As I wanted the day to be about her and not photography, I took the Nikon Z50II and the diminutive 16-50mm kit lens to keep things small, light, and unobtrusive. In the morning, I checked the camera over; everything was fine, the battery had only one bar depleted after it’s last outing, and the memory card was inserted and formatted. I attached it to my Peak Design Leash camera strap, and we headed out to Auchingarrich Wildlife Park.

I thought I was prepared for a relaxed day of shooting. It didn’t quite turn out like that.

As we walked around the park, shadowed by two particularly greedy young goats, Sofia’s mood seemed to lighten. I could tell she was really enjoying the interactions with the animals as she fed them the contents of the little animal snack bag we had bought.

After around 10 minutes of walking, I’d estimate I had taken 20 photos when, to my surprise, the camera’s battery warning light started flashing at me. How could that be? At home, it had shown only one bar depleted. I turned it off and on again; the indicator briefly returned to white, but within seconds, it went back to flashing red.

‘Okay, it’s Sofia’s 10th birthday. It’s important, and I want some memories of the day‘, so I switched into battery management mode. I reduced the number of photos I took and picked my moments a little more, making sure to switch the camera off after every single opportunity.

I only have the battery that came with the camera, so I knew it was unlikely I’d be able to shoot through the day unless I seriously restricted my shot count. Instead, I decided to focus on the experience and spend time with Sofia, even more than I’d planned.

I watched on as my little girl—now a ‘big girl’ at 10 years old, as she likes to tell me—smiled as a meerkat approached her until it was literally on the other side of the glass. Sofia moved her hand slowly towards it, I’m certain wishing she could stroke it. She has an unbreakable love of animals, and this was exactly the kind of medicine she needed today.

We continued around the park, seeing owls, searching for the elusive Scottish Wildcat (who never made an appearance), and walking amongst wallabies and emus in the Australian section, before heading for a delicious lunch at the restaurant. Sofia’s mood had perked up, and I’d still managed to avoid the dreaded black screen of death by carefully managing the battery level.

At lunch, I remembered I had an Anker Nano powerbank with an integrated USB-C cable in the car, so I nipped back and retrieved it. I expected to have to leave the camera and powerbank in my pocket for at least half an hour, but in the end, I managed to rig it up so that the camera could remain around my neck and the powerbank could stay in a chest pocket of my waterproof jacket, allowing the cable to reach without having to put the camera away.

After lunch, now with me feeling more relaxed knowing I could continue capturing moments, we enjoyed wandering the park, which is actually half wildlife experience and half working Scottish farm. The highlights weren’t actually the exotic animals but the interactions Sofia had feeding sheep, donkeys and Fallow deer which shes dreamed of seeing up close for a long time. Our day ended with Sofia spending plenty of time stroking and fussing the beautiful resident sheepdog of the farm before letting her choose a soft toy in the giftshop to add to her collection.

So how did the camera perform for a day of family photography?

I actually found the camera really good; it was light and fast to focus, although I miss a focus joystick as using the rear 4-way controller is not as intuitive. Autofocus with my setup—which I’ve configured to replicate my Nikon Z8 and Z6III—worked well.

The 16-50mm lens is competent and sharp in the centre, but it feels a bit meh. It’s interesting, actually: you can’t use shallow depth of field as a crutch, which makes you work a little harder for compositions. On a day out where spending time with family is the priority, that resulted in fewer keepers, as I didn’t want to keep re-taking shots and delay the day. Having to always unlock the lens is also irritating, but the incredibly small size and weight is a trade-off I think is fair.

I didn’t use the rear LCD screen even once during the day. I found the viewfinder adequate for shooting; it’s not the best at 2.36 million dots, but it never felt like a deal-breaker. It does the job well enough to function, and that’s what I care about. A better viewfinder is always nice, but I’d take this over not having one at all.

When I got home, after eating a slice or two of the cake my mum had made for Sofia, I took the opportunity to view the photos I’d taken. I shot 117 photos throughout the day and ended up with 12 that I thought were worth editing. Some are nice; others I edited simply because I liked Sofia’s expression or because they serve as a record of the time we spent together—especially during what has been the hardest three months of our lives. A few were edited specifically to give me more insight into how the Z50II RAW files behave in post.

Overall, considering the lens used, I was happy with the files. They felt like Nikon files in terms of color and dynamic range, and I was even able to shoot a couple of indoor shots at ISO 12800 that turned out to be perfectly usable—one of which I converted to black and white just to see how the result looked.

Would I have gotten ‘better’ images using a full-frame Nikon Z camera with a prime lens? Almost certainly. But would I have even taken it with me on a day meant for Sofia? I doubt it. That is what I took away from today regarding the Z50II: it’s just like a Nikon, only smaller.

Nikon Z 35mm 1.8S vs 24-120mm f/4S

Nikon Z 50mm 1.8S vs 24-120mm f/4S

Some of the links in this article are affiliate links. This means that if you click on them and make a purchase, I may earn a small commission at no additional cost to you. I only recommend equipment that I have personally used and tested.

Today was my Mum’s birthday ( I wont say her age or she will kill me) so I took her out for lunch at a lovely pub not so far from where I live. For those visiting Perthshire I can highly recommend the Smiddy Haugh (great food and service). I brought along the Z6III (full Nikon Z6III review here) and 85mm 1.8S (for more details see my Nikon 85mm 1.8S review) to get some memories. I chose the Z6III over the Z8 for its smaller size and weight as photography wasn’t the point of the outing but still, when you’re a photographer the camera always comes along.

I’ve shot the 85mm 1.8S in the Philippines and here in Scotland. I’ve always been impressed with its optical quality. Today was no different. But given that I own the 24-120mm f/4 (see my Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4S review for more details) and most of my portraits these days are for family projects, is it really worth having an $800 lens in addition to the zoom or is the zoom good enough?

To test the lenses fairly, I set up my Z8 (which I reviewed in full here) on a tripod, found the minimum focusing distance of the Nikon Z 85mm 1.8S and shot a test subject from wide-open to f/8. I then swapped lenses and mounted the 24-120mm f/4S and zoomed to 85mm and replicated the same process. I then shot the 24-120mm at its minimum focus distance to show the difference and I also shot both lenses wide-open from approximately 6 feet away to give an idea of the look you can get from typical portrait distances.

Size and Weight

The Nikon Z 85mm 1.8s is noticeably larger than both the Nikon Z 35mm 1.8S and 50mm 1.8S that have featured in the previous comparisons. The weight of 470 grams feels fine when shot on any of the Nikon Z bodies with a decent grip (see my roundup of the best Nikon Z cameras). It’s more the size that is noticeable in terms of its length. Nikon have opted for a lens that is longer and thinner than something like the Fuji 56mm 1.2WR for example. I have two thoughts on this, one is that I prefer a chunkier but shorter lens in terms of looks but the extra length of the 85mm 1.8S does give plenty of room for your left hand to support the lens from and space to manually focus comfortably if you wish (I never do). While the 24-120mm f/4S is hevaier at 630 grams and takes a larger 77mm filter compared to the 85mm’s 67mm filter ring, it doesn’t feel like it’s in an altogether different size and weight category. In my opinion, size and weight savings aren’t substantial enough to choose the prime over the zoom in this case. Both lenses feel well made, are weather sealed and focus quickly and accurately.

Image Quality

When both lenses are shot wide-open two things are apparent, one is that the depth of field of the Nikon Z 85mm 1.8S at f/1.8 is very narrow and secondly, at f/4, the Nikon Z 24-120mm is sharper. Both lenses are more than sharp enough for any normal use.

When the 85mm 1.8S was stopped down to f/2.8 it sharpened up a little and the depth of field became more manageable, allowing for more of the subject to be in the critical plane of focus. Both lenses are now very comparable in terms of sharpness and when viewing the photos at full screen, both look pin sharp. When zooming in to 100% crops, the zoom still has a very slight edge in terms of sharpness.

At f/4 both lenses are essentially identical in terms of sharpness. Even zoomed in to 100% I cannot meaningfully tell the difference in terms of sharpness.

When stopped down from f/4 to f/5.6, the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 at 85mm doesn’t really show any improvement in terms of sharpness. It’s already bitingly sharp at f/4.

After shooting these test shots at the Nikon Z 85mm 1.8S’ minimum focusing distance of 80cm, I moved the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4S in until I reached its minimum focus distance of a claimed 35cm. I then took a shot to show the difference between the two, which is not insignificant.

At this point I should note that there is a differrence between the marked 85mm position and what the camera states is 85mm on the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4S. I found that I had to zoom in past the position marked as 85mm on the zoom lens in order to obtain what the camera and Lightroom reports as being 85mm focal length. Even with the additional zoom, at an indicated 85mm as shown in the Lightroom screenshots, the zoom shows a slightly wider field of view than the Nikon Z 85mm 1.8S prime lens at this focus distance.

After these tests, I then paced out approximatley 6 feet from the subject and shot both lenses wide-open in order to give a more realistic real-world shooting distance and show the difference between f/1.8 and f/4.

At this distance, it is now the Nikon Z 85mm 1.8S lens that is giving a slightly wider field of view. The Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4S is exhibiting some variable focus breathing which is depending upon the distance to subject.

When shooting close in to the subject, the f/4 aperture of the zoom lens gives decent subject separation, that for a lot of people will be more than enough to give their subjects enough pop to separate them from the background, once the distance to subject increases, as in the shot above, the background at f/4 becomes quite distracting. The larger aperture of the prime lens starts to show its advantage in scenarios like this. If you can’t control your background, distance to subject or you simply want the ability to use shallow depth of field creatively, the prime lens starts to show its value.

Verdict

If you shoot portraits, family photos creatively or value depth of field control highly, then yes, the prime lens is worth adding to your kit as it truly can create photos that stand out. It’s very sharp, has excellent bokeh and is in my opinion, the best portrait lens for most people, for the Nikon Z mount. Not to mention the low light benefits of f/1.8 vs f/4, which for portrait subjects where you usually need a minimum shutter speed of 1/160 or more can be critical.

But what if you own the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4S, are a general photographer who shoots a bit of everything, including your children and family. Is it worth buying the Nikon Z 85mm 1.8S too?

It really depends on how much value you put on those photos. For me personally, shots like the one above make it worth keeping the 85mm in my bag because in confined spaces, where I don’t have total freedom to move subjects, my position and the environment, it gives me the ability to capture moments and keep them looking special. Would I buy the prime again, now that I have the 24-120mm f/4S, probably not as it’s not a focal length I use that often so I would either work within the zooms constraints in terms of aperture or opt for a more flexible prime in the Nikon Z 50mm 1.8S which can capture a wider variety of subjects and therefore represents a better value proposition. Let’s not forget that you can also zoom the 24-120mm f/4S in to 120mm which will naturally give you more subject separation if you have the distance to move back and still frame your shot as you want to. If i was shooting portraits for a living or as my main subject, then yes, the prime is absolutely worth it.

You can check out the latest price for the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4S here.

You can see the latest price for the Nikon Z 85mm 1.8S here.

For a bit of context, if you have not read my site before, I shoot with the Nikon Z8 (full Z8 review here) , Z6III (full Z6III review here), and Zf (full Nikon Zf review here). I’ve been using Nikon cameras for over 10 years, dating back to the DSLR days, and I’ve also shot a lot of different systems, including Fuji, Canon, Sony, OM Systems, and Panasonic, as well as the Ricoh GR series. I started off with entry-level cameras before moving to my first full-frame Canon 5D MK II while working as a professional landscape photographer before moving toward travel photography. My writing comes from the point of view of someone who is used to using professional-level tools.

Some of the links in this article may be affiliate links. If you click on them and make a purchase, I may earn a small commission at no additional cost to you

My Nikon Z50II + 16-50mm lens arrived from Amazon on Monday; I paid £851.44 (just over US $1100). I don’t remember the exact price of my Canon 450D, but I recall it was somewhere in the region of £400 (just over US $500) back in 2008. These are my initial thoughts, from my notes, after having unboxed it, set it up, and taken it out for a couple of hours on a local walk in the countryside. I’ll be writing much more on the Nikon Z50II as I continue to use it as I did at Sofias birthday recently.

It doesn’t, for the most part, feel like a beginner camera; it feels more like a miniaturized proper Nikon Z camera, almost like a miniature Z6III. The ergonomics feel familiar, with only a few things noticeable, one being the smaller battery, which on a two-hour walk with intermittent shooting, dropped one bar. Other differences include the memory card slot not being on the side of the grip but within the battery compartment, and the Z50II having a dedicated picture mode button on the top of the camera. The PASM dial also has an extra scene mode and is located on the right-hand side of the top plate where, on my Z6III and Z8, the top LCD screen would normally be.

Handling Impressions

In terms of handling, it feels incredibly light and compact. Combined with the 16-50mm kit lens, I hardly even noticed it when it was clipped onto my Peak Design Capture clip, attached to my backpack. At a combined weight of 685 grams (or about 1.51 lbs), it’s getting into compact camera territory.

First thoughts about the ergonomics are that they are way above what I was expecting; the grip is deep, really ergonomic, allowing my hand to get great purchase on the camera. The on/off switch is in the usual Nikon place, wrapping around the shutter button, and the top plate features the familiar 3-button setup just behind the shutter button—Record, ISO, and exposure compensation—exactly as my Z8 and Z6III. There are some other slight variations in button feel; they are not quite as solid as the higher-end cameras, but it feels very similar and coherent with the rest of the Nikon Z line.

Setup

I already did an initial custom setup to replicate my Z8 (I detailed my Z8 settings for wildlife here) as closely as possible in terms of button functions so that I can swap pretty seamlessly between my full-frame Nikon Z cameras and the Z50II. The fact that this is even possible surprised me, and it shows Nikon’s intent to make the Z50II more than just an entry-level camera.

I initially set the display button on the rear of the camera to activate single-point AF but found that the button is slightly awkward to activate due to the position my hand sits in. So, I am changing that customization and swapping that function to the AE-L/AF-L button instead, as that’s easier to reach more naturally. In terms of ergonomics, this is a world away from how I remember my beginner camera, the Canon EOS 450D. It feels refined, well-built, and capable. Surprisingly so, if I’m honest. I didn’t expect quite this level of customizability and feel from a camera aimed at this level.

My First Outing

For my first outing, I took the Z50II with just the 16-50mm kit lens on a walk where beavers are located. We knew we wouldn’t see them in the daytime, but I wanted to show Sofia their lodges. The walk there initially cuts through some farmland with beautiful ancient trees lining a narrow path before entering woodland and signs of beaver activity all around.

We got slightly off-track due to the incredible amount of fern growth which has sprung up since the last time I was here. We ended up having to find our way through dense woodland, across the pools and bogs that the beaver activity has created. Eventually, and after pushing through foliage that dwarfed Sofia, we got back on track and made our way toward the lodges. All along the walk, I was picking out shots and getting a feel for what this camera and lens combination could do.

I’ve set the autofocus up exactly as I have it on my other Nikon Z cameras for familiarity. A couple of things immediately impressed me with the Z50II, the first being that it was even possible to so closely replicate the functionality and setup of professional-level Nikon Z cameras. The fact that Nikon has allowed this, rather than differentiating the Menu system between a beginner-level camera and pro-level cameras, is an inspired choice in my opinion. It allows someone like me, who uses top-of-the-line gear, to pass down my experience from those cameras and use it with the Z50II. I never got the feeling that the camera had been dumbed down, which in turn gave me a feeling not of “ah god, this is restrictive and basic,” but more so that Nikon genuinely set out to make a smaller, cheaper version of their pro-level bodies. It feels every bit a Nikon Z camera of this generation.

My subjects were mainly trees, farmland, and the odd shot of Sofia, so I didn’t get to test out autofocus tracking, subject detection, or the more advanced AF elements yet. My default AF mode is Wide-Area AF S on all my Z cameras and so I set the Z50II up in exactly the same way. It feels responsive in my limited testing so far, but I will dig deeper into that in future outings.

A lot of the time I used my custom setting button to activate Single-point AF to ensure accuracy when photographing the landscape and ensuring the correct depth of field in shots. Speaking of which, due to the smaller APS-C sized sensor, depth of field is naturally deeper than my full-frame Z cameras which makes it easier to get front-to-back sharpness with larger apertures, something quite useful for landscapes. So instead of shooting at my usual f/8, I found myself at f/5.6 more often. One issue of course is the variable aperture of the Nikon Z 16-50mm kit lens, which when zooming through the focal range, sometimes makes f/5.6 impossible. At the long end, you’re at f/6.3.

Another factor I had to keep reminding myself of was that the Z50II does not have In-Body Image Stabilisation, so I had to remain aware of shutter speed so as to not introduce any camera shake into images. I rarely dropped below 1/30–50 of a second for this reason, and so on a couple of shots, the camera was at a higher ISO than I would normally have chosen.

Image Quality: Initial Impressions

Still, the image quality seems excellent, especially considering this is a kit lens. My initial instinct, although I will test this properly later, is that the lens is sharp in the centre, may soften slightly as you zoom towards the extreme end of its focal length, but as someone who uses some of Nikon’s top Z lenses, I never felt like the lens was terrible; in fact, for its tiny size, I was pleasantly surprised.

I should mention that the weather for this walk was pretty grey and overcast for the most part with drizzle turning to more persistent rain as we headed back towards the car. The Z50II has weather sealing and so I simply left it out in the elements, either on my Capture clip or in my hand, and continued to shoot.

When I got home, I went through some of the files and applied my usual editing style in Lightroom on my iPad. The files look good; they seem to offer the same ability to edit in terms of colour, dynamic range, and malleability that I’ve come to expect from Nikon. Technically, I haven’t tested them side-by-side to the full-frame photos coming off my Z6III or Z8, and will do so in due time, but as an initial impression, they seem to be in the same ballpark, if you allow for the sensor size difference. Overall, so far, my initial impressions of the Nikon Z50II are that it’s every bit a modern Nikon Z camera, in a smaller package, not a stripped-down beginner camera. That’s what impressed me the most when I first unboxed it and after taking it out on an initial shoot.

You can see the latest price for the Nikon Z50II kit I bought here.

In the first article, I ended up concluding that for general shooters, the Nikon Z 35mm 1.8S probably isn’t worth the expense as that focal length doesn’t really take advantage of a primes benefits in terms of depth of field. If you are interested in how the Nikon Z 85mm 1.8S performs against the 24-120mm f/4S see my latest article in the series.

However in this second article, we are starting to get in to the type of focal length where depth of field naturally becomes more important. Often 50mm is recommended as the best first prime to start with as it gives a natural field of view that closely replicates the human eye, is much more flattering for portraits and allows you to focus on subjects with less context. All these types of shots are areas where depth of field control can be important.

I grew up in a time when primes were considerably better than zooms optically. I remember seeing the difference between Canon professional zooms such as the 17-40mm f/4L and primes like the Zeiss Otus line. However with Nikon in particular producing some incredibly sharp zooms in their Z lens lineup, does this still hold true or not?

This article contains affiliate links. If you use these links to buy something, I may earn a commission at no extra cost to you. I only recommend gear that I have personally owned and used extensively.

Methodology

Because I own both of these lenses, this comparison is based on thousands of frames shot in the real world. However, to provide a fair, head-to-head comparison, I headed to my local testing ground to conduct controlled tests.

For these, I mounted my Nikon Z8 to a tripod to ensure total consistency.

• Mid-Distance Sharpness: I shot my standard test scene with the Z 24-120mm f/4 set to an indicated 50mm, stepping through its aperture range from f/4 to f/8. I then swapped to the Z 50mm 1.8S, shooting from its wide-open aperture of f/1.8 through to f/8.
• Minimum Focus Distance: To evaluate close-range performance, I repeated the process at the minimum focusing distance for each lens, again ranging from wide-open to f/8.
• Portrait Distance & Depth of Field: Finally, to illustrate the practical difference in subject isolation, I shot both lenses at a common portrait distance of approximately 6 feet, with each lens set to its respective maximum aperture (f/1.8 for the prime and f/4 for the zoom).

Size and weight and Handling

The Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 is not a small lens. At 630 grams, it feels substantial and is well-matched to my Nikon Z8; it also handles well on my Z6III. On my Zf, however, it’s horrible. That said, it remains below the point where I feel the size and weight become a major factor. When mounted on the Z8, it balances well, doesn’t feel front-heavy, and I happily clip it onto my Peak Design Capture Clip when hiking. It features a telescopic zoom design that extends the barrel as you zoom, but even fully extended, it never feels unwieldy. It also uses a 77mm filter thread, a standard size that lets me use my existing filter kit.

The Nikon Z 50mm 1.8S is a different story. At 415 grams, it is lighter than the zoom, though it’s worth noting it is roughly 45 grams heavier than the 35mm 1.8S I tested previously. It is quite a substantial lens for a 50mm f/1.8; it is definitely not a “plastic fantastic” like the old Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 I bought many years ago. However, the performance is in a completely different league compared to those older lenses. While it’s not as compact as some legacy primes, it still feels relatively compact on Nikon bodies like the Z6III and Z8.

I won’t dwell on this too long, as it’s clear that you are paying a size and weight penalty in return for the flexibility of the zoom. Whether that trade-off suits your shooting style is subjective; neither lens is “too heavy” or “too small,” they are simply designed for different priorities.

Image Quality

The first thing to note is that unlike in the 35mm comparison, the Zoom at 50mm and the prime give effecteviely the same field of view.

At 50mm, the shallower depth of field of the 50mm 1.8S is quite noticeable, giving a much smoother background which I find less distracting. There is some noticeable vignetting at 1.8 on the Nikon Z 50mm 1.8S. It’s easily corrected in Lightroom with the use of lens profiles though.

When I look at the images side-by-side in Lightroom’s comparison tool, without zooming in, both look very sharp, with good contrast.

Once I zoom in to 100% , both lenses give sharp crisp details with a slight edge going to the zoom at f/4 over the prime at f/1.8.

Once the 50mm 1.8S is stopped down to f/4 to match the zoom, it becomes slightly sharper than the 24-120mm f/4. It’s not a night and day difference though. For normal use, I’d honestly say the difference is essentially irrelvant.

Once both lenses are stopped down to f/5.6, I struggle to see any meaningful difference, even when zooming in to 200% in Lightroom.

When I have to zoom in to a 200% crop to be sure of the differences, it shows just how close in performance the two lenses are in terms of sharpness in the centre of the frame.

At f/5.6 the extreme edge, performance from both the 24-120mm f/4 and 50mm 1.8s is essentially identical. So for landscapes and general use, I really see little difference between them in terms of pure sharpness.

It’s the same story when both lenses are stopped down to f/8 and beyond so I wont bore you with further examples at those apertures.

Next up I wanted to test how each lens at minimum focus distances. Nikon quotes the 24-120mm as having a 35cm minimum focus distance compared to the 40cm of the NIkon Z 50mm 1.8S. So to compare, I shot both lenses at the closest focusing distance I could obtain with the prime lens, from wide open to f/8.

At this point I want to note that Lightroom is telling me I hit exactly 50mm on the zoom lens this time and it does result in a marginally tighter field of view than the 50mm 1.8S prime, due to focus breathing in the 24-120mm f/4S as it focuses closer.

When shot wide open, the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4s is slightly sharper than the 50mm 1.8S. The differences are tiny but can be seen once you crop in 100% on the images.

In my opinion the difference in subject separation and background blur is fairly significant. The background blur on the 50mm 1.8s lens is significantly smoother and less distracting. The definitiion of the highlights in the background on the 24-120mm f/4s image are distracting. However, subject placment, distance between the background and subject will all have a major effect on this and to be quite honest, the background on the 24-120mm image is already out of focus to a degree where it is already sperating the subject well. Just how out of focus do I need my backgrounds is the question I’m asking here.

I then took a test shot with the 24-120mm f/4 at its minimum focus distance to show how it affects things.

The comparison above shows that the zooms closer minimum focus distance makes quite a difference and a side-effect of this is that it pushes the background more out of focus compared to the Nikon Z 50mm 1.8S.

Finally, I took shots with both lenses wide-open at their respective apertures from a distance of 6 feet to show the difference in subject separation and bokeh from a fairly standard shooting distance.

The larger aperture of the Nikon Z 50mm 1.8S shows much more subject separation at f/1.8 than the f/4 of the zoom.

Verdict

Honestly, as I’m writing this I am really torn on the value of the Nikon Z 50mm 1.8S lens if you already own the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4. For landscapes and general shooting, the zooms flexibility combined with excellent sharpness are basically a no brainer. I’m genuinely surprised that the 50mm 1.8S didn’t easily beat the 24-120mm f/4 in terms of sharpness. If you’re simply looking for better image quality than the Zoom, in the real world, where we aren’t pixel peeping, I just cannot recommend spending the money on the prime lens if you aleady own the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4.

Is there still a case for owning the prime? Absolutely, but it has little to do with sharpness any more. Nikon with their Z line, seem to have really closed the gap that used to exist between primes and zooms. The conventional wisdom that primes are significantly better optically than zooms, no longer seems to hold up. So what’s the point in the prime? Well beyond the ability of teaching you to see in a certain way, which I’ve talked about many times before, and giving creative constraints which can help your photography improve, I was genuinely struggling to justify the prime lens.

The saving grace is the last test image showing shots at a fairly standard portrait distance. The prime is not a little better here, it is orders of magnitude better if you really need the ability to isolate subjects and throw backgrounds out of focus. Not just that, but it allows greater depth of field control which can be used as a way to guide viewers around a photo.

But these are either quite advanced or quite niche use cases and so, even though the Nikon Z 50mm 1.8S is one of my favourite Nikon Z lenses, and the one where I thought the primes would start to justify themselves more, I have to conclude by saying that if you own the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4s lens, are a general photographer rather than a specialist, then unless you absolutely want that f/1.8 aperture, to isolate subjects, or you simply prefer working with primes, then it’s simply not worth spending the money on the Nikon Z 50mm 1.8S.

You can see the latest price for the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4S here.

You can see the latest price for the Nikon Z 50mm 1.8S here.

As part of that series, I took the Nikon Z 50mm 1.8S lens out on a local walk through the Perthshire farmland near my home yesterday with the intention of seeing how it changed the way I shoot, the images I could make and whether I could make it work for the wide-open countryside near my home. You can see how the Nikon Z 50mm 1.8S compares against the 24-120mm f/4 here.

It was a beautiful sunny, summers day which sounds lovely, and it was, but it’s not my preferred weather for trying to shoot landscapes.

The high contrast light means that you have to carefully watch your exposure, ensure highlights aren’t clipped and it tends to flatten everything. That combined with being faced by a wall of green at this time of year has resulted in me looking more for interesting pockets of light across the landscape where it creates more depth than simple flat looking sunny scenes.

The 50mm focal length changes the way I shoot, It gives a feeling of peering in to the landscape rather than being immersed in it. The images often end up feeling more intimate. I tend to look for foreground elements that can frame a subject which sits deeper in the image.

I started out the walk, up an old railway path, looking for exactly these kind of compositions, peering through leaves and branches toward something that caught my eye. The light was a mix of bright sunshine, and the ocassional cloud rolling across the sky which would briefly cast shadows on to the land below.

Initially, I was still looking for similar compositions as I would normally, perhaps some foreground interest, leading towards the subject, framing it or leading in to it. To be honest, whether it was having my wife with me as I’m teaching her to create videos, or it was simply that I didn’t adjust my thought process enough, I was struggling to get anything other than snapshots of a nice subject.

One such location was a beautiful field of crops, blowing in the wind, creating swirls and patterns as the tops of the crops swayed during each gust. It immediately caught my eye and I headed down off the path to get closer. My instinct was to place the crops right up front in to the foreground and find a point of interest in the distance that could act as an anchor to the frame.

The problem, I found was that the 50mm focal length, didn’t allow me to get in close enough to feel immersed in the stems and seeds of the crop, while allowing enough depth of field and space in the frame to include the beautiful Oak tree in the distance that I had picked out as the anchor. I moved around, changed angles, raised the camera, lowered it, moved in closer, further out and stopped down my lens to f/16 but no matter what I did, it just wasn’t working. The second issue I was having is that I really wanted to capture the movement of the (wheat or barley, I think) as it swayed in the wind, almost as one organism rather than individual crops. Sadly, I hadn’t brought an ND filter and so in the bright sunshine, I couldn’t slow my shutter speed enough to capture the movement.

In the end, I got some shots, but they weren’t any good and didn’t capture the vision I imagined when I spotted the scene.

The 50mm is a fantastic lens that combined with any of my Nikon Z cameras, offers great image quality and performance. But having a fixed focal length meant I had to adapt my shooting style, which so far on the walk just wasn’t happening because of my pre-conceived ideas of the shots I would try and capture.

Thats was, until we continued walking along the path and to my right were tracks weaving thier way through the exact same field. I couldn’t resist trying to use these tracks in a photo as they created a beautiful S-curve through the crops.

Normally, I would have moved off the elevated path overlooking them and tried to get in close, using a similar thought process as my last unsuccessful attempt.

Instead, I saw clouds moving towards us which might offer some interesting shadows on the field. This could be the cherry on the cake of any image, if I could snap my brain in to thinking a little differently than it curretnly was.

This time I decided to stay on the elevated path as it gave a good vantage point over the field, emphasizing the shape of the leading lines of the path. In the distance, a beautiful row of trees framed the farmland. Knowing that I could use the compression of the 50mm focal length to pull the background closer, I framed up the shot multiple ways to see which worked best. The 50mm in this case, was actually giving me more sky in the frame than I wanted, but before the crop field was dead land, that was ugly and which I definitely didn’t want in the frame.

This is where a fixed focal length forces you to try multiple compositions and really think, often having to try multiple positions and framing options before settling on the one that works best. It forces you to really explore a scene and consider what it is that you want to show. Of course, the reverse of that is that sometimes, you have to make compromises you wouldn’t necessarily have to with a zoom.

In the end, I shot in portrait orientation to better align the frame with the flow of the tracks leading through the frame. In landscape orientation, there was too much dead space on the right of the frame that looked out of place. I decided that this was the best compromise, including more sky, rather than more field. Then, I simply waited for those clouds to move in and create some light pockets over the field that would bring out the texture and add a little more depth to the shot.

There are a few scenes on this walk that remind me of the time I spent in Tuscany, Italy and so I edited the image with that in mind. I go in to more detail on my thought process and techniques when shooting and editing on my personal website.

The Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 isn’t quite in the same category in terms of how it is viewed. It’s not Nikon’s premium zoom option but it is a really good one that covers an incredibly useful focal range. So the question here isn’t whether the zoom is as good as the primes, it’s not, but whether it’s worth buying the primes for those of us who own the 24-120mm. How much better is sharpness, how much difference does f/1.8 make vs f/4 actually make, and are there other benefits that make it worth spending the money to add primes to your kit. You can see how the zoom compares against the Nikon Z 50mm 1.8S here and against the Nikon Z 85mm 1.8S here.

I purchased all the lenses mentioned in this article with my own money. Some of the links in this post are affiliate links, which means I may earn a small commission if you decide to buy through them.

I’ve been shooting the 24-120mm f4 for months, I’ve owned the 1.8S primes for well over a year. I bought the primes while I was still living in the Philippines and used them for candid travel photography , family photos and some street photography. I’ve reviewed them all individually. In my collection I own the 20mm, 35mm, 50mm and 85mm lenses. I also own the 14-30mm f/4 and 24-120mm f/4. I previously owned the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 (the original one) and found it to be an exceptional lens but sold it a couple of years back as I felt it sat in the middle ground between the more practical 24-120mm with its really useful focal range and the primes with their ability to isolate subjects and shoot in low light.

Now that I’ve been living on the edge of the Scottish Highlands for nearly 6 months, I’ve found myself appreciating good zoom lenses more than in recent years. So the aim of this series of articles is to see whether I would buy the primes again, if I had to start over and more importantly, whether it’s worth it for most people.

Size and weight

The Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 is not a small lens at 630 grams, it feels substantial, and really well matched to my Nikon Z8, it also handles well on my Z6III, on my Zf, it’s horrible. However, it is below the point where I feel the size and weight become a major factor. When it’s mounted on the Z8, it balances well, doesn’t feel front heavy and I happily clip it on to my Peak Design Capture Clip when hiking. It has a telescopic zoom design which extends the barrel as you zoom through the focal ranges but even fully extended, it never feels unweildy.

It has a 77mm filter size which is pretty common and allows me to use my existing filters.

The 35mm 1.8S lens on the other hand feels compact, considerably smaller and lighter than the zoom at 370 grams and in general is in a different ballpark altogether in terms of handling. However, both feel equally well made, being S line lenses.

I’m not going to add much to this as it’s pretty obvious that you’re paying a size and weight penalty in return for the flexibility of the zoom. Whether it suits your shooting style and priorities is very subjective but neither is too heavy nor too small, theyre just obviously different.

Methodology

To test the lenses I’ve looked through my Lightroom catalogue at the various shots I’ve taken with each lens over the last year as well as shot some test images for more technical comparisons. The test shots were taken on my Nikon Z8, on a solid tripod (Leofoto Summit LM-364C). I started by focusing the 24-120mm as close as I could to the test subject, then shooting images through the aperture range. I then replicated this with the 35mm lens at the same distance before testing the prime at it’s minimum focus distance. Finally, I shot them both from approximately 6 feet away from the subject in order to see whether this affected sharpness and also to show an actual example of the difference that f/1.8 vs f/4 makes in terms of subject isolation and bokeh at a mid-range focusing distance.

Image Quality

The Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4S lens is a sharp zoom, even wide-open at f/4, its decently sharp. Stopping down to f/5.6 it gets sharper still where I’d call it excellent, not quite on the level of the f/2.8 pro zoom but still more than good enough for everything from posting online to prints. At f/5.6 there is more detail and contrast. Viewed at 100% in Lightroom, the differences are quite obvious. At normal viewing distances on anything less than an A2 sized print and I doubt most people would be able to tell.

What surprised me somewhat is that the 35mm 1.8S is noticeably sharper at f/1.8 than the 24-120mm f/4 is at f/4. Unlike the Fuji comparisons I recently wrote, there is a noticeable difference in centre sharpness between the zoom and the prime lens. I also noticed that even though I didn’t get the Zoom bang on 35mm (it was 33.5mm), the prime is giving a wider field of view. I double checked this and confirmed it was the case.

Once the 35mm 1.8S lens is stopped down to f/4, it sharpens up even more and increases the gap between itself and the 24-120mm lens. The prime is substantially sharper at f/4 than the zoom, showing a lot more detail and contrast.

Once the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 is stopped down to f/5.6 it sharpens up and closes the gap to the prime. At f/5.6 sharpness is excellent for the zoom and pin sharp with the prime. In my personal opinion, once we are at these levels of sharpness, which one wins almost becomes irrelevant as they’re both sharp enough to look great on screen or in print.

Nikon quotes the 24-120mm as having a minimum focus distance of 35cm compared with 25cm on the 35mm 1.8S. 10cm doesn’t sound much on paper and it’s hard to visualise the difference by looking at the numbers alone, so here is a comaprison of them both shot wide-open at their respective minimum focus distances.

I think the difference, when you actually see it in a shot is much more dramatic than the numbers would suggest. The Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4S, at roughly 35mm focal length simply will not focus as closely as the 35mm 1.8S. This has a profound effect, combined with the larger aperture of the prime on it’s ability to thow backgrounds out of focus in a way that the zoom cannot get anywhere near. I would note that the zoom is considered to have an impressive minimum focus distance, and of course you can zoom in further to throw the background out of focus more, if of course, you are able to step back and shoot from further away.

This kind of test is useful but how often do you shoot at such close distances? I can’t think of many times in the last 20 years that I’ve done this. So to see what f/1.8 vs f/4 looks like in a more likely scenario, I moved the tripod back to 6 feet away from the subject and shot both lenses wide open to give a more realistic idea of the difference.

Judge for yourself, but the 35mm 1.8S is able to isolate the subject and throw the background more out of focus than the 24-120mm. That was always going to be the case but at this kind of mid-range shooting distance, I’m actually a little underwhelmed with the difference between the two. Yes the prime looks better but I still wouldn’t exactly call it a blown out or creamy background. My thoughts on this are that it shows that the distance to subject and between the subject and background, would have more effect on the ability to blur backgrounds than simply going from f/4 to f/1.8.

Verdict

These two lenses are designed for completely different roles, but where they overlap, the prime is clearly better in terms of shrapness, ability to islolate subjects and of course, will perform better in low light. That was always going to be the case, but how much sharper it is was the real take-away from my testing. However, if you shoot landscapes, general photography, travel, then in this focal range, if you already own the zoom, I don’t see the case for saying the prime lens is worth it. Stopped down to f/5.6, the zoom is already showing excellent sharpness. 35mm is a storytelling focal length where often, we want all of the scene to be in focus so the brighter aperture isn’t as much of a benefit as it may be at longer focal lengths. And, of course, you can always shoot the zoom at a longer focal length in order to give more background separation if you want to. For landscapes, the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 is already good enough if like me, you usually stop down to f/8 and beyond. In this particular comparison, the prime simply doesn’t offer enough of an advantage in every day shooting scenarios to justify the additional cost.

See the latest pricing for the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4S

However, if you are a prime shooter, value all the things that primes offer, then the 35mm 1.8S is incredibly sharp, nice and compact, well built and can create photos that are not possible with a zoom. I really enjoy mine, particularly when I was shooting travel photography abroad but for most people, who own the zoom, I’d say save your money and consider a different focal length, if you are looking to compliment your zoom with a prime.

So would I buy the prime again now that I own the zoom? Well yes I would, but that’s because of my particular style of shooting, where I often prefer to slow down, simplify and shooting with prime lenses allows me to do that. 35mm also happens to be one of my favourite focal lengths.

See the latest pricing for the Nikon Z 35mm 1.8S.

I’m going to get the key specs out of the way as some of them directly relate to my experience but the specs really don’t tell the story with these two cameras, well at least not with the Zf.

This article contains affiliate links. If you buy through these links, I may earn a small commission at no extra cost to you.

Firstly, lets talk about the design because theyre fundamentally different and because much of the Zf’s appeal is based on its beautiful retro design, and it is beautiful. I have the the silver Zf (see my full Nikon Zf review) , normally I tend to go for the black versions these days but only the silver one was available when I bought it in the Philippines. It’s a stunning camera. I’d probably rank it alongside my OM system OM-3 as the best looking camera I own. The silver finish isn’t too light or bright and the dials remind me of film cameras of years gone past. The Z8 on the other hand is purely functional, it’s basically a modern D850 DSLR (See my full Nikon Z8 review), nothing about it is designed to wow you or appeal to nostalgia. Well, unless you’re nosatgic about the DSLR era I suppose.

So on design alone, the Zf objectively has to be declared the winner but that doesn’t tell the whole story because not everyone wants a retro looking camera and when I look at both of them sat next to each other on my OCD shelf (I call it that as everything has its place, lenses in focal length order, cameras in size order etc) I don’t see them in the same way. Yes the Zf is undoubtedly the conventionally better looking camera but the Z8 calls to me because it screams, im going to get out of your way, get the job done and be really comfortable and easy to use while getting your shots. There’s an appeal to me in a camera that means business, is solid and leaves me knowing it can handle anything I throw at it. So lets just say, I don’t see one as the ugly duckling and the other as the beauty queen. One’s a Ducati 748, beautiful and will get you around the track quickly, the other is a Honda Fireblade, still looks good but is built to get the fastest possible lap time first and foremost. I like both.

What’s surprising is how close they are in weight and even size when you hold them. Although the Z8 is clearly bigger, its not night and day. The Zf feels very wide, almost too wide for it’s height and out of the box, it lacks any grip whatsoever making it awkward to hold. I’ve improved this by adding the Smallrig grip (full accessories for the Nikon Zf article) but even with that, the weight of the Zf pulls to the left, and the grip doesn’t offer enough extra purchase to stop the camera feeling like it wants to drop to the left which eventually, fatigues your hands more than I’d like.

The Z8 sits a lot taller and substantially deeper but that’s offset hugely by its really good grip.

If I’m packing for travel and I need to minimise space then the Zf definitely packs down smaller whereas the Z8 is more of a squeeze in my Peak Design Everyday Sling 10L once I attach the 50mm 1.8S, pack an additional prime like the 35mm 1.8S, spare batteries, memory cards, cleaning kit and my Ipad Pro 13″.

But in actual use, they don’t really feel like a completely different class of camera in terms of weight because the grip on the Z8 is so deep and well designed that it makes holding the camera with any lenses larger than the 40mm f/2 more comfortable than the Zf with anything more than the 28mm/40mm f/2 sized lenses.

If im packing light, going to wear the camera on a strap or keep popping it in and out of my bag all day, the size advantage of the Zf makes more sense and the grip of the Z8 is less of a factor. But if I’m going to have the camera in my hand most of the day, the Z8 is much more comfortable to hold.

The other major difference is the controls. The Nikon Zf has physical dials for shutter speed, ISO and exposure compensation. The dials work well when you’re in full manual mode and are a pleasure to use for slower paced or creative photography. Where it differs from the implementation on my Fuji X-T5 (full review here) is that the dials on the Zf are dependant on which mode you put the camera in on the MASP switch (the Zf’s equivalent to standard PASM dials). In manual mode, every dial works as expected, but because most Nikon Z lenses don’t have an aperture ring (although you can program it to the control ring if your lens has one) you have to use the front command dial to change aperture.

In Aperture priority mode, the shutter speed dial becomes inactive. The system makes sense but If you’re going to give me a physical control for shutter speed, I want that dial to overide the MASP setting. I’d say it feels incomplete because of a lack of aperture rings on Nikon Z lenses and, slightly disjointed because you have to mix using physical controls for shutter speed and ISO with command dial use for aperture as it comes out of the box. I’ve set up the lens control ring to function as the aperture dial on my Zf and while it works fine, it lacks the tactile feedback of having a physical aperture ring on a lens as there’s no clicks.

The Z8 uses a PASM based system. I shoot it almost exlusively in manual mode with auto ISO. I then use the front dial to control aperture and the rear dial for shutter speed. It’s very quick in use to adjust settings.

The next major difference is that with 45mp resolution, the Z8 basically doubles every lens you have, to give a usable FX and DX variant as DX still gives you 20mp files. Practically I consider 24mp to be plenty for normal use in most situations. I tend to think in terms of ‘is something enough’, rather than ‘is it the best available’, especially for resolution as I remember printing 30×20″ gallery prints from my Canon 5d mk II (which only had 20mp) and the quality was excellent.

But in use, the ability to turn every lens that you have in to two usable focal lengths has two main benefits that I’ve found could almost justify the cost difference between the Zf and Z8 alone.

I often travel with one camera and two prime lenses to keep things light. Usually I’d pick a 35mm and a 50mm lens to take with me, to cover normal wide and mid range. these are my most often used focal lengths for travel.

If I take the Zf with both lenses I get 24mp files for everything and the total weight is 1.6kg. But if i take the Nikon Z8 with just the 35mm 1.8S (reviewed here)and use it in FX mode for the 35mm focal length and in DX mode to get an equivalent 50mm field of view. I can leave the 50mm 1.8S lens behind (reviewed here) and get 45mp shots in FX mode and still only lose 4mp against the Zf with 20mp files in DX mode. The total weight for the Z8 and 35mm 1.8S is 1.28kg and I’m gaining a lot of resolution in Fx mode and only giving up minimal resolution in Dx mode. Yes, the 35mm 1.8S wont give quite the same subject separation or look as using the native 50mm lens but it’s close enough that at those focal lengths the differences probably wont make or break a shot.

The Z8 combination ends up being arguably more capable yet lighter.

If you still want to carry two lenses, with the Z8 you now have four focal lengths to use.

So if I’m talking purely about weight and functionality, the Z8 gives a lot of extra flexibility thanks to its higher resolution sensor. Ultimatley the Zf does pack down smaller if your kit is the same and that can be important for travel but it’s not a clear win for the Zf as there’s lots of different factors to consider.

Where the Zf does make more sense is for hobbyists and as a second camera for Nikon Z shooters. There’s no getting around the fact that the Zf offers a completely different shooting experience from the DSLR style of the Z8. The physical control dials make me feel more like an artist than a photographer, they slow me down, slow my thinking down and make the whole experience feel more tactile and about the joy of shooting as much as getting the shot. There’s also something to be said for using a beautiful camera, I know that sounds shallow but for someone like me, who’s professional life revolves around photography, having a camera that makes you feel pride in its appearance, even perhaps get the odd complimentary or inquisitive comment, is a pleasure. And, the third point I would definitely say is a factor for travel, is that turning up in some far flung location with a camera that looks like the Zf changes the way you are perceived and often, the reactions that you get when you point it at people.

The Zf definitely gives off the ‘harmless tourist vibe’ rather than the ‘professional photographer look’ which often allows you to get photos without disturbing the people you are shooting, which results in less stares, less changes in the way people behave in front of the camera and generally, more natural candid photos. I should say though that more than the camera you are using, how you interact and behave when you’re photographing a place has more impact on the reactions you get.

Finally, for a photograhy first camera, the Zf has a few strange design choices in my opinion, the first being the inclusion of a fully articluating screen. There’s nothing wrong with it but for photography, and especially if you’re trying to take advantage of the Zf’s more discreet nature, having to pull out the fully articulating screen and have it stick out of the side of your camera in order to shoot at the hip or shoot from higher or lower positions makes little sense.

The Z8’s screen is by far my preferred choice for photography as you can simply flip it up or down in-line with the camera which is much quicker to do and more discreet. The Z8 doesn’t make for much of a selfie camera because of this, but I reckon that probably loses Nikon about 2 sales a year.

Most of the article so far has been based on travel photography because, that’s really one of the main use cases I can see for the Nikon Zf. For landscape and general photography for most people, the Z8 simply makes more sense, if you can afford it.

As I’ve now moved to Scotland, where I’m shooting landscapes more so than travel photography, my own use has switched to heavily preferring the Nikon Z8 over the Zf. In fact, apart from shooting for reviews, I honestly haven’t picked up the Zf for a couple of months until today.

Verdict

I’m sat here now, holding the Zf and asking myself why that is because it’s a really capable camera and one that is fun to use.

I think the answer is this: The Zf is very good but the Z8 is better in almost every area and with basically no weight penalty. I look at the Zf and think that looks lovely but it doesn’t make me want to pick it up becausue it’s not particularly comfortable to use and the implementation of the physical control dials feels half hearted, so I don’t get the full experience of aperture, shutter speed and ISO control that I would want from a camera like that.

For me personally, when I want to shoot in that way, my Fuji cameras still do it better and when I want to shoot Nikon Z, I’m doing so because the ergonomics and performance are what I need and the Z8 simpy performs better in those areas.

There is one area though where I would be much more likely to choose the Nikon Zf over both the Z8 and my Fuji cameras, and that’s family photography (the Nikkon Zf is recommended in my article discussing the best cameras for family photography). After years of shooting my kids, I’ve learned that how they react to the camera changes massively depending on what the camera looks like. If i stick a pro looking DSLR in their face, they stop what they’re doing, tighten up, change their expressions and stop acting naturally. If I use a camera that looks like the zf, they largely carry on with what theyre doing, especially if I put one of the smaller Z lenses on the camera such as the 40mm f/2SE (reviewed here). Although I do shoot a lot of my family photos on Fujifilm cameras, I’ll be the first to admit that the Zf’s autofocus is faster and more reliable which makes it easier to get shots of children racing around. So if I was choosing between buying the Z8 and the Zf purely to have a camera with me to take photos of my family, at home, special events, vacations or anything else, I’d pick the Zf, save the money and get an extra lens or an extra vacation.

That’s about the only use case where I can realistically see myself picking the Zf over the Z8 and on that note, I have to go and take Izzy’s first British passport photo….. and I’m still reaching for the Z8.

If you’ve decided which camera is right for you, you can check the latest prices here: Nikon Zf | Nikon Z8.

Unlike the other prime lenses featured in this series, the XF 56mm f/1.2 WR is a far more specialised tool. It was designed with portrait photography in mind, whereas the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II is intended to be a versatile lens capable of handling almost any subject.

So, as I headed out to compare the two lenses, one question was at the forefront of my mind:

If you’re a portrait, wedding or family photographer who primarily photographs people, can the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II really replace the XF 56mm f/1.2 WR?

This article contains affiliate links. If you buy something through these links, I may earn a small commission at no extra cost to you.

Size and Weight

Unlike the other primes in this series, the XF 56mm f/1.2 WR is noticeably larger than the others and is actually slightly heavier than the zoom, so any argument for choosing it based on size or weight alone falls flat.

It does offer an even brighter f/1.2 aperture compared to the f/1.4 offered by all the other prime lenses tested so far. The lens never feels particularly heavy or bulky when holding it on my X-T5 but it’s definitely substantial. It feels noticeably thicker than the the 16-55mm f/2.8II which is quite surprising and says a lot about how much Fuji have managed to shrink down the mark II version of the zoom.

How I Compared the Two Lenses

I decided not to test the XF 56mm f/1.2 WR against the dry stone wall used in the previous articles in this series for one simple reason: sharpness at mid distances isn’t the primary reason people buy this lens.

While the XF 56mm f/1.2 WR is certainly capable of shooting landscapes, it’s not a lens many photographers are going to spend around $1,000 on for that purpose.

What’s far more relevant is how sharp the lens is wide open, how close it can focus and, perhaps most importantly, how depth of field behaves both close up and at typical portrait distances. Those are the characteristics that define a lens like this, so that’s what I decided to test.

As usual, I mounted both lenses on my Fujifilm X-T5 and placed the camera on a tripod. All images were taken using the camera’s two-second self-timer to eliminate any possibility of movement from pressing the shutter affecting the results.

To determine the minimum focusing distance of the XF 56mm f/1.2 WR, I moved the camera as close to the subject as possible until the lens would no longer acquire focus, then gradually backed away in very small increments until focus was achieved. I then took shots with the 16-55mm f/2.8II at the same distance to compare sharpness before repeating the minimum focus setup separately for the zoom lens and taking shots for comparison.

Once I’d established the minimum focusing distance for both lenses, I compared sharpness, subject separation and depth of field behaviour at their widest apertures and at a range of portrait-focused shooting distances.

So far in this series, I’ve become used to the prime lenses focusing closer than the zoom. I hadn’t looked up the specifications for the XF 56mm f/1.2 WR before starting this test, so I began with the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II, fully expecting the prime to be able to shoot from the same distance, if not closer.

It turned out the opposite was true.

Fujifilm quotes a minimum focusing distance of 50cm for the XF 56mm f/1.2 WR compared to just 30cm for the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II. That’s a substantial difference and meant the prime simply couldn’t focus from the same position as the zoom.

As a result, after completing my usual close-focus tests, I repeated them from 50cm so that both lenses could be photographed from exactly the same position and compared fairly.

The first comparison shots I took were with both lenses shot wide open: f/1.2 for the prime and f/2.8 for the zoom.

Both lenses are easily sharp enough for portrait photography when used at their widest apertures and, at first glance, the results were surprisingly close.

Once I zoomed in to 100%, two things became apparent. Firstly, the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II is slightly sharper than the XF 56mm f/1.2 WR when both lenses are shot wide open. Having seen how well the zoom has performed throughout this series, and knowing just how difficult it is to design an f/1.2 lens that remains critically sharp at its widest aperture, that result doesn’t surprise me.

What’s important, however, is that the XF 56mm f/1.2 WR is nowhere near soft when shot wide open. It remains critically sharp and easily resolves enough detail to define eyelashes cleanly, for example. It’s only when viewed side-by-side with the zoom at 100% magnification that the difference becomes apparent.

In real-world use, both lenses are sharp enough wide open that I would have no hesitation using either of them that way.

The second thing that immediately stood out was just how thin the depth of field is on the XF 56mm f/1.2 WR at close distances. Shot from 50cm away, you’d struggle to get an entire eye in focus, let alone both eyes. While the zoom produces a pleasant blurred background at f/2.8, the prime is operating in an entirely different league when it comes to shallow depth of field, completely melting the background away.

Once I stopped both lenses down to f/2.8, the XF 56mm f/1.2 WR sharpened up and was actually sharper than the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II at the same aperture.

This was the most substantial difference in sharpness that I found between the two lenses during testing. It’s noticeable at full resolution on a larger screen and even when zoomed to 50% on my 14-inch laptop display.

The zoom is still a very sharp lens, but in this particular test the prime was the clear winner.

At f/4, the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II sharpens up and closes the gap considerably. The XF 56mm f/1.2 WR still holds a slight advantage and remains the sharper lens, but the difference is less noticeable than it was at f/2.8.

Finally, I wanted to replicate using these lenses at a typical portrait distance of around 6ft from the subject. Again, I shot these images from a tripod with both lenses shot from exactly the same position. Any slight difference in angle of view is simply down to the zoom lens having a maximum focal length of 55mm compared to the prime’s 56mm.

As you can see, while the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II blurs the background nicely, it remains distracting, the XF 56mm f/1.2 WR gives a much nicer, smoother background.

If you have the option to choose your subject placement and backgrounds, then the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II can do a really nice job. However, if that’s not an option, the XF 56mm f/1.2 WR gives you the ability to completely obliterate it and isolate your subject much more effectively.

Conclusion

The XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II does a really good job at 55mm, remaining sharp enough wide open to produce very good results. For most photographers, I suspect that’s probably enough for casual portraits, family photos and certainly for isolating subjects when shooting more intimate landscape and detail images.

However, once you move into more specialised portrait or wedding photography, the XF 56mm f/1.2 WR offers the kind of subject separation that the zoom lens simply can’t compete with.

So if I were making a living from photographing people, or if shooting people formed a large part of my photography, I don’t think the zoom replaces it. Not because of sharpness, but because of the creative possibilities and subject separation that the prime lens offers.

One point worth noting is that the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II focuses more quickly and silently than the XF 56mm f/1.2 WR. The 56mm retains an older-style focus motor and can occasionally hunt for focus, accompanied by the familiar sound of Fujifilm’s older generation lenses.

It’s still fast enough for controlled portraits and most day-to-day photography, but for fast-moving action on a wedding reception dance floor, I wouldn’t fully trust it.

Fortunately, the other prime lenses featured in this series all use Fujifilm’s latest linear motors, making them significantly faster, more reliable and virtually silent in operation.

But as part of my series looking at whether the Fujifilm XF 16-55mm f/2.8 R LM WR II is really a bag of primes, I wanted to shoot the 56mm f/1.2 WR the way I naturally use gear: in my local landscape, on walks, photographing mainly nature, or at least being out in nature.

So for the last week or so, I’ve had it glued to my Fujifilm X-T5 and have been shooting it whenever I go out.

This article contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase through these links, I may earn a small commission at no additional cost to you. This helps support the website and allows me to continue creating free content.

Seeing Differently with the 56mm

One of the things that surprised me during these walks was just how much I enjoyed using the 56mm focal length.

Like many photographers, I often gravitate towards wider lenses. They feel natural for landscapes, travel and documenting everyday life. But spending time with the 56mm reminded me just how differently a scene can be interpreted simply by changing focal length.

The additional compression allows you to pull elements in a scene closer together, making distant objects appear more connected and helping to simplify what can sometimes be a chaotic frame. Subjects can be isolated more effectively from their surroundings and images often feel less like you’re standing within a scene and more like you’re quietly observing it from a distance.

It’s something I’d encourage every photographer to experiment with. Using a focal length outside your comfort zone teaches you how different lenses see the world and helps you recognise opportunities that you might otherwise miss.

In many ways, that’s what I enjoyed most about taking the 56mm f/1.2 WR on these walks. Rather than trying to capture the entire landscape, I found myself drawn to smaller details and quieter moments. The texture of bark on a tree, the craftsmanship of a dry stone wall, repeating patterns in nature, or the way light fell across a particular part of the woodland.

These intimate landscapes are often some of the most rewarding photographs to make. They encourage viewers to slow down and notice things that might otherwise go unseen.

The ability to work with shallow depth of field adds another creative tool. You can direct attention towards specific parts of the frame, simplify distracting backgrounds, or create images with a softer, more atmospheric feel.

The same applies when photographing family. The extra reach allows you to focus on expressions, gestures and interactions from a comfortable distance. Rather than feeling like you’re standing in the middle of the moment, you’re able to observe it unfold naturally.

Of course, the 56mm f/1.2 WR is great for photographing your family, creating images with a more intimate feel than you would typically get from wider lenses. What I enjoyed most, however, was the way it encouraged me to look for pockets of light, small details, patterns, textures, and more intimate compositions.

It’s not a lens that would naturally come to mind for this type of photography, but it’s more than capable of the job should you decide to challenge yourself and use something a little different. In doing so, you’re likely to come away with a different perspective and a different kind of photograph than you would normally take, while also pushing yourself to think more creatively about composition and subject matter.

And because it’s a prime lens, you can’t simply zoom out and fall back into your usual way of working.

In many ways, this is the first focal length in my series where the advantages of a prime lens become genuinely compelling. While lenses such as the XF 18mm f/1.4 WR and XF 23mm f/1.4 WR can produce attractive background blur, most people don’t buy them specifically for that purpose. The XF 33mm f/1.4 WR is different. For many photographers, the ability to create subject separation and shoot with a shallow depth of field is one of the main reasons for choosing it over a zoom lens.

The Fujifilm XF 33mm f/1.4 WR is also widely regarded as one of the finest lenses available for the X Series system. I certainly consider it one of Fujifilm’s best lenses, combining excellent image quality, fast autofocus, weather sealing and a practical focal length that works for everything from family photography to environmental portraits.

There’s another reason I expected the XF 33mm f/1.4 WR to perform well in this comparison. Designing a high-quality 50mm equivalent prime lens is generally considered easier than designing wider-angle lenses, which often require more complex optical corrections. If any of Fujifilm’s prime lenses were going to pull ahead of the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II in terms of image quality, I suspected this might be the one.

So, with both lenses mounted on my Fujifilm X-T5 and tested side-by-side, let’s see whether the XF 33mm f/1.4 WR can justify its place alongside Fujifilm’s flagship standard zoom.

Size and Weight

Just like the XF 18mm f/1.4 WR and XF 23mm f/1.4 WR, the XF 33mm f/1.4 WR is slightly smaller and lighter than the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II. However, the differences aren’t nearly as dramatic as they would have been with the original XF 16-55mm f/2.8.

At 360g, the 33mm f/1.4 WR is only 50g lighter than the zoom, and while it is shorter and slimmer, both lenses balance very well on cameras such as the Fujifilm X-T5.

Fujifilm deserves a lot of credit for what they’ve achieved with the Mark II version of the zoom. In use, it feels far closer to one of the company’s premium prime lenses than most professional standard zooms I’ve used.

One interesting difference between this comparison and the previous articles in the series is that both lenses share the same stated minimum focusing distance of 30cm. Unlike the 18mm and 23mm primes, the XF 33mm f/1.4 WR doesn’t gain a close-focusing advantage on paper.

This article contains affiliate links. If you buy something through these links, I may earn a small commission at no extra cost to you. This helps support the site and allows me to keep creating free content. Thank you for your support.

How I Compared the Two Lenses

To compare the XF 33mm f/1.4 WR and XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II, I took both lenses with me on a recent walk around a local country estate.

Using my Fujifilm X-T5 mounted on a tripod, I photographed the same section of a dry stone wall with both lenses. The camera position remained unchanged throughout the test and each image was focused on exactly the same point, which I’ve highlighted below.

I repeated the test 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 compare both lenses across the apertures most photographers are likely to use in real-world photography.

As with the previous articles in this series, I also carried out close-focus tests to evaluate sharpness, subject separation and background blur. While laboratory testing has its place, I’m primarily interested in understanding whether any differences are actually visible in real-world use.

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

However, the gap is extremely small. At 100% magnification, I struggled to see any meaningful distinction between the two files. It was only when I zoomed in to 200% that I could consistently confirm the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II was resolving slightly more fine detail.

In practical terms, I don’t think this matters. Both lenses are sharp wide-open and the difference is so small that it would be invisible in normal viewing conditions. Unless you’re the sort of photographer who enjoys examining files at extreme magnifications, I doubt you’d ever notice it in real-world use.

With both lenses shot at f/2.8, the result is essentially that they perform the same for all real-world purposes.

At 100%, I simply can’t see a meaningful difference between them. It was only when I zoomed in to 200% that the XF 33mm f/1.4 WR appeared slightly sharper and offered a fraction more contrast.

To caveat that, although the images were taken within minutes of each other, subtle changes in lighting conditions could easily account for any differences in contrast. As far as sharpness is concerned, the gap is so small that I don’t believe it has any practical relevance in real-world photography.

By f/5.6, I can no longer see any difference between the two lenses.

Even when viewing the files at 200% magnification, I am unable to consistently differentiate between images taken with the XF 33mm f/1.4 WR and the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II. Both lenses produce exceptional levels of detail and sharpness across the frame.

If I removed the EXIF data and showed these images to most photographers, I doubt anyone would be able to identify which lens had taken which photograph. At this aperture, the two lenses are effectively indistinguishable in terms of image quality.

The same story holds true for the edges of the frame which you can see below.

One thing to also note is that unlike the previous tests, the field of view between the 33mm 1.4wr and the 16-55mm f/2.8II when shot at the same indicated focal length is that they are pretty much identical.

Sharpness Verdict for Normal Shooting Distances.

My conclusion is simple: both lenses are sharp wide-open and become extremely sharp once stopped down to between f/4 and f/8.

Although I found tiny differences in some of the tests, they only became visible when examining the files at magnifications far beyond normal viewing conditions. In real-world photography, I don’t believe sharpness is a reason to choose one lens over the other.

Close Focusing and Bokeh Test

To test the minimum focusing distance, close-range sharpness and bokeh performance of each lens, I mounted both lenses on my tripod and photographed the same test subject.

As with the sharpness tests earlier in this article, the camera position remained fixed on my tripod throughout the initial comparison. For the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II, I set the lens to 33mm and moved the camera as close to the subject as possible until the lens would no longer acquire focus. I then backed away in very small increments until focus was achieved. Fujifilm states a minimum focusing distance of 30cm for both lenses.

Initially, I felt that the results from the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II looked slightly softer than I expected when shot wide-open at f/2.8. To ensure I wasn’t introducing any camera shake through the shutter press, I repeated the test using a 10-second self-timer. The results were consistent, giving me confidence that any differences seen in the images were caused by the lenses themselves rather than the testing methodology.

Once the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II images had been captured, I photographed the same scene with the XF 33mm f/1.4 WR from exactly the same camera position. This allowed me to compare close-range sharpness directly with both lenses set to f/2.8.

I then photographed the same scene again with the XF 33mm f/1.4 WR at f/1.4 in order to evaluate the effect of the larger aperture on subject 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 same stated minimum focusing distance as the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II. This makes it an interesting comparison, as any differences in the resulting images are more likely to come from optical design and aperture rather than the prime simply being able to focus closer to the subject. I found the 33mm 1.4wr lens to focus ever so slightly closer than the zoom lens but we were talking about around a 1cm difference.

Interestingly, the close-focus test reveals a slightly different story to the sharpness tests carried out at normal shooting distances.

When both lenses are photographed close to the subject and shot wide-open, the XF 33mm f/1.4 WR holds a visible advantage over the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II. The difference isn’t dramatic, but it is there.

Looking at the 100% crops, the prime lens resolves slightly more fine detail. The XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II remains a very sharp lens, but in this particular test the XF 33mm f/1.4 WR is the clear winner.

This mirrors what I found in the previous 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 close to Fujifilm’s premium primes at normal shooting distances, the primes tend to regain some of their advantage once you start working close to your subject.

Hover over the image to see the difference in minimum focus distance between the XF 33mm f/1.4 WR compared with the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II at 33mm.

The first image in the hover box above shows the 33mm 1.4wr set to the minimum focus distance possible on the Fuji 16-55mm f/2.8II. When you hover over the image it shows the slightly closer minimum focus distance of the Fuji 33mm 1.4wr. The difference is tiny but visible.

Looking at the comparison images, the difference in subject separation is quite substantial once both lenses are pushed to their closest focusing distances.

While the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II performs remarkably well for a zoom lens, the XF 33mm f/1.4 WR pulls ahead in its ability to isolate subjects from the background. Not only does the prime produce significantly more background blur, but I also prefer the quality of the blur it creates.

In the sample images, the out-of-focus white highlights produced by the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II remain quite visible and, to my eye, somewhat distracting. By comparison, the XF 33mm f/1.4 WR renders these highlights much more smoothly, allowing them to fade into the background rather than drawing attention away from the subject.

Conclusion

Unlike the sharpness comparisons earlier in this article, this is a difference that is immediately obvious without zooming into the files. If you enjoy photographing details, flowers, food, family moments or environmental portraits, the XF 33mm f/1.4 WR produces a look that the zoom lens simply cannot replicate.

So far in this series of comparisons, I’ve generally come away feeling that the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II is the better value proposition for most photographers.

The reason is fairly simple. At wider focal lengths, the desire to shoot wide-open in order to blur backgrounds and isolate subjects is often less important than the desire to capture more of a scene. In those situations, the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II has performed remarkably close to Fujifilm’s premium prime lenses while offering the flexibility of multiple focal lengths in a single package.

However, once you reach a 50mm equivalent focal length, the equation begins to change. This is a focal length that many photographers actively choose because of its ability to isolate subjects, create subject separation and produce attractive background blur. The XF 33mm f/1.4 WR isn’t simply offering another way to achieve 50mm equivalent framing; it’s offering a look that the zoom lens cannot fully replicate.

If all you want is a sharp 50mm equivalent lens, the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II is an excellent choice. At normal shooting distances, the differences in sharpness between these two lenses are negligible. However, once you begin working closer to your subjects, the prime starts to justify its existence. Not only does it produce greater subject separation and smoother bokeh, but in my testing it was also noticeably sharper than the zoom when both lenses were pushed towards their closest focusing distances.

As with almost everything in photography, it ultimately comes down to a trade-off. The XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II offers outstanding image quality, excellent autofocus, impressive handling and the convenience of multiple focal lengths in a relatively compact package. The XF 33mm f/1.4 WR, on the other hand, is a more specialised tool that can produce images the zoom simply cannot match to the same degree.

If there is one focal length in this series where I would personally be most tempted to spend the extra money on the prime, it is this one. The XF 18mm f/1.4 WR and XF 23mm f/1.4 WR certainly have their advantages, but the XF 33mm f/1.4 WR offers a combination of subject separation, close-focus performance and image rendering that feels genuinely distinct from the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II. For photographers who love the 50mm equivalent field of view, that’s a compelling reason to choose the prime.