It’s been a long time since I’ve used a Tokina lens. I actually owned multiple Tokina wide angle zooms back in my time as a photographer before I became a reviewer. Tokina has released relatively few lenses in the mirrorless era, and I hadn’t ever really built a relationship with the company, so I actually have not done any Tokina reviews. But late in 2024 they reached out to me about the possibility of reviewing their upcoming wide angle zoom for Fuji X-mount – the Tokina ATX-M 11-18mm F2.8 – and I readily agreed to do so out of interest to see the state of their development. The E-mount version of this lens was their first wide angle zoom for mirrorless cameras, and they’ve made a few minor tweaks to the formula here to produce an even more useful zoom lens. There are some strong competitors in this segment, so does the ATX-M 11-18mm stand out in any way? Find out by watching the video review, reading the text review, or just enjoy the wintry photos in the gallery below!
Thanks to Tokina for sending me a review copy of this lens. As always, this is a completely independent review. All opinions and conclusions are my own.I’m doing this review on a 40MP Fujifilm X-H2 camera.You can visit the product page for the ATX-M 11-18mm here.
A few of the basics first. This is an APS-C lens designed for mirrorless cameras only, and this review is of the Fuji X-mount version of the lens. The APS-C crop factor of Fuji’s XF cameras is 1.5, giving the ATX 11-18mm a full frame equivalent zoom range of 16.5-27mm; not dissimilar to Tamron’s 17-28mm F2.8 full frame zoom, which I reviewed here. It’s not a big range, obviously, but it does cover a lot of the key wide angle framing options, going from this at 11mm:
…to this at 18mm:
The ATX-M 11-18mm has a constant maximum aperture of F2.8, making it useful in a variety of lighting conditions.
Some of the chief competitors among other third party brands include:
Sigma 10-18mm F2.8 DN (my review here). The Sigma has a slightly larger zoom range (1 extra millimeter on the wide end), but also has more vignette and distortion.
The Tamron 11-20mm F2.8 RXD (my review here). The Tamron also has a slightly longer zoom range, with an extra 2mm on the long end. It has the highest MSRP ($899 USD) of the three, though it looks like Tamron may have permanently dropped the price to $659.
I quite like both of those lenses, and while Tokina isn’t quite as well known as either of those brands, the ATX-M 11-18mm does provide a credible alternative to them, with very nice image quality and great Kenko optical glass colors.
And, while the initial MSRP for the lens is $699 USD, the E-mount version is currently retailing for considerably less and undercuts both the Tamron and Sigma in price. If that sounds potentially interesting, check out my reviews linked above…or just enjoy the photos here.
Keywords: Tokina ATX-M 11-18mm F2.8, Tokina, ATX-M, 11-18mm, F2.8, Tokina 11-18mm X, Wide Angle, Zoom, Pancake, Chip, Fuji, Fujifilm, X-mount, XF, Review, Hands On, Dustin Abbott, Real World, Comparison, Sharpness, Bokeh, Flare Resistance, Autofocus, Image Quality, Sample Images, Video, Photography, let the light in, weathersealing, #letthelightin, DA
DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
It’s been a long time since I’ve used a Tokina lens. I actually owned multiple Tokina wide angle zooms back in my time as a photographer before I became a reviewer. Tokina has released relatively few lenses in the mirrorless era, and I hadn’t ever really built a relationship with the company, so I actually have not done any Tokina reviews. But late in 2024 they reached out to me about the possibility of reviewing their upcoming wide angle zoom for Fuji X-mount – the Tokina ATX-M 11-18mm F2.8 – and I readily agreed to do so out of interest to see the state of their development. The E-mount version of this lens was their first wide angle zoom for mirrorless cameras, and they’ve made a few minor tweaks to the formula here to produce an even more useful zoom lens. There are some strong competitors in this segment, so does the ATX-M 11-18mm stand out in any way? Find out by watching the video review or reading on in the text review below!
Thanks to Tokina for sending me a review copy of this lens. As always, this is a completely independent review. All opinions and conclusions are my own.I’m doing this review on a 40MP Fujifilm X-H2 camera.You can visit the product page for the ATX-M 11-18mm here.
A few of the basics first. This is an APS-C lens designed for mirrorless cameras only, and this review is of the Fuji X-mount version of the lens. The APS-C crop factor of Fuji’s XF cameras is 1.5, giving the ATX 11-18mm a full frame equivalent zoom range of 16.5-27mm; not dissimilar to Tamron’s 17-28mm F2.8 full frame zoom, which I reviewed here. It’s not a big range, obviously, but it does cover a lot of the key wide angle framing options, going from this at 11mm:
…to this at 18mm:
The ATX-M 11-18mm has a constant maximum aperture of F2.8, making it useful in a variety of lighting conditions.
Some of the chief competitors among other third party brands include:
Sigma 10-18mm F2.8 DN (my review here). The Sigma has a slightly larger zoom range (1 extra millimeter on the wide end), but also has more vignette and distortion.
The Tamron 11-20mm F2.8 RXD (my review here). The Tamron also has a slightly longer zoom range, with an extra 2mm on the long end. It has the highest MSRP ($899 USD) of the three, though it looks like Tamron may have permanently dropped the price to $659.
I quite like both of those lenses, and while Tokina isn’t quite as well known as either of those brands, the ATX-M 11-18mm does provide a credible alternative to them, with very nice image quality and great Kenko optical glass colors.
And, while the initial MSRP for the lens is $599 USD, the E-mount version is currently retailing for considerably less and undercuts both the Tamron and Sigma in price. Sound interesting? Let’s take a closer look.
Tokina 11-18mm F2.8 Build and Handling
The Tokina lenses that I owned back in the day had a very dated look (by modern standards), but I’m actually very partial to the design language of the ATX-M 11-18mm, which looks both modern and premium.
The lens features a lightly flocked barrel made of metal and engineered plastic components. Both the zoom and focus rings have tight ribs and a flush rather than raised design. There are arguments to be made that a raised ring may have better ergonomics, but I would say that aesthetically this design looks very clean to me. The build quality feels a bit more upscale than the Tamron and more akin to the Sigma. One negative aspect of the tighter ribbing is that it isn’t unusual to find a bit of dust and lint caught in the ribs. I noticed that even in the product photos from reviews of the Sony E-mount version of the lens.
Not a big deal, but an observation nonetheless.
One unusual design choice is that the lens hood has a somewhat rough texture on the outside but is smooth inside, which is pretty much opposite of most designs.
You can see that the hood itself is quite large, and it definitely adds to the overall size of the lens. While it doesn’t have a lock on it, it does click into place very definitely and stays well locked into place.
A design element here that I do prefer is that while the Sigma and Tamron lenses have a section that extends forward slightly while zooming (that the lens hood is attached to), the Tokina has a very slight extension of the inner barrel which doesn’t affect the area of the lens barrel where the hood bayonets on.
That inner barrel extension is longest at 11mm and fully retracted at 18mm:
But what I like is that if you have the lens hood in place (as I typically do), then that little bit of extension happens within the confines of the lens hood, and the physical dimensions of the lens do not change. From the outside the lens’ length looks the same at all times, and because the lens hood isn’t moving in and out, it also means that the lens will maintain a more consistent balance (important if you were using it on a gimbal, for example).
The Tokina ATX-M 11-18mm F2.8 falls in between the Sigma and Tamron lenses in size. It is 74.4mm (2.9″) in both diameter and length, making it very slightly wider than the other two lenses but 10mm longer than the Sigma and 12mm shorter than the Tamron. The weight is 320g (11.28oz), making it a fair bit heavier than the Sigma (+70g) but slightly lighter (-15g) than the Tamron.
There are obviously smaller and lighter choices like the Sigma, but this is still a very lightweight and portable lens that I found very easy to bring along. It is definitely lighter than the average for the class, though, to be fair, it also has the smallest zoom range.
The zoom ring has each focal length marked. Competing lenses go by twos or skip certain focal lengths. The Tokina has a smaller zoom range, obviously, so there is room for all 8 options to be marked. The zoom ring itself is excellent. It zooms very smoothly and almost feels like an internally zooming lens.
The weight/damping of the manual focus ring is a bit light, but, more importantly, there is very little focus throw. I found it hard to focus outside of a meter, as there is only a few degrees of rotation between one meter and infinity. Let’s just say that this works much better as an autofocus lens!
Up front we have a 67mm front filter thread, which appears to be the standard for these type lenses (all three have a 67mm front filter thread).
At the back of the lens we find one key upgrade over the E-mount version: there is now a weather sealing gasket! While Tokina doesn’t mention other internal seals, the addition of the gasket at the lens mount helps a lot. The Sigma is similar with just a mount gasket, but the Tamron and Fuji 10-24mm WR both have more thorough weather sealing with internal seals as well.
We also find a USB port for firmware updates located on the lens mount, which I always appreciate. For some reason they elected to go with the older micro-USB standard (USB-B) rather than the now ubiquitous USB-C port I’m finding on essentially all modern lenses so equipped.
Nonetheless, I’m very happy the port is there to help to keep the lens future proofed.
Tokina is a Japanese company whose products are built in Japan, which isn’t always the case these days.
The lens does not have optical stabilization built in, which is also true for the F2.8 competitors as well at the moment. It does have proper communication to the camera and Tokina claims full compatibility with such Fuji features as image stabilization (if your camera is so equipped), MF assist, and optical corrections including vignette, chromatic aberrations, and distortion.
The minimum focus distances varies depending on whether you are shooting on the wide end (19cm) or telephoto end (30cm). The higher magnification comes on the wide end, though you have to be very close to your subject to achieve it. Tokina cites a very low 0.08x on the telephoto end and a slightly better 0.11x on the wide end.
Here’s what that looks like out in the real world, and also gives you an idea of the kind of background blur you can achieve (not much!)
This is one area where the competing lenses are all superior.
The addition of the weather sealing gasket is a real boon here, and I really liked the handling of the Tokina ATX-M 11-18mm F2.8 X. It was fun to use and presented no complications to me out in the field. I would have liked a better close focus performance, but that’s not really what I buy wide angle lenses for anyway.
Autofocus for Stills
The Tokina ATX-M 11-18mm is equipped with an STM focus motor. I’m always a little concerned when testing third party lenses (and sometimes first party lenses!) on Fuji, as their autofocus system is less sophisticated (at the present) than competing brands. Fortunately the ATX-M 11-18mm survives the porting to Fuji very nicely. The speed of the focus motor is quick and confident, with near immediate transitions from foreground to background subjects.
Wide angle lenses are not the best for eye tracking, as often the eye doesn’t occupy a large enough portion of the frame to track unless you are close to the subject, but when I was close enough, the green box locked onto the eye and tracked fine.
But eye tracking is less necessary when the subject is a bit further away, as pretty much everything will be in focus at that point with a wide angle lens.
I shot the photo below of snowmobilers zipping by, but it wasn’t difficult to nail focus because so much was in focus.
There is basically no focus sound even with my ear near the barrel, though there will be a light clicking if you let on and off the shutter as the aperture blades open and close.
One other important thing is that the lens focused well even when stopped down to landscape apertures, with no hunting or pulsing. That was true even when shooting into a strongly backlit scene.
In short, I was very pleasantly surprised by the autofocus performance for stills. Focus was quick, quiet, and confident, leaving me nothing really to complain about…so I won’t.
Video Autofocus
The video side of things was also quite good. This tends to be the weakest link in the Fuji autofocus chain, and I did see a few of the typical “Fuji quirks”, but they were rather muted. Focus pulls were generally very good, with no visible steps in the main pull, though I did see a final adjustment after the focus area was reached. It’s as if the Fuji focus algorithms tend to second guess themselves. It was relatively minor, however, and far less than what I’ve seen on many other lenses. I would say that this test was mostly similar to what I saw from the Sigma 10-18 and better than what I saw from the Tamron 11-20mm.
There is a bit of focus breathing, but nothing severe.
My “hand test” where I alternately block the camera’s view of my face with my hand and then remove it went mostly well. The lens successfully transferred focus from my hand to my eye and back, though those focus pulls weren’t remarkably well damped, so they felt very slightly abrupt.
Real world focus transitions seemed fine, and one big deal to me is that I didn’t see any focus slipping and readjusting as I zoomed in and out. Some lenses (the Sigma 18-50mm F2.8, for example) are guilty of a lot of warping and focus adjustments while zooming, but that’s not the case here.
Focus was stable in static shots as well. I did notice a bit more shaking in my footage, but that could be because it has been incredibly cold this winter and I may just be shaking a bit more!
Image Quality Breakdown
The optical formula is 13 elements in 11 groups with 4 of those elements being special elements (2 SD elements and two different types of aspherical lenses). The MTF shows a very sharp center, extremely good mid-frame, and softer corners at F2.8 and 11mm, while 18mm shows a fairly steady slide from center to corners and a slightly less sharp performance all around.
I’m always a little concerned when testing zoom lenses on the X-H2, as the 40MP sensor on cameras like my Fujifilm X-H2 is the most demanding platform that I test on. It has the pixel density equivalence of more than 90MP on full frame, which of course doesn’t exist at the time of this review. It tends to really, really punish any optical weaknesses. I did see some of that at 18mm (particularly at wider apertures), but I’m happy to report that in general I found real world sharpness to be very good.
I felt like the real world “bite” of images was good, which is really important in a wide angle zoom where a lot will be in focus and you want the details to look crisp.
Wide angle lenses rarely have an issue with LoCA (longitudinal chromatic aberrations) as depth of field is fairly large, and that is the case here. I see mostly neutral results on either side of the plane of focus without any fringing.
Far more common in wide lenses is LaCA (lateral chromatic aberrations), and frankly I really dislike them because they tend to make corners look more mushy and less clean. That proves to be another area of strength, however, with little evidence of fringing around the black and white transitions.
I can turn off corrections and still find the edges of the frame unaffected by LaCA in real world shots.
The Sigma is really rough in the distortion and vignette department on the wide end, with very strong amounts of barrel distortion and enough vignette to require maxing out the sliders. Both the Tokina and Tamron fare better by not attempting to go as wide, and both of them show a much milder amount of distortion at 11mm.
I used a +9 to correct for the mild barrel distortion, and it corrected fairly cleanly even with a manual correction. Vignette was still pretty heavy, however, requiring a +85 to manually correct.
The telephoto end features much milder vignette and distortion, with a touch of pincushion distortion (-4 to correct) and much less vignette (+54 to correct).
As noted, these figures are close to what we saw on the Tamron, but the ATX-M 11-18mm definitely outperforms the Sigma in these areas.
So now the crucial look at resolution and contrast. The lens performed fairly well in the reviews I’ve seen on the lower resolution Sony APS-C sensor, but this high resolution Fuji sensor is a completely different challenge. This test has been done on a 40MP X-H2 sensor. I use a high end tripod and two second camera delay to ensure vibration doesn’t affect images. Here’s a look at the test chart that we will examine at high magnification:
If we take a look at 11mm crops (at 200%) at F2.8 from the center, mid-frame, and lower right corner, we find that as the MTF suggested the center is excellent, the mid-frame is good, and the corners are fairly good except for the last little bit.
Contrast is noticeably improved when stopped down to F4:
By F5.6 the corners are looking quite good.
In general I found that real world landscape images were nicely sharp in the center and mid-frame, but the corner sharpness was unimpressive to me.
In this case I actually found that stepping on down to F8 and even F11 in real world images were worthwhile in getting even sharpness, though I didn’t necessarily didn’t feel the same when just viewing my chart.
Landscapes at smaller apertures look pretty consistently great at F8 (F9 here).
Diffraction on a very high resolution body comes early and hits hard. By F11 you’ll start to see some softening, but that becomes painfully obvious at F16 and F22. Physics definitely affects smaller apertures on a high resolution body, as you can see here:
My recommendation is to avoid F16 and smaller apertures regardless of the lens you are using on a 40MP APS-C sensor.
I went back and compared my 11mm F5.6 results from the Tokina with the 10mm F5.6 results from the Sigma 10-18mm. I honestly could not really call a winner. They were very close all across the frame. That’s great for the Tokina, as I think the Sigma is a very strong lens.
Moving on to the middle of the zoom range brings a more consistent sharpness across the frame, starting in the middle:
There’s an even more noticeable difference in the corners.
Landscape images at 14mm look nice and crisp. No real complaints there.
Before moving on to 18mm, I do want to give some perspective for those using the lower resolution 26MP sensor. There are advantages to the higher resolution sensor, but one potential downside is that it makes lenses like this look at a little softer…at least at a pixel level. If I downscale one of these images to the 6244 x 4163 pixel resolution of the 26MP sensor, sharpness and contrast at 1:1 pixel level appears higher. This gives you an idea of performance on your camera.
Moving on to 18mm we will find some optical regression which is more pronounced wide open. The center looks softer than what we saw at the peak of 14mm:
The falloff in the corners is more pronounced.
The good news is that there is a much more dramatic improvement when stopping down. F4 and then F5.6 all look considerably sharper. Here, for example, we can see a significant improvement from F2.8 to F5.6 in the mid-frame.
F8 looks quite good across the frame, though corners are good, not great. I would recommend shooting at smaller apertures if you want consistent sharpness across the frame.
When shooting at F2.8 but composing in the center, the results look good.
My conclusion is that 18mm is the weakest part of the zoom range, but it’s not terrible. I went back and compared to my results from the Sigma 10-18mm and found that (at 18mm) the Tokina was sharper in the center but the Sigma was sharper everywhere else at F2.8. With both lenses stopped down to F5.6, the results are largely similar across the frame.
In short, sharpness is competitiveness with the other main players in this class, so no complaints there.
Bokeh is not really going to be a significant asset here. There are essentially three paths to creating strong defocus (four, if you include tilt!). Those are A) long focal length B) fast maximum aperture or C) close focus abilities. The closest the ATX-M 11-18mm comes is in the “fast maximum aperture” category, and frankly F2.8 on APS-C isn’t particularly fast…particularly when coupled with wide angle focal lengths. I’ve demonstrated peak bokeh earlier in the review, but here’s a more typical shot that shows that even with the background being distant it still isn’t strongly blurred out.
I didn’t see anything objectionable about the bokeh; I just didn’t see much of it!
I was generally satisfied with flare resistance…particularly on the wide end. When shooting at F2.8, the flare resistance at 11mm is solid, but 18mm shows more general ghosting and some loss of contrast.
When you stop the lens down at either position, the results are generally more favorable, with deep contrast, though 18mm still shows more ghosting artifacts.
Most often you’ll be shooting between those two extremes in terms of aperture, however, and in real world shots I generally found that I could compose with impunity and get good results.
I always like to test wide angle lenses for coma if possible and to see how they’ll handle something like astrophotography. I mostly saw good results here, with a little elongating of the star points near the edge of the frame (image 3 below), but no “wings” growing out of them.
Generally this was a solid optical performance, with no fatal flaws. I was obviously shooting in cold, winter conditions (not the most colorful season!), but I found that color saturation and color tone were still very nice. Images had a certain pristine quality that appealed to me.
I wouldn’t say that the Tokina ATX-M is necessarily optically better than either the Tamron or the Sigma, as there is definitely give and take between the three lenses. The Tokina does have lower amounts of distortion and vignette than the Sigma, so that’s one key advantage. In short, however, if you choose the Tokina you can be assured that you are choosing a lens that performs among the very best in the class. You can see more images in the gallery here.
Conclusion
Good wide angle zooms are invaluable lenses, allowing you to get a very wide perspective for shooting landscapes, interiors, and even the night sky. The Tokina ATX-M 11-18mm F2.8 is a great addition to Fuji X-mount lineup, giving a third reasonably priced alternative to premium options like the Fujinon XF 8-16mm F2.8 ($1500!) or the XF 10-24mm F4 OIS ($1000). Fuji doesn’t have a native wide angle zoom with a constant F2.8 aperture under $1000, and so that opens up a huge lane for lenses like the ATX-M 11-18mm, which goes plenty wide for most people.
The Tokina was a great match for going out and capturing winter landscapes, with a weather sealing gasket and a tough build quality that never faltered in the -20 conditions.
I’ve liked images that I’ve gotten with the lens and look forward to shooting in future seasons that are a bit less bleak. It was easy to shoot with in the field, and I particularly appreciate that fact that all zoom extension takes place behind the hood, allowing the lens to practically behave more like an internally zooming lens. Some Fuji shooters may be put off by the lack of an aperture ring, but is that ring worth spending an additional $400-900? I suspect the answer is no, and since none of the other third party wide angle zooms have an aperture ring either, Tokina is probably on safe ground here. The biggest disadvantage for the ATX-M 11-18mm F2.8 is that it has the smallest zoom range of the competing lenses, but it does compensate with nice build, excellent autofocus performance, and very good optical performance…even on the demanding Fuji 40MP sensor. All in all, the Tokina ATX-M 11-18mm F2.8 X is well worth considering if you’re looking for a wide angle zoom for your Fuji camera.
Pros:
Nice physical design
The addition of a weather sealing gasket for X-mount
Very smooth zoom action
Zoom extension happens behind hood
USB port for firmware updates
Smooth, fast autofocus
Fairly good video AF performance
Low distortion
Low chromatic aberrations
Good wide open sharpness throughout much of the range
Keywords: Tokina ATX-M 11-18mm F2.8, Tokina, ATX-M, 11-18mm, F2.8, Tokina 11-18mm X, Wide Angle, Zoom, Pancake, Chip, Fuji, Fujifilm, X-mount, XF, Review, Hands On, Dustin Abbott, Real World, Comparison, Sharpness, Bokeh, Flare Resistance, Autofocus, Image Quality, Sample Images, Video, Photography, let the light in, weathersealing, #letthelightin, DA
DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
The Godox V100 is in many ways an update to their first round head flash (the V1) that they released in 2019. This is a modernized and vastly improved flash unit that thoroughly impressed me. This is one the best value premium flashes I’ve ever seen at roughly $350, and well worth your consideration. You can get my full thoughts and demonstrations in my video review, or look at a summary of my findings in this article.
Thanks to Godox for sending me a review sample. As always, this is a completely independent review. All thoughts and opinions expressed here are my own.
This is the first on camera flash unit with a power output of 100Ws, which is truly impressive. We are now getting into the territory of Godox’s off camera AD series (the AD100), and to have all of the additional controls and options here (TTL, command unit, etc…) in addition to having the receiver capabilities of the AD series makes this an amazing value.
Lets start by looking at the long list of upgrades from the V1:
Upgrades from the V1
Improved airflow for cooling (motorized)
Improved modeling light – brighter and now have kelvin control
New bare bulb head (with modeling light)
Group color indicator – better visual indications (red light)
I’ve gotten a lot of use from the V1 flashes over the years, and the V100 is a really solid upgrade. Great power output, good battery life, and ever improving TTL performance. Godox flashes work great, and the V100 seems to work better than ever, with more thoughtful features, better usability, and more power. A LOT of flash for $349, and a better option than something like the AD100 series if you need on camera flash at times or TTL for a command unit.
DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
In September of 2024 I released a review of the Viltrox AF 28mm F4.5 “Chip” lens for Sony E-mount. One of the most common requests I got in the responses to my review was for a Fuji X-mount version. I found that interesting, as the “Chip” (Viltrox’s name for the lens) is a full frame lens. But I found that when I was recently reviewing the new Fujifilm X-M5 I actually wished for a lens like this one that would make a compact camera like that truly pocketable. And, the truth of the matter is that in many ways I found using the new X-mount version of the Viltrox AF 28mm F4.5 a lot like using the X100VI with its fixed 23mm F2 lens. When paired with the right body (something smaller than my X-H2!), the little 28mm F4.5X makes for a truly portable experience. But how does the autofocus and image quality hold up in the transition to Fuji? Find out in the video review, the text review, or just check out the photos in the galleries.
Thanks to Viltrox for sending me a review copy of this lens. As always, this is a completely independent review. All opinions and conclusions are my own.I’m doing this review on a 40MP Fujifilm X-H2 camera.You can visit the product page for the 28mm F4.5 here.
This is a welcome addition to the Fuji X-mount platform despite this being a full frame lens. There are some advantages that do come with that, as I break down in the reviews. Enjoy the photos in the galleries below.
Keywords: Viltrox, Viltrox AF, Viltrox 28mm, Normal, Full Frame, APS-C F4.5, f/4.5, VCM, Viltrox AF 28mm F4.5 E, Viltrox 28mm Review, Viltrox AF 28mm F4.5 X Review, VCM, Pancake, Chip, Fuji, Fujifilm, X-mount, XF, Review, Hands On, Dustin Abbott, Real World, Comparison, Sharpness, Bokeh, Flare Resistance, Autofocus, Image Quality, Sample Images, Video, Photography, let the light in, weathersealing, #letthelightin, DA
DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
In September of 2024 I released a review of the Viltrox AF 28mm F4.5 “Chip” lens for Sony E-mount. One of the most common requests I got in the responses to my review was for a Fuji X-mount version. I found that interesting, as the “Chip” (Viltrox’s name for the lens) is a full frame lens. But I found that when I was recently reviewing the new Fujifilm X-M5 I actually wished for a lens like this one that would make a compact camera like that truly pocketable. And, the truth of the matter is that in many ways I found using the new X-mount version of the Viltrox AF 28mm F4.5 a lot like using the X100VI with its fixed 23mm F2 lens. When paired with the right body (something smaller than my X-H2!), the little 28mm F4.5X makes for a truly portable experience. But how does the autofocus and image quality hold up in the transition to Fuji? Find out in the video review or just read on in the text review.
Thanks to Viltrox for sending me a review copy of this lens. As always, this is a completely independent review. All opinions and conclusions are my own.I’m doing this review on a 40MP Fujifilm X-H2 camera.You can visit the product page for the 28mm F4.5 here.
I’ve already given this lens a thorough review, so I will update this review in the relevant sections with some update images and observations on the unique performance on Fuji.
This a very different kind of lens for Viltrox, as producing a lens this thin means that there are some things that will have to be compromised. For many such lenses, what gets sacrificed is image quality along with functionality. While the functionality is a little different here, but the image quality really isn’t. There’s something about this lens that really seems to fit the whole Fuji ethos.
But at the least, the functionality is different. This is the first “fixed aperture” lens for Viltrox, in that the 28mm F4.5X is always F4.5. Not bigger, not smaller. No aperture ring or aperture control from within camera. Aperture is fixed at F4.5.
There also isn’t any manual focus here. Whereas the only smaller lens that I’ve ever reviewed was manual focus only (the Brightin Star 28mm F2.8), the Viltrox 28mm Chip is autofocus only. There is no manual focus ring. Fortunately autofocus is good enough that you probably won’t miss it, and, frankly, the lens is so compact that there just isn’t room for any rings on the barrel; it’s shorter than the grip on my X-H2 (and by a good margin).
So let’s dive a little deeper into the nuts and bolts of this extremely unique new lens.
Viltrox 28mm F4.5X Build and Handling
We have to start with a consideration of focal length, as this is somewhat unique as a full frame lens that is now being marketed and sold as an APS-C lens. I noted that the front facade was slightly different as a byproduct. Let’s put the X-mount and E-mount versions side by side.
There’s a few changes. First of all, there is a distinction in the lens “Image Size” designation. The full frame lens has IMAGE SIZE 43.3mm on the front. This refers to the diagonal measurement of a full frame (36 x 24mm) sensor. This is Viltrox’s way of designating this as a full frame lens and is something I’ve seen on a number of other Viltrox lenses. The APS-C version says “APS-C Frame” instead, which is pretty obvious.
The second distinction is the minimum focus distance, which shows as 0.32m/1.05ft on the full frame, but 0.34m/1.12ft on the X-mount version. I was actually disappointed to see this, as I was hoping the APS-C lens would retain the same minimum focus distance as the full frame lens and thus get a bit of extra magnification because the focal length would act longer due to the APS-C crop. Fuji’s APS-C crop is 1.5x, which means that the 28mm full frame lens becomes a 42mm full frame equivalent lens on APS-C.
But wait a minute! That slight difference (2cm) of minimum focus distance doesn’t nearly account for the difference in focal length, so when I compare the amount of magnification, the X-mount version actually has a much higher level of magnification. I would estimate the magnification here at roughly 0.14x.
That amount of magnification is no world beater, but it does give you a little more to play with in terms of up close performance, and I would say that I actually felt the X-mount version performed a bit better up close than the Sony E-mount version.
While this lens is very small and lightweight, it isn’t because of compromised build quality. This is actually a very nicely made little lens with a retro/classic vibe to it. The closest analog that I can come up with is Nikon’s SE (Special Edition) versions of their 28mm F2.8 and 40mm F2 Z mount lenses, which have somewhat of a similar look.
This is a VERY slim lens, only a little thicker than the rear lens cap for the lens.
Most of the time I look at the camera (from the top) and wonder if I’ve remembered to attach a lens. I would consider the recent Viltrox AIR 35mm F1.7 XF lens a very compact lens, but you can see that it towers over the 28mm F4.5X:
The actual dimensions are 60.3mm in diameter (2.37″) and just 15.25mm in length (0.60″). The weight is a minimal 60g (2.11oz). You can see just how slim the lens is if I stand it up in the cap.
The mount is metal (duralumin, an aluminum alloy). The body is also made of metal and feels surprisingly premium for such an inexpensive lens. Viltrox has been able to maintain their standard of having a USB-C port in the mount to allow for firmware updates, however.
You’ll note that there is a small lever on the front of the lens. That essentially serves like a front lens cap. One direction will open the protective cover over the glass elements for shooting, the other direct will close it and protect things for storage. I have noted that the front lens element will do a focus rack inside that space when powered on, so it is probably wise to always open the hatch before powering on the camera.
There are no other “features” on the lens. No switches (autofocus only), aperture ring (fixed aperture), or other buttons. This is the ultimate grab and go lens.
The fixed aperture makes it unique. F4.5 is neither fast nor slow, and that’s kind of the point. The hope is that F4.5 is “fast enough” that it doesn’t penalize too much in low light, but also provides enough depth of field to keep enough in focus at one time as you don’t have the option to close the aperture further. I think of this more as a street/general purpose lens than a portrait lens for that reason, as depth of field will almost never be small enough to give you real subject separation.
As far as handling, the truth of the matter is that the only thing you need to handle is the lever to open or close the protective cover. The lens is small enough that you might not even touch it during operation and instead keep your hands on the camera instead.
While there is no weather sealing here, the front element has been treated with an HD nano multilayer coating that is moisture and fingerprint resistant.
While the aperture of F4.5 isn’t particularly sexy, this is a lens that makes a lot of sense on Fuji where it feels like aesthetic matters more than, say, on Sony. This is a “vibes” kind of lens, and I think it makes perfect sense on someone who likes to travel light and discrete. The Viltrox AF 28mm F4.5 X is a fun fit on Fuji.
Autofocus for Stills
The 28mm Chip was the first Viltrox lens (along with their upcoming 135mm F1.8 LAB lens) to receive a brand new autofocus system – VCM (voice-coil motor). This is similar to Tamron’s VXD focus system in being a linear style motor. It’s extremely unusual for there to be autofocus in a lens this thin, so the focus motor had to prioritize being extremely miniaturized. This is always the area I’m most concerned on when reviewing a multi-platform lens on Fuji, as I find that Fuji’s autofocus is less sophisticated, which means that third party lenses often don’t perform as well. This will be the first time that I’ve tested a Viltrox lens with a VCM motor on Fuji, and overall I found focus fairly good.
My autofocus tests showed a few things. First of all, when actually seeing the focus process taking place you become aware that there is some visible steps and pulses in the focus process. This is a bit surprising in that this VCM motor doesn’t actually have “steps” to go through, so part of this is just Fuji’s AF system, as I saw no steps when testing on Sony.
Because of the steps and the unfortunately tendency on Fuji of focus sometimes pulsing in the wrong direction, I saw slightly uneven speed in my indoor tests (where the F4.5 aperture is a bit of a limiting principle, as it cannot open wider to allow the AF system more light to work with). Focus speed was averagely fast indoors, but I noticed that it definitely picked up in speed in my outdoors test where I had more light to work with.
I felt like real world focus was largely better than what I saw in my controlled tests. It felt like focus came reasonably quick and accuracy was good. I did get at least one instance of a false positive lock where focus wasn’t really on anything, though I did the same shot right after and got the right results.
Focus accuracy is particularly important on the 28mm F4.5X as there is no manual focus option.
Fortunately I was able to get good autofocus even in close focus situations, which is also important where there is no manual focus override.
There is a faint clicking/whirring sound if you put your ear right next to the lens barrel, but if I held the camera at chest level and racked focus here and there, I couldn’t hear anything.
The bad news is that autofocus isn’t quite as good as what I saw on Sony, and that was particularly true when I compared in a controlled environment. The good news is that when I was just out shooting with the lens (as you will be doing), I actually had a positive impression of autofocus and that using the lens on Fuji wasn’t holding it back too much.
Video Autofocus
That is far less true on the video side of things. I said in my Sony E-mount review that, “…focus pulls are smooth and have a somewhat cinematic “damping” to them, in that they are not abrupt and move smoothly from one subject to another. The advantage of the VCM over an STM is shown in the absence of any visible steps in the process.” It’s actually incredible how much different focus pulls look like on Fuji. They are a series of very obvious steps, which of course slows the whole focus process down. I counted about six steps on average between the A and B focus points in my typical focus pull test, and that was true in either direction (even with the higher contrast B focus point). It’s rather disappointing. A VCM motor is not a stepping motor, so focusing in steps is not actually part of the focus motor’s function. The fact that I’ve seen this to be true on another platform only exacerbates my frustration with Fuji’s state of video autofocus.
Focus breathing is pronounced with the 28mm F4.5X, and the fact that you can see that breathing happening in obvious steps only draws your attention to it further.
My “hand test” where I alternately block the camera’s view of my face with my hand and then remove it was a little better. The 28mm Chip was reasonably reactive in moving back and forth when appropriate, though the obvious focus breathing and steps made that process a little more jarring than it needed to be.
Real world focus pulls (outdoors) have fewer obvious steps but will have noticeable focus breathing.
As with the Sony version, I did notice that my handheld results for video were a little shakier than usual. Having almost no weight at the front the camera actually makes stabilizing it a little tougher, as your supporting left hand tends to stay on the camera rather than in a forward position on the lens.
Video footage itself is interesting, as the 28mm F4.5X has an interesting optical signature. It can often be lower contrast (particularly with any side lighting), and that can have the effect of making footage look somewhat cinematic.
I didn’t expect the transition to Fuji to result in better or even equal performance to what I saw on Sony, and that was exactly what I found. Fortunately for stills work, at least, I found that autofocus worked well enough that I didn’t really think about it…so I guess we’ll call that a win?
Image Quality Breakdown
The optical formula is 6 elements in 6 groups (no grouping of elements), with 4 of those elements being special elements (including 2 ED and 2 aspherical elements). While the optical design is of course the same as what we saw on Sony, the MTF chart is different.
Here’s a little chart that I put together that shows the difference. I put a red line on the MTF point that aligns with the APS-C image circle edge. What you can see is that almost all of the optical drop-off actually comes outside the APS-C cut-off point, meaning that the 28mm F4.5X will actually be a higher performing lens at least in some ways on Fuji, though, as per usual, the 40MP sensor on cameras like my Fujifilm X-H2 is the most demanding platform that I test on. It has the pixel density equivalence of more than 90MP on full frame, which of course doesn’t exist at the time of this review.
So, while the lens must compete on a more demanding optical platform, it also gets the benefit of having the weakest area of its performance cut right off. This makes it a more viable option for shooting landscapes, for example, or for composing images where the plane of focus is near the corners. This landscape shot, for example, shows that there isn’t a significant difference between the center and edge performance.
The Viltrox AF 28mm F4.5 VCM is a very interesting lens optically. In many ways the optical performance reminds me a bit of a vintage lens. It’s as if it doesn’t have modern lens coatings, and that is for good and bad. I’ve rarely reviewed a modern lens where the “look” of the images is more dependent on the shooting situations and how you use it. It is particularly influenced by side light or a light source right out of frame. Here, for example, you can see how the whole image has “hazy” glow to it as if someone completely lifted all the black levels.
Remove the potential of that side light, and suddenly images look much higher contrast.
Here’s another example, where even the less intense winter sun on a partly overcast day caused this image to have a low contrast look.
The MTF shows us that the lens isn’t in fact low contrast; the sagittal and meridional axis are actually pretty close together. The image below I took less than a minute before the image above, but it was in a place where there was shadow and no direct light, and as a byproduct contrast is much higher.
The bottom line is that the potential lower contrast is about coatings. The nature of the lens changes according to the lighting, much like lenses in the past did before the era of modern coatings. If you happen to like the look of vintage lenses, then that may be a positive. You can get a really lovely glow in images, like this:
Bottom line is that the lens has some character, and that’s either a good or bad thing depending on your aesthetic tastes.
More on this in a moment. Let’s look at the technical side of things.
Lenses with smaller maximum apertures rarely have an issue with LoCA (longitudinal chromatic aberrations), and that is the case here. I see mostly neutral results on either side of the plane of focus without any fringing.
LaCA (lateral chromatic aberrations) fare better than they did on the full frame version of the lens for the simple reason that the most affected part of the frame (the edges) have been cut off.
I can turn off corrections and still find the edges of the frame unaffected by LaCA.
I would expect vignette to be considerably lower for similar reasons, since the area most affected by vignette has been cropped off. And it is true that vignette is slightly lower (a +62 to correct vs +77), but, as per usual, lenses designed for another platform tend to exhibit more vignette on Fuji. I suspect that number would be lower were I testing on Sony APS-C.
While the distortion is the same, I could actually do a little more correcting due to having the corners cut off. Correcting too much would create a bit of a mustache pattern, whereas on APS-C the crop allows the area that remains to correct in a more linear way. I used a -3 to correct a little bit of pincushion distortion, and you can see above that the correct is nice and clean.
In fact, I could definitely produce a cleaner manual correction in general. The distortion correction looks cleaner, the vignette correction doesn’t leave any “discolored” area, and the end result just looks better when compared with my corrections of the full frame E-mount version:
In at least some ways I would say that this is a more functional lens on APS-C than it was on full frame. It’s overengineered for APS-C but was arguably under-engineered a bit for full frame.
Using a full frame lens on APS-C is always a bit of give and take, and that’s going to become obvious in this next phase, as we take a look at resolution and contrast. This test has been done on a 40MP X-H2 sensor. I use a high end tripod and two second camera delay to ensure vibration doesn’t affect images. Here’s a look at the test chart that we will examine at high magnification:
If we take a look at crops (at 200%) at F4.5 from the center, mid-frame, and lower right corner, we find that contrast is never exceptional, but that detail holds up fairly well across the frame. There’s less of a drop-off in the corners due to the weakest area of performance being cut off. In general the lens looks slightly less sharp due to the greater demands of the Fuji sensor.
I mostly found real world contrast to be okay but not exceptional, and the same was true of sharpness. It’s not unusual for images to naturally have a slightly lower contrast look, though obviously you can change that through editing if so desired, as I’ve done on the right side below.
The truth of the matter is that I often generally like the look of images. They do have personality, even when shooting nature scenes.
While occasionally I was pleasantly surprised by sharpness at a pixel level, I would say that this is more of a lens to just appreciate the look of images rather than to obsess over the fine details.
Bokeh is going to be a somewhat rare commodity in this lens because it A) doesn’t have a long focal length B) has a rather small aperture and C) doesn’t have an amazing minimum focus distance. Situations where you can really have a strongly out of focus background are largely going to be limited to those situations where the background is a LONG way away.
In this shot the background isn’t strongly blurred out, obviously, but neither does it look objectionable.
Likewise here, though a situation that I choose because I could get an isolated branch with other trees some distance away, the background isn’t really blurred much…but neither does it look bad.
The quality of the bokeh is fine; there is just rarely going to be much of it.
Much, much more of a factor is going to be flare. This is a lens that does a wide variety of things when a bright light source is in the frame. Shooting full into the bright morning sun made the light (and the rays from the blades of the aperture) the dominating feature of the image (for good or evil, depending on your tastes):
In some shots the image will be flooded with light, giving everything a glow. You’ll either love it or dislike it.
Just be aware that you either need to like flare artifacts or you will need to compose carefully to avoid them.
My optical conclusion is that this is an interesting lens optically. I don’t like everything about the optics, personally, but I also appreciate that the lens has a lot of character, and there were plenty of times that I really liked the images I got. I truly appreciate the fact that this is a fully functional lens in what is an incredibly compact and portable package. I’ve used much more compromised lenses that were a lot bigger and more expensive than this! You can see more images in the gallery here.
Conclusion
I had an interesting thought while out hiking with the Viltrox AF 28mm F4.5 “Chip” lens; “…this feels a lot like using the Fujifilm X100VI.” No, the focal length isn’t the same, but something about the very compact nature of the lens and its purist aesthetic definitely reminded me of shooting with the X100VI. Put this lens on the X-M5 or a similar compact body and you’ve essentially got a point and shoot size of camera. And therein, I think, lies the charm for this little “Chip”. It is the ultimate low profile lens, and, what’s more, it’s actually a lot of fun to shoot with.
In many ways the 28mm F4.5X feels more at home on Fuji than it did on a full frame Sony body. There’s just something about it that really matches the Fuji aesthetic and spirit. I can definitely see dropping this lens in my bag when traveling for when I want a stripped down, purist outing.
This lens arrived during an incredibly cold snap where doing much in terms of “street” was out of the question, but that remains perhaps the best application for this lens. There’s so little to think about other than just shooting, which might allow photographers to spend more time thinking about their subjects and composition than they do on their gear. And at least for some photographers, that describes their perfect shooting scenario…particularly when the Viltrox AF 28mm F4.5 X can be had for just $99 USD!
Keywords: Viltrox, Viltrox AF, Viltrox 28mm, Normal, Full Frame, APS-C F4.5, f/4.5, VCM, Viltrox AF 28mm F4.5 E, Viltrox 28mm Review, Viltrox AF 28mm F4.5 X Review, VCM, Pancake, Chip, Fuji, Fujifilm, X-mount, XF, Review, Hands On, Dustin Abbott, Real World, Comparison, Sharpness, Bokeh, Flare Resistance, Autofocus, Image Quality, Sample Images, Video, Photography, let the light in, weathersealing, #letthelightin, DA
DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
My most popular video of 2024 was a showdown between the (then) primary standard zoom options available on the Fuji X-mount platform – the Fuji XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS, XF 16-55mm F2.8 R LM WR, and the Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 DN. My surprising conclusion was that the Sigma actually held up the best on the modern Fuji 40MP resolution standard, and that the two Fuji zooms were in need of an update. Fuji obviously agreed, as both lenses received an update in the latter part of 2024. I reviewed the XF 16-55mm F2.8 R LM WR II and the XF 16-50mm F2.8-4.8 R LM WR in early 2025, and decided to follow those reviews up with another showdown using the fresh Fuji options along with last year’s Sigma winner. The results? Find out in the video review here…or you can see my review notes in the article below.
The Fuji lenses are loaners from Fujifilm Canada, while the Sigma is my personal lens. As always, this is a completely independent review. *I’m doing this comparison on a 40MP Fujifilm X-H2 camera.
16-55 II – Sharpest, best corners, best contrast, most consistently good
16-50 (TIE) Slightly better corners on wide end than Sigma
Sigma (TIE) – Aperture advantage vs 16-50, better corners at telephoto than 16-55 II
COLOR
Fuji lenses perhaps slightly better color, but hard to see side by side.
BOKEH
16-55 II – Bokeh richer, no bokeh fringing, most potential (55mm)
Sigma – Decent geometry but fringing
16-50 – Slow aperture means least defocus
Reasons to Choose Sigma
Cheapest MSRP
Constant F2.8
Fairly competitive AF and IQ (balanced)
Highest magnification (0.36x vs 0.21x)
Very compact
Reasons to Choose 16-50mm
Can be had as kit lens at cheaper price
Only internally zooming lens
Weather sealed
Most lightweight
Mostly good AF
Reasons to Choose 16-55mm II
Most professional grade build
Best zoom range
Best feature set
Lowest fringing
Best overall image quality (most special)
Best autofocus
Best standard APS-C zoom out there
Conclusion
A sense of order has been restored. The first party lenses from Fuji are now mostly better than the Sigma, though the Sigma will continue to be intriguing because it is small, cheap(ish), lightweight, and constant F2.8. If you can handle a little more size (and cost) the XF 16-55mm F2.8 II is the best standard APS-C zoom you can buy right now.
Keywords: Fujinon XF 16-55mm F2.8 R LM WR II, Fujinon XF 16-50mm F2.8-4.8 R LM WR, Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 DN, 18-50mm, DN, DC, Fuji, Fujinon, 16-55mm II, R LM WR, 16-50mm, F2.8, F2.8-4.8, OIS, LM, WR, R, X-Mount, X, Fuji, Fujifilm, X-H2, weather sealing, Review, Hands On, Dustin Abbott, Real World, Comparison, Sharpness, Autofocus, Image Quality, Sample Images, Video, Photography, Astrophotography, #letthelightin, #DA, #weather sealing, #VS, #headtohead, #headtoheadbattles
DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Fuji’s original 18-55mm F2.8-4 OIS was often used as proof positive that Fuji’s APS-C platform was the best. Before I began to test Fuji, I heard the lens hyped to epic proportions. When I got around to reviewing it in 2019, I was frankly a bit disappointed. In 2024 I revisited the Fuji standard zooms to see how they handled the high resolution 40MP sensors (the standard Fuji sensor was 16MP when those zooms were released!) The results were not encouraging. Neither the 18-55mm nor the premium 16-55mm F2.8 were really up to resolving that demanding sensor. Fortunately Fuji was already working unknown to us all to develop replacements for both lenses. While the new Fuji 16-55mm F2.8 R LM WR II is a Mark II lens with the same basic specs, Fuji chose to tweak the formula a bit with the replacement for the 18-55mm. The Fujinon XF 16-50mm F2.8-4.8 R LM WR has a new zoom range (16-50mm), a new maximum aperture range (F2.8-4.8 rather than F2.8-4), and Fuji has eliminated lens based stabilization (OIS) from the equation. What has remained is a fairly similar design and price tag ($699 or $400 in kit). Has the performance improved enough to justify an upgrade? Find out in either the thorough video review, by reading the text review, or by just checking out the photos in the galleries below.
Thanks to Fujifilm Canada for sending me a review copy of this lens. As always, this is a completely independent review. All opinions and conclusions are my own. I’m doing this review on a 40MP Fujifilm X-H2 camera.You can visit the product page for the 16-50mm here.
There’s a reason why Fuji’s compact standard zooms tend to become cult classics as they offer a far more premium experience than most “kit lenses”. When compared to the typical Sony, Canon, or Nikon APS-C kit lens, the XF 16-50mm is better built, brighter, has better autofocus, and has a better optical performance than those lenses tend to have. It’s also true that it costs at least twice as much as those lenses, and that’s where the XF 16-50mm will run into problems, as it might be hard to justify purchasing it over a lens like the Sigma 18-50mm F2.8. You can get my full thoughts in my reviews…or just enjoy the photos here.
Keywords: Fuji 16-50mm, Fujinon 16-50, Fuji, Fujinon, XF, AF, Autofocus, 16-50mm, F2.8-4.8, R, WR, LM Weathersealing, Fuji 16-50mm F2.8-4.8 R LM WR II Review, f/2.8, Fuji X, Fujifilm, X-mount, APS-C, Review, Telephoto, Action, Tracking, Hands On, Dustin Abbott, Real World, Comparison, Sharpness, Bokeh, Flare Resistance, Autofocus, Image Quality, Sample Images, Video, Photography, Fujifilm X-T5, Fujifilm X-H2, let the light in, #letthelightin, DA
DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Fuji’s original 18-55mm F2.8-4 OIS was often used as proof positive that Fuji’s APS-C platform was the best. Before I began to test Fuji, I heard the lens hyped to epic proportions. When I got around to reviewing it in 2019, I was frankly a bit disappointed. In 2024 I revisited the Fuji standard zooms to see how they handled the high resolution 40MP sensors (the standard Fuji sensor was 16MP when those zooms were released!) The results were not encouraging. Neither the 18-55mm nor the premium 16-55mm F2.8 were really up to resolving that demanding sensor. Fortunately Fuji was already working (unknown to us all) to develop replacements for both lenses. While the new Fuji 16-55mm F2.8 R LM WR II is a Mark II lens with the same basic specs, Fuji chose to tweak the formula a bit with the replacement for the 18-55mm. The Fujinon XF 16-50mm F2.8-4.8 R LM WR has a new zoom range (16-50mm), a new maximum aperture range (F2.8-4.8 rather than F2.8-4), and Fuji has eliminated lens based stabilization (OIS) from the equation. What has remained is a fairly similar design and price tag ($699 or $400 in kit). Has the performance improved enough to justify an upgrade? Find out in either the thorough video review or by reading on in the text review!
Thanks to Fujifilm Canada for sending me a review copy of this lens. As always, this is a completely independent review. All opinions and conclusions are my own. I’m doing this review on a 40MP Fujifilm X-H2 camera.You can visit the product page for the 16-50mm here.
While the 18-55mm and the new XF 16-50mm have roughly similar size and weight, the engineers at Fuji went quite a different direction with the zoom range. Yes, on paper the zoom has 3mm less (+2 on the wide end but -5 on the telephoto), but, in practice, that extra 2mm on the wide end makes much more difference than the lost 5mm on the telephoto end. These days the higher resolution on cameras makes cropping in that extra 5mm effortless, but you don’t always have the chance to step back and get a wider shot. This also means much more engineering challenges, however, as the wider that a zoom lens goes, the more difficult it is to overcome the inherit optical challenges. What’s more, the XF 16-50mm is particularly wide. I compared it to the new 16-55mm F2.8 II and actually found that though both lenses are technically 16mm on the wide end, the XF 16-50mm is noticeably wider in practice.
If you look on both sides of the frame, there is more visible with the XF 16-50mm even shooting off the same tripod position. If your goal is getting as wide a field of view as possible in your zoom, that’s worth something. Furthermore, comparing it to the Sigma shows just how much wider that 16mm is compared to the 18mm starting point of the Sigma.
That’s the key reason why Fuji made this change to their zoom range. The XF 16-50mm also wins points for being compact, and it is the shortest and lightest of the three primary contenders in this class.
To be fair, however, it also cheats the most when it comes to aperture. The other two have a constant maximum aperture of F2.8, but while the XF 16-50mm start at F2.8 at 16mm, the aperture rapidly closes down. Because Fuji shows aperture stops in more precision than the typical one third stops I see on some cameras, you can the lens hit F2.9 by 17mm, F3 shortly after, and by 23mm (the next marked spot on the zoom range), the aperture is F3.3, F3.9 by 35mm, and right before 50mm it closes from F4.7 to F4.8. That places it at a significant disadvantage for light gathering compared to the other two. The Sigma had a shutter speed of 1/150th of a second at 50mm F2.8, when shooting my test chart. The XF 16-50mm needed a 1/50th exposure at 50mm, F4.8 in identical lighting conditions. That’s right under two full stops of light, and also makes the new 16-50mm roughly one half stop slower at 50mm than the older 18-55mm Fuji lens was. That was my first “red flag” when I saw Fuji’s development memo for the lens.
My second concern is that they decided to drop OIS (Optical Image Stabilization) in this model. That’s always a potentially limiting factor for a kit style lens, particularly one that is less bright than before. Fuji has worked to circumvent this limitation by only selling this lens in kit for models that have in camera stabilization, including the X-T50, X-T5, and X-S20. There will certainly be other models in the future, but expect them to always be mid-range bodies that have IBIS. That’s fine for those cameras in kit, but there will be people that want to upgrade their current lens or buy the lens for cameras without IBIS, and the lack of OIS will almost certainly give some potential buyers pause.
But there’s also a reason why Fuji’s compact standard zooms tend to become cult classics as they offer a far more premium experience than most “kit lenses”. When compared to the typical Sony, Canon, or Nikon APS-C kit lens, the XF 16-50mm is better built, brighter, has better autofocus, and has a better optical performance than those lenses tend to have. It’s also true that it costs at least twice as much as those lenses, and that’s where the XF 16-50mm will run into problems, as it might be hard to justify purchasing it over a lens like the Sigma 18-50mm F2.8. I’ll do my best to present the data to you in this review and let you decide.
Build and Handling
If you don’t speak “Fuji”, all of those letter in the name do actually mean something.
R = Ring, or aperture ring
LM = Linear Motor, the focus system in the lens
WR = Weather Resistance
This latter feature is definitely a serious departure from most kit style lenses. Many first party manufacturers exclude weather sealing from their non-premium lenses, but the XF 16-50mm sports Fuji’s thorough approach to weather sealing, from rear gaskets to internal seals and coatings on the front element. This is one area of upgrade from the 18-55mm, which lacked weather resistance.
The Sigma 18-50mm does have a modicum of weather sealing in the form of a rear gasket, but this is one area where the Fuji lens is a bit more premium.
Because the XF 16-50mm is a variable aperture lens like the 18-55mm was, it has a slightly different approach to aperture control. It does have an aperture ring, but it doesn’t feature marked stops on the lens barrel because that information will vary somewhat with the focal length.
What we get is an endlessly rotating ring without hard stops, though with light clicks throughout. A small switch will allow you to select between manual aperture control or A (automatic) control from within the camera.
I would argue that the lack of physical markings and thus direct feedback on aperture makes using an aperture ring a little less attractive, as you’re going to have to be looking at a screen anyway to confirm what aperture is currently selected. On my X-H2, this isn’t too bad, as I can confirm via the top mounted LCD, which is reasonably ergonomically sound if I’m looking down at the camera and rotating the ring, but in cameras where there is only the rear LCD or a viewfinder (if so equipped), I’m not sure that reaching around the camera to the aperture ring makes more sense than just turning a command dial. Those that have used the 18-55mm in the past have probably already made their determination on what their preferred control scheme is, but those that are new to this type of design might find this aperture ring more trouble than its worth.
Fuji upgraded the number of aperture blades on the 16-55mm II from 9 to 11, but they haven’t made a similar decision here. The aperture blade count is 9, which is the same as the Sigma.
We’ll explore the dimensions of the lens a little more in a moment, but one huge bonus for the XF 16-50mm is that, unlike either of the competing lenses, it is an internally zooming lens. Both the Sigma and the Fuji 16-55mm II will grow in length when zoomed to the telephoto end, but the 16-50mm has a constant length due to that internal zoom. That makes it truly the most compact lens here, but also means that A) the balance will stay the same regardless of focal length when mounted on a gimbal B) there is less chance of getting dust into the lens and C) the zooming action is smoother than either the Sigma or 16-55mm II (the latter of which has rather poor zoom action for a premium lens).
The zoom action here is nice and smooth, making it much easier to do zooms during video than either of the other lenses.
Fuji’s standard is for AF | MF to be controlled from the camera, typically in the form of a camera-mounted lever, so there are no other buttons or switches on the lens. So far the idea of custom buttons seems to be reserved for telephoto lenses and not other lenses like this, which is a shame considering that those custom buttons can be a handy way to have additional control while shooting.
The final ring on the lens barrel is the manual focus ring, and I prefer it over the 16-55mm II’s ring as well. It has more weight and damping to it, making it feel a bit more like a true manual focus experience, though I find that Fuji lenses tend to manually focus in obvious steps rather than smooth linear pulls.
Fuji has managed to reduce a bit of weight from the lens it replaces. The 18-55mm OIS was 65 x 70.4mm and weighed 310g (11oz), whereas the new lens is 65 x 71.4mm (2.6 x 2.8″, or about the same size), but weighs just 240g (8oz). That makes it a full 70g lighter than the lens it replaces and 45g lighter than the Sigma. And, while the length is technically one millimeter longer than the 18-55mm, remember that the new lens is internally zooming and thus doesn’t extend at all like the previous lens did. I found the balance to be fine even when shooting on very small bodies like the new X-M5.
Another key area of improvement by Fuji is the amount of magnification. The 18-55mm could focus as closely as 30cm and achieved a pretty lackluster 0.15x magnification. The new lens can focus as quickly as 24cm, which may not seem like a big improvement, but that actually results in a 0.30x level of magnification. Fuji claims that with the crop factor this achieves a full frame equivalent of half life size (0.50x), which looks about right from my tests.
The amount of magnification is awesome, though the XF 16-50mm does lack some contrast at 50mm, and it feels like that is exacerbated up close. Fine details aren’t particularly well resolved because of the lower contrast.
You will get a little less magnification, but backing off the focal length a bit will allow you to lock in a little more contrast. Here’s an example closer to 35mm, and you can see that the detail pops more.
Overall, however, I think that most people will be pleased by getting an internally zooming lens – with weather sealing – and that weighs 70g less. What makes people love this design is the ability to get fairly solid image quality in such a compact package, and Fuji has definitely expanded that formula. I predict the decision to not include OIS will the most controversial move, however, and that will result in some owners of the 18-55mm electing to keep what they have.
Stills Autofocus
The XF 16-50mm is a definitely improved autofocus lens relative to the lens that it replaces, but autofocus on Fuji cameras remains frustratingly behind what I find on other platforms. The most recent 5.x firmware updates for my X-H2 have made some improvements to stills autofocus, and that helps autofocus feel pretty competent with the 16-50mm attached. Video autofocus remains a bit frustrating, however. With a first party lens like this, it becomes impossible to parse out what behavior is camera-specific and which is lens specific, as I will only review it on Fuji and not other mount. I’ll elaborate on individual performance in the section below, but I do want to add the caveat that (for Fuji) this and the new 16-55mm F2.8 II are very strongly focusing lenses.
The XG 16-50mm is equipped with LM, or a linear motor. This is the superior motor that Fuji uses, and it shows in quieter and faster performance than lenses equipped with a micro motor. This is a more reactive motor, and I found that it quickly locked onto eyes and delivered good accuracy.
You’ll notice that Fuji is doing a better job with precision, as focus is now on the iris rather than the upper hood of the eyelid as it often was in earlier iterations of their focus.
As per usual, there were times when focus didn’t want to grab a foreground subject and would get stuck locking on the background (even when the focus square was right on the foreground object).
This required either focusing on a higher contrast subject elsewhere but at a similar focus distance first (to get autofocus in the right area) and then autofocus would lock properly on the right subject.
I can hear a very light whirring if I put my ear next to the lens barrel during autofocus, but it is otherwise pretty silent.
In general, I would say that autofocus is really solid on the lens, and performance should only get better as Fuji gets better focus hardware in their cameras.
Video AF
I often find video AF pretty frustrating on Fuji. There tend to be more obvious steps in video pulls, the touchscreen is often unresponsive in trying to force autofocus changes, and tracking isn’t as sophisticated. A good focusing lens does help, however, and my frustrations were reduced somewhat here in some areas. Video focus pulls were some of the best that I’ve seen on Fuji, with faster, smoother, more confident pulls. The linear motor manages to avoid the obvious steps that I typically see with lenses equipped with either micromotors or STM motors. Sometimes (not always) focus will do a bit of microadjusting at the end before it settles on focus lock.
On a positive note, focus breathing is fairly low, making focus changes feel more cinematic and less abrupt.
But where the XF 16-50mm fails is on the reactiveness side of things. I tested a reactiveness sequence where I walked towards the camera and moved in and out of frame to see how the camera/lens reacted. It didn’t go particularly well, as the lens proved less reactive than the 16-55 II in that scenario, with focus adjustments coming pretty obviously late at times, leaving my face out of focus for awkward amounts of time. Focus would eventually get there if I paused long enough, but I definitely wouldn’t consider focus reaction times quick enough to be relied on.
My hand test (where I alternately block and then unblock the camera’s view of my face with my hand) also didn’t go great. The reactiveness was too slow, so about the time I would be either adding or removing my hand would the time when the lens would finally start to make the focus change.
Bottom line is that while the XF 16-50mm is better than the XF 18-55mm, it doesn’t quite achieve the level of focus performance as the more expensive XF 16-55mm.
Image Quality Breakdown
As discussed in the intro, I was underwhelmed by the performance of the XF 18-55mm even when I tested it on a 26MP sensor, so I had a strong suspicion things would be worse still on the 40MP sensor of my X-H2…and they were. Throughout most of the zoom range, the XF 16-50mm is a definite improvement, though the telephoto end leaves me a little underwhelmed still. At it’s best, though, the lens delivers great looking images. I backed off to 41mm, here, and with an F4.5 aperture.
Not only does this image look great when viewed full (good color, good general contrast), but it also looks great at a pixel level even on the extremely demanding Fuji 40MP sensor.
The optical formula is 11 elements in 9 groups, with a majority of those being exotic elements, including 3 aspherical and 3 ED elements. If you look at the MTF charts, you’ll see a lens that would have been fantastic on the lower resolution cameras of the past (the 15 lines/mm result) but that still looks pretty good (save the corners) on the higher resolution sensor (the 45 lines/mm) result.
The MTF chart for the 16mm end shows very impressive center and mid-frame results on one axis (Sagittal), but a fairly large separation between that and the Meridional axis. That typically points to lower contrast. The telephoto end is more linear in the drop, and suggests better contrast, though ironically this is pretty much the opposite of what I experienced in the lens I tested.
Both the Fuji zooms are better than the Sigma 18-50mm when it comes to fringing, though you can see the 16-55 II controls fringing better and also has better contrast.
That being said, if you get the 16-50mm in kit, it costs $400, while the 16-55 II costs a whopping $1200, so you would expect it to be better!
So let’s jump into some of the details.
First of all, how about vignette and distortion? Fuji has pushed the boundaries on the wide end, so the question is whether or not that extra width comes with strings attached. Here’s a look at what the distortion and vignette looks like if corrections are turned off.
There’s a lot of barrel distortion here, but not much more than before. I had to use a +21 to correct the barrel distortion, but the 18-55mm needed a fairly similar +19 to correct. You can see from the manually corrected result that there is a mild mustache pattern that remains. It isn’t obvious, however, and you probably wouldn’t notice it on anything but shooting a grid like this. Unlike the 16-55 II, where vignette has significantly increased, I actually find a little less vignette here. I could correct it with a +44, whereas the older lens needed a +59 in my tests.
On the telephoto (50mm) the distortion has inverted to a pincushion distortion, though it is fairly mild. I only needed a -4 to correct, while vignette was easily correctable with a +28 (only about a stop). So other than a mild increase of barrel distortion, things aren’t too bad.
Longitudinal chromatic aberrations aren’t quite as well controlled as the 16-55 II, but they aren’t bad.
You can see in this real world shot of snow that there is a very mild amount of fringing near the upper edge, but nothing significant at all.
Lateral chromatic aberrations show up near the edge of the frame in transitions from dark to light areas. Things look pretty decent on my chart testing, though you’ll see a bit more in a real world image with some bare branches near the edge of the frame a little further on in the review.
We’ve gotten through the early section without any big red flags.
So how about resolution? The 40MP Fuji X-Trans sensor tends to make all but the very sharpest of lenses look a little soft when viewed at high magnification levels, and it just so happens that my review standard is to examine results at a 200% magnification. That is a lot to ask of any lens, and the previous generation lens just didn’t really hold up under this level of scrutiny. Can the second generation lens pass the test? Here’s a look at the test chart that crops throughout the review come from:
And here is a look at the F2.8 crops at 16mm from the center, then mid-frame, and then extreme lower right corner:
The center and mid-frame look good here, though there is definitely some softening in the corners. I also saw very good centering, with consistently good performance in all four corners.
This is about the only point where the XF 16-50mm can compare (at least in the center) with the 16-55 II, as it has the same focal length and aperture, and can deliver similar levels of sharpness.
If we jump up into the upper left corner, however, we can see the superior performance of the 16-55 II.
Likewise the Sigma holds up pretty well in the center, but the corner performance is night and day.
Stopping down to F4 will produce a mild improvement in the center, a more noticeable improvement in the mid-frame, but little in the corners.
The corners only sharpen so far, and even F5.6 and F8, the prime landscape apertures, don’t really exhibit strong corner performances.
I think that bears out in real world landscape images, as while the center and midframe look pretty good, the corners are definitely not pin sharp. At the same time, if you look at normal viewing levels (the first image), the image looks fine.
The final crop also shows a bit more lateral chromatic aberrations that I prefer.
Because minimum aperture is F22, diffraction on a high resolution body like this is going to be more obvious. The results through F11 aren’t bad, but at F16 and F22, the softness from diffraction gets very obvious.
Moving on to 23mm (the next marked spot on the zoom ring) shows better performance across the frame, this time up to and including the corners. Maximum aperture is now F3.3:
The corners look pretty good.
Real world images around 23mm look very nice and crisp. This is definitely a sweet spot for performance.
Moving on to 35mm (where maximum aperture is now F3.9), I found above all a very consistent performance across the frame and across different apertures. The center wasn’t quite as sharp as at 23mm, but the midframe and corners are arguably better. You can see from the comparison below that the image isn’t really sharper at F5.6 than it was at F3.9.
Real world images at 35-40mm look very good.
At 50mm the reduced contrast has a bit of a negative impact on image quality. Maximum aperture is now F4.8, which means that the next full stop is F5.6 (F4.8 is about one half stop brighter than F5.6 or one half stop darker than F4). It’s an odd maximum aperture.
F4.8 is marked by lower contrast both on my chart and in real world results, and you can see that while stopping down to F5.6 helps, it doesn’t give us the kind of performance we’ve seen in the middle of the zoom range.
Corners look relatively strong, as they aren’t far behind the center.
When I directly compared the results from the 16-55 II (at F2.8) and the 16-50 (at F4.8), I found that the XF 16-50mm couldn’t really compare in contrast.
I suspect that those who will enjoy the lens the most will be JPEG shooters. The in camera JPEG image works better to sharpen and correct images than do most pieces of software with RAWs (X-Trans files remain a little difficult to sharpen), and Fuji’s colors are very nice.
A discussion of bokeh is a little complicated with a lens like the XF 16-50mm that has a significantly slower maximum aperture than the lenses that it competes against. I’ll reserve any comparisons to the Sigma 18-50mm as opposed to much more expensive 16-55 II. A consequence of a slower maximum aperture (F4.8 vs F2.8) is that depth of field is larger at equivalent focus distances, which means that the background is less defocused. That means that bokeh balls (specular highlights) are going to be much smaller, for example.
The geometry of the specular highlights is pretty good. Specular highlights are fairly round even in the corners, but the problem is that you won’t have an opportunity to strongly defocus a background unless you are very close to your subject.
Up close, the background is fairly soft.
Back up even a little bit, however, and the background is just not going to be very defocused.
Bottom line is that you’ll need to get pretty close to your subject if you want the background to be blurred.
Flare resistance is quite good. I didn’t see any real issues with either ghosting or loss of contrast whether shooting wide open:
…or when shooting at smaller apertures (F11, here):
I’m not quite as impressed with the optics of the 16-50mm as I was with the 16-55 II, but that is reasonable. There’s no reason why a lens that costs half as much should be as good. I do feel, however, that resolution and contrast hold up better on the new lens than did the older 18-55mm, and that’s really what matters the most. You can check out the image gallery if you’d like to see more images.
Conclusion
There is always going to be a place for a compact zoom lens that covers from this:
…to this:
While there will forever be those who defend the XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 as the greatest lens ever, the reality is that it was getting long in the tooth. A lens designed around a 16MP resolution standard just wasn’t capable of excelling on a 40MP sensor.
Fuji’s new XF 16-50mm F2.8-4.8 R LM WR has made a lot of positive strides. I particularly appreciate the internal zooming design, the addition of weather sealing, and the extra width on the wide end of the zoom range. It is more optically competent on the high resolution sensor. The added magnification level is also great.
But neither can I call the XF 16-50mm an unequivocal win for Fuji. Whereas with the 16-55mm they made a true second generation version of the lens, with the 18-55mm they altered the lens formula in a number of key ways. They made the lens wider, but at the cost of reducing the overall zoom ratio. I’ve heard some negative feedback from those who say they would prefer the extra 5mm on the telephoto end. Fuji also made the lens slower in aperture, with the shorter telephoto end also coming with the penalty of one half stop less light, and that loss of light does extend back at least as far as the 32mm range. It’s not just 50mm that’s “slower”, but 40mm, and 35mm as well. But perhaps most divisive will be the choice to eliminate OIS from the equation. This makes the similarly priced Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 more attractive as an alternative, as if both lenses lack OIS, then at least the Sigma has a constant F2.8 aperture, making it easier to keep up sufficient shutter speeds.
But, of course, The Fujinon XF 16-50mm F2.8-4.8 R LM WR has one key advantage over a lens like the Sigma: it is a first party kit lens. It might be hard to justify choosing it over the Sigma if one were choosing between the two lenses at retail, where the Fuji might cost anywhere between $150-200 more. But the highest volume of sales will come in a kit with a new camera purchase, and there we find a steep discount to $400, meaning that it would be the Sigma that would cost anywhere between $100-150 more (at least in the US market). And, the truth of the matter is that the XF 16-50mm will almost certainly claim its status as the nicest kit lens being sold with an APS-C camera.
Keywords: Fuji 16-50mm, Fujinon 16-50, Fuji, Fujinon, XF, AF, Autofocus, 16-50mm, F2.8-4.8, R, WR, LM Weathersealing, Fuji 16-50mm F2.8-4.8 R LM WR II Review, f/2.8, Fuji X, Fujifilm, X-mount, APS-C, Review, Telephoto, Action, Tracking, Hands On, Dustin Abbott, Real World, Comparison, Sharpness, Bokeh, Flare Resistance, Autofocus, Image Quality, Sample Images, Video, Photography, Fujifilm X-T5, Fujifilm X-H2, let the light in, #letthelightin, DA
DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Viltrox AF 35mm F1.2 LAB FE Gallery 
Viltrox AF 35mm F1.2 LAB FE Review 
llano 2-in-1 Dual Bay Camera Battery Charger Review 
Nikkor Z 135mm F1.8 S Plena Gallery 
