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.