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.

This article is the second in a series where I’m comparing the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II against some of Fujifilm’s best prime lenses, including 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 want to see how Fujifilm’s flagship zoom stacks up against the lenses many photographers consider the benchmark for image quality in the X Series system.

Having already compared the zoom against the XF 18mm f/1.4 WR, it’s now time to see how it performs against another Fujifilm favourite: the XF 23mm 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. This helps support the site and allows me to keep creating free content. Thank you for your support.

Size and Weight Comparison

Although the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II is slightly larger and heavier than the XF 23mm f/1.4 WR, in my experience the differences aren’t meaningful enough to base a purchasing decision on. The 23mm 1.4WR is almost identical in size and weight to the Fuji 18mm 1.4WR.

The XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II is now so light and compact for a professional-grade zoom that, in use, it feels surprisingly close to Fujifilm’s f/1.4 prime lenses in terms of handling.

Bear in mind, however, that the zoom lens extends as you move through the focal range, which does affect the balance of the lens on the camera body.

How I Compared the Two 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, 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 23mm 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 23mm. This allowed me to compare both lenses across the apertures most photographers are likely to use in real-world shooting.

Test Scene

Centre Sharpness at Wide Apertures

XF 23mm f/1.4 WR at f/1.4 vs XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II at f/2.8

Looking at the images wide open, the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II holds a slight advantage in sharpness over the XF 23mm f/1.4 WR at f/1.4.

However, the difference isn’t dramatic. The 23mm f/1.4 WR remains impressively sharp wide open, and in normal viewing conditions I doubt many photographers would notice a meaningful difference between the two.

XF 23mm f/1.4 WR at f/2.8 vs XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II at f/2.8

Once both lenses are shot at f/2.8, the situation reverses slightly. The XF 23mm f/1.4 WR now takes a very small lead in centre sharpness, although the difference remains extremely subtle.

Viewed side by side at 100%, the prime lens resolves a touch more detail, but we’re talking about very small differences that are only really visible when directly comparing the files.

Centre Sharpness at f/5.6

By f/5.6, any meaningful difference between the two lenses has effectively disappeared.

Both lenses produce outstanding levels of detail and sharpness, and even when zooming into the files at 100%, there’s virtually nothing to separate them. If I removed the EXIF data and showed these files to most photographers, I doubt they would be able to identify which lens had taken which image.

Corner Sharpness at f/8

Looking at the extreme edge of the frame, the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II holds a slight advantage over the XF 23mm f/1.4 WR.

The difference isn’t large enough to affect real-world photography, but the zoom does appear to maintain marginally better corner sharpness once both lenses are stopped down.

This mirrors what I found when comparing the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II against the XF 18mm f/1.4 WR. The zoom is not merely keeping up with Fujifilm’s premium prime lenses—it is occasionally outperforming them in specific areas.

Sharpness Verdict

Based on my own testing, the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II and XF 23mm f/1.4 WR are so close in terms of sharpness that I wouldn’t choose one over the other based on sharpness alone.

The prime lens holds a tiny advantage at f/2.8 in the centre of the frame, while the zoom appears marginally stronger in the corners when both lenses are stopped down. However, these differences are extremely small and only become visible during direct side-by-side comparisons.

Just as I found with the XF 18mm f/1.4 WR, the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II delivers a level of optical performance that is remarkably close to Fujifilm’s premium prime lenses.

Close Focusing and Bokeh Test

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

As with the sharpness tests, the camera position remained fixed throughout the initial comparison. For the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II, I set the lens to 23mm 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. Fujifilm states a minimum focusing distance of 30cm for the zoom.

I then photographed the same scene with the XF 23mm f/1.4 WR, first at f/2.8 to allow a direct comparison with the zoom, and then again at f/1.4 to demonstrate the difference in subject separation and background blur.

Finally, I moved the camera closer to the subject to take advantage of the XF 23mm f/1.4 WR’s shorter minimum focusing distance of 19cm. This allowed me to see how the combination of closer focusing and a larger maximum aperture affected the types of images that could be created.

Close-Range Sharpness

Interestingly, this was one of the few situations where I found a more noticeable difference between the two lenses.

At f/2.8, both lenses remain very sharp, but the XF 23mm f/1.4 WR holds a clear advantage at minimum focusing distance. The difference isn’t dramatic, but it is visible without having to zoom into the files excessively.

This contrasts slightly with the landscape-style sharpness tests earlier in the article, where the two lenses were extremely close and often impossible to separate in real-world use. At close range, the prime lens appears to retain more fine detail and crispness than the zoom.

Bokeh and Subject Separation

The second difference becomes obvious as soon as the aperture is opened up.

While the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II produces pleasant background blur, the XF 23mm f/1.4 WR creates a noticeably stronger separation between subject and background. Out-of-focus highlights are rounder, the transition from sharp to blurred areas is smoother, and the overall image has a more three-dimensional appearance. I find tha background highlights from the 16-55mm f/2.8II much more distracting.

The difference is immediately visible when comparing the images side by side and is one of the clearest advantages the prime lens holds over the zoom.

Minimum Focusing Distance Advantage

The XF 23mm f/1.4 WR’s shorter minimum focusing distance further increases this advantage.

Being able to focus significantly closer allows the lens to create images that simply aren’t possible with the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II. The closer perspective enlarges the subject within the frame while simultaneously increasing background blur, creating a much more dramatic result.

For photographers who enjoy photographing details while travelling, shooting food, flowers, environmental portraits, or simply getting close to their subjects, this is a genuine advantage of the prime lens and one that goes beyond simple sharpness measurements.

Close Focus and Bokeh Verdict

While the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II comes remarkably close to the XF 23mm f/1.4 WR in terms of sharpness at normal shooting distances, the prime lens pulls ahead once close focusing and subject separation enter the equation.

The XF 23mm f/1.4 WR is noticeably sharper at minimum focusing distance, focuses significantly closer, and produces more attractive background blur. Combined with its f/1.4 maximum aperture, it is capable of creating images that the zoom simply cannot replicate.

If your photography involves getting close to subjects and making use of shallow depth of field, the XF 23mm f/1.4 WR retains a meaningful advantage. However, if your subjects are typically photographed at mid-range to infinity, the differences between the two lenses remain surprisingly small.

Final Thoughts

If you like to push in close to your subjects and make use of shallow depth of field, then the XF 23mm f/1.4 WR retains some meaningful advantages over the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II. Not only does it focus significantly closer, but it also produces more attractive bokeh and greater subject separation. At minimum focusing distance, it was also noticeably sharper than the zoom lens in my testing.

However, if your photography mainly involves landscapes, travel photography, street photography, or subjects photographed at mid-range to infinity, the differences between the two lenses become surprisingly small. In terms of sharpness, the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II and XF 23mm f/1.4 WR are remarkably close, with neither lens holding a meaningful advantage once both are stopped down.

Just as I found when comparing the zoom against the XF 18mm f/1.4 WR, the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II is capable of matching one of Fujifilm’s best prime lenses in most shooting situations. While the prime still offers advantages in close-focus performance, subject separation and low-light photography, the gap between these two lenses is far smaller than I expected.

Based purely on sharpness, I wouldn’t choose one over the other. The real decision comes down to whether you value the flexibility of the zoom or the creative possibilities offered by the faster aperture and closer focusing ability of the prime lens.

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.

That was certainly the case today.

A fellow photographer had kindly shared the location of a nearby beaver colony, explaining how the animals had transformed the landscape beyond recognition. The chances of actually seeing a beaver in the middle of the morning were slim, but that wasn’t really the point. I wanted to show my mum the location, stretch my legs and spend a few hours exploring somewhere new with a camera.

The weather couldn’t have been more different from my recent walks through Perthshire. Low cloud hung over the landscape, hiding even modest hills from view. A steady drizzle fell throughout the morning, occasionally becoming heavier before easing again. Rather than being unpleasant, it felt refreshing. After several warm days, the cooler temperatures made walking far more comfortable.

We began across rolling farmland before skirting the edge of woodland and eventually following a narrow path deeper into the forest. As we moved further from the open fields, signs of the beavers gradually started to reveal themselves.

Trees had been felled. Watercourses altered. Areas that once looked entirely ordinary had been reshaped through years of quiet activity.

It was fascinating to see how dramatically wildlife could alter a landscape without the need for machinery, roads or development.

Why I Chose the Fujifilm X-T5

For this walk I carried the Fujifilm X-T5 paired with the Fujifilm XF 16-55mm f/2.8 R LM WR II. I also had the Fuji 18mm 1.4WR in my bag.

The reasoning was simple.

Unlike some outings where I head out with a very specific subject in mind, today felt open-ended. I wanted the flexibility to photograph woodland scenes, wider landscape views and perhaps even have enough reach should a beaver somehow decide to appear in daylight.

The updated 16-55mm f/2.8 II continues to impress me. Compared to the original version, it’s noticeably smaller, lighter and easier to carry throughout the day. Combined with the X-T5, it creates a kit that feels remarkably manageable considering the image quality it delivers.

The weather sealing was also reassuring. Rain fell for much of the walk, but I never once felt concerned about the camera. The setup spent most of the day attached to my Peak Design Capture Clip where it remained instantly accessible regardless of the conditions.

The Joy of Returning to Fujifilm

One thing I noticed almost immediately was how naturally I slipped back into Fujifilm’s way of doing things.

I’ve spent a lot of time recently shooting Nikon cameras, but the transition back to Fuji felt effortless.

The physical control dials remain one of my favourite aspects of the system. There’s something satisfying about adjusting shutter speed, aperture and exposure compensation directly rather than through menus or command wheels. It slows me down slightly and makes the process feel more deliberate.

Although I normally use custom film recipes, today I chose to shoot using Classic Chrome as a starting point while retaining the flexibility to edit later. As I continue building a growing library of Perthshire woodland images, I want consistency in the final edits while still benefiting from Fuji’s excellent colour rendering.

Classic Chrome once again delivered exactly what I expected.

Muted tones, restrained contrast and colours that feel natural without becoming dull.

Even before editing, the files looked excellent.

A Camera That Gets Out of the Way

What struck me most wasn’t image quality, autofocus performance or specifications.

It was how enjoyable the camera remains to use, even after owning it for over two years now.

That’s something I think often gets overlooked when discussing cameras.

The X-T5 isn’t exciting because of any one specification. Instead, it simply gets out of the way and allows me to focus on photography.

The camera felt light throughout the walk despite carrying a professional zoom lens. The controls became second nature within minutes. The viewfinder remained bright and easy to use despite the gloomy conditions.

Most importantly, I never found myself thinking about the camera.

I simply enjoyed being there.

Listening to the rain.

Watching the woodland change as the path wound deeper into the trees.

Observing the evidence of wildlife hidden throughout the landscape.

The X-T5 quietly did its job and allowed me to focus on everything else.

Building a Library of Perthshire

Although the beavers were the original reason for visiting, the photographs I ended up making were mostly woodland images.

That feels fitting.

The more time I spend in Perthshire, the more drawn I become to its woods.

The Highlands will always provide the grand vistas that Scotland is famous for, but increasingly I find myself fascinated by the smaller landscapes much closer to home.

The texture of tree bark.

The way light filters through woodland canopies.

The relationship between weather, season and atmosphere.

These quieter scenes are becoming just as important to me as dramatic mountain views.

Today’s walk added a handful of new images to that growing collection.

Final Thoughts

The Fujifilm X-T5 continues to be one of my favourite cameras for outings where the subject isn’t entirely defined.

It offers excellent image quality, dependable weather sealing, intuitive controls and a level of portability that encourages me to take it almost anywhere.

Combined with the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 II, it proved to be an ideal companion for a damp morning spent exploring woodland and following the subtle signs of beavers hidden throughout the landscape.

The beavers themselves never appeared.

But that hardly mattered.

The walk was enjoyable, the woodland beautiful and I came home with a few more photographs that help tell the story of a landscape I’m slowly getting to know better.