This is a very important review for me. Not because the Nikkor Z 135mm F1.8 S Plena is a new and hot review (it was actually released in October of 2023, several months before I started to do Nikon reviews and 18 months before this review), but because it represents a very important new connection for me. Since adding my Z8 in spring of 2024 I have been seeking partnerships to get a supply of Nikon loaners here in Canada, but I was largely unsuccessful in my first year. That meant that I have largely reviewed third party Z mount lenses (Tamron, Viltrox, etc…) but only a few first party Nikkor lenses. But on a trip to Japan I developed a friendship with Evelyn Drake of The Camera Store TV on YouTube (a truly lovely person!), and she connected me with Chris at Nikon Canada.
Chris was kind enough to get me a loaner of the Plena, and its my hope that my connection to him will enable me to do a more thorough job of covering Nikon products moving ahead. So far he has been great, so thank you to both Chris and Evelyn!
The Plena 135mm is one of Nikon’s top tier premium prime lenses, engineered to produce as beautiful of bokeh as possible. It’s a lens that I’ve been wanting to test for a while, as I’ve had an opportunity to review (and own) a lot of other premium 135mm lenses over the years and have been very interested in Nikon’s offering. There’s also the factor that Viltrox has now released their 135mm F1.8 LAB lens in Nikon Z mount, (my review here), so for the first time the Plena 135mm has some real competition. There’s no question the LAB is a great lens, but having spent time with the two lenses side by side, there are definitely some areas where the extra polish and sophistication of the Plena shine through. The big question, however, is whether or not that difference is worth a $1600 USD premium, as the Plena costs a whopping $2500. The answer, as usual, is complicated, and really depends on your set of priorities. We’ll explore all those details in either the video review, in the text review, or just enjoy the photos in the galleries below.
Thanks to Chris at Nikon 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.*The tests and most of the photos that I share as a part of my review cycle have been done with the 45MP Nikon Z8, which I reviewed here.You can find the product listing page for the Nikkor Z 135mm F1.8 S Plena here.
There are sharp lenses and there are lenses with beautifully soft rendering…that creamy bokeh that we all love. Lenses that have both qualities are very rare, as it takes masterful engineering to accomplish this. Nikon’s engineers prioritized the rendering in the Plena, working to engineer right out to the edges of the frame. They wanted round specular highlights across the frame, low vignette so that it wouldn’t interfere with that rendering, and as generally pleasing bokeh as possible. One of the first banners on the listing page says, “Beauty that reaches every corner.” It’s that attention to detail that sets the Plena 135mm apart…as I dive into in either the text or video reviews.
Keywords: Nikkor, Nikkor Z 135mm, Plena, F1.8, F1.8 S, Nikkor Z, Nikkor Z 135mm F1.8 S Plena review, Nikon 135mm, Nikon Z 135mm, Viltrox, LAB, Viltrox AF 135mm F1.8 LAB Z, Nikon, Nikon Z8, Z, Z-mount, Z8, Review, mirrorless, Full Frame, Sports, Tracking, Dustin Abbott, Real World, Comparison, Handling, Focus, Portraits, Resolution, High ISO, Image Quality, Sample Images, Photography, 45MP, #letthelightin, #DA, #NIKON, #Z8, #NIKONZ8
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.
This is a very important review for me. Not because the Nikkor Z 135mm F1.8 S Plena is a new and hot review (it was actually released in October of 2023, several months before I started to do Nikon reviews and 18 months before this review), but because it represents a very important new connection for me. Since adding my Z8 in spring of 2024 I have been seeking partnerships to get a supply of Nikon loaners here in Canada, but I was largely unsuccessful in my first year. That meant that I have largely reviewed third party Z mount lenses (Tamron, Viltrox, etc…) but only a few first party Nikkor lenses. But on a trip to Japan I developed a friendship with Evelyn Drake of The Camera Store TV on YouTube (a truly lovely person!), and she connected me with Chris at Nikon Canada.
Chris was kind enough to get me a loaner of the Plena, and its my hope that my connection to him will enable me to do a more thorough job of covering Nikon products moving ahead. So far he has been great, so thank you to both Chris and Evelyn!
The Plena 135mm is one of Nikon’s top tier premium prime lenses, engineered to produce as beautiful of bokeh as possible. It’s a lens that I’ve been wanting to test for a while, as I’ve had an opportunity to review (and own) a lot of other premium 135mm lenses over the years and have been very interested in Nikon’s offering. There’s also the factor that Viltrox has now released their 135mm F1.8 LAB lens in Nikon Z mount, (my review here), so for the first time the Plena 135mm has some real competition. There’s no question the LAB is a great lens, but having spent time with the two lenses side by side, there are definitely some areas where the extra polish and sophistication of the Plena shine through. The big question, however, is whether or not that difference is worth a $1600 USD premium, as the Plena costs a whopping $2500. The answer, as usual, is complicated, and really depends on your set of priorities. We’ll explore all those details in either the video review below or in this text review.
Thanks to Chris at Nikon 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.*The tests and most of the photos that I share as a part of my review cycle have been done with the 45MP Nikon Z8, which I reviewed here.You can find the product listing page for the Nikkor Z 135mm F1.8 S Plena here.
First, a word on 135mm lenses. There are few lenses that I like the look of images more from. To me images shot with a fast 135mm lens are a cut above those shot with an 85mm F1.4 (or even F1.2), but the challenge is that the additional 50mm in focal length makes for a less flexible tool. You need more room to operate, which means that a 135mm lens isn’t going to work in every room. I shot my first wedding using a Canon EF 135mm F2L lens rather than a 70-200mm type zoom, and I regretted it afterwards. There were several shots where the framing was unnatural because I didn’t have enough room to fit everything I wanted in the frame. But there’s no lens that I like more for environmental portraiture. The ability to have a full length portrait while still having beautiful separation of the subject from the background makes for incredibly special images.
There are sharp lenses and there are lenses with beautifully soft rendering…that creamy bokeh that we all love. Lenses that have both qualities are very rare, as it takes masterful engineering to accomplish this. Nikon’s engineers prioritized the rendering in the Plena, working to engineer right out to the edges of the frame. They wanted round specular highlights across the frame, low vignette so that it wouldn’t interfere with that rendering, and as generally pleasing bokeh as possible. One of the first banners on the listing page says, “Beauty that reaches every corner.” It’s that attention to detail that sets the Plena 135mm apart. This comparison hows that extra little something special when compared to the LAB, with rounder specular highlights right into the edges.
We’ll explore more of those little details in the review.
Nikkor Plena 135mm Build and Handling
Nikon’s lineup of Z-mount premium lenses – the S-Line lenses – is known for many things, but being small is not one of them. Nikon has taken the old Zeiss Otus philosophy where performance is by the greatest object and size and weight are not really significant considerations. I think they can get away with it, too, when they often have a Small | Medium | Large option at that given focal length. It’s true now of a 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm, where F1.8, F1.4, and F1.2 options all exist (though ironically the F1.4 options are often the smallest!). Obviously that’s not true of the 135mm focal length, where the Plena is the lone entry, but the Plena is definitely a part of the F1.2 crowd in design philosophy.
That being said, it’s not as if 135mm F1.8 lenses tend to be small and light in general, and while the Plena is a little wider in diameter than the Viltrox LAB option, it’s actually shorter and lighter.
The Plena is 98mm (3.9″) in diameter and 139.5mm (5.5″) in length. It weighs 995g (35oz). But the LAB 135Z manages to top that. It is 93mm in diameter (3.66″), a little narrower, but is a bit longer at 147.6mm (5.74″) in length. That’s not bigger (the Plena has an internal volume about 1% higher), but the Plena is actually lighter than the LAB. The Plena weighs 995g (35oz), which is heavy enough, but the LAB weighs a whopping 1268g (44.72oz), or about 270g more than the Plena. For that matter, the Plena is shorter and lighter than any of the S-Line F1.2 options. That’s right – the Plena is the lightweight option! It’s all about perspective.
What makes this a big, heavy lens is that there is a massive amount of glass inside right past those 82mm front filter threads.
The Plena is a premium lens with an excellent build. It has a tough outer shell of mostly metal alloys, and, internally, it has thorough weather sealing throughout.
There is a protective coating on the front and rear elements and then roughly 11 (by my count) internal seals at the rings, buttons, and switches. That allows you to have confidence when shooting in the elements.
I do have one gripe with modern 135mm lenses, and this criticism applies to all of them…not just the Plena. One of the things I appreciated about the old school Canon EF 135mm F2L (my first quality 135mm) was that it was fully compatible with teleconverters, allowing one to get a nice quality 190mm (ish) F2.8 lens with an F1.4x TC or even a 270mm F4 lens with a 2.0x. That just added to the versatility of the lens, but that seems to have be a forgotten element of modern 135mm design. Nikon instead touts that the rear element (located nearly flush with the mount, meaning that there is no physical room ever for a TC) is actually curved to allow for lower vignette.
At least this design has a specific purpose (more on that in the image quality section).
Nikon has a specific design ethos of the feature set of these upscale S-Line lenses, which includes a few more control points than the average lens. That starts very early on the lens with an AF | MF switch that is located very close to the lens mount.
Maybe too close to the lens mount, at least on certain cameras. On my Z8, there are two controls located way too close to this area. There is a flash sync port behind a rubber cover along with the camera release button. That means if I’m reaching around with my left thumb to operate the switch, I’m having to thread the needle through a couple of obstacles. Perhaps placing it on the same tier with the Fn buttons would have made more sense.
Next comes Nikon’s “clickless control ring”, which could serve as a manual aperture ring but could also function to control ISO, exposure compensation, or a few other functions – whatever you’ve set up the ring to do in the menus. Those controls can be found in the Custom Settings menu, then by selecting group F (Controls), and finally choosing custom setting F2 (Custom Controls Shooting) to change the function of the ring.
As an aside, I will note that I was able to do smooth aperture racks through the control ring without any visible steps. That wasn’t true of the LAB lens, where I could see visible steps even when I had the aperture ring in the declicked mode (at least on Z-mount).
The aperture iris has eleven rounded blades, and the aperture iris definitely does a nice job of keeping the specular highlights round. The screenshot above is somewhere around F5.6 or F6.3, and shows a very circular shape with very minimal evidence of the individual aperture blades.
Here’s what that aperture iris looks like from the inside.
I’m personally more a fan of a traditional manual aperture ring (with marked positions) as I think the function works better than using the control ring for aperture, where there is no natural visual representation of the current aperture. Unlike Sony (at least at the present), some of Nikon’s cameras have a top mounted LCD screen (including my Z8), which at least gives you some visual feedback on the current aperture. I can also appreciate that not everyone is a fan of manual aperture rings, and Nikkor’s approach allows that ring to be used for other purposes if so desired. Viltrox seems to have been taking a similar tack with their LAB lenses (and I’ve been complaining about it there, too!)
Many 135mm lenses employ a focus limiter switch, but Nikkor has skipped that on the Plena. The positive spin is that they clearly have confidence in the autofocus speed and don’t feel it is necessary.
In the middle of the lens there are two Fn buttons, one on the top and the other on the left side. These are redundant (both have the same function – whatever has been assigned to it in camera) but are in duplicate so that you have one easy to hand whether shooting in horizontal or vertical modes.
The manual focus ring is slightly raised and has a rubberized, ribbed texture. It moves very smoothly and has a nice amount of weight to it. I was able to pull off really smooth manual focus pulls and focus with very nice precision. I also love the fact that I can do full time manual overrides even when in AF-C mode.
You’ll note that there is a third rubberized section near the front of the lens, but that appears to just be a grip section and not a movable part. It’s a rather odd design choice, actually.
There is no lens based stabilization, so you will need to rely upon the in-camera stabilization if your camera is so equipped.
The lens hood is relatively deep and does have a small lock on the right side. The hood is made of plastics and feels fairly ordinary. Unlike the Viltrox, it doesn’t have a rubberized front edge. I would argue that a premium lens like the Plena deserves a nicer hood.
Minimum focus distance is 82cm, giving a maximum magnification figure of 1:5, or 0.20x. That falls a little behind the LAB lens, which can focus 10cm closer and gives a 0.25x magnification. The performance of the Plena up close is fantastic even at F1.8, with excellent sharpness and contrast and a nicely flat plane of focus.
That excellent detail and contrast holds up well with a three-dimensional subject as well at minimum focus distances.
This is one other area where being able to throw on a teleconverter would be nice, as you could significantly boost that magnification into more macro territory.
There is no VR (vibration reduction, or optical stabilization) built into the lens. That’s not a problem on a body like my Z8, which has good camera based stabilization, but could be a problem for those of you shooting on a camera without VR.
I have loved using the word “Plena” as my keyword in this review. I wish that all lensmakers would apply a designated name to their premium lenses, as it becomes an easy way to distinguish it from alternatives and gives the lens a touch of elegance. The word “Plena” comes from a Latin word that means “full” or “complete”, and the latter meaning seems most appropriate. The words in nicely etched into the barrel of the lens and becomes a visual focalpoint for the lens design.
This is a big, heavy, expensive lens, but it is also beautifully made and is a nice match for a beefier camera like my Z8. It does carry a premium price at roughly $2500 USD, but it is also a premium product.
Autofocus (Stills)
I was a little surprised to see that the Plena employed dual STM focus motors, as I tend to associate Linear or VCM style motors with the more premium options. But having used the lens for a variety of applications, I’ve got no real reservations about the AF performance. Focus is very nicely reactive, able to keep up with more difficult subjects that I regularly photograph, including a fastly scampering little Nala.
I’m not sure if you’re aware, but cats are not very cooperative subjects. Most often when they are sitting nicely you can guarantee that they will start moving the moment you go to pick up a camera. Nala was perched on a planter in the sunshine, so I went to grab my Z8 with the Plena mounted on it, delighted to get a shot with her in a nice position. She immediately ran to the end of the planter and jumped off. I snapped a picture in frustration anyway, knowing that it would be out of focus.
But it wasn’t.
Not only was it not out of focus, but it was perfectly focused, despite her A) being backlight B) being on the move and C) my having no opportunity to start tracking and reacting properly to her movement. Here’s what a 100% crop looks like.
Now we’re talking!
So, autofocus speed belied my expectations of an STM-equipped lens. Maybe the solution is having two of them!
In my formal tests I saw mostly good speed, but I also a pretty consistent quick rack in the wrong direction before a then quick journey to the right focus destination. The Plena doesn’t seem to love those forced racks between a close and distant subject. In real world shots, however, focus changes tend to be smaller and I didn’t really notice the same things.
Focus accuracy was generally excellent in my tests. You can shoot with precision even in situations with a tiny depth of field, like this:
I did a portrait session with a friend (thanks, Justin!), and worked at a big range of focus distances – from a little over a meter to nearly 20 meters (4-55 feet). I switched between the Plena and the Viltrox LAB lens and had Justin hold poses so that I could get as scientific of results as possible. What I found as a general rule is that I had more consistent accuracy with the Plena than the Viltrox. That’s pretty much what you would expect, obviously, though I’m still waiting for the Viltrox to receive a firmware update that will hopefully improve the performance closer to what I saw on Sony FE.
I had very good focus results with the Plena whether working at close distances:
Medium distances:
…or further distances.
The only sequence that I saw some issues was in this one where some prominent branches sometimes confused the AF system.
Those of you who watched or read my initial review of the Viltrox LAB lens on Z-mount know that I had a similar problem there with snowflakes, so I think that Nikon’s Eye AF is just not quite as good at looking past obstacles as either Sony or Canon.
With a little persistence I got the result that I wanted here.
So autofocus for stills was generally very good. I wouldn’t put the Plena in the same class as a lens like the Sony FE 135mm F1.8 G Master, however, which utilizes dual XD Linear motors and has essentially flawless autofocus for both stills and video, but that’s not necessarily relevant on the Nikon platform.
Autofocus (Video)
Video autofocus was less impressive to me. Focus pulls felt a little rough, with plenty of little pulses, racks, and an end result that felt anything but cinematic. There’s a fairly strong amount of focus breathing as well (not unusual for a 135mm lens).
The focus breathing further detracts from the cinematic quality of video focus pulls. When I compared the LAB and Plena closely, however, it doesn’t seem like one is any better than the other.
Both also equally failed my hand test where I alternately block the view of the camera to my face with my hand and then remove it to test reactiveness. Neither lens decided to move from my face to my hand in any of the sequences.
Things were better when I approached the camera and stepped in and out of frame. They both did a pretty good job of moving focus on me when I approached in a linear fashion. With both lenses there was a pretty pronounced lag before focus snapped back into place on me if I stepped out of frame, however. I’d say the Plena was a couple of percentage points better, but neither was great.
The Plena did fine with static video shots where I just needed it to hold focus without pulsing or hunting. Overall video AF was probably the area where I was least impressed during my review, however.
Image Quality Breakdown
There’s rarely anything sharper than a good 135mm lens, and the Nikkor Z 135mm F1.8 S Plena is a sharp one. The optical design is 16 elements in 14 groups, and as you can see from the cutout below, six of those are exotic elements including Aspherical, ED (extra-low dispersion), and SR (short wave refractive) elements. The MTF shows a 90% mark across about half the frame and then a slow slide to the corners at F1.8.
On paper, the Viltrox LAB is the sharper lens.
But we’ll verify (or dispute) that for ourselves.
One of the big marketing points by Nikon is that the Plena has been designed with a unique rear element that is both larger and curved, allowed light to more evenly illuminate the whole image circle. And, when examining the my chart results, I found that the Plena showed very low vignette.
I used about a stop of correction here (+30), and even that is gone by F2.8. There’s a tiny bit of pincushion distortion that corrected easily with a -3.
That means that real world results at F1.8 even without correction are going to have an essentially invisible amount of vignette, like this (uncorrected result – no profiles or manual correction).
This was also the way that I found the LAB on Sony, but that’s just not the case on Z-mount. The Viltrox lens shows a lot of vignette on the larger diameter Z-mount.
For perspective, I needed +50 to correct the vignette on the Z-mount version of the LAB, or nearly twice as much. There is no distortion on the LAB lens.
I also saw very minimal amounts of LoCA (longitudinal chromatic aberrations), and that is the case here. I see mostly neutral results on either side of the plane of focus with only a tiny amount of fringing after the lane of focus.
This real world result shows no visible fringing before or after the plane of focus.
Brilliant.
LaCA (lateral chromatic aberrations) typically show up along the edges of the frame with high contrast transition points. I saw nothing but clean transitions on either side of the black and white transitions.
So far those are all really excellent results.
We’ll move on to inspecting our test chart. This test has been done on a 45MP Nikon Z8 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 F1.8 from the center, mid-frame, and lower right corner, we find that center and mid-frame performance is exceptionally good, and that sharpness extends right to the corners.
If I compare my chart results with those I’ve done with the LAB, I find that I prefer the Plena in the center, the LAB in the mid-frame, and it is mostly a wash in the corners.
If I compared the two lenses for portraits, I had a hard time picking a winner. They both gave essentially equal amount of contrast and detail, and even skin tones look pretty similar. The LAB lens may give very slightly deeper levels of saturation, but they are very, very close.
If we step back and look at the image as a whole, there is again very little to distinguish between the two lenses.
One more interesting comparison is a full length F1.8 shot with a lot going on in the scene. I’ll let you spend the time trying to find the differences; they aren’t easy to spot.
Now, before you get too bent out of shape, know that Sony shooters have already dealt with the same angst, as, if anything, the Plena actually outperforms the Sony GM. The LAB lens is just shockingly sharp for the price.
Stopping the Plena down to F2 produces a slight contrast boost across the frame, but probably not enough that you would notice without them side by side and at high levels of magnification. That’s not true at F2.8, however, where the improvement is far more noticeable…particularly in the corners, which are now razer sharp.
If we jump back to a real world result, we will find that sharpness and contrast are just gorgeous…as is the general rendering from the lens. As mentioned in the intro, this is one of those rare lenses that has both gorgeous defocused rendering and razer sharp detail/contrast.
Look at the amount of detail in Justin’s beard and mustache.
After F2.8, it is hard to tell much of a difference through F8. It’s just amazingly good all throughout. Landscape images are going to be pretty flawless.
Physics will affect even the mightiest of lenses, however, so expect diffraction to start to soften the image by F11 and more obviously by F16, which is minimum aperture (though this lens is still sharper than many lenses at its weakest!)
But the Plena isn’t all about sharpness. Bokeh is at the heart of its design. It is very easy to get extremely pleasing backgrounds with very creamy defocus and great colors.
You also get great subject separation, with an excellent level of 3D subject isolation.
I brought along a vintage hatchet to the photo shoot with Justin, not really knowing how I’d use it but grabbed it on a whim. It turned out that the area we went to had just had some clearing along the path, and the heavy machinery had just chewed everything into splinters. I knew exactly how the hatchet would work, and got Justin in the midst of the carnage as if he’d done it all with the hatchet. See the amazing cutout effect effect that you can achieve even at a distance?
I was using natural light for these shots, but if I had used strobes, it would have seemed essentially like I had “Photoshopped” him into the scene as strobes will often just intensify the cutout effect.
Part of that rear element design was not just about vignette, but also about being able to evenly distribute light for the sake of specular highlights. And there is no question that the Plena is the best 135mm lens that I’ve used for keeping circular specular shapes (bokeh balls) right into the corners even at F1.8.
The bokeh rendering is fantastic from the 135mm Plena.
I only have one optical complaint, and it is more of a general Nikon complaint. I find magentas a little too strong, so I find that in Caucasian skin tones that I often feel that I need to take some of the red/magenta out of people’s faces.
Darker skin tones look more natural to me.
Cat fur tones are also excellent, and I just love the amount of sharpness and contrast I get from the Plena.
Flare resistance was also very strong on the Plena. I didn’t see any lost of contrast in real world shots, and here you can see with the sun in the variety of positions and with a variety of apertures (from F1.8 to F11) that there is never really any veiling, either. The various coatings by Nikkor (Meso Amorphous Coat and ARNEO Coat) are doing a fantastic job.
The Plena thrives in all tested metrics. This is one the good ones.
The bottom line is that this is one the most complete lenses that I’ve tested optically, with strong performances in basically every optical category. If you’d like to see more images in my extensive image gallery, just click here.
Conclusion
Nikon’s premium S-Line lenses represent the pinnacle of their Z-mount engineering, and the Nikkor Z 135mm F1.8 S Plena is one of the best. It has it all going optically – great sharpness, great bokeh, and no real aberrations or flaws.
The only fly in the ointment is the new Viltrox AF 135mm F1.8 LAB Z, as it shares a lot of those optical strengths and comes at a much lower price tag. But as I used the two lenses side by side, I could see the many little ways where the Plena proved its superiority. It just works better, whether it was doing aperture racks, getting better consistency when doing portraits, or even manually focusing.
The Plena is still the premium option, however, with an amazing performance all around. It produces the kinds of images that you can only associate with professional photography, and you won’t ever have to worry about someone’s phone producing images that look like your 2 kilo combination of Z8/Z9 and the Plena. If you are a portrait photographer (particularly if you do environmental portraits) and you want a lens that can reliably produce images that you’ll love, then check out the Plena. It’s a treat.
Keywords: Nikkor, Nikkor Z 135mm, Plena, F1.8, F1.8 S, Nikkor Z, Nikkor Z 135mm F1.8 S Plena review, Nikon 135mm, Nikon Z 135mm, Viltrox, LAB, Viltrox AF 135mm F1.8 LAB Z, Nikon, Nikon Z8, Z, Z-mount, Z8, Review, mirrorless, Full Frame, Sports, Tracking, Dustin Abbott, Real World, Comparison, Handling, Focus, Portraits, Resolution, High ISO, Image Quality, Sample Images, Photography, 45MP, #letthelightin, #DA, #NIKON, #Z8, #NIKONZ8
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.
In 2024 I did a fresh review of the nearly ten year old Fujinon XF 16-55mm F2.8 R LM WR lens, and I concluded that it was due an update. It was clear that it hadn’t been engineered with future high resolution bodies in mind, and the current 40MP sensor in a camera like my X-H2 was fairly punishing to it. Fuji was clearly in the same headspace, and at the end of the 2024 they announced and released a Mark II version of the lens, and it is a great update. It’s both smaller and lighter and yet sharper at the same time, moves into some new territory in terms of at least one feature, and comes to market at the same MSRP as the original ($1199 USD). Is this a home run for Fuji? Find out in either the thorough video review, reading the text review, or just enjoying the photos in the gallery.
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 16-55mm II here.
The very first thing that I noticed is how much smaller the new lens is. I’ve never owned the original lens, but I have used it for extended periods on multiple occasions, including on several trips, so I was very familiar with the size and weight of the previous lens. The new version is slimmer, shorter, and much lighter (37% according to Fuji), making for a lens that is more natural fit on a wider variety of Fuji’s cameras. I not only used it on my X-H2, but also on the new X-M5, which is one of the smallest of Fuji’s bodies. The lens felt a little big there, but that’s mostly because the camera has almost no grip. On most of the bodies, the new 16-55 II will be a comfortable fit due to the reduced size and weight. You can see just how much smaller the new lens looks when placed side by side with the original.
This is extremely important, as lenses like the Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 DN coming to the platform had really highlighted just how unnecessarily large the older lens was. The new 16-55 II is still substantially larger than either the Sigma or the new Fuji 16-50mm F2.8-4.8, but that is perhaps to be expected considering that it has the largest zoom range, the constant F2.8 aperture, and is more feature rich than either of the other lenses.
But look how much the older lens towered over the competition:
But all of that would be in vain if this new lens wasn’t up to the task of handling Fuji’s high resolution 40MP sensors. Fortunately that isn’t a problem, and the new lens is capable of providing excellent sharpness and contrast on my X-H2.
My conclusion was that I was unsure the old lens was worth the price premium relative to the compact little Sigma (which I added to my own Fuji kit). Has that conclusion changed with the 16-55mm F2.8 II? It definitely has, and you can find out why by watching or reading the full reviews.
Keywords: Fuji 16-55mm II, Fujinon 16-55 II, Fuji, Fujinon, XF, AF, Autofocus, 16-55mm, F2.8, R, WR, LM Weathersealing, Fuji 16-55mm F2.8 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.
In 2024 I did a fresh review of the nearly ten year old Fujinon XF 16-55mm F2.8 R LM WR lens, and I concluded that it was due an update. It was clear that it hadn’t been engineered with future high resolution bodies in mind, and the current 40MP sensor in a camera like my X-H2 was fairly punishing to it. Fuji was clearly in the same headspace, and at the end of the 2024 they announced and released a Mark II version of the lens, and it is a great update. It’s both smaller and lighter and yet sharper at the same time, moves into some new territory in terms of at least one feature, and comes to market at the same MSRP as the original ($1199 USD). Is this a home run for Fuji? 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 16-55mm II here.
The very first thing that I noticed is how much smaller the new lens is. I’ve never owned the original lens, but I have used it for extended periods on multiple occasions, including on several trips, so I was very familiar with the size and weight of the previous lens. The new version is slimmer, shorter, and much lighter (37% according to Fuji), making for a lens that is more natural fit on a wider variety of Fuji’s cameras. I not only used it on my X-H2, but also on the new X-M5, which is one of the smallest of Fuji’s bodies. The lens felt a little big there, but that’s mostly because the camera has almost no grip. On most of the bodies, the new 16-55 II will be a comfortable fit due to the reduced size and weight. You can see just how much smaller the new lens looks when placed side by side with the original.
This is extremely important, as lenses like the Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 DN coming to the platform had really highlighted just how unnecessarily large the older lens was. The new 16-55 II is still substantially larger than either the Sigma or the new Fuji 16-50mm F2.8-4.8, but that is perhaps to be expected considering that it has the largest zoom range, the constant F2.8 aperture, and is more feature rich than either of the other lenses.
But look how much the older lens towered over the competition:
But all of that would be in vain if this new lens wasn’t up to the task of handling Fuji’s high resolution 40MP sensors. Fortunately that isn’t a problem, and the new lens is capable of providing excellent sharpness and contrast on my X-H2.
My conclusion was that I was unsure the old lens was worth the price premium relative to the compact little Sigma (which I added to my own Fuji kit). Has that conclusion changed with the new lens? We’ll find out in today’s review…
Build and Handling
I’ll start this section by highlighting the fact that Fuji has FINALLY updated their lens feature formula a little bit here. Fuji’s main lens feature has always been the inclusion of an aperture ring, which is why most of their lenses have an “R” in the name, which stands for Ring. Despite their cameras becoming increasingly video focused (my X-H2 can shoot up to 8K video!), Fuji had never updated their lenses to the modern standard where the ability to declick the aperture is essentially for video work. A declicked aperture can be smoothly “racked” through the aperture options during video shots, allowing more or less to come into focus due to the aperture change. That has changed, and the 16-55 II becomes the first XF lens from Fuji to receive an option to declick the aperture.
The aperture otherwise works as before, with light clicks at one third stop apertures but markings only at full stops. When declicked, those clicks disappear and allow you to move smoothly through the aperture options. There is a locking mechanism that you need to depress if you want to move out of the manual range and into automatic (camera) control. Fuji has increased the amount of aperture blades from 9 to 11, allowing for more consistently circular specular highlights when the lens is stopped down.
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 front of the lens is occupied with first the zoom ring, and then the manual focus ring. The zoom ring isn’t as nicely damped as what I would expect for a premium lens, and I found it difficult to smoothly zoom during video capture.
The manual focus experience is only so-so as well, feeling like focus takes place in steps or chunks rather than a smooth linear movement.
The 16-55 II is a WR lens, meaning that it has weather resistance. That weather sealing takes the form of a gasket at the lens mount along with internal seals plus a fluorine coating on the front element to resist oil and moisture). This is very handy as you can continue to use the lens with confidence even when the weather turns a bit sour (providing you are shooting on a weather sealed camera).
It’s worth looking at a comparison of specs across some competitors, including the older lens (which remains on the market at the moment at a slightly discounted price).
The new lens has shrunk in basically all dimensions. It is 78.3mm in diameter (3.1″), whereas the older lens was 83.3mm (3.28″). It is only 95mm in length (3.7″) relative to the 106mm (4.17″) of the older lens. But it is the weight which is the most surprising, dropping from 655g (23oz) to just 410g (14.5oz). The difference between the 16-55 II and the Sigma 18-55mm is just 135g, while the difference with the older lens was a whopping 370g! This allows even the front filter size to shrink from 77mm to 72mm.
The inner barrel will extend an additional 27mm when zoomed to 55mm.
Fuji’s design language hasn’t really changed much over the years, so the look of this lens isn’t radically different, though the shape is a little more sculpted. It’s a nice looking lens, however, with just a little more gloss that speaks of it being a newer design.
A petal shaped lens hood is included. It’s plastic and ribbed on the inside to prevent stray light from bouncing around in there. It doesn’t have a lock, but it does bayonet firmly into place with a definite click.
It is always worth noting the zoom range here, which is incredibly useful. It goes wide (16mm), which is the equivalent of 24mm on full frame.
It zooms into 55mm, which is the equivalent of 84mm on full frame.
That gets you all the way into prime territory for portraits, which certainly adds to the value of the lens. There’s a lot of framing options even in a casual setting.
Another key area of improvement by Fuji is the amount of magnification. What’s interesting is that both lenses tout the same minimum focus distance of 30cm, but the new lens has a much higher 0.21x magnification relative to the 0.16x of the older lens. That can probably be attributed to some focus breathing by the older lens, whereas the new lens performs better up close.
I saw good results at close focus distance, like a close up of this tiny crystal piano’s keyboard.
It’s hard to complain about a lens that has managed to shed so much weight and still be effective.
Stills Autofocus
I’ll preface this section by saying that A) the 16-55 II is perhaps the best focusing XF lens that I’ve used to date and B) that the 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 I see less of a gap with the 16-55 II 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. I’ll elaborate on individual performance in the section below, but I do want to add the caveat that (for Fuji) this is a really fantastic autofocusing lens.
The 16-55 II 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, making the 16-55 II an excellent choice if you need to keep up with moving children or other active subjects.
I found the 16-55 II to be a nice lens to use for capturing family moments over the holiday. The flexible zoom range made it easy to quickly grab shots, and the quick autofocus delivered accurately focused results.
Zooming deep into the image shows that focus is just where I want it.
Besides my own personal X-H2, I did use the 16-55 II extensively during my review of the Fujifilm X-M5, and it also focused well there even if the lens is perhaps a little big for that tiny body.
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.
Video AF
I 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. I did note both some good and bad here. Video focus pulls were somewhat better than average, as the linear motor manages to avoid the obvious steps that I typically see with lenses equipped with either micromotors or STM motors. What isn’t avoided, however, is the microadjustments that inevitably take place when focus gets to the subject. There will be small adjustments where focus goes in and out, and it can be distracting.
On a positive note, focus breathing is fairly low, making focus changes feel more cinematic and less abrupt.
In the past I have avoided filming my static “talking head” portions of my YouTube video with any Fuji gear because of having focus jump around. I saw enough positive here to venture a fresh test, and was happy to find that focus stayed stable during the roughly one minute long test that I filmed.
I also tested a reactiveness sequence where I walked towards the camera and moved in and out of frame to see how the camera/lens reacted. This did not go well on X-M5, with the camera losing tracking early on and leaving me completely out of focus as I approached the camera. The X-H2 did better with the 16-55 II, tracking me fairly consistently (if not perfectly) as I moved consistently towards the camera. There’s a bit of a lag before focus is picked up if I step out of frame and then back in, but it did pick me back up. For Fuji, this is a pretty good performance.
Likewise, with my hand test (where I alternately block and then unblock the camera’s view of my face with my hand) went relatively well. Transitions from my hand to my face went fairly well, though sometimes with a bit of lag where it was as if the camera was deciding whether or not to transition focus. But when the reaction happened, there’s enough speed there to execute fairly quickly.
Bottom line is that while Fuji has work to do on the autofocus front (upgraded hardware rather than just software, I think), the Fujinon XF 16-55mm is making more of the existing hardware than any lens I can remember testing outside of the killer XF 200mm F2.
Image Quality Breakdown
I could immediately tell that, unlike the older 16-55mm lens, the new 16-55 II is designed with the ultra high resolution 40MP X-Trans sensor (similar pixel density to over 90MP on a full frame sensor) in mind. It does not get embarrassed by the high resolution sensor.
Not only does this image look great when viewed full (good color, good general contrast), but it also looks great in the details even though I’ve had to recover some of the shadowed information on Nala’s face due to the extreme backlighting.
The optical formula is 16 elements in 11 groups, with a majority of those being exotic elements, including 4 aspherical, 3 ED elements, and 1 super ED element. two of those being aspherical elements and one being an extra low dispersion element. If you look at the MTF charts, you’ll see a lens that would have been flawless on the lower resolution cameras of the past but manages to still be strong on very high resolution cameras today.
The MTF chart for the 16mm end shows very impressive center and mid-frame results, but a pretty step drop (particularly on the meridional access) near the corners. The telephoto end is equally impressive in the center and midframe and has a more linear drop to the corners.
The bottom line is that this is easily now the strongest standard zoom performer, topping my previous winner (the Sigma 18-50mm) with noticeably more contrast and significantly less fringing.
There is of course more to lens performance than pure sharpness and contrast, but it’s reassuring that the most expensive standard zoom on the platform is back to being the strongest performing lens.
So let’s jump into some of the details.
First of all, how about vignette and distortion? The lens has been downsized significantly – did that come at a price? This is one of the primary areas where I would expect that to show up.
We’ll start on the wide (16mm) end:
There’s a lot of barrel distortion here, but no more than before. I had to use a +22 to correct the barrel distortion, but, unlike the competing lenses, there isn’t any mustache pattern and the correction is very linear. What has increased (by a significant amount) is the amount of vignette. I needed a +48 to correct vignette on the first generation lens, but that amount has nearly doubled to a +91 to correct it here. It would appear that vignette is the thing that engineers had to compromise on to get the smaller size.
On the telephoto (55mm) the distortion has inverted to a pincushion distortion. It is significant, requiring a -13 to correct. Vignette is only slightly less, requiring a still very heavy +84 to correct for it. Fuji’s corrections are good, so in most situations the corrected image will look fine, but just know that when shooting in low light conditions (higher ISOs), there will be additional noise in the corners because of so much correction.
Longitudinal chromatic aberrations are extremely well controlled on either my test chart or in real world images.
There’s a huge advantage here for the Fuji lens over the Sigma 18-50mm, as that lens suffers quite badly from fringing.
Lateral chromatic aberrations show up near the edge of the frame in transitions from dark to light areas. You can see from the edge of my test chart Fuji has also nailed this metric, and there is next to no fringing in the transitions from black to white.
The vignette and resolution performance isn’t great, but the control of chromatic aberrations is.
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:
That’s a nice strong performance, with consistently good results at all points. 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), 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 shows an uptick in detail and contrast. The midframe results, in particular, highlight that improvement.
I don’t see much of a change from F4-F8, with results being uniformly pretty excellent. Landscape images look great.
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 even stronger sharpness and contrast all across the frame…right into the corners.
Real world images in this range look fantastic.
Moving on to 35mm I found some give and take at F2.8. Some spots in the frame favored the 23mm test, and other spots favored the 35mm capture.
Real world images at 35mm look very good.
Finally the all important telephoto end. Comparing 55mm to 35mm shows a slight improvement at 55mm in the center.
Corners show a bit more of a drop-off (as the MTF suggested), and the 35mm result is definitely stronger looking.
I shot roughly equally at 16mm and 55mm, and I was happy with the results at both ends of the zoom range. Real world 55mm shots showed good contrast and detail.
I feel pretty comfortable in saying that this is the most consistently excellent APS-C standard zoom that I’ve tested. Sharpness is good all through that zoom range with no real weak point.
Fuji also always delivers good color in their glass, so I like the overall look of images, too. Colors are rich.
I feel like photos have more of a prime-like rendering.
The bokeh quality is fairly good for a standard zoom, though will be somewhat situational. Shots with a favorable ratio between the distance to the subject and the distance to the background look pretty good.
Geometry is pretty good. Specular highlights are rounder than some competing lenses.
If we dive a little deeper into those specular highlights, though, we can see a little more inner outlining than what I would prefer.
That means that some situations will look a little busier when that ratio isn’t as favorable.
Overall, however, I would say the bokeh is pretty decent considering A) how sharp the lens is and B) the fact that it is a zoom.
Flare resistance is also quite good. The lens is able to hold up to the bright sun through the window here, for example:
Shooting right into the sun for a landscape style shot is also no problem.
Stopping down will show a tiny bit more ghosting artifacts, but nothing concerning at all.
In general, image quality is pretty great. Fuji has delivered in producing a standard zoom that is an optical match for their high resolution cameras. You can check out the image gallery if you’d like to see more.
Conclusion
I have to confess that I was initially concerned after Fuji released their first cameras with the 40MP sensors. It seemed like most of the lenses that I put on the camera looked pretty soft…including a few new releases. But lenses like the 23mm F1.4 WR, 33mm F1.4 WR, 56mm F1.2 WR, and now this 16-55mm F2.8 II have started to set my mind at ease. These are all lenses that are clearly designed with this higher resolution sensor in mind, and they are able to shine even on this most demanding of platforms.
The 16-55 II feels like the premium lens in the class now, as it should. I still like the Sigma 18-50mm F2.8, but there’s no question that the 16-55 II outclasses it optically. It’s more consistently sharp, has better autofocus, more features, and just produces richer images.
Despite the weight loss regimen, the Fujinon XF 16-55mm F2.8 R LM WR II is still the bigger and heavier than competing lenses, and its unquestionably more expensive. But it’s also unequivocally the best, and if you are going to use one of Fuji’s high resolution sensors, it is probably worth investing in. I’m certainly considering one.
Keywords: Fuji 16-55mm II, Fujinon 16-55 II, Fuji, Fujinon, XF, AF, Autofocus, 16-55mm, F2.8, R, WR, LM Weathersealing, Fuji 16-55mm F2.8 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.
TTArtisan is definitely starting to get some serious attention over their series of low priced yet relatively high performing prime lenses. Last year’s AF 56mm F1.8 has proven to be a popular budget portrait lens (only $129 USD!), and I gave it a positive review. They had released an AF 35mm F1.8 just a few months before that, but they decided that they could do better, and less than a year later, they released the AF 35mm F1.8 II last month, a lens that was reduced in size and but improved in performance. I was pretty impressed by their drive to improve, and it was reflected in my review. Between those two lenses, we have the standard prime (50mm) covered, the short portrait telephoto (85mm) covered, but what about the wide angle 35mm prime that typically completes the trilogy of primes? Consider that now covered in the form of the new TTArtisan AF 23mm F1.8. Priced at around $125 USD, this is yet another budget lens that is surprisingly good. Dive into my video review or read my text review to find out more…or just enjoy the photos below.
Thanks to TTArtisan 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 find the visit the TTArtisan listing page for the lens to get more information.
You may have been a bit confused about my reference to 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm lenses, but because this series is made for for APS-C cameras, the focal length of each lens must be magnified by the crop factor of the cameras that they are made for. I’m reviewing the TTA 23mm on Fuji X-mount, but it will also eventually be available on Sony E-mount and Nikon Z-mount. The crop factor of all those systems is 1.5x, which means that a 23mm lens becomes 34.5mm, a 35mm becomes 52.5mm, and a 56mm becomes an 84mm full frame equivalent. The math isn’t perfect, but essentially you have a 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm full frame equivalent series of lenses…just high compacted!
As you can see, the 23mm isn’t quite as compact as the MK II version of the 35mm F1.8, but it is still a nicely compact lens that was a nice fit even on the X-M5, which I just reviewed and is one of Fuji’s most compact cameras.
I think that the TTA 23mm will probably be a hit, as while it isn’t a perfect lens, it delivers really stellar image quality, focuses just fine, and proved to be a great walkaround/street kind of lens.
You probably aren’t going to find a better autofocusing 23mm lens for less, but does that mean that this is the lens for you? Find out in my reviews!
Keywords: TTArtisan AF 23mm F1.8, TTArtisan, TTArtisan 35mm, TTArtisan AF, Autofocus, TTArtisan 23mm F1.8, 23mm, F1.8, STM, Review, Fuji X, Sony E, Review, Telephoto, Action, Tracking, Hands On, Dustin Abbott, Real World, Comparison, Sharpness, Bokeh, Flare Resistance, Autofocus, Image Quality, Sample Images, Video, Photography, Sony a6700, Sony a6600, 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.
TTArtisan is definitely starting to get some serious attention over their series of low priced yet relatively high performing prime lenses. Last year’s AF 56mm F1.8 has proven to be a popular budget portrait lens (only $129 USD!), and I gave it a positive review. They had released an AF 35mm F1.8 just a few months before that, but they decided that they could do better, and less than a year later, they released the AF 35mm F1.8 II last month, a lens that was reduced in size and but improved in performance. I was pretty impressed by their drive to improve, and it was reflected in my review. Between those two lenses, we have the standard prime (50mm) covered, the short portrait telephoto (85mm) covered, but what about the wide angle 35mm prime that typically completes the trilogy of primes? Consider that now covered in the form of the new TTArtisan AF 23mm F1.8. Priced at around $125 USD, this is yet another budget lens that is surprisingly good. Dive into my video review or read on in my text review to find out more.
Thanks to TTArtisan 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 find the visit the TTArtisan listing page for the lens to get more information.
You may have been a bit confused about my reference to 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm lenses, but because this series is made for for APS-C cameras, the focal length of each lens must be magnified by the crop factor of the cameras that they are made for. I’m reviewing the TTA 23mm on Fuji X-mount, but it will also eventually be available on Sony E-mount and Nikon Z-mount. The crop factor of all those systems is 1.5x, which means that a 23mm lens becomes 34.5mm, a 35mm becomes 52.5mm, and a 56mm becomes an 84mm full frame equivalent. The math isn’t perfect, but essentially you have a 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm full frame equivalent series of lenses…just high compacted!
As you can see, the 23mm isn’t quite as compact as the MK II version of the 35mm F1.8, but it is still a nicely compact lens that was a nice fit even on the X-M5, which I just reviewed and is one of Fuji’s most compact cameras.
I think that the TTA 23mm will probably be a hit, as while it isn’t a perfect lens, it delivers really stellar image quality, focuses just fine, and proved to be a great walkaround/street kind of lens.
You probably aren’t going to find a better autofocusing 23mm lens for less, but does that mean that this is the lens for you? Read on to find out.
Build and Handling
The little TTArtisan AF 23mm F1.8 makes a very positive first impression. I’ve been really consistently impressed by how nicely built and cosmetically attractive these budget lenses from TTArtisan have been. The TTA 23mm has an anodized black finish and everything is made of metal and glass.
It is a simple design, with no switches on the lens barrel nor an aperture ring (Fuji shooters will probably miss this!). Fortunately you can function just fine without either of these, and AF | MF switches on Fuji lenses are rare, anyway, though that’s not true on other platforms like Sony or Nikon. But the simple metal body comes off as looking clean and classic.
At the rear of the lens we have a metal lens mount complete with the appropriate electronic contacts; aperture will be controlled from the camera. Aperture control seems to work well; it is quick and responsive and the aperture iris blades are not noisy, with just a light click as the blades open and close.
There are nine aperture blades, but you can see below, they aren’t particularly rounded and don’t deliver a fully circular shape even by an aperture like F3.2:
Up front we have a fairly stylish looking front façade complete with 52mm filter threads (which are blessedly shared across all three lenses in this series, which is great for filter sharing!)
The included lens cap has a new font for the TTARTISAN logo imprinted on it, and I think it looks smart and modern.
TTArtisans first few lenses in the series featured somewhat odd lens hoods. While the lens hood was made of metal, it had an odd design that terminated in something looks like an anamorphic adapter (a rectangular opening) which prohibited either the use of filters or mounting the lens cap…plus it meant that you absolutely couldn’t reverse the lens hood for storage. TTArtisan changed that for the MK II version of the AF 35mm F1.8, and I’m happy to report that they’ve continued that trend here. We have a conventional hood that can be easily reversed for storage and doesn’t interfere with filters.
The manual focus ring is another positive, however. It is ribbed in metal and moves with a nice amount of resistance. The active focus area will automatically magnify when you start to focus, and this helps visually confirm accurate focus. The focus ring is not linear, so the amount of “throw” will vary based on the speed. As per usual on Fuji, manual focus at slow speeds does not feel linear, feeling instead like you move in little steps of focus rather than a smooth progression.
TTArtisan has continued with their design where the rear lens cap has a USB-C port along with electronic contacts inside that will allow you to transfer firmware updates to the lens through a computer. It’s an interesting alternative to having a USB-C port built right into the lens, though I do prefer the built-in option in case you lose the rear lens cap at some point.
TTArtisan has still not mastered the ability to design their lenses with great close focus ability. The minimum focus distance is 30cm, and, while they haven’t listed the maximum magnification, I estimate it as being around 0.14x.
That’s not great for a 35mm lens, but it is enough magnification to at least let you play with isolating a subject a bit.
So while this is a rather simple design, it is nicely executed. Other than the lack of features (no aperture ring, switches, or weather sealing), you would easily think of this as being a much more expensive lens. I suspect that those who are purchasing a lens from this series for the first time will be very pleasantly surprised by how premium their cheap lens feels.
Autofocus for Stills
As before, TTArtisan has chosen to equip this lens with a lead-screw type STM focus motor.
Fuji remains the least favorite of the four brands of cameras that I own and test, though the recent firmware updates on my X-H2 to V5 and beyond seem to have made some small improvement. Autofocus performance here is on the slow side of average, with decent speed in most situations. If you are intentionally going from a close to a distant subject (as I do in my tests), then autofocus speed feels a little more deliberate.
There isn’t a lot of noise in focus, though you will hear faint whines and clicks if you put your ear near it. I don’t hear any focus motor noise under normal shooting, however, even with my eye at the viewfinder. What you will hear is a little “clack” from the aperture blades opening and closing if you partially hold down the shutter.
Autofocus accuracy was good, whether I was using it to capture family moments:
…or capturing fancy holiday treats…
Eye detect worked well (as is pretty expected at this point). I had no problem with people or pets in getting accurately focused results.
No, autofocus isn’t in the upper tier of performance, but in real world use, I had zero problems getting the shots I wanted in all the settings I used the camera. No problems in a dim restaurant, for example.
I wouldn’t use this lens to try to capture fast action, but outside of that, no problem.
Video Autofocus
Fuji’s video AF on their cameras remains somewhat primitive, so take these results with a slight grain of salt and expect them to be better on Sony or Nikon. Focus pulls feature some obvious steps, with the majority of the pull occurring, then a slight pause, and then the final adjustment. In a couple of my pulls I saw a third microadjustment as the focus algorithms debated their final choice. Deliberate focus pulls remain an area of weakness for lenses in general on Fuji, but I can also see a difference here from some native Fuji lenses that I recently reviewed, so at least part of that is due to the AF in the TTA 23mm.
Focus seemed smoother in some clips where I moved in a more natural fashion towards a subject.
My hand test (where I alternately block and then unblock the camera’s view of my face with my hand) proved somewhat better. I saw a fairly decent focus transition from one subject to another, though there is some obvious focus breathing so that perspective does change somewhat.
Focus seemed to be stable when I had a static subject that wasn’t changing. There wasn’t any obvious focus noise during any of these tests. This isn’t the most sophisticated focus system out there, but it does a fairly decent job so long as you don’t try to force too many focus pulls.
Image Quality Breakdown
The TTArtisan AD 23mm F1.8 has an optical formula with 11 elements in 9 groups, including one High Index element and two Extra Low Dispersion elements. The MTF chart shows a fairly flat optical performance, with a good (not great) center performance, a slightly stronger mid-frame performance, and then so drop in the corners.
The MTF chart suggests only a minor improvement when the lens is stopped down. In fact, the corners show a slightly odd result, where in the corners there is actually a bigger separation between the sagittal and meridional axis. Bottom line is you shouldn’t expect amazing corners (ever, really), but the lens is should prove very competent everywhere else.
There is literally no platform that I test on this is more challenging than Fuji’s 40MP APS-C sensor, as it has (by far) the greatest pixel density. A full frame sensor would have to be more than 90MP to achieve a similar pixel density, which is 50% higher than the current maximum full frame resolution of 61MP. While the budget TTArtisan 23mm F1.8 is not anywhere near the top resolving lenses on the platform, it is also far from embarrassing itself and delivers a fairly strong optical performance from F1.8 on.
This shot holds up at a pixel level, too, with very nice detail in the bodice and fabric textures.
Let’s take a closer look at both strengths and weaknesses here.
If we look at vignette and distortion, we see both a great success and a great weakness.
There is the tiniest amount of pincushion distortion, requiring just a -2 to correct, but vignette required me to max out the sliders to get the result on the right. You will DEFINITELY need to correct vignette in your images.
Early TTArtisan AF lenses really struggled with a fringing, but that’s been an area where TTArtisan has really focused on improvement.
This real world shot of moisture on a window with light pouring through it shows a nice, neutral result.
There are only minimal amounts of LaCA (lateral chromatic aberrations), with little fringing on either side of black and white transitions.
I never really saw any kind of real world issue with LaCA.
So how about sharpness and contrast? Here’s a look at the test chart:
And here are the crops from across the frame at F1.8 at a 200% magnification.
You may notice that I have sampled the upper left corner rather than the usual lower right crop that I normally take. The reason for this is that my copy clearly has a centering issue, and the lower right corner is incredibly soft. If I take the same image and compare the lower left and the lower right, you can see that the lower right is much softer.
I didn’t notice the centering issue as much when shooting at landscape distances. If I sample both the upper left and the bottom right corners from a real world F5.6 image, I’m not really impressed with either of them, but one doesn’t look radically different from the other.
Shots taken on the lower resolution X-M5 work pretty well, though I would say that I actually probably preferred X-H2 images for the most part.
Real world contrast looks pretty decent, and in this shot from our New Year’s party, you can see that the detail really looks quite good. Not what I would call pin-sharp, but I suspect that this is plenty of resolution for most people.
It’s good that wide open sharpness is fairly good, however, as the lens doesn’t really sharpen up a lot as you stop it down (as the MTF chart suggested). That’s not to say there isn’t improvement, however. You can see see that the contrast and detail definitely looks different between F1.8 and F5.6 here:
As the MTF chart suggested, I find that the mid-frame results actually look the best. The F4 result looks better than what I see in the middle of the frame.
Stopping down to F5.6 and F8 shows mostly good results across the frame, but there is definitely ebbs and flows for sharpness depending on where you look. Here, for the example, the upper edge looks good.
After that, however, diffraction will become a factor, and the image quality will be slightly softer at F11 and then moreso at F16.
Sharpness isn’t top tier (lenses like the Sigma 23mm F1.4 or the Fuji 23mm F1.4 WR are clearly sharper), but, to be fair, this is a lens that costs $127, whereas those lenses are anywhere from $600-900. I took plenty of images that I liked with this lens.
The bokeh quality is pretty good. Perhaps the biggest weakness (for some), will be some serious flattening of specular highlights near the edge, giving it a bit of a swirl look in some situations.
In other situations, however, the bokeh looks fairly soft:
Even where the setting is a bit less favorable (more in the transition zone), I felt like the bokeh was pretty good.
An image like this is a little more jittery due to a lot being in the transition zone, but I don’t dislike the image. The bit of swirl effect works for me.
TTArtisan has had their struggles with flare resistance, and there’s definitely some remaining issues here. Perhaps the worst effect I saw was on a very cold night where a street light was right out of frame, but I still got a strong corona of flare artifacts.
In many ways I think the lens is more susceptible at large rather than small apertures. This wide open (F1.8) shot has definitely got some flashing and loss of contrast going on.
The same shot when stopped down looks radically different.
This window shot of Nala is pretty washed out due to veiling.
Then again, there are some who love optical flaws like these, feeling they add character. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder! In general, however, I felt like I got plenty of images that I liked, which is pretty impressive from such an inexpensive lens.
If you’d like to see more images, check out the image gallery linked here.
Conclusion
It’s pretty remarkable that a company like TTArtisan has progressed to making autofocus lenses that are fully usable and functional and yet still cost so little. A person could get this 23mm, the 35mm II, and 56mm F1.8 lenses from TTArtisan for around $380. That’s amazingly good value, and it feels like ten years ago that would have been the going price for one lens like this…not three.
When I dive deeply into the technical performance of the TTArtisan AF 23mm F1.8, I could find a number of things to criticize. But the truth of the matter is that in normal use, and particularly when shooting at larger aperture values, I didn’t find the lens fun to use, and got plenty of images that I liked just fine.
And that’s the real story here. Those on a tight budget can rejoice that once again TTArtisan has delivered another perfectly usable lens that can be had for under $130 USD. What’s ironic, however, is that TTArtisan has had a new Viltrox AIR series lens to compete with alongside each of these released. The Viltrox AIR 56mm F1.7 was released at just about the same time as the TTArtisan 56mm F1.8. The excellent Viltrox 35mm F1.7 AIR lens was released right after the 35mm F1.8 II, and, right on cue, the new Viltrox 25mm F1.7 AIR has just been announced. My experience has been that the Viltrox lenses tend to be sharper, but they are also typically priced about $50 higher. If you’re on a tight budget, that $50 might be the difference maker. And if you want something a little more “old school” feeling, the TTArtisan AF 23mm F1.8 might be just the thing. The AIR lenses are more corrected, more modern, while the TTArtisan AF series has a bit more of a retro vibe. Decisions, decisions….
Pros:
Very nicely built for the money
More conventional hood design
USB-C port in rear lens cap allows for firmware updates
Keywords: TTArtisan AF 23mm F1.8, TTArtisan, TTArtisan 35mm, TTArtisan AF, Autofocus, TTArtisan 23mm F1.8, 23mm, F1.8, STM, Review, Fuji X, Sony E, Review, Telephoto, Action, Tracking, Hands On, Dustin Abbott, Real World, Comparison, Sharpness, Bokeh, Flare Resistance, Autofocus, Image Quality, Sample Images, Video, Photography, Sony a6700, Sony a6600, 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 Review 
Nikkor Z 135mm F1.8 S Plena Gallery 
