Of course, you could shoot RAW and process the files as you like, where the full-frame sensor files will be slightly easier to edit, having on paper more dynamic range and softer tonal transitions. However, if you just want to take advantage of the excellent built-in black and white modes of these two cameras, is there a discernable difference between the two in terms of quality?

I shot both cameras in JPEG only, but on the files below I have matched them in Lightroom to get exposure as close as possible to make the test fair. Both cameras meter the same scene slightly differently, but I won’t go into that until later to keep the test below fair. I’ve also cropped the Zf file to match the 4:3 aspect ratio of the OM-3.

The weather was a mixture of sunshine with intermittent cloud coverage here in Perthshire, with strong contrast across the landscape.

I’m not going to label the two shots below so that you can take a look without introducing confirmation bias.

Disclaimer: Some of the links on this website are affiliate links, meaning at no additional cost to you, I may earn a commission if you click through and make a purchase. This helps support the site and allows me to continue producing free content.

Which one do you prefer? Do you see a significant difference?

In my shooting yesterday, I noticed a couple of things. The Nikon Zf’s Monochrome profile is slightly more punchy than the OM-3’s default MONO 1 profile in the overall exposure, giving darker, deeper blacks SOOC, but the midtones were a little flatter and exposed darker. When viewed in isolation, I think the OM-3 Mono 1 profile with some slight tone curve adjustments looks punchy, but next to the Nikon SOOC they looked less contrasty and brighter overall.

By adding a slight tweak to the tone curve in-camera via the color wheel on the OM-3, I was able to add a little contrast. I dialed in -2 shadows, +1 highlights, and +1 midtones, and that increased contrast. However, having now had a chance to look at the files back home and then push the JPEGs around a little bit in Lightroom, I’d bring the shadows down to -3 and put the midtones back to 0 for my next outing if I wanted to match the punchy output of the Zf SOOC without crushing blacks and ensuring I preserve the highlight detail.

In terms of detail, with both having roughly 20MP sensors, it was a tie.

In my opinion, both the Zf and the OM-3 output excellent black and white files, and both cameras offer the ability to tweak the straight-out-of-camera look to adjust to your taste and the subject.

I do not see a huge advantage to the full-frame sensor in the shots here or the thousands I have taken with the cameras over the years. There are definitely differences—for instance, the tonal gradations between shades of grey in the clouds on the Zf are fractionally smoother, but it takes zooming in to 100% in Lightroom or printing large prints of 20×16″ or more to see that difference, and in a blind test, I’m pretty sure a huge percentage of people wouldn’t bet their house on which file is which.

Of course, the Zf will offer about 1.5 to 2 stops better high ISO performance so it will be better in low light too. I see this in skin tones being more natural on the Zf once the ISO level starts to climb. But then it is possible with a fairly still subject to shoot the OM-3 in Hi-Res mode, which not only gives you more detailed files, it gives you better high ISO performance and skin tones. It’s a workaround and one that is not suitable to every situation, but it is an option.

If your subject is stationary, the OM-3 offsets the low-light performance of full frame almost completely with its incredible IBIS, which allows slower shutter speeds than any other non-OM System camera that I’ve ever used. With the Zf, I may get sharp shots down to 1/4 of a second handheld; with the OM-3, I’m comfortable at 1 second.

There is also the aspect ratio to consider. If you have a strong preference for one over the other, that can influence your choice, with the Zf’s wider 3:2 aspect ratio against the OM-3’s more square 4:3.

And of course, depth of field is different, with the Zf being more easily able to create shallow depth of field while the OM-3 naturally gives you more in focus for a given aperture. One is not better than the other in my opinion. For shots like these, the extra depth of field meant I could shoot the OM-3 at f/4 rather than f/8 with the Zf. On the other hand, for black and white portraits, that shallow depth of field of the Zf can be an advantage if you want to isolate your subject.

In terms of handling, I enjoyed both yesterday, but that has as much to do with my need to get out and have some peace as it does with the cameras. I could happily use either of these for my black-and-white work. The OM-3 had the 17mm f/1.8 ii attached and the Zf had the Nikon Z 35mm f/1.8 S on it. The Nikon felt considerably heavier, yet mounted on my Peak Design Capture Clip, the extra weight made little difference. The OM-3 was slung around my shoulder on a Peak Design Leash camera strap and felt incredibly light.

Both lenses are available here:

Nikon Z 35mm 1.8S

OM System 17mm 1.8II

A couple of points on handling. The Zf allows you to customize the control ring on the lens to act as an aperture ring. Even though it’s clickless, I still prefer it over using the command dials on the OM-3. However, the front command dial on the Zf which you can also use to change your aperture is awkwardly placed, and on more than one occasion I flicked the on/off switch instead of changing the aperture. Of course, I’d get used to that if I wasn’t swapping between cameras so much, but it’s worth noting.

The OM-3 dials just feel better.

So which camera is ultimately better for black and white shooters?

Like always, it really depends on several things: how much weight are you prepared to carry, how much money do you want to spend, and what is your subject and output.

If I was shooting black and white portraits and quality was my ultimate goal, I’d go with the Zf.

See the latest price for the Nikon Zf here

If I was shooting general photography, often landscapes, and I wasn’t going to be printing larger than 30×20″, then I think the OM-3 makes for a more fun and enjoyable camera to shoot with, and it’s easier to get good results with its deeper depth of field and computational modes.

See the latest price for the OM System OM-3 here

In terms of image quality, the Zf is the winner in my opinion, but the differences are nowhere near what the 4 times larger sensor would have you believe. Whether those differences are worth it to a photographer are absolutely subjective.

In my black and white photography projects here in Scotland, I will shoot whichever camera suits the day and subject, but after yesterday, I’ll never feel worried that I’m somehow missing out by using a Micro Four Thirds sensor. I’ll leave you with the final edited photos from yesterday.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Last updated: May 20th 2026
I’ve continued to carry the GR IV with me since moving to Scotland when I want a high-quality camera but don’t want to haul larger gear around.

When I heard the Ricoh GR IV announcement, I immediately jumped onto Ricoh’s website to see what had changed. I was excited — I imagined what they might have done with this latest iteration, because let’s be honest, the GR series is unique, but the GR III is starting to show its age.

A new tilting rear screen? Oh for sure. Maybe they’d finally weather-seal it too. And I kept wondering: what else could they possibly add to what is already the best true pocket camera?

Then I checked the details… and re-checked them, thinking I must have missed something.

If you’re comparing the Ricoh GR IV to the rest of the market, you may also want to read my guide to the best compact cameras for travel photography, where the GR series has consistently ranked near the top. I also compared the Ricoh GRIV against the Fuji X100VI.

Six years. Six years for improved AF, slightly better battery life, and a small rearrangement of the rear controls. I was sceptical about those claims, because let’s be honest — every camera claims these improvements and they don’t always translate to much in real shooting.

Still no weather sealing. Still a fixed screen. No resolution bump. No brighter aperture. Surely the GR IV was dead on arrival with such a small list of tangible upgrades. And at that price, you’re edging dangerously close to Fuji X100VI territory. Thanks, but no thanks, Ricoh.

But as a few weeks passed and I got over my initial frustrations, I kept wondering about the GR IV. What would actually improve my GR III in a way that matters to me? I don’t want it any bigger, so the f/2.8 aperture is the compromise needed to keep it pocketable. Do I really need weather sealing? I’d like it, sure — but the camera is small enough to slip in my pocket if the heavens open. Head to my full review of the Ricoh GRIV for more details.

I’m in the Philippines where dust is a real issue, but I’ve not personally had a problem with it on my GRIII so far. And let’s be honest: dust spots usually show up when you stop down to f/11 and beyond, and I rarely do that on the GR III.

So partly for my own peace of mind, and partly because the website has grown to a point where enough people will care about this comparison, I bit the bullet and bought one. I’ve now been shooting with it for about six weeks — at home, on errands, on a couple of trips to Dumaguete — and in this article, I’ll give my honest, frank opinion on whether it’s worth upgrading from the GR III.

Size & Handling

On paper, the GR IV is almost identical to the GR III. The GR III weighs 257g, the GR IV 262g, and the dimensions are essentially the same at 109.4 × 61.9 × 33.2 mm. In the hand, that translates to a camera that feels virtually the same — in the best possible way. It still slips easily into the small cargo pocket on the front of my favourite trousers, which is exactly why I use the GR cameras so much. They’re the only cameras I own that feel genuinely pocketable.

That pocketability changes how and when you shoot. Last week in Dumaguete, Sofia wanted to go to the little playground in the apartment complex we were staying at. I slipped the GR IV into my pocket without even thinking about it. While she played, I took it out and started experimenting with compositions and colours, and ended up getting shots I simply wouldn’t have otherwise — because I wouldn’t have taken any of my other cameras. And she got longer at the playground because both of us were entertained.

Ricoh have clearly decided not to mess with the core GR philosophy, and I’m glad. The size, weight, and overall feel remain familiar, but the GR IV has a slightly more refined character to its handling. The biggest change is the switch from the GR III’s soft, slightly mushy rear dial to the new dedicated buttons on the GR IV. At first they felt a bit awkward, simply because my muscle memory was tied to the GR III. But after a short time, they started to feel like a genuine improvement. The buttons give a clear, tactile click, and exposure compensation is now quicker and more precise — a firm press in either direction and you know exactly what you’ve dialled in.

The GR IV doesn’t feel like a different camera, but it does feel like a more mature one. Same footprint, same concept — but a bit more refined in the places that matter during real use. Are those upgrades worth it if you’re a GRIII owner, absolutely not. IS the GRIV a nice camera to handle, yes.

Startup Speed

The GR IV boasts an improved startup speed which, I think is one of the most underrated features in a compact camera — or in any camera used for street and candid photography. But in reality, the Ricoh GR III already had a fast startup time, on par with the Fuji X100VI as I noted when I compared the two cameras.

Yes, on paper the GR IV starts up quicker, but the real question is: does startup time ever make you miss shots? And for both the GR III and GR IV, I’ve never found that to be the case. Both are quick.

I always appreciate improvements, but in this case it’s one that’s only noticeable in spec sheets and not something that makes a difference in real shooting, at least not for how I use the camera. So while it’s a nice upgrade to have, in reality it’s irrelevant.

Autofocus (The Big Upgrade)

In my field notes on the Ricoh GR IV, I mainly shot the camera in the same way I shoot the GR III, and because of that, I didn’t fully appreciate just how much of a difference the improved AF speed would make. With the GR III, I’m well aware that the AF isn’t quick. Unless I point it at areas with a lot of contrast, it struggles in dim light. And if I want to shoot people, I cannot rely on face or eye detect. When I say I can’t rely on it, I mean it’s so bad it’s basically unusable. I’d use the touch screen to focus on a face or do a quick focus-and-recompose. I adapted, slowed down, and accepted that some types of shot just weren’t realistic with the GR III.

After using the GR IV more extensively, I can say the AF speed increases — and the improvements in face detection — are the single biggest and most meaningful upgrade the GR IV has. It’s still not lightning quick, and it’s not infallible in the way a Sony A7 IV is, for instance, but it is finally usable. It won’t pick up faces as quickly or at such an angle as my Nikons, OMs, or even my Fujis, but once you learn how it behaves, it becomes something I actually use now — and it works well. A slight sidestep or a small adjustment to reveal more of the face usually does the trick, and once it locks, it’s accurate and fast enough that you get the shot most of the time.

These improvements also change how the GR IV competes in the wider compact camera market, which I explore in my guide to the best compact cameras for travel photography.

At night or in low light, the difference in focus speed is honestly night and day. The GR III really struggles with hunting; the GR IV is in a different league altogether, allowing you to focus reasonably quickly on your subject. But it’s not just these edge cases where the AF is noticeably better — it’s faster, less hesitant, and more accurate in every scenario.

This is the one area that, on its own, can justify the upgrade if you shoot like I do: people, family, candid, travel, and street photography. Is it worth the cost if you already own a GR III? Only you can answer that, because it depends on how much you use your camera and what you shoot. But the difference is not marginal.

Image Quality

The GR III gave me image quality I was always happy with. The lens was sharp in the centre, dynamic range was decent, and although low-light performance wasn’t on the same level as my Fuji X100VI, I never really expected much low-light ability from an f/2.8 compact anyway.

The new GR IV is said to have better image quality — and it does. The lens is sharper into the corners, but what I really notice is that the files just look cleaner. They have more clarity and feel more lifelike. When I edit the files in post, they seem a little more malleable, even if the differences aren’t huge.

The GR IV images do look sharper into the corners than the GR III, but I think the overall improved look is a combination of the new lens, the new sensor, and the improved image pipeline and processing inside the camera. Low-light performance has improved too, but again — at f/2.8 on an APS-C sensor, this isn’t a camera you’d buy for low-light performance in my opinion. It will get you by in a pinch though. ISO 6400 is my limit with this camera (the same as the GR III), but I have to do noticeably less post-processing on the GR IV files to get them looking clean.

The increased resolution is an absolute nothing-burger. It’s only there because Ricoh moved to a new sensor and that happened to be the pixel count. But that’s perfectly fine, because I’ve printed up to 30×20″ from my GR III and I know the GR IV will print even better.

I don’t think the image-quality improvements justify buying the GR IV if you’re already a GR III owner. But the files do look sharper, cleaner, and have more micro-contrast and bite. Combined, those subtle changes give an overall more pleasing look.

Battery Life

Battery life is one of those improvements brands claim with virtually every new camera, and quite frankly, I’m always sceptical. I assume they massage the numbers or the difference is so small it’s meaningless. I assumed the same with the GR IV (which uses the 1,800 mAh DB-120 battery) and in fact I asked my dealer to send me two spare batteries when I bought it. Unfortunately they didn’t have any, so I’ve been stuck with just the one.

Based on my experience with the GR III (which uses the 1,350 mAh DB-110 battery) I thought this was going to be a major issue. The GR III would start giving me low-battery anxiety after about an hour and a half of walk-around shooting, even when I diligently turned the camera off between shots. I planned my trip to Dumaguete specifically to shoot the GR IV, and I was genuinely worried the battery life was going to hinder me.

In reality, the battery life on the GR IV is genuinely much improved. I took it to Dumaguete on the Monday and shot for 30–60 minutes that night. The next day I carried it with me when we visited a forest resort and shot for another hour or two. Then I had the playground session with Sofia, which added about another 30 minutes of shooting. I didn’t charge the camera throughout the trip, and when I got home it still had a little power left.

That’s a big improvement. I could never have gotten through that trip on one battery with the GR III — I couldn’t even have gotten through a single day. It’s not worth upgrading purely for battery life, of course, because GR III batteries are cheap, but it is the second most significant improvement on the GR IV in my opinion.

Is It Worth the Upgrade?

If you’re trying to decide between picking up a GR III while it’s still available or going straight to the GR IV, you could be forgiven — after reading everything above — for thinking the GR IV simply isn’t worth it. And if you already own the GR III, or if you shoot slowly and methodically, set up street scenes, and wait for the decisive moment, the decision is a bit harder.

All I can tell you is this: the GR III is a camera that requires you to adapt to its nuances and annoyances. It will still get the job done most of the time, but you have to work around it. The GR IV — not through any one single upgrade, but through a combination of faster AF, better battery life, improved responsiveness, and a more refined control layout — is a camera you no longer need to jump through hoops to shoot with. You don’t need to adapt to the camera anymore. You just pick it up and shoot.

The autofocus is the single biggest improvement, and it makes the GR IV far more usable and far more enjoyable. Less frustration, fewer missed shots, and more confidence to shoot the way you want to shoot.

Yes, the price of the GR IV has increased compared to the $1,100 I paid for my GR III, but GR III prices have climbed as well, so the gap between them isn’t as big as it might seem.

If you’re happy with your GR III and only shoot it occasionally, then you’re probably better off keeping your money and spending it on something else. But if you want a compact camera that’s genuinely pocketable, and you want at least half a chance of getting in-focus shots of family, people, and anything that moves faster than a snail, the GR IV will make you happier, make the whole experience smoother, and ultimately give you photos that simply aren’t possible with the GR III.

I just wish Ricoh had found a way to integrate a tilting screen.

Ultimately, if and when I get back to Scotland next year, I’ll almost certainly sell my GR III and keep the GR IV. It’s simply a more enjoyable camera to bring with me.

A quick note of thanks to Henry’s camera photo for helping me get hold of the Ricoh GR IV quickly. They’ve been my dealer of choice since moving to the Philippines, and their support has always been excellent. This isn’t a sponsored review — just genuine appreciation for the great service I’ve consistently had from them.

Last Updated: May 2026

I’ve continued shooting extensively with both the Nikon Z 35mm f/1.8 S and Nikon Z 50mm f/1.8 S across multiple Nikon bodies including the Zf, Z6III and Z8. Since originally publishing this article, I’ve used them for family photography, travel, everyday carry and landscape work here in Scotland as well as during earlier shooting in the Philippines.

My overall conclusion remains the same: the 50mm f/1.8 S is still the stronger first-prime purchase for most Nikon Z users coming from a zoom, while the 35mm f/1.8 S remains one of Nikon’s best lenses for immersive storytelling and documentary-style photography. Both continue to hold up extremely well, even on the high-resolution Nikon Z8 sensor.

As photographers, we love to pretend we’re being sensible. We tell ourselves we need to choose between two lenses — one or the other, that’s it. We can’t justify owning both… at least, that’s what we say out loud. But the truth is we’re already quietly picturing both in the bag — it’s just a matter of timing and justification.

And that’s where the real tension lies: when you’re not choosing between kit lenses and overpriced exotics, but between two genuinely excellent primes — proper tools that could shape the look of your images for years. That’s exactly the position many Z shooters find themselves in when deciding between the Nikon Z 35mm f/1.8 S and the 50mm f/1.8 S. I rounded up the best lens kits for the Nikon Z6III here. Both lenses pair really well with the Nikon Z6III as I saw in my review of the Z6III but they also perform incredibly on higher resolution bodies like the Z8. If you’re unsure whether to get the Nikon Z6III or Z8 then see my comparison of the two. I also recently wrote about why the Nikon ZF is so important to Nikon.

I own both along with the 85mm 1.8s. I’ve shot both in real situations — travel, family, daily carry. In this article, I’m not just going to compare specs; I’m going to help you figure out which one will actually make the bigger impact first. One of these Z primes along with a few of the best accessories for the Nikon Z6III and you will be ready to make some great photos. I also recently compared the 35mm 1.8S against the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4S to see how close zooms get to primes these days.

For a look at another excellent Nikon Z prime lens but with a completely different character, I’ve been shooting with the Nikon Z 20mm 1.8S lately.

After shooting extensively with the Nikon Z system, I’ve pulled together a comprehensive Nikon Z lens guide based on what genuinely works in real-world use.

*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. This comes at no extra cost to you and helps support the work that goes into creating these articles.*

Nikon Z 35mm 1.8 vs 50mm 1.8 – What the technical differences are in real life

Nikon Z 35mm f/1.8 S — Optical Performance

Wide open, the 35mm is sharp in the centre — sharp enough to define individual eyelashes if you’re close. There is a touch of vignetting at f/1.8, but it clears up quickly when stopped down and is easily corrected in post, so it’s not an issue in practice. The corners soften slightly at f/1.8, but from f/2.8 onwards they tidy up nicely.

In actual images, I’ve seen no trace of visible chromatic aberration, flare or distortion. Nikon has clearly put their premium coatings and optical recipe into these 1.8 primes — these are not cheap, compromised lenses pretending to be affordable primes. They are professional in everything but price and size.

Bokeh isn’t usually what people expect from a 35mm, but this lens surprised me. Out-of-focus areas are smooth, transitions are clean, and there’s no nervousness or distracting texture. There is a touch of cat-eye effect towards the edges, but it’s subtle and only noticeable if you go looking for it. For a 35mm f/1.8, the rendering is genuinely impressive.

Nikon Z 50mm f/1.8 S — Optical Performance

The 50mm takes everything the 35mm does well and pushes it further. It is sharper wide open — in fact, it’s one of the sharpest lenses I’ve owned at f/1.8. Like the 35mm, it shows a bit of vignetting at f/1.8, but again, it’s mild, clears up by f/2.8 and is trivial to correct. The centre is pin sharp, and the corners — if you care about corner sharpness at f/1.8, which I generally don’t — are also very strong.

Yes, it’s sharper than the 35mm wide open, but we’re talking about the difference between excellent and exceptional here. Stopping down adds a fraction more bite, but it’s already so strong at f/1.8 that it doesn’t really matter.

Like the 35mm, there are no issues with flare, chromatic aberration or visible distortion in real-world use. Nikon has opted for strong optical correction rather than relying on software profiles, and it shows. The bokeh is smooth and creamy, again with only a slight hint of cat-eye shape towards the edges. In terms of pure optical performance, this is one of the best lenses I’ve shot with — and that includes more exotic and expensive glass.

How These Lenses Change the Way You Shoot

On paper, 35mm and 50mm don’t seem far apart. In practice, they change your shooting behaviour in noticeably different ways.

The 35mm is a storytelling focal length. It encourages you to step in, to be physically present in the moment, and to place elements within your frame to create depth. It’s wide enough to give a sense of place, but not so wide that it distorts or feels forced. You can step back and take in a landscape, or lean in and document family life without feeling cramped. Movement is easier to work with thanks to the wider field of view, and for travel or everyday shooting, it feels like a very natural focal length for documenting life as it unfolds. With the right subject-to-background distance, it can absolutely deliver soft, pleasing backgrounds — but it’s not a portrait lens in the traditional sense.

The 50mm, by contrast, tells a slightly tighter story. It still has storytelling ability, but it trims away more of the surrounding context — think a weaver’s hands rather than a weaver in their environment. It naturally encourages you to look for details and gestures rather than entire scenes. It also opens up more portrait possibilities: you can isolate a subject from further away than you can with a 35mm, making half-body and full-body portraits feel more natural. This lens is bitingly sharp and its rendering has a beautiful clarity to it. It brings emotion forward in the frame, directing attention more forcefully to your subject. The perspective often feels like you are peering into a scene rather than being immersed in it.

Where the 35mm invites you into the scene, the 50mm lets you stand just back far enough to observe with intention. The 35mm can create depth, the 50mm can compress perspective.

So Which One Should You Buy First?

The title of this article is which one should you buy first, so let’s answer it clearly.

If you already know that you prefer shooting at 35mm or 50mm, then the choice is simple — choose the focal length that matches how you naturally see. Both lenses are good enough optically that you won’t make a wrong decision.

But if you’re unsure and this will be your first prime lens — and I’m assuming you already own a zoom like the 24–70mm f/4, 24–120mm f/4, or 24–200mm f/4-6.3 — then I’m not going to sit on the fence:

Buy the Nikon Z 50mm f/1.8 S first.

Here’s why:

• It delivers a bigger visible jump in image quality over your zoom.
  The difference between 50mm at f/4 and 50mm at f/1.8 is far more dramatic than 35mm at f/4 vs 35mm at f/1.8. You’ll feel the upgrade more.
• Subject separation is more pronounced at 50mm.
  Even with the same f/1.8 aperture, the compression and background blur at 50mm simply look more “prime-like” than at 35mm.
• Your zoom already covers 35mm comfortably.
  At 35mm, you’ll often be stopping down to f/5.6 or f/8 for depth of field anyway — right where your zoom is already working well. At 50mm, you’re much more likely to actually use f/1.8 wide open.
• If you’re using a variable aperture zoom (like the 24–200mm f/4–6.3), the difference is even more dramatic.
  At 50mm that zoom is probably closer to f/5 or f/5.6, — so dropping to f/1.8 on a prime feels like a real upgrade. At 35mm, the zoom is faster, so the jump doesn’t feel as significant.
• And finally — it’s the cheaper of the two.
  The Z 50mm f/1.8 S delivers a bigger perceived improvement for less money. That matters.

In short, the 50mm gives you more of that “prime lens look” straight away, and that’s exactly what people are hoping for when they step beyond a standard zoom for the first time.

When the 35mm f/1.8 S Makes More Sense as Your First Prime

The 50mm is the stronger first-prime choice for most photographers coming from a zoom — but there’s a specific type of shooter who will be better served by starting with the 35mm f/1.8 S instead.

You should buy the 35mm first if:

• You shoot in tighter spaces — family life around the home, documentary-style travel, small interiors, street work where backing up isn’t always possible.
• You prefer to feel “in” the scene rather than observing it. The 35mm keeps you physically closer to your subjects, which changes the energy of your images in a way that some photographers naturally connect with.
• You value context over compression. If you like to include environment, layers and storytelling elements rather than isolating a single subject, 35mm rewards that style better.
• You shoot movement or candid moments. The wider field of view is simply more forgiving, and it feels more responsive when documenting life as it unfolds.

The difference between the two lenses isn’t just technical — it’s philosophical.
50mm isolates; 35mm involves.

If you’re still finding your shooting style and want a prime that lets you experiment freely, the Nikon Z 50mm f/1.8 S is the best starting point. It hits the sweet spot between focal length, image quality and handling, and it’s one of the most affordable Nikon Z primes — which makes it a low-risk, high-reward upgrade.

The 50mm is also a very forgiving focal length. It flatters subjects, isolates cleanly and delivers that “prime look” with very little effort. There’s a reason photographers have recommended a 50mm as a first prime for decades — and nothing about these two Z lenses changes that advice.

Start with the 50mm, learn how it changes your images, and you’ll quickly understand what you’re missing — which makes choosing your second prime much easier. In my case, owning both has made complete sense. They do different jobs, create different types of images, and that’s exactly why both earn a place in my kit. And eventually, most Nikon Z shooters end up in the same place.

Whichever prime you decide to buy, you can find the latest pricing below:

The air on the Dumaguete Boulevard hung thick and warm, the kind that settles on your skin and forces you to slow down just enough to notice the details — the salt in the air, the rattle of tricycles, the constant movement of people along the seawall. It was my birthday, and honestly, I couldn’t think of a better way to spend it: two cameras slung over my shoulders, Sofia beside me with her own camera, and my mum walking that stretch for the first time.

On the Fuji X-T5, I had the 23mm f/1.4 WR — one of my favourite lenses because of the way it renders. On the Nikon Z6III, the 35mm f/1.8 S, a lens that feels like it was cut from a block of machinery — clean, fast, efficient. It’s a lens that featured in my guide to the best lenses for the Nikon Z6III. For a full review of the Nikon Z6III see this article.

This wasn’t a studio test or a carefully staged shoot. This was real walking, real moments, real use. One camera would come up to the eye, then the other. No charts. No stopping to analyse. Just shooting — the way most photographers actually work.

With the Fuji, I felt involved in the process. The dials, the click of the aperture ring, the way that 23mm encourages you to move and compose with intention — it feels like a camera built to tell stories. The Nikon delivered a completely different kind of satisfaction. The 35mm snapped into focus, the camera made its decisions instantly, and the files came out clean and punchy. It gets out of your way by being precise.

Later, looking over the images, I didn’t find myself saying, “Full frame is clearly on another level.” Instead, I saw two distinct shooting experiences. The Fuji felt like a Jaguar E-Type — full of character, imperfect in a way that draws you in. The Nikon like a modern Ferrari — engineered power, everything refined and controlled.

Both made me want to keep shooting. But it confirmed something I’ve long suspected: in 2025, the real difference isn’t sensor size — it’s mindset.

Why This Comparison Matters (Beyond Specs)

Most comparisons like this are written with a simple outcome in mind — declare a winner. X beats Y, therefore you should buy X. It makes for easy headlines and neat conclusions, but it completely ignores the way photographers actually form relationships with their gear.

Yes, I’ll talk about autofocus behaviour, handling, lens feel and how each camera responds when you’re moving through real life with it — but reducing this to a scoreboard of feature checkboxes would miss the point entirely. A camera isn’t just a specification sheet. It’s a tool that shapes how you see, how you move, and how you react to a moment.

What I’ve learned using both systems side-by-side, not in a studio but out in places like Dumaguete, is that Fuji and Nikon don’t compete in the way the internet wants them to. They interact with you differently. They ask different things of you. They reward different instincts.

In my X-T5 review, I wrote about Fuji being a camera you operate with intent, where the process is part of the reward. In my early Z6III field notes, I said Nikon feels like a camera that disappears the moment you lift it — it just executes. Neither approach is wrong. But they lead you to different photographs, even when the subject is the same.

That’s why this isn’t a verdict piece. It’s a perspective piece. If you came here expecting a quick “just get the full frame” conclusion, this probably isn’t the article you thought it would be — and that’s exactly why I’ve written it.

A Quick Note on Specs (For the Pragmatic Shooters)

The Full Frame Promise: Where the Nikon Z6III Shines

Let’s give the Nikon its due. If there’s a camera designed to eliminate doubt, it’s the Z6III. There’s a certain clarity of purpose to it — the kind of quiet confidence that comes from a company that has spent decades building cameras for people who simply must not miss. Their Z lens lineup is similar with lenses like the Nikon Z 85mm 1.8S that just get the job done.

The moment I wrapped my hand around the grip, it felt familiar in a way that surprised me. It took me straight back to my Nikon D600 days, when a camera felt like a solid extension of your hand rather than something you had to constantly interpret. The Z6III carries that same DNA — dense without being heavy, balanced, reassuring. And that on/off switch — no one talks about it, but every Nikon shooter knows exactly why it matters. It’s the fastest, most natural control placement in the industry. Flip and go. No hesitation. No friction.

The 35mm f/1.8 S on the front only reinforces that feeling. It’s not romantic in the way the Fuji 23mm f/1.4 WR is — it’s disciplined. Focus is silent and instant. The files have that Nikon pop and clarity, the kind that makes images feel immediately finished without needing to massage them in post. Where the Fuji leans into character, the Nikon leans into certainty.

And then there’s the moment that shut me up completely.

I was messing around from my hotel balcony at night, half as a joke — just tracking trikes, scooters and cars as they cut through the pools of light under the street lamps, fully expecting to trip it up at least once. I couldn’t. The focus snapped on every time, no hesitation, no hunting. I glanced at the file info and thought, “That looks clean enough for ISO 6400.” Then I looked again. ISO 64,000 — and the frames at 12,800 were unbelievably clean.

I’m not a night shooter, but if I were, the Z6III would genuinely let me see in the dark.

This is what Nikon does better than almost anyone: it gets out of your way by being so capable that you stop thinking about the camera entirely. If your priority is never missing focus, never worrying about ISO, and trusting the camera to execute — then yes, the Z6III makes an incredibly strong case.

But that’s just one side of the story. Because photography isn’t only about getting it done — sometimes, it’s about feeling something while you’re doing it.

The Fuji Ethos: When the Camera Becomes Part of the Story

Switching back to the X-T5 after the Nikon is like stepping out of a performance machine and into something made to be driven for the joy of it. It’s lighter, more compact — not by a lot, but just enough to notice in the hand and on the shoulder — and it hangs there in a way that makes you keep walking even when you’re technically finished shooting.

With the Fuji, I’m not thinking about burst rates or tracking performance. I’m not worried about whether I’ve squeezed every drop of technical quality out of the files. I’m in storyteller mode. I’m looking for expression, for small gestures, for moments that feel real. I know the autofocus isn’t class-leading and that full frame will always have the spec advantage, but none of that crosses my mind while I’m shooting. The X-T5 makes me pay attention, not because it demands it, but because the dials, the aperture ring, the physical engagement pull me into the process.

The 23mm f/1.4 WR isn’t perfect either. Compared to the Nikon 35mm, it’s a little less clinical, a touch less immediate in focus, the rendering more organic and less punchy. But that’s exactly why I enjoy using it. There’s a personality to how it draws a scene — not better or worse, just different. A little more human.

With the Z6III, I feel like I can trust it to get the shot no matter what. With the X-T5, I feel like I’m part of making the shot happen. And that changes the entire rhythm of how I work. I move differently with it. I pay attention differently. I’m more deliberate, even when I’m shooting quickly.

With the Fuji, I embrace the imperfections the same way you do with that classic E-Type, because you know that when the motor starts and you get in the driver’s seat, the experience is going to be special.

Final Thoughts: Two Cameras, Two Ways of Seeing

I pick up the Z6III when I want a camera that just works — all the time, every time, no matter what I throw at it. There’s no scenario in my world that it can’t handle. Some days, I just want the most dependable, ergonomically refined camera I own, and for me that’s the Nikon Z6III and Z8. If I’m shooting professionally, or working on a project that needs low light performance, fast AF tracking or shallower depth of field, this is where Nikon shines. At this moment in time, I think the Z6III is the best enthusiast/pro-level full frame camera available.

I pick up the X-T5 for different reasons. It’s the camera I take for personal work, when I still want great image quality but in a lighter, more compact form. When I go out shooting for the sake of shooting — for fun, for personal projects, for the experience — that’s when Fuji makes the most sense. The retro styling disarms people, it gets more natural reactions, and the shooting experience locks me into storyteller mode.

I don’t ask it to track moving subjects, but I know it can. I’ve got it set up exactly how I like it, and because of that I barely ever touch the menus. It’s simple, confident and familiar.

Honestly, both cameras are incredible tools. If I could only have one, I’d be happy with either. The real question is simpler than people make it: Do you see more value in the experience of shooting, or in having the technically strongest tool in your hands?

Personally, I see the argument for owning both. In fact, combining Fuji and Nikon into a single kit might just be the ideal setup. They also happen to have my two favourite lens lineups of any system — not because they cover everything, but because every lens feels like it was designed with a photographer in mind, not a spec sheet. They’re two of the most photographer-centric systems available today — they just take different routes to get there.

If you’re looking for a more technical comparison of the two cameras, I’ll have a separate write-up for that — because this one was always meant to ask a different question.

I’m not interested in brand loyalty. I’m interested in cameras that make me want to go out and shoot. And right now, that means Fuji and Nikon, side by side.

If this comparison has you leaning toward a more flexible travel setup with interchangeable lenses rather than a fixed-lens compact, I’ve also put together a separate guide to the best interchangeable-lens travel cameras in 2025 that includes the Z6 III, X-T5 and other system cameras built for real travel use.