This article is the first in a series where I’ll be comparing the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II against the XF 18mm f/1.4 WR, XF 23mm f/1.4 WR, XF 33mm f/1.4 WR and XF 56mm f/1.2 WR. Using both controlled tests and real-world photography, I’ll be looking at how the zoom compares in terms of sharpness, rendering, subject separation and overall image quality. I’ve now published the second article in this series comparing the Fuji 16-55mm f/2.8II vs 23mm 1.4WR.

We’ll start with the XF 18mm f/1.4 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.

A quick note on size and weight

Although the Fuji 16-55mm f/2.8II is slightly larger and heavier than Fujifilm’s 18mm 1.4wr, in my experience, the differences aren’t meaningful enough to base a purchase decision on. The 16-55mm f/2.8II is now so light and compact for a professional level zoom that in use, it feels very close in terms of handling to the f/1.4 series of prime lenses. Bear in mind though that it does extend when zooming though the focal range which affects the balance of the lens on the camera body.

How I Tested the Lenses

To compare the two lenses, I took them 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 of the wall (the central white paint mark), which I’ve highlighted below.

I repeated the test at f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6 and f/8, allowing me to compare the lenses across the apertures most photographers are likely to use in real-world shooting.

Below are screenshots of 100% crops from both the centre of the frame and the far left of each frame.

At f/2.8, the results from both lenses are incredibly similar in the centre of the frame, as the 100% crops above show. I had to zoom in to 200% in Lightroom to find any meaningful difference in sharpness between the two lenses.

If anything, the 16-55mm f/2.8 II showed a fraction more contrast, which gave the impression of being very slightly sharper.

Bear in mind that this performance from the 16-55mm f/2.8 II comes at what should be its weakest aperture — wide open at f/2.8 — whereas the 18mm f/1.4 WR is already stopped down by this point.

Quite frankly, I’m very impressed that the 16-55mm f/2.8 II matches, or arguably even slightly exceeds, the 18mm f/1.4 WR here. The differences, where there are any, are so small that I’d essentially call it a draw, which is remarkable for a zoom lens.

It’s a very similar story when I look at the far left-hand edge of the frame, with both lenses producing very similar results. This time, I’d give the 18mm f/1.4 WR a slight advantage, but again the differences are incredibly small.

Even when viewing the two images side by side at 100% in Lightroom, the gap is marginal and difficult to spot without careful inspection.

At f/5.6, the 16-55mm f/2.8 II now has the advantage of being stopped down from wide open, which should help performance. However, both lenses continue to show very similar levels of sharpness, with the 16-55mm f/2.8 II exhibiting a tiny fraction more contrast.

I should note at this point that, in terms of detail and sharpness, they’re basically a wash. Although the shots were taken within a minute or so of each other, those small differences in contrast could simply be the result of very subtle changes in the light between exposures.

In terms of detail, the two lenses are exceptionally close. Even when viewed at 100% and 200%, the differences are so small that I wouldn’t choose one over the other based purely on sharpness, as both are excellent.

The far left edge of the frame at f/5.6 shows the corner sharpness of the 16-55mm f/2.8 II closing the tiny gap to the 18mm f/1.4 WR. In fact, I’d now say it has taken a slight lead in terms of edge sharpness.

Once again, the difference is very small, but stopping the 16-55mm f/2.8 II down does appear to improve corner and edge sharpness compared to shooting it wide open. While the gap isn’t large enough to matter in most real-world situations, the zoom does seem to hold a small advantage here.

The results at f/4 and f/8 were almost identical to those at f/5.6. Both lenses remained exceptionally sharp across the frame, with only tiny differences visible when viewed side by side at high magnification. At these apertures, I’d have no hesitation using either lens for landscape photography or any other application where maximum sharpness is required.

Based on my own sharpness tests, both lenses are exceptionally sharp across the frame and so close in performance that, in terms of pure sharpness, it’s basically a draw. If anything, I’d give a very slight edge to the 16-55mm f/2.8 II, but the differences are tiny and only really visible when comparing the files side by side.

Close Focusing and Bokeh Test

To test the close-up sharpness of each lens, as well as their bokeh performance, I mounted both lenses on my tripod and photographed the same test scene.

Once again, the shots were taken less than a minute apart, and neither the camera nor the tripod was moved between exposures.

For the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II, I set the lens to 18mm and moved the camera as close to the subject as possible until the lens would no longer focus. I then backed off in very small increments until focus was acquired. According to Fujifilm, the minimum focusing distance at 18mm is 30cm.

I then mounted the 18mm 1.4wr and took test shots with it from exactly the same position without moving the camera or tripod.

To show each lens at its best in this scenario, I shot the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II wide open at f/2.8 and the XF 18mm f/1.4 WR wide open at f/1.4.

One thing to note on these shots is that the 16-55mm f/2.8II is set to 18.7mm which slightly narrows the view but it’s impossible to set the focal length to precisely 18mm without taking multiple shots and adjusting repeatedly, and as seen in the sharpness tests at the top of the page, where the 16-55mm is at 17.5mm, the field of view from the 18mm is slightly wider than the 16-55mm when set to around 18mm.

What’s interesting in my observations is that at close-focus distances and when wide-open, the 18mm 1.4wr is slightly sharper than the 16-55mm f/2.8II. Again, both are very sharp but there is a tiny difference in favour of the 18mm.

The 18mm also allows you to push in closer than the 16-55mm f/2.8II due to its stated 20cm minimum focusing distance, which combined with its larger aperture allows you to throw the background significantly more out of focus.

Conclusion

If you like to push in close to your subjects and isolate them with shallow depth of field, then the XF 18mm f/1.4 WR significantly outperforms the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II. Not so much in terms of sharpness, although it does appear to hold a slight advantage, but in terms of the types of images you can create. Its ability to focus much closer, combined with the larger f/1.4 aperture, allows it to produce shots that simply aren’t possible with the zoom lens.

However, if you’re primarily shooting landscapes or subjects at mid-range to infinity, the differences between the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II and the XF 18mm f/1.4 WR become surprisingly small. In some situations, particularly when both lenses are stopped down, the advantage actually shifts slightly in favour of the zoom.

Based on my testing, the XF 18mm f/1.4 WR isn’t really about sharpness. The real advantages are its close-focusing ability, greater subject separation, and the creative flexibility that comes from having an f/1.4 aperture. When it comes to pure sharpness at normal shooting distances, the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II is at the very least, its equal.

As a result, the Fujifilm X100VI hasn’t seen as much use as it once did. That doesn’t mean I’ve fallen out of love with it though. In fact, after more than two years of ownership, I still consider it one of the most enjoyable cameras I’ve used. I’ve covered my experience in much greater detail in my Fujifilm X100VI review.

That changed this week.

A family walk through Strathearn Castle Estate gave me the perfect excuse to take the X100VI out again and remind myself why I enjoyed it so much in the first place. I’ve also been taking out the X-T5 more recently too.

A Camera That Fits Around Life

The main purpose of the walk wasn’t photography.

It was family time.

My wife, Sofia, Isobelle, my mum and I wandered through the estate’s old woodland, following the main track towards the lake below the castle.

Before long Sofia and my mum had wandered off together, leaving me pushing Isobelle’s pram for most of the walk.

That was exactly where the X100VI made sense.

It’s small enough that bringing it along never feels like a commitment. If I use it, great. If I don’t, it never feels like a burden.

After carrying the Nikon Z8 with various lenses on recent outings, the X100VI felt tiny by comparison.

Not in a bad way.

Just refreshingly light.

Relearning an Old Friend

Initially I found myself needing a few minutes to readjust.

After shooting Nikon almost exclusively lately, the Fuji controls felt slightly unfamiliar.

That didn’t last long.

The old muscle memory quickly returned.

I shot in manual exposure mode using Classic Chrome, a simulation I’ve always enjoyed for its slightly muted colours and gentle contrast. It looks great straight out of camera while still providing an excellent starting point for later editing.

One thing I had to consciously remind myself was depth of field.

Having spent so much time shooting full-frame cameras recently, I automatically found myself thinking in terms of f/8. With the APS-C sensor in the X100VI, I often found myself comfortably working at f/5.6 instead.

Woodland and a Familiar Perspective

The woodland looked as beautiful as ever.

Scots Pines, birches and mature broadleaf trees filled the estate, their branches gently swaying in the breeze.

The light was subdued.

Not dark, but certainly flatter than when I visited recently with the Nikon Z 20mm f/1.8 S.

That brought another adjustment.

The X100VI’s 35mm equivalent field of view felt almost conservative after spending so much time shooting 20mm. In many ways, this walk reminded me why I continue to enjoy the X100VI despite owning larger and more capable cameras. I’ve previously compared it directly against an interchangeable lens setup in my X-T5 and 23mm f/2 vs X100VI comparison, and many of the same strengths became obvious again here.

At first my images felt a little flatter.

Less dramatic.

Less immersive.

But after a while I began to appreciate what the 35mm perspective offers.

The photographs remain about the subject rather than the lens. That’s one reason I continue to recommend the camera so highly for travel. It remains one of the few cameras that genuinely encourages me to carry it everywhere.

You don’t get the immediate visual impact that ultra-wide lenses can provide, but you gain flexibility and simplicity. Compositions become easier to arrange, and the field of view rarely calls attention to itself.

The result feels natural.

Perhaps that’s why the 35mm focal length remains so popular.

Why I Still Love the X100VI

What stood out most wasn’t image quality.

I already knew the image quality would be excellent.

What struck me was how enjoyable the camera remains to use, even after more than two years of ownership. In an industry where the excitement of new gear often fades quickly, the X100VI still feels like a camera I genuinely want to pick up and use.

The colours are beautiful.

The film simulations are still among the best available on any camera system.

The camera itself encourages me to stop thinking about equipment.

Actually, forget my understated British ways for a second.

I’ll just say it.

It felt great to be back shooting with the X100VI.

Its fixed lens, its constraints and its simplicity force me to stop thinking about lenses, specifications and endless choices.

Instead, I simply focus on photography.

And honestly, I think I need more of that.

Final Thoughts

This wasn’t a dedicated photography outing.

It wasn’t a review session.

It wasn’t a carefully planned landscape shoot.

It was simply a family walk through one of my favourite local woodlands.

And perhaps that’s exactly why the X100VI felt so at home.

Over the past few months I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about cameras, lenses and systems. Yet a simple afternoon in the woods reminded me that sometimes the best camera isn’t necessarily the most capable one.

Sometimes it’s simply the camera you want to carry.

And after more than two years of ownership, the Fujifilm X100VI remains one of those cameras for me.

I want to say right here, I don’t really have a preference for a particular sensor size and I shoot everything from Micro Four Thirds to Fuji’s GFX. Each has their own pros and cons in my opinion, all are capable of producing excellent photos in the right hands and like most things within photography, its normally a case of working out your priorities and where you are willing to compromise. I use my cameras for specific tasks or sometimes, just because I feel like using a certain camera on any given outing. I recently wrote about why I’m now using the GFX100S more than ever.

One such recent outing was to my local loch and mountains. I decided to take the Fujifilm GFX100S and Fuji GF 20-35mm f/4 lens as I’ve been shooting a lot of Nikon lately and my GFX was giving me evils.

I’m not a particularly dramatic type of person, think typical British, understated and calm. If something is better I don’t say it’s the best in the world/most amazing ever or any of those superlatives that are thrown around on Youtube so often.

As I said, I’ve owned the GFX100S for 2-3 years now, I’ve shot some of the best lenses on the system and I’ve always been impressed with the image quality. It definitely gives a different look to other systems. I’m not going to go on about some vague medium format look like so many do, without being able to specify what it is.

I see it too, but it’s really a result of the way focal lengths behave on a sensor of this size. You get a wider field of view for a given focal length and that results in differrent depth of field and focus fall off than on other systems. What I’ve never really quite appreciated until recently is just how incredibly detailed the files are. Of course, Ive seen it but its never really mattered before because I have tended to shoot portraits and people with the GFX and therefore often found myself shooting with a relatively narrow depth of field, where detail across the whole image wasn’t a factor. That was until I took the GFX100S out in Scotland over the last week or so.

Now I should be clear, I think the image quality from every sensor size is more than usable these days depending upon the subject, and I’m also of the opinion that a detailed photo does not by itself make it a good photo. A great shot on a Micro Four Thirds sensor is still going to look way better than a mediocre or poorly composed shot on even a Phase One back. However, the photo that I shot in the Highlands of Scotland this week really showed me what the GFX 100mp sensor is capable of.

So, rather than trying to explain it, here’s the image that made me stop and rethink what the GFX100S is capable of in terms of detail. I didn’t go out with the itention to test this. But this particular file genuinely impressed me so much that I wanted to write about it. Don’t forget, this is hand-held.

I have uploaded a full resolution file that you can view over on Flickr.

What’s staggering to me is the amount of detail in the distant mountains, it’s beyond anything I’ve shot on any other system in terms of pure detail except for perhaps 4×5 film.

What is also noticeable is just how much sharpening the GFX100S files can take as well as how easily the sensor dealt with the dynamic range in this scene, with the histogram being comfortably within the sensor’s parameters, neither blocking shadows or blowing highlights.

I didn’t go out with the intention to maximise detail or sharpness, in fact I was shooting handheld. But nevertheless, when I opened this image in Lightroom and zoomed in to the foreground rocks and then again to the distant mountains I was stunned at how sharp, crisp and detailed the image was throughout the entire frame. I’ve shot this location before, admittedly in different light, with the Fuji X-T5 and Nikon Z8 as well as other cameras and although the Z8 didn’t have one of the professional top tier lenses mounted, the difference between the files off it and the GFX100S in this case was stark. So much so, that I’m now going to buy in the Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8II in order to do some direct comparisons between the various sensor sizes and ensure that I am giving each one a fair crack at the whip by mounting only the best optically performing lenses for each system.