at f/2.8 and the XF 18mm f/1.4 WR vast open at f/1.4.

One factor to notice on these photographs is that the 16-55mm f/2.8II is about to 18.7mm which barely narrows the view but it surely’s not possible to set the focal size to exactly 18mm with out taking a number of photographs and adjusting repeatedly, and as seen within the sharpness exams on the prime of the web page, the place the 16-55mm is at 17.5mm, the sphere of view from the 18mm is barely wider than the 16-55mm when set to round 18mm.

What’s attention-grabbing in my observations is that at close-focus distances and when wide-open, the 18mm 1.4wr is barely sharper than the 16-55mm f/2.8II. Again, each are very sharp however there’s a tiny distinction in favour of the 18mm.

The 18mm additionally lets you push in nearer than the 16-55mm f/2.8II attributable to its said 20cm minimal focusing distance, which mixed with its bigger aperture lets you throw the background considerably extra out of focus.

Conclusion

If you wish to push in near your topics and isolate them with shallow depth of area, then the XF 18mm f/1.4 WR considerably outperforms the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II. Not a lot when it comes to sharpness, though it does seem to carry a slight benefit, however when it comes to the varieties of photographs you’ll be able to create. Its capacity to focus a lot nearer, mixed with the bigger f/1.4 aperture, permits it to supply photographs that merely aren’t doable with the zoom lens.

However, should you’re primarily capturing landscapes or topics at mid-range to infinity, the variations between the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II and the XF 18mm f/1.4 WR turn out to be surprisingly small. In some conditions, notably when each lenses are stopped down, the benefit really shifts barely in favour of the zoom.

Based on my testing, the XF 18mm f/1.4 WR isn’t actually about sharpness. The actual benefits are its close-focusing capacity, higher topic separation, and the inventive flexibility that comes from having an f/1.4 aperture. When it involves pure sharpness at regular capturing distances, the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II is on the very least, its equal.