Fujifilm XF 33mm f/1.4 WR vs XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II: Do You Actually Want the Prime?

One of the primary prime lenses that photographers are sometimes inspired to purchase is a 50mm equal lens, and for good motive. It’s a focal size that sits comfortably between wide-angle and telephoto, making it extremely versatile. Step again a little bit and it will probably seize context and inform a narrative. Move nearer and it turns into a superb lens for particulars, portraits and isolating topics from their environment.

In some ways, that is the primary focal size in my collection the place some great benefits of a first-rate lens develop into genuinely compelling. While lenses such because the XF 18mm f/1.4 WR and XF 23mm f/1.4 WR can produce engaging background blur, most individuals don’t purchase them particularly for that goal. The XF 33mm f/1.4 WR is totally different. For many photographers, the power to create topic separation and shoot with a shallow depth of subject is among the predominant causes for selecting it over a zoom lens.

The Fujifilm XF 33mm f/1.4 WR can be broadly considered one of many best lenses obtainable for the X Series system. I actually take into account it certainly one of Fujifilm’s greatest lenses, combining wonderful picture high quality, quick autofocus, climate sealing and a sensible focal size that works for every little thing from household pictures to environmental portraits.

There’s one more reason I anticipated the XF 33mm f/1.4 WR to carry out nicely on this comparability. Designing a high-quality 50mm equal prime lens is usually thought-about simpler than designing wider-angle lenses, which frequently require extra complicated optical corrections. If any of Fujifilm’s prime lenses had been going to drag forward of the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II by way of picture high quality, I suspected this is perhaps the one.

So, with each lenses mounted on my Fujifilm X-T5 and examined side-by-side, let’s see whether or not the XF 33mm f/1.4 WR can justify its place alongside Fujifilm’s flagship commonplace zoom.

Size and Weight

Just just like the XF 18mm f/1.4 WR and XF 23mm f/1.4 WR, the XF 33mm f/1.4 WR is barely smaller and lighter than the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II. However, the variations aren’t practically as dramatic as they’d have been with the unique XF 16-55mm f/2.8.

At 360g, the 33mm f/1.4 WR is barely 50g lighter than the zoom, and whereas it’s shorter and slimmer, each lenses steadiness very nicely on cameras such because the Fujifilm X-T5.

Fujifilm deserves quite a lot of credit score for what they’ve achieved with the Mark II model of the zoom. In use, it feels far nearer to one of many firm’s premium prime lenses than {most professional} commonplace zooms I’ve used.

One fascinating distinction between this comparability and the earlier articles within the collection is that each lenses share the identical said minimal focusing distance of 30cm. Unlike the 18mm and 23mm primes, the XF 33mm f/1.4 WR doesn’t achieve a close-focusing benefit on paper.

This article incorporates affiliate hyperlinks. If you purchase one thing by means of these hyperlinks, I could earn a small fee at no additional value to you. This helps assist the location and permits me to maintain creating free content material. Thank you in your assist.

How I Compared the Two Lenses

To examine the XF 33mm f/1.4 WR and XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II, I took each lenses with me on a current stroll round an area 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 digital camera place remained unchanged all through the take a look at and every picture was centered on precisely the identical level, which I’ve highlighted under.

I repeated the take a look at at f/1.4, f/2.8, f/5.6 and f/8 with the XF 33mm f/1.4 WR and at f/2.8, f/5.6 and f/8 with the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II set to 33mm. This allowed me to match each lenses throughout the apertures most photographers are seemingly to make use of in real-world pictures.

As with the earlier articles on this collection, I additionally carried out close-focus assessments to judge sharpness, topic separation and background blur. While laboratory testing has its place, I’m primarily involved in understanding whether or not any variations are literally seen in real-world use.

Looking at each lenses wide-open, the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II holds a really slight benefit in centre sharpness over the XF 33mm f/1.4 WR.

However, the hole is extraordinarily small. At 100% magnification, I struggled to see any significant distinction between the 2 recordsdata. It was solely after I zoomed in to 200% that I might persistently verify the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II was resolving barely extra superb element.

In sensible phrases, I don’t assume this issues. Both lenses are sharp wide-open and the distinction is so small that it could be invisible in regular viewing circumstances. Unless you’re the form of photographer who enjoys inspecting recordsdata at excessive magnifications, I doubt you’d ever discover it in real-world use.

With each lenses shot at f/2.8, the result’s primarily that they carry out the identical for all real-world functions.

At 100%, I merely can’t see a significant distinction between them. It was solely after I zoomed in to 200% that the XF 33mm f/1.4 WR appeared barely sharper and supplied a fraction extra distinction.

To caveat that, though the photographs had been taken inside minutes of one another, delicate adjustments in lighting circumstances might simply account for any variations in distinction. As far as sharpness is anxious, the hole is so small that I don’t consider it has any sensible relevance in real-world pictures.

By f/5.6, I can not see any distinction between the 2 lenses.

Even when viewing the recordsdata at 200% magnification, I’m unable to persistently differentiate between pictures taken with the XF 33mm f/1.4 WR and the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II. Both lenses produce distinctive ranges of element and sharpness throughout the body.

If I eliminated the EXIF knowledge and confirmed these pictures to most photographers, I doubt anybody would have the ability to establish which lens had taken which {photograph}. At this aperture, the 2 lenses are successfully indistinguishable by way of picture high quality.

The identical story holds true for the sides of the body which you’ll be able to see under.

One factor to additionally be aware is that not like the earlier assessments, the sphere of view between the 33mm 1.4wr and the 16-55mm f/2.8II when shot on the identical indicated focal size is that they’re just about equivalent.

Sharpness Verdict for Normal Shooting Distances.

My conclusion is easy: each lenses are sharp wide-open and develop into extraordinarily sharp as soon as stopped right down to between f/4 and f/8.

Although I discovered tiny variations in among the assessments, they solely turned seen when inspecting the recordsdata at magnifications far past regular viewing circumstances. In real-world pictures, I don’t consider sharpness is a motive to decide on one lens over the opposite.

Close Focusing and Bokeh Test

To take a look at the minimal focusing distance, close-range sharpness and bokeh efficiency of every lens, I mounted each lenses on my tripod and photographed the identical take a look at topic.

As with the sharpness assessments earlier on this article, the digital camera place remained fastened on my tripod all through the preliminary comparability. For the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II, I set the lens to 33mm and moved the digital camera as near the topic as doable till the lens would not purchase focus. I then backed away in very small increments till focus was achieved. Fujifilm states a minimal focusing distance of 30cm for each lenses.

Initially, I felt that the outcomes from the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II appeared barely softer than I anticipated when shot wide-open at f/2.8. To guarantee I wasn’t introducing any digital camera shake by means of the shutter press, I repeated the take a look at utilizing a 10-second self-timer. The outcomes had been constant, giving me confidence that any variations seen within the pictures had been brought on by the lenses themselves slightly than the testing methodology.

Once the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II pictures had been captured, I photographed the identical scene with the XF 33mm f/1.4 WR from precisely the identical digital camera place. This allowed me to match close-range sharpness straight with each lenses set to f/2.8.

I then photographed the identical scene once more with the XF 33mm f/1.4 WR at f/1.4 as a way to consider the impact of the bigger aperture on topic separation and background blur.

Unlike the XF 18mm f/1.4 WR and XF 23mm f/1.4 WR, the XF 33mm f/1.4 WR shares the identical said minimal focusing distance because the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II. This makes it an fascinating comparability, as any variations within the ensuing pictures usually tend to come from optical design and aperture slightly than the prime merely having the ability to focus nearer to the topic. I discovered the 33mm 1.4wr lens to focus ever so barely nearer than the zoom lens however we had been speaking about round a 1cm distinction.

Interestingly, the close-focus take a look at reveals a barely totally different story to the sharpness assessments carried out at regular capturing distances.

When each lenses are photographed near the topic and shot wide-open, the XF 33mm f/1.4 WR holds a visual benefit over the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II. The distinction isn’t dramatic, however it’s there.

Looking on the 100% crops, the prime lens resolves barely extra superb element. The XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II stays a really sharp lens, however on this specific take a look at the XF 33mm f/1.4 WR is the clear winner.

This mirrors what I discovered within the earlier comparisons with the XF 18mm f/1.4 WR and XF 23mm f/1.4 WR. While the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II comes remarkably near Fujifilm’s premium primes at regular capturing distances, the primes are inclined to regain a few of their benefit when you begin working near your topic.

The first picture within the hover field above exhibits the 33mm 1.4wr set to the minimal focus distance doable on the Fuji 16-55mm f/2.8II. When you hover over the picture it exhibits the marginally nearer minimal focus distance of the Fuji 33mm 1.4wr. The distinction is tiny however seen.

Looking on the comparability pictures, the distinction in topic separation is sort of substantial as soon as each lenses are pushed to their closest focusing distances.

While the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II performs remarkably nicely for a zoom lens, the XF 33mm f/1.4 WR pulls forward in its skill to isolate topics from the background. Not solely does the prime produce considerably extra background blur, however I additionally favor the standard of the blur it creates.

In the pattern pictures, the out-of-focus white highlights produced by the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II stay fairly seen and, to my eye, considerably distracting. By comparability, the XF 33mm f/1.4 WR renders these highlights far more easily, permitting them to fade into the background slightly than drawing consideration away from the topic.

Conclusion

Unlike the sharpness comparisons earlier on this article, it is a distinction that’s instantly apparent with out zooming into the recordsdata. If you get pleasure from photographing particulars, flowers, meals, household moments or environmental portraits, the XF 33mm f/1.4 WR produces a glance that the zoom lens merely can not replicate.

So far on this collection of comparisons, I’ve usually come away feeling that the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II is the higher worth proposition for many photographers.

The motive is pretty easy. At wider focal lengths, the need to shoot wide-open as a way to blur backgrounds and isolate topics is commonly much less essential than the need to seize extra of a scene. In these conditions, the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II has carried out remarkably near Fujifilm’s premium prime lenses whereas providing the flexibleness of a number of focal lengths in a single bundle.

However, when you attain a 50mm equal focal size, the equation begins to alter. This is a focal size that many photographers actively select due to its skill to isolate topics, create topic separation and produce engaging background blur. The XF 33mm f/1.4 WR isn’t merely providing one other technique to obtain 50mm equal framing; it’s providing a glance that the zoom lens can not totally replicate.

If all you need is a pointy 50mm equal lens, the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II is a wonderful alternative. At regular capturing distances, the variations in sharpness between these two lenses are negligible. However, as soon as you start working nearer to your topics, the prime begins to justify its existence. Not solely does it produce higher topic separation and smoother bokeh, however in my testing it was additionally noticeably sharper than the zoom when each lenses had been pushed in direction of their closest focusing distances.

As with virtually every little thing in pictures, it in the end comes right down to a trade-off. The XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II affords excellent picture high quality, wonderful autofocus, spectacular dealing with and the comfort of a number of focal lengths in a comparatively compact bundle. The XF 33mm f/1.4 WR, however, is a extra specialised device that may produce pictures the zoom merely can not match to the identical diploma.

If there may be one focal size on this collection the place I might personally be most tempted to spend the additional cash on the prime, it’s this one. The XF 18mm f/1.4 WR and XF 23mm f/1.4 WR actually have their benefits, however the XF 33mm f/1.4 WR affords a mix of topic separation, close-focus efficiency and picture rendering that feels genuinely distinct from the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II. For photographers who love the 50mm equal subject of view, that’s a compelling motive to decide on the prime.