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.

It started off in the Philippines, trying to sell our belongings and arrange our international family move back to Scotland. Sorting out all the loose ends while also getting a home organised from the other side of the world was a bit of a logistical nightmare.

However, we managed to arrange everything after basically culling our belongings down to the bare minimum.

At the end of January, we arrived in Scotland and spent the next few weeks making the new house feel like a home. Buying the essentials, finding suitable furniture and helping Sofia settle into school.

Things finally started to calm down a little.

Then I received a phone call from the lettings agent.

The call left me stunned.

We had taken on the house as a long term let, somewhere to settle and build family life here. A place to give Sofia and Isabelle a secure, comfortable environment to grow up in.

But after the call, everything changed again.

The owners of the house had changed their minds and decided they wanted to move back in themselves. So with just two weeks before my wife and Isabelle arrived in the UK, I suddenly found myself desperately searching for another house for us to call home.

By that point Sofia had settled into school really well, made new friends and joined the local horse riding club, so I had to limit my house search to somewhere within a reasonable commute because I wasn’t prepared to disrupt her again.

With the whole move being driven largely by our developmental concerns regarding Isabelle, and with her arrival already delayed due to the situation around Iran making the usual transit through Dubai unsafe, I was suddenly juggling rearranged flights alongside trying to secure another home and dealing with uncertainty over how long we even had left in the current one.

I didn’t tell my wife about the house situation at the time.

I didn’t really see the point. It was up to me to sort it out and try and do so without making her worry even more during an already stressful move.

Now, nearly two months after their arrival, I’m relieved to say that I found another home for us.

It’s a bit smaller and a bit further away from Sofia’s school, but it’s in a lovely countryside location and it genuinely feels like somewhere we can make home.

So for the last few weeks, I’ve really struggled to think straight, let alone get out for as much photography as I’d like.

We’re settling Isabelle into nursery life here, arranging medical appointments and thankfully she seems to be adapting really well to life and routine in Scotland.

My mental load though still hasn’t really reduced.

There are still tensions within the house and unfortunately I suspect those tensions are going to come to a head over the next few weeks as I look to ensure that my youngest daughter’s best interests remain prioritised, even if that creates some conflict.

With all of this going on, and having spent a lot of time lately shooting wildlife with the Nikon Z8 — a camera built around speed and responsiveness — for the last few days, whenever I’ve managed to muster the energy for small local walks, I’ve found myself taking the Fujifilm GFX100S instead. If you want to see how detailed GFX100S files are then I wrote this post about them.

A camera that even when it was released back in 2021 wasn’t exactly considered fast.

And honestly, I think that’s part of why I need it right now.

The fact that it isn’t a fast camera forces me to slow down a little. It forces me to focus more carefully on shooting technique because that 100 megapixel sensor is brutally unforgiving of sloppy handling.

But more than that, after shooting a lot of bursts lately with wildlife on the Z8, I think my mental space right now requires something slower, more purposeful, more meaningful and ultimately more calming as I sense an oncoming storm building again. It’s one of the reasons why I’ve been using it more lately. I’ve also written in more detail about that choice in my latest GFX article.

I’ve also been exploring the opposite end of the spectrum recently, returning to the compact Fujifilm X100VI for a family walk through local woodland.

Since I published this review, I’ve continued taking the lens out and shooting it more on trips like this one. My thoughts remain largely the same as in the review.

This article contains affiliate links. If you choose to buy through them, I may earn a small commission at no extra cost to you. This helps support the site and allows me to keep creating in-depth, experience-based content like this.

When people claim this lens is like carrying a bag full of primes, they’re not just talking about focal lengths.

Any zoom in this range covers 16mm, 23mm, 33mm and into the 50mm range — that’s nothing new.

What they’re really getting at is the optical performance. The idea that the Fujifilm 16–55mm f/2.8 II doesn’t just cover those focal lengths, but actually delivers something close to what Fuji’s best primes can produce.

Since moving to Scotland, I’ve started to once again appreciate good zooms more than I have in recent years. The flexibility matters here. The weather changes quickly, and swapping lenses out in the field isn’t always practical.

But I also own most of the premium primes that sit within this range — and they’re exceptional.

So for this lens to live up to that “bag of primes” claim, it doesn’t just need to be good.

It needs to keep up with some of the best lenses Fujifilm makes.

Before I bought the 16–55mm f/2.8 II, I was using the 18–55mm kit lens whenever I needed the flexibility of a zoom here in Scotland.

That lens is widely regarded as one of the better “kit” lenses, but the 16–55mm f/2.8 II sits in a completely different category. It’s Fujifilm’s professional standard zoom, so it should feel like a step up.

When it arrived, I was particularly interested to see whether the claimed reduction in size and weight over the original version was actually noticeable in real use.

It is.

While it’s clearly larger than the 18–55mm, it still feels relatively compact and well balanced in the hand. In fact, it’s noticeably smaller than something like the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S that I use on my Nikon Z bodies.

I’ve been guilty in the past of dismissing f/2.8 zooms on Fuji. They’ve often felt too large to justify on an APS-C system — lenses like the 50–140mm f/2.8 and the original 16–55mm being good examples.

But the mark II version changes that in a meaningful way. Mounted on my Fujifilm X-T5 (with the L-grip attached), it feels well balanced and doesn’t come across as heavy in any meaningful way — certainly no more so than the premium f/1.2–f/1.4 primes I’m used to shooting.

It still fits comfortably in my Peak Design Everyday Sling 10L, with plenty of space left for other lenses and accessories, which says a lot about how usable it is as part of a real-world kit.

Build Quality

In terms of build quality, the 16–55mm f/2.8 II feels solid, despite the reduction in weight compared to the original version.

At just 410g, and paired with my Fujifilm X-T5, the whole setup comes in at under 1kg — which is impressive for a pro-level f/2.8 standard zoom.

In use, it doesn’t feel a million miles away from shooting with my primes like the Fujifilm XF 23mm f/1.4 R LM WR and Fujifilm XF 33mm f/1.4 R LM WR. That’s not something I’d have said about the previous generation.

The lens now features a de-clickable aperture ring, which will appeal to video shooters. However, for stills, I find the clicks a little too subtle. I’d prefer a slightly more defined step between apertures so you can feel the change without needing to double-check.

It’s not a major issue, but it’s worth noting.

The lens is fully weather sealed, with a gasket at the mount, and it also features a fluorine coating on the front element to help repel water. Given what I’ve already put my non-weather-sealed 18–55mm through, I’d have no hesitation using this out in the Scottish Highlands in poor conditions.

Overall, the build quality feels reassuringly solid — and slightly surprising given how light it is. It balances really well on the Fujifilm X-T5, and crucially, it never feels like you’re carrying a typical f/2.8 pro zoom — especially when you compare it to full-frame equivalents.

Autofocus

The 16–55mm f/2.8 II features Fujifilm’s latest linear motor, and in use it’s fast and accurate.

It tracks people, pets and faster-moving subjects without issue, and there’s no hesitancy or focus hunting — something that was more common with some of Fuji’s older lens designs.

Compared to the 18–55mm, the focus performance feels much more assured, particularly when shooting people.

This is going to be a short section, simply because I haven’t had a single issue with autofocus using this lens on my Fujifilm X-T5.

It’s accurate, snappy, and confidence-inspiring to the point that I’ve honestly not thought about it while shooting — which is exactly what you want.

Image Quality

This is where the Fuji 16–55mm f/2.8 II either earns its keep or it doesn’t. As the pro zoom in Fuji’s range, and with claims of it equalling a bag of primes, I rightfully expected excellent image quality.

The 16–55mm f/2.8 II doesn’t disappoint, as it’s sharp throughout the zoom range and across the frame from wide open until diffraction kicks in beyond f/8. I’ve shot into the sun and the lens resists flare well, and the bokeh it produces at f/2.8 is also very pleasing and smooth.

The lens in my opinion performs best at the wider end of the focal range. While it is sharp throughout the zoom range, it excels between 16–35mm the most.

Arguably, at longer focal lengths, corner sharpness isn’t quite as strong, although quite often the subjects I shoot at those focal lengths are people, and corner sharpness isn’t as important there.

I’ve noticed an example or two of chromatic aberration showing up when shooting in woodland with backlit trees and bright sky behind. One such photo was unfixable in post, with quite unsightly aberrations in multiple tree branches. I’ll be honest, I was quite surprised by this, but it hasn’t shown up in many shots and so it isn’t a major concern.

But is it a bag full of primes? I guess that depends on the primes.

16–55mm f/2.8 II vs 23mm f/1.4 WR (Real-World Comparison)

16–55mm f/2.8 II
23mm • f/2.8

23mm f/1.4 WR
f/1.4

Both images were shot at 23mm, but with a two-stop difference in aperture. While sharpness is very similar, the 23mm f/1.4 WR shows noticeably stronger subject separation and a more pronounced sense of depth, which is where the primes still have the edge.

For the range it covers, and the fact that it really is light and compact, I would take it any day of the week over a bag full of Fuji’s f/2 primes if I felt I was going to end up using multiple focal lengths throughout a day’s shooting. The simple convenience of having this focal range with this level of performance, and not having to swap lenses, is very attractive.

However, as good as the 16–55mm f/2.8 II is, it still doesn’t replace Fuji’s premier primes like the 1.4 and 1.2 versions of the 18mm, 23mm, 33mm and 56mm lenses. Yes, it’s getting pretty close in terms of sharpness, but the rendering and ability to isolate subjects even more with those larger aperture lenses gives images a look and 3 dimensionality that the 16–55mm f/2.8 II still can’t quite match.

Compared to the 18–55mm kit lens I’ve had for years, it’s a step up in terms of handling, AF performance and particularly rendering and sharpness. If you want to use the longer end of the zoom range for portraits and isolating subjects, the 16–55mm f/2.8 II is in a different league.

Compared to the 16–80mm f/4, it is sharper and, of course, brighter, but if you’re shooting landscapes and stopping down, the difference — while noticeable on the 40MP sensor found in the Fujifilm X-T5 — may not be worth the additional price to everyone.

Verdict

So, is it a bag of primes… or just hype?

Normally, I’d say that f/2.8 standard zooms are mainly for professionals — usually wedding and portrait photographers who will not only take advantage of the optical performance, but also the better low light performance and subject isolating qualities of a larger aperture zoom. This normally comes with the compromise of size, weight and price.

However, the Fuji 16–55mm f/2.8 II removes the size and weight compromise to such a degree that it becomes a serious option for a much wider range of photographers than “holy trinity” zooms usually are and makes it one of the best lenses for Fujifilm cameras.

This lens is a really great choice for travel photographers, landscape shooters, and anyone who wants one high quality lens to do everything from sharp landscapes to people shots with excellent bokeh and subject isolation — as well as the usual professionals wanting a flexible option for weddings.

What’s most impressive about this lens? The fact that Fuji has managed to cram this level of performance into such a small and light lens.

If zooms are your thing, then this is the standard Fuji zoom to get — if you’re willing to pay the price of admission.

Me, I can see myself continuing to shoot the 16–55mm f/2.8 II a lot here in Scotland because it gives me the kind of performance and convenience that suits the environment here, at a size and weight I’m very comfortable carrying.

It won’t replace my top-tier primes because they still create a different look, but I can see myself using them a little less thanks to the zoom.

I had never been to this particular area before, so moving here was a bit of a leap of faith. But everything so far has been better than we could have hoped for. It’s a lovely area with incredibly friendly people and stunning nature and wildlife right on our doorstep.

Sofia has settled into her new school really well and came back with more friends after her first day than I have in total.

I’ve managed to get out a couple of times a week to explore the local area, which has a lovely mixture of soft rolling countryside and woodland, as well as the harsher landscapes on the edge of the Scottish Highlands.

I’ve been taking a camera with me on all my outings — ranging from the X100VI and OM-3 to my OM-1 Mark II and Nikon Z8.

I’m still struggling a little bit to find my feet photographically. I’m increasingly pulled towards nature photography and trying to improve my wildlife photography, which takes time, patience and practice. Not to mention that I’m having to re-learn the local species after having lived abroad for over a decade. My memory and recall of various birds is not what it used to be.

Still, I’m finding that just being amongst nature is like medicine to me. I feel calm, relaxed, and am thoroughly enjoying the time I get outside — even when, as on Tuesday, I come back with no real shots to speak of.

I’m also struggling to focus a little at the moment. The plan had been for the three of us to come here and spend five weeks setting up the new home before my wife and youngest daughter joined us next week. We usually fly with Emirates from Cebu to the UK via Dubai.

Those plans have now gone out of the window due to the conflict currently unfolding in the Middle East. I’ve been preoccupied searching for alternative routes and then dismissing them due to logistics. So it looks like I’ll be watching the situation closely and waiting to determine a safe time for them to travel.

Let’s just hope the whole situation resolves itself as quickly as possible.

In the meantime I have bought in some new lenses which I’m very excited to get out and use: the Fujifilm 16-55mm f/2.8 II as a genral purpose lens so I can still shoot high quality photos but avoid having to swap lenses out in the middle of a Scottish glen in bad weather, as well as the Nikon Z 14-30mm f/4 for landscapes, the Nikon Z 400mm f/4.5 and the 180-600mm as well as the OM System 100-400mm II for wildlife.

I was surprised how light the 400mm in particular was, but also pleasantly surprised by the 180-600mm.

I worked through a bit of a dilemma as to which way to go with my wildlife photography and in the end decided that a combination of using the OM-1 Mark II with the 100-400mm II for casual and walk-around wildlife and nature photography, combined with the Nikon lenses for more purposeful wildlife outings, made the most sense.

Over the coming weeks and months I’ll be getting out more with those lenses for wildlife trips, which I hope will help me start improving my shots slowly. The plan is that come the Autumn, I’ll be much better than I am now, just in time for the Red deer rutting season.

I’ll also be heading out on some proper landscape trips where I will not only shoot but occasionally put various cameras up against each other in the hope that those articles will give some insight into the actual differences between systems.

Sadly, among the things I had to leave behind in the Philippines was my main tripod, so I’m also considering whether to get another — and if so, what to go for.

I’ve also spent a bit of time working out the various bits of kit I need to be comfortable in the Scottish mountains and glens — from waterproof jackets, boots and gloves to rucksacks, camera bags and so on. I now literally have more outdoor gear than everyday clothes, although that probably says more about the state of my normal wardrobe than anything else.

No one needs more than two sets of underwear, right?

After a month or so, and with various trial runs out in the hills, I’ve started to narrow down the kit that actually works here.

After so long abroad — and if I’m honest, after leading a fairly sedentary lifestyle — I’m also really enjoying the process of getting my fitness back to where I want and need it to be.

I’ve found myself pushing uphill faster than I expected and having a little more endurance than I imagined. Of course, that could just be my mental stubbornness and refusal to admit my age rather than any real physical attributes showing.

In the meantime, here are a few articles that I’ve written recently that you might enjoy.

In this guide I’m going to give my straightforward advice on which Fujifilm lenses are actually worth spending your hard-earned money on. Where possible, I’ll also highlight lenses that perform exceptionally well without necessarily being the most expensive option available. If you’ve already bought your lenses and are trying to decide if you need filters too, then see my article on which filters you actually need.

Rather than listing every lens Fujifilm makes, this article focuses on the lenses that make the most sense for most photographers.

I’ve broken the recommendations down into the main types of lenses people actually buy — starting with standard zooms, then moving into specialist lenses like wide-angle and portrait primes.

If you’re building your first Fuji kit, the standard zoom recommendations are a good place to start. If you already have a zoom and want something more specialised, skip down to the prime lenses further below.

Best Value Standard Zoom (When Bought as Part of a Camera Kit)

Fujifilm XF 16-80mm f/4 R OIS WR

There are quite a few choices when it comes to a standard zoom in the Fuji X system yet if you can get the 16-80mm as part of a kit when buying your camera, often it only costs a few hundred doallars and for that, it offers really good value. I got mine a few years ago with my X-T4. The lens covers a useful focal range from wide angle through to portrait, is well-built, sharp enough for most subjects and can be used for static subjects in low light as it has image stabilisation. It’s also weather sealed and can stand up to a fair amount of rain and dust.

So what are the downsides? Honestly, not many. At full retail price, It’s not cheap and there have been some reports of it not being as sharp as expected. I’ve owned two copies of this lens and both were sharp but it may pay to double check your copy. It’s a fantastic landscape and travel lens thanks to its compact size and flexible focal range offering a 24-120mm full frame equivalent view.

Best Professional Zoom

Fujifilm XF 16-55mm f/2.8 R LM WR II

If you want the best professional-level zoom lens that Fujifilm offers for the X system, the latest 16-55mm f/2.8 II is it.

I’d always tried to keep my Fuji kit small and lightweight, so I never bought the original version of this lens. However, the new Mark II improves on the original in several ways — not least that it’s noticeably more compact and lighter. I go in to further detail on how this lens performs in my full Fujifilm 16-55mm f/2.8 II review.

I picked up my copy this year shortly after moving to Scotland, as I wanted a lens that offers excellent sharpness across the zoom range, from the centre right out to the edges of the frame without having to swap lenses out in the Scottish Highlands as I would if I used my primes.

The 16-55mm f/2.8 II is extremely sharp — almost on par with some of the best Fuji primes. Importantly for professional shooters, it also offers a brighter constant f/2.8 aperture than general zooms like the 16-80mm f/4. This improves low-light performance and makes it easier to isolate subjects with pleasing background blur.

Of course, it’s also fully weather sealed and focuses very quickly.

Overall, if you can afford it, there are very few compromises with this lens.

Best Wide-Angle Zoom

Fujifilm XF 10-24mm f/4 R OIS WR

If you enjoy shooting landscapes, architecture or interiors, then a wide-angle zoom is often the next lens photographers add to their kit.

The XF 10-24mm f/4 is Fujifilm’s most practical ultra-wide zoom for the X system. It covers a very useful focal range equivalent to roughly 15-36mm on full frame, giving you the ability to shoot sweeping landscapes at the wide end while still being able to zoom in slightly for more natural compositions.

One of the things I like most about this lens is how versatile it is. At 10mm it gives you dramatic wide-angle perspectives, but by 18-24mm it becomes much easier to compose more natural looking landscape images.

The latest version also adds weather sealing while keeping the constant f/4 aperture and optical stabilisation. For landscape photographers in particular, the stabilisation can be surprisingly useful when shooting handheld in fading light. I’ve owned both the original and the latest version of this lens and they perform virtually identically in terms of image quality.

Overall the 10-24mm strikes a very good balance between image quality, portability and price, making it the wide-angle zoom that will make the most sense for most Fuji shooters.

If you want the absolute best image quality from a Fuji wide-angle zoom, then technically the XF 8-16mm f/2.8 R LM WR is a little sharper and offers a brighter aperture. However, here’s why I wouldn’t recommend it for most people.

The 10-24mm f/4 WR is already more than sharp enough, and if you’re shooting landscapes you rarely need f/2.8 anyway. In most situations you’ll be stopping down your aperture to keep more of the scene in focus.

The 10-24mm also accepts standard screw-in filters, whereas the 8-16mm f/2.8 requires special filter systems and adapters, which makes it more of a hassle to use in the field.

Finally, the weight savings of the 10-24mm do make a noticeable difference, especially if you’re hiking and carrying multiple lenses.

Best Overall Prime

Fujifilm XF 33mm f/1.4 R LM WR

I’ve owned the original 35mm f/1.4, a lens that has almost legendary status, but in my opinion, the 33mm f/1.4WR lens is even better. I chose it to shoot my youngest daughters first birthday celebrations and it is probably my Fujifilm lens of all.

If I could only own one prime lens for the Fujifilm X system, the XF 33mm f/1.4 would probably be it.

This lens sits right in the sweet spot of the Fuji lineup. On an APS-C camera it gives you roughly a 50mm equivalent field of view, which is one of the most natural and versatile focal lengths for photography.

What makes the 33mm special is how well it balances image quality, autofocus performance and usability. It’s extremely sharp, focuses quickly and the f/1.4 aperture gives you plenty of flexibility when shooting in low light or when you want to isolate your subject with a softer background.

I use this focal length a lot when photographing everyday life, whether that’s travelling, walking around town or simply documenting moments with my family. It’s wide enough to capture context but still tight enough to produce very natural-looking portraits.

The lens is also fully weather sealed and built to a very high standard, making it a great match for cameras like the X-T5 if you shoot outdoors in unpredictable weather.

Overall, the XF 33mm f/1.4 is one of the best lenses in the entire Fuji system.

Best alternative: If you want a lens with the same level of quality as the 33mm f/1.4 WR but prefer a slightly wider focal length, then the Fujifilm XF 23mm f/1.4 R LM WR is the perfect choice.

It’s sharp, focuses very quickly, and allows you to capture a little more context in your photos. This is another of my favourite Fujifilm lenses and one that I’ve used extensively over the years. You can see my full review for more details.

Having owned the original version, I also strongly prefer the latest model. The newer 23mm focuses much faster and adds weather sealing, making it a far more practical lens for everyday shooting.

Best Everyday Lens

Fujifilm XF 35mm f/2 R WR

The great thing about using Fujifilm is how modular the system is. If you want to use professional zooms you can do so, but you can just as easily mount a small prime and have a lightweight, high-quality setup that you can bring with you anywhere.

My favourite lens to use in this way is the XF 35mm f/2. As I discussed in my review, out of the small Fujicron prime lenses this is the one that impressed me the most. It’s sharper than the others, lightweight, weather sealed and very fast to focus. At the same time it still offers the classic Fuji experience with an aperture ring, and at f/2 it works well across a wide range of lighting conditions.

It’s also reasonably priced and when paired with cameras like the X-T5 it makes for a very portable yet high-quality setup.

Best alternative: If you prefer a slightly wider focal length, the Fujifilm XF 23mm f/2 is an excellent alternative. It offers most of the advantages of the 35mm f/2 but with a 35mm full-frame equivalent field of view that allows you to capture a little more context in your images.

The 23mm f/2 isn’t quite as sharp as the 35mm, but in almost every other respect it’s just as good. For more details see my Fuji 23mm f/2 review.

Best Portrait Lens

Fujifilm XF 56mm f/1.2 R WR

If portrait photography is your main focus, then the XF 56mm f/1.2 WR is the lens I would recommend.

I owned the original 56mm f/1.2 for several years and really liked that lens. It produced beautiful images with excellent subject separation and smooth background blur. However, the autofocus — especially when shooting wide open at f/1.2 — could sometimes be a little hit or miss.

The updated WR version improves things quite a bit. Autofocus is faster and more reliable, and the lens is now weather sealed as well. That said, it still doesn’t use Fujifilm’s very fastest linear motors, so performance isn’t quite at the level of lenses like the 33mm f/1.4.

Even so, if your goal is to capture the best possible portrait images with a Fuji camera, the 56mm f/1.2 WR remains the best choice.

Best alternative: I’ve written a separate guide covering the best portrait lenses available for Fujifilm cameras. If you’re unsure which option might suit you best, it’s worth taking a look at that article.

Where to Go Next

If you’re using an X-T5, I’ve also written a guide covering the best lenses for travel photography with the X-T5, where I go through the lens kits that make the most sense for travelling light while still getting excellent image quality.

If family photography is your main passion, then you may also find my guide to the best Fujifilm lenses for family photography helpful, where I cover the lenses I personally use when photographing my own children.

I’ve been in Scotland for a couple of weeks now. We’re starting to find our feet, and I’m starting to feel comfortable with my cameras in this wild landscape again after a few shorter trips out to local parks.

Today was my first trip to a more rugged landscape — still not far away from our new home, but with a bit more elevation and real potential for the weather to suddenly turn.

As we drove towards our starting point, winding our way up single-track roads, the cloud descended, cutting visibility to less than 80 metres. Sofia became quieter in the back of the car as her nerves were tested on the narrow road winding its way up, with precarious drops on either side.

In my time in the Philippines, I predominantly shot primes on my X-T5. I preferred the image quality and the way of working — but Scotland is different. The weather here can change in a second; wind-driven rain is not the place to be swapping lenses, and one fixed focal length felt too limiting given the varied scenery I thought I might find in this location. If you are still looking for the right lenses for your Fujifilm camera then I’ve put together a guide to the best Fuji lenses which includes primes and zooms.

So, for the first time in a long time, I mounted a zoom lens on my X-T5: the diminutive and non–weather-sealed XF 18–55mm f/2.8–4. Not a lens that would normally inspire me, if I’m honest, but it was the only one for the job today. I would have preferred it to be weather sealed as I clipped it onto my Peak Design camera clip and strode off towards the loch, immersed in low-lying cloud and drizzle.

The combination of the weather and using the 18–55mm lens, along with the fact that I normally shoot better photos when I’m alone, led me to treating this walk as a recce for the area.

The first thing that struck me about the X-T5 and 18–55mm setup is just how compact it feels. It was a great balance between size and flexibility and, when mounted on my Peak Design capture clip, I didn’t even notice the weight. Secondly, it didn’t move around on the clip or feel as if it was putting undue stress on it. The 18–55mm is pretty well built, being mostly metal, but it is not weather sealed and it has an external zoom so it is exposed to the elements a little. The rain came down steadily and within a few minutes, both my X-T5 and the lens were covered in raindrops. I occasionally wiped them away with my gloves, but the camera and lens were not babied — instead I just left them open to the elements to see how they coped.

As a Red Kite swooped overhead, I rued the fact that I don’t have any wildlife lenses in my kit yet; the long end of 55mm (82.5mm equivalent) is enough to shoot portraits with a flattering perspective, but for now I’d have to be content just to see these beautiful birds in their habitat.

We walked along a winding, muddy, rough track down the eastern side of the loch, the deep rust-coloured heather adding some life to otherwise monotone scenery. I could still barely see the loch, let alone the distant Munro (a Scottish mountain over 3,000 feet) to the north. I enjoyed isolating and framing different elements, taking full advantage of the relatively wide 18mm focal length and equally zooming freely to frame shots as I saw fit. I have to admit that the 18–55mm simply made composing so easy that I came to appreciate it. In this kind of environment, one minute you’re trying to capture a vast expanse of landscape in front of you and seconds later, a beautiful patch of lichen on a rock will catch your eye and demand a totally different focal length. And that’s the beauty of zooms — and, combined with the Scottish weather, the necessity too.

I shot off some frames of Sofia as she strode ahead of me but hadn’t found anything that really caught my eye until, upon mounting a small hill, our path was blocked by a raging torrent of water gushing down from the mountainside into the loch. We’d only been going for about 15 minutes and it looked as if our route would be blocked, the water too deep and too fast-flowing to risk Sofia attempting to cross it. I veered off the path and climbed upstream to look for a crossing with Sofia in tow. The ground was sodden, the river raging, and every potential crossing point was just that little bit too wide for a nine-year-old’s legs.

Image Quality

As I paused to admire the river raging, a particular section caught my eye — the flow creating a beautiful S-curve as it wound down towards us. This is the real Scotland I want to photograph: not perfect, not the honeypot locations, but the cold, harsh, wet reality of a country where nature can still dominate — still beautiful, still magnificent, but not idealised.

I shot a couple of frames of the water, one wider and one more intimate — a good test of how the lens performs throughout its focal range. At 18mm the lens is sharp enough in the centre, with only slight softening into the corners wide open. Stopped down, the corners improve, and that’s where I find myself shooting a lot these days anyway. On APS-C I find I start around f/4–5.6 and only move from those apertures if I have a reason to. At 55mm the performance is a little weaker. It’s still capable of producing nice images but the sharpness is a little disappointing, particularly when shooting portraits. fine for record shots but combined with the relatively slow aperture (which climbs fast when zooming through the focal range) I would definitely look to other options for family photography, for example.

When stopped down, the 18–55mm is more than capable of producing sharp photos at wide and mid focal ranges, upto around 23mm seems to be where it works best. However, they lack that final bite and microcontrast that my primes give me — which admittedly is pleasing mainly to us photographers — even so, I’d happily print some of the better photos that I took on this walk. If I pixel peep, yes, I could pick fault with them: they’re not as bitingly sharp as more expensive lenses and the microcontrast lacks a little punch, but overall the image quality from the 18–55mm is surprisingly good for a “kit lens.”

I should also point out that the 18–55mm f/2.8–4 lens has image stabilisation, so for any Fuji shooters with cameras lacking IBIS, the lens IS does help a little — although I struggled to handhold it and get sharp images at 18mm below 1/4 second consistantly.

The lens itself is billed as a kit lens, but it definitely errs on the side of a more premium kit lens. The build quality in particular is reassuringly solid, and it features an aperture ring (although unmarked due to the variable aperture of the lens). Still, it works well enough in practice. The bottom line is that it doesn’t feel cheap or fragile.

Autofocus

The 18–55mm features a linear motor, which makes it relatively quick to focus. However, I did notice a lack of consistency in acquiring focus sometimes, and there seemed to be a bit of hesitation just before the camera locked on. This was most noticeable in low-contrast scenes and when using eye detect to photograph Sofia. It was a minor issue though and quite easy to work around, either by finding an area of high contrast or simply releasing the shutter button and then refocusing.

While the lens does reach into portrait focal lengths, in my opinion it’s fine for record shots or outings such as this hike, but it definitely shouldn’t be thought of as a portrait lens in any shape or form, as the aperture is too small to really isolate subjects and the lens lacks a little sharpness further into its focal range.

As we turned around and headed back towards the dam, I left the camera and lens attached to my Peak Design Capture Clip, exposed to the elements. The rain was steady but not heavy, yet still the camera was covered in rain and it left me wondering at what point I should really start to think about offering it a little more protection. In total, we were out for a couple of hours and it never stopped raining, yet I had no issues at all.

Now I’m not saying that you should treat your 18–55mm lens as weather sealed, as clearly it isn’t, but in this downward-facing position, along with being used regularly, it coped just fine. In harder rain, I’d cover it with a shower cap or some form of protection, but then in Scottish rain I’d likely do that with any lens on the X-T5.

We decided to head around the west side of the loch, as I hoped it wouldn’t be blocked and we could get further north and see more of the landscape. As we crossed the dam wall, several scenes caught my eye and, thanks to the flexibility of the 18–55mm’s focal range, I was able to compose the shots freely and as I saw fit.

For scenes like the one above, the flexibility of the zoom outweighs the image quality benefits of a prime because I simply did not have the choice to move closer or further away. It also allowed me to frame the image as I wanted, lining up various elements to my liking. This kind of flexibility is what zoom lenses are all about and, in such vast landscapes as you find in Scotland, moving with a prime lens to line all the elements in a scene up could mean walking many extra miles over the course of a day.

Conclusion

Overall, I was pleasantly surprised with the photos I got from the 18–55mm lens on this trip out. I didn’t have high hopes, but in the end I came away with a few photos that I was happy with. Could they have been better if I’d used sharper, more expensive prime lenses? Sure — but then I probably wouldn’t have got most of the shots I got with the 18–55mm, and that’s where its value lies.

Is it the sharpest lens? No — but it’s sharp enough for most things. Does it offer the best zoom range? No — but it covers most everyday focal lengths well enough. Is it the most rugged? No — but it survived two hours of constant drizzle without protection. Are there better options? Yes. I think a lot of people would prefer the constant aperture, weather sealing, and wider focal range of the 16–80mm f/4, but if you get the 18–55mm as part of a kit with your camera it becomes very good value.

So who should buy the 18–55mm f/2.8–4? I’d struggle to recommend anyone go out and buy this lens at full retail price because the 16–80mm f/4 exists. But if you can get a copy used at a good price, or as part of a kit with your next camera, it is a really flexible, well-built, lightweight option as a walk-around lens.

Frequently Asked Questions

It’s been exactly one week since we finally touched down in Scotland.

All those weeks and months of preparation didn’t really take the stress out of the move, nor the 28-hour journey back. We’ve left a lot of things in the Philippines — some not important, others more sentimental in value. Despite my best efforts, I couldn’t ship everything to the UK that we wanted to keep. We had to make a lot of choices and, in the end, Sofia, my mum and I arrived in Scotland with just four suitcases, three camera bags and two laptops to our name.

We’ve been sleeping on the floor while we wait for beds to be delivered — in fact I still am — but after one week we are slowly getting there. Furniture is ordered and starting to arrive, Sofia’s new toys to replace those she left behind turned up today, and today is actually the first day I’ve even had a moment to consider getting outside and taking a proper look at the area we’ve moved to.

Our first outing at Macrosty Park

It was raining, of course, but Sofia — armed with her new warm and waterproof gear — was more than up for a bit of exploration. This little outing was more about seeing our local area than getting great photos, but I wanted to take a camera along with me.

One of the only things I managed to successfully negotiate on our transcontinental journey was bringing all of my cameras and lenses, split into three camera bags, while wearing my Nikon Z8 around my neck with my heaviest lens attached. That was about 30kg of gear in total, and I felt every bit of that weight in the aches and stiffness in my muscles for a few days after we arrived.

Why I reached for the X100VI

Constant decisions and compromises have been the core of my life in the last few months, so naturally I gravitated toward grabbing my Fujifilm X100VI — a camera that removes many of a photographer’s indecisions about focal length.

A fixed-lens camera with a wide 35mm equivalent field of view is incredibly versatile; it can handle everything from landscapes to portraits, and with its 40-megapixel APS-C sensor I knew it would give me some nice files if any opportunities appeared.

The light was incredibly flat when we arrived at our local park and a fine rain was drifting down — very much like I remember from my time in the Outer Hebrides. With the X100VI worn casually around my neck, we got out of the car and ventured into a beautiful local park that sits on the banks of the River Earn.

As the rain got heavier, I did briefly question the weather sealing on the X100VI. The thought crossed my mind that it would be a bad omen if the weather broke my camera on my very first outing here — but I needn’t have worried. The Fuji performed flawlessly, which is more than I can say for me. To ensure your X100VI is fully weather sealed like mine, see my Fuji X100VI accessories post.

Shaking off the rust

I haven’t really picked up a camera for at least six weeks and it took me a little time to get back into the swing of things.

My eye was slow to spot compositions, I fumbled slightly with the controls because my hands aren’t used to the cold anymore, and I pushed the limits of Fuji’s IBIS further than I should have with shutter speeds I remember being able to handhold years ago but perhaps can’t any longer.

But what stood out to me wasn’t the photos I took — it was the absolute contentment I felt simply walking again, camera in hand, my daughter by my side, and the sounds of nature all around us.

Realising we now live here

This move from the Philippines has been one of the most stressful experiences of my life. I’ve been juggling things that I simply can’t write about here.

But in those moments by the River Earn — watching the water thunder downstream while Sofia threw pine cones in and raced them along — it really dawned on me for the first time since landing that we now live here, in this beautiful country, and that this is where our future will be.

Why the X100VI mattered today

The X100VI was the perfect camera for today.

It gets out of your way when you just want to be immersed in your surroundings, yet still lets you take photographs when the moment appears. No swapping lenses, no agonising over focal lengths — just you, the camera, and the world in front of you.

That’s why it was the first camera I picked up, and why I’ll continue using it for a long time.

Looking ahead

In the coming weeks and months I’ll gradually start getting out more with various cameras.

But a recurring theme in my life is that when I simply want to capture moments — without being burdened by choice — the X100VI is the tool I reach for. Whether documenting places my dad loved in Devon, or Sofia and my new life here on the edge of the Scottish Highlands, the X100VI has been a dependable companion that just gets out of the way.

I own both the Fujifilm X100VI and the Ricoh GR IV, and I’ve also shot extensively with the Ricoh GR III. Recently, I’ve been using the GR IV quite a lot and spent time comparing it directly to the GR III. While it is a better camera overall, I’ll be honest — the updates feel a little underwhelming, especially given how strong the GR III already was.

I’ve been shooting with the X100VI since I pre-ordered it, and it has firmly taken on the “bring-it-everywhere” role in my kit. That said, it’s simply not as small as the GR series. It’s also more expensive, harder to get hold of, and — despite being compact — asks more of you in terms of size and commitment.

So the question is obvious: can the Ricoh GR IV replace the X100VI? And is it actually the better compact camera? If you want to see which compact cameras are the best heading in to 2026 then I’ve written a full article on just that subject.

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 lets me keep creating free content. Thank you.

Size, Handling, and Everyday Carry

I’m going to cut straight to the chase here: these cameras simply don’t function in the same way.

The Ricoh GR IV is genuinely pocketable. It’s tiny and slips into almost any pocket without effort. You can take it out with you and genuinely forget it’s even there. This has nothing to do with style or how the camera looks — it’s about always having a camera on you for everyday life, or being as unobtrusive as possible to get shots you simply wouldn’t if you’d left your camera at home.

In my view, the X100VI is not this kind of camera. While it is relatively small — and some people say it fits comfortably in their pockets — it doesn’t fit in any of mine. It’s also too nice an object for me to want to squeeze it in alongside keys and other items. This is a camera that asks to be carried with a bit more care.

That’s because it offers more in terms of the shooting experience. The X100VI has a hybrid optical/electronic viewfinder, dedicated physical dials for shutter speed, ISO, and aperture, and a beautifully machined tilting rear LCD. All of that makes it more engaging to use, but it also means there’s a greater level of commitment involved in taking it out with you. It’s not a “throw it in your pocket and forget about it until you need it” kind of camera.

That said, it is compact and lightweight enough to be far more suitable as an everyday carry camera than most interchangeable-lens systems.

Which camera is actually “better” really comes down to how you plan to use it, and a set of very personal preferences around how you like to shoot. What I will say is this: both cameras are excellent at what they’re designed to do — they just approach the problem from completely different directions.

Viewfinder vs Screen-Only Shooting

The Ricoh GR IV uses the same rear LCD screen as the GR III. It’s perfectly usable in dull to normal light, but here in the Philippines — especially in bright sunlight — I do sometimes struggle to see the screen clearly enough to compose precisely. You can work around it by finding a bit of shade or adjusting how you hold the camera, but it does make accurate composition more difficult at times.

The screen is also fixed, so if you want to shoot from more unusual angles you either have to move your body into position or shoot blindly and hope you get what you want. It’s not a huge issue — and, as I’ve said, there are workarounds — but it does affect how fluid and precise the shooting experience feels.

The X100VI, by contrast, offers a completely different way of working. Its hybrid optical/electronic viewfinder allows me to immerse myself far more fully in the act of photographing, and I find I’m simply more accurate with my compositions when shooting through a viewfinder. The tilting rear screen also makes low- or high-angle shots much easier without resorting to guesswork.

Shooting via an LCD screen feels more casual to me. That’s not a criticism — some people will actively prefer that approach. But if, like me, you value immersion and precision in how you frame your images, the X100VI’s viewfinder makes a meaningful difference. Others will feel the exact opposite, and that’s perfectly valid too.

Autofocus and Responsiveness

Neither the Ricoh GR IV nor the Fujifilm X100VI is known for lightning-fast autofocus, but both are more than capable of getting the shot in most everyday situations.

This is an area where the GR IV has improved significantly over the GR III. In daylight, autofocus is now genuinely usable as long as your subjects aren’t moving too quickly. I can, for example, get sharp photos of Sofia playing at the playground — just not when she’s racing around at full speed. The camera can keep up with casual movement, but not fast, unpredictable action.

The X100VI is a little better, but it’s not in a different league. It won’t suddenly let you track fast-moving subjects with confidence, and neither camera is designed for that kind of shooting. If your main priority is reliable subject tracking at speed, neither of these is the right tool.

Low-light autofocus is where the gap widens.

On a recent trip to Dumaguete, the GR IV struggled noticeably at night. In a poorly lit restaurant, it hunted back and forth repeatedly and often took multiple attempts to lock focus. In that scenario, I’d estimate my focus hit rate was around one in four — workable if you’re patient, but far from ideal.

The X100VI isn’t fast in low light either, but it does perform noticeably better. Focus acquisition is more reliable, and the f/2 lens helps here compared to the GR IV’s f/2.8, giving the camera a small but meaningful advantage when light levels drop.

In terms of overall responsiveness, the X100VI always felt quicker than the GR III, but the GR IV has clearly caught up. Menu navigation, changing settings, and general operation now feel much more modern. Both cameras feel responsive, efficient, and up to date in everyday use.

28mm vs 35mm Equivalent: Lens and Focal Length Philosophy

I want to start this section by saying something that often gets overlooked in comparisons like this: image quality really isn’t a deciding factor between these two cameras, at least in my opinion.

Both use very good APS-C sensors — the Ricoh GR IV with 26 megapixels and the Fujifilm X100VI with 40 megapixels. On paper, that gives the X100VI a slight advantage for cropping, which may matter to some people. In reality, the difference is far smaller than it sounds. I’ve printed images from both, and I’d wager that 90% of people wouldn’t be able to tell the difference based on image quality alone.

Where these cameras genuinely differ is focal length and field of view.

The Ricoh GR IV uses an 18mm lens (28mm full-frame equivalent), while the X100VI is built around a 23mm lens (35mm equivalent). That might not sound like much — after all, what’s a few millimetres between friends — but in real-world shooting, the difference is very noticeable.

The 28mm equivalent field of view lets a lot more into the frame, which means you need to be much more careful about what’s happening around the edges. It encourages you to move closer and immerse yourself in the scene, but it also demands greater awareness of perspective and distortion, particularly when people are involved. For street and travel photography, it’s incredibly popular for good reason — but unless you’re being deliberate, it’s not the most flattering focal length for people.

The X100VI’s 35mm equivalent, on the other hand, is just that bit narrower, and that makes it more flexible. It can still give a wide, expansive feel when needed, but it’s far easier to include people in your images without worrying as much about distortion or exaggerated verticals. It’s simply more forgiving.

Personally, I like both — but for different reasons.

I tend to enjoy 28mm for Alex Webb–style compositions, where you’re consciously organising multiple elements in the frame and creating depth. It asks more of you as a photographer, and nailing a composition takes work, but when it comes together the results can be exceptional. The 35mm equivalent of the X100VI, though, is easier to live with day to day and works well across a broader range of subjects and situations but if you’re not deliberate, images can stray into feeling a little safe and boring.

Ultimately, this is one of the most important differences between these two cameras, and it really does come down to personal preference and how you like to see the world.

Who Each Camera Is Really For

Ultimately, I think this matters far more than whether one camera is slightly better than the other at autofocus or low-light performance. In my view, these are the two best compact cameras available today — but they suit different people and different styles of photography.

The Ricoh GR IV is, for me, the perfect everyday carry camera. It’s especially well suited to photographers who already shoot with a full mirrorless system but don’t want to haul that kit around everywhere just in case they see something worth photographing. It’s so compact, yet still offers the things we actually care about — excellent image quality, full manual control, and a now-improved lens — that you can simply slip it into a pocket and take it everywhere.

The GR IV’s appeal lies in its minimalism. There’s no fuss, no excess, no attempt to be anything other than a tool that does its job quietly and efficiently. It prioritises function over form, and for many photographers, that’s exactly what they want from a second camera.

The Fujifilm X100VI, while capable of filling a similar role, is better suited to photographers who value the shooting experience as much as the utility of having a light, compact camera with them. The physical dials, the hybrid viewfinder, and the overall design create a very different relationship with the camera — one where form and function are balanced rather than purely utilitarian. Let’s not forget that it also offers a built in flash and a 4-stop ND filter compared with the GRIV’s 2 stop ND.

I wouldn’t slip the X100VI into my pocket and grab shots in quite the same carefree way I do with the Ricoh. But I can see the X100VI satisfying me as an only camera — and it has, in the past. The X100T was my sole camera for over a year, and I never felt limited by it.

The GR IV’s higher launch price compared to the GR III brings it closer to the X100VI financially, which makes the choice more nuanced than it once was. If I were advising a friend, my recommendation would be simple:

• As a second camera to a larger system — something genuinely compact for everyday carry — the Ricoh GR IV is hard to beat, provided you’re happy shooting without a viewfinder.
• As a single do-everything camera, one that delivers strong results while also making the act of photographing enjoyable and immersive, I’d recommend the Fujifilm X100VI.

Neither choice is wrong — but they’re right for different people.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the Ricoh GR IV better than the Fujifilm X100VI?

Neither camera is objectively “better” — they’re designed for different purposes. The Ricoh GR IV is ideal as a genuinely pocketable everyday carry camera, while the Fujifilm X100VI is better suited as a primary camera with a viewfinder, physical dials, and greater overall versatility.

Can the Ricoh GR IV replace the Fujifilm X100VI?

For most photographers, no. The GR IV works extremely well as a second camera but lacks a viewfinder, tilting screen, built-in flash, and the immersive handling that makes the X100VI suitable as an only camera.

Which camera is better for travel photography?

If you want something you can carry everywhere without thinking, the Ricoh GR IV is hard to beat. If you want one camera that can comfortably handle street, people, landscapes, and low-light situations, the Fujifilm X100VI is the more versatile option.

Is 28mm or 35mm better for photographing people?

The 35mm equivalent lens of the X100VI is generally more forgiving for people photography, with less distortion and easier composition. The Ricoh’s 28mm equivalent works well for immersive street photography but requires greater care with framing.

Does the Fujifilm X100VI have better image quality than the Ricoh GR IV?

In real-world use, image quality is very similar. Both cameras use high-quality APS-C sensors, and most differences come down to focal length, handling, and shooting style rather than outright image quality.