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.
Fujifilm scored a huge hit with their X-100VI and its retro-cool design and fixed lens. But there are plenty of people who like the vibe but want the ability to use more than one lens. Enter the new Fujifilm X-M5, which has a similar cool vibe but uses Fuji’s ubiquitous X-mount that can host probably more than a hundred different lenses from a variety of brands at this point. It utilizes Fuji’s 26MP X-Trans sensors, has their most recent focus algorithms, and also boasts a deeper video component than many competitors. So is this new Fujifilm X-M5 worth considering over the competition? Find out by watching my video review below…or keep reading.
Thanks to Fujifilm Canada for sending me a review loaner of this camera. As always, this is a completely independent review, and the thoughts and opinions expressed here are my own.
So what are the major competitors to this camera? The closest competitor that springs to mind is the similarly vlog-focused Sony ZV-E10II that I reviewed in 2024. That camera costs more (+ $200), has slightly lower video specs, but also has a more robust autofocus system.
There’s also the Canon EOS R10, Nikon Z50II, and even the long in the tooth Sony a6400 might be worth considering, as while it is five years old now, its AF system still beats what Fuji can deliver. Autofocus is improved on the X-M5 over previous models, but unfortunately this does remain the Achilles heel for Fuji products. But Fuji brings its own strengths, including more stylish design, its famous film simulations, and up to 6K30 video recording specs.
If you are looking for a stylish vlogging camera, want to travel light, or generally want to keep things as compact as possible without compromising on imaging, the X-M5 might just be the camera for you. And, at $799 USD for the camera alone or just $899 for a kit including the XC 15-45mm f/3.5-5.6 Lens, the Fujifilm X-M5 offers a very compelling value.
I’ve got a few complaints that I’ll detail as well, but there’s a lot to praise here…so let’s dive in.
Spec List
26.1MP APS-C X-Trans 4 CMOS Sensor
Latest AI-Assisted Processing Algorithms
6.2K/29.97 fps Video, 10-Bit Internal
425-Point AF, AI-Based Subject Detection
Up to 30 fps JPEG Shooting w/ 1.25x Crop
Compatible with X-Series Lenses
3.0″ 1.04m-Dot Tilting Touchscreen LCD
SD/SDHC/SDXC Card Slot
Wi-Fi and Bluetooth Wireless Connections
*XC 15-45mm f/3.5-5.6 OIS PZ Lens (if purchased in kit)
Some of the biggest omissions to the feature list include a viewfinder of any kind along with having no camera-based stabilization.
Build and Features
The X-M5 does have some visual connections to the X100VI, particularly in the silver edition that I’ve reviewed here (a standard black finish is also available). It shares a similar topline, the tiny bulge of the grip, and a somewhat similar top control scheme.
Fuji has forged a reputation for retaining a more analog control scheme that relies more on dials that touchscreens (a good thing, as Fuji’s touchscreens remain unimproved in the more than six years I’ve been reviewing their products). That’s less true here, however, and the main concession to that aesthetic is the film simulation dial on the left side of the topline of the camera.
This allows you quick access to Fuji’s film simulations, though, frankly, this is going to appeal more to people who shoot JPEGs than those who shoot RAWs, as shooting with a preselected film simulation doesn’t affect a RAW image on import. Case in point is that I turned the dial to PROVIA for the shot on the left and then VELVIA for the shot on the right. The JPEGs will look different, with much more saturation on the VELVIA image, but the two RAW files arrived in Lightroom looking identical:
If you are a JPEG shooter and love Fuji’s film simulation, this quick access dial is going to be great. For me (a RAW shooter), it is a waste, as I would strongly prefer an extra control dial, and thus far I haven’t found a way to assign a different function to that Film simulation dial. Also somewhat odd is the fact that the front command dial has to serve multiple functions, which are accessed by clicking the dial in (each click will cycle through the default 3 options in sequence unless customized otherwise). One of those default functions is film simulations, but this feels very redundant when there is a large dedicated dial for this function already on the top of the camera.
The X-M5 is a very slim and stylish camera, but that stylish exterior does come at the cost of ergonomic practicality. You’ll note from the comparison above that out of the competing cameras the X-M5 is by far the slimmest. It’s just 38mm (1.5″) deep, which means that the grip is nearly nonexistent. There is a very slight bulge on the right side of the camera that serves as the grip, but there’s nowhere near enough depth there to actually wrap your fingers around. This is more a camera that you pinch rather than one that settles into your grip. The minimal height of the camera also means that my pinky has no place to go and has to float underneath the camera. This is a camera that is better suited to smaller, lighter lenses, and you probably won’t want to often use the larger, heavier telephoto lenses with the camera. Even the new XF 16-55mm F2.8 II, which is considerably smaller than the first generation lens, feels a little awkward in balance.
You can see from this shot of the battery compartment that the grip above is a just a little bump. There’s very little to hang onto. I personally don’t find this camera very easy to hang onto, though your mileage may vary. The flipside of this design is that it takes the portability way up. Pair this with a pancake style lens (an X-mount version of Viltrox’s 28mm F4.5 VCM would be perfect!) and you would truly have a pocketable camera. The camera is 111.9 (W) x 66.6 (H) x 38mm (D) or 4.4 x 2.6 x 1.5″. The weight is just 355g (12.5oz) without a battery or memory card. That’s a little heavier than the Sony ZV-E10 II, and a little lighter than the Canon EOS R10.
You might also note from above that there is no room in that grip for a battery, so the battery sits laterally in the camera. The NP-W126S is a relatively small 1260mAh unit that is rated for as much as 440 frames in “Economy mode” but drops to 330 frames in normal mode. Economy mode reduces performance of both the LCD screen and the autofocus system, so that probably isn’t going to work for most people most of the time, particularly considering the LCD is the only way to compose with the X-M5. That battery charge is also only good for about 45 minutes of 6.2K or 4K60 recording. You probably want to pick up a spare battery or two.
The second disappointment is that the memory card is housed there. I hate this position as it makes it far more likely that you’ll walk away without a memory card inserted because you have to close the battery door to set the camera down (happened to me!) If you have a tripod QR plate attached you also won’t be able to open the door to get at the card without removing it first. I also couldn’t figure out a way to just attach a USB-C cable and directly transfer images to my computer. That meant that I either had to do without my Peak Design capture plate that I put on all my cameras to make them easy to attach to either straps or tripods, or I had to use a hex key to remove the plate every time I needed to access the memory card. I really, really dislike this card position, and it is made worse here because the card is located on the far right of the bay, closer to the center of the camera and the 1/4″ tripod socket.
The card slot is only UHS-1 compatible, but that seems to be enough for steady data flow for the 6K30 footage. Buffer depth (as we’ll explore later) is pretty decent as well thanks to the more reasonable 26MP (rather than 40MP) resolution of the sensor.
While the X-M5 has some of the retro aesthetic that Fuji does so well, the control scheme (outside of the film simulation dial) is pretty routine. As a personal preference, I actually like even my compact cameras to be big enough to have decent ergonomics. Controls are not bad here, but there’s a few questionable decisions in with the good. You can see from the top plate (where most of the controls are) that there is a mode dial and a rear control dial in addition to the film simulation dial. The rear control dial is a little stiff, but works well enough. What I really don’t like is the tiny, tiny Q menu button between those two dials. It is hard to access with a bare fingertip, and impossible when wearing gloves (I’m doing a winter review).
The rear buttons above the LCD screen are also very small, and those wearing gloves will also find them a little difficult.
The drive/garbage button is harder still to access due to the prominent port for the mic input. Mic ports are usually on the side. I don’t mind this position in a small camera, as it has good proximity to the hot shoe where the mic will likely be mounted, but it does make the adjacent button a little difficult to access.
This includes a headphone monitoring jack, which is important on a video-centric camera like this. A second port has a USB-C port that can be used for either data or charging the battery in camera, and a micro-HDMI port. I don’t love micro-HDMI (it feels more fragile), but obviously there isn’t room in a camera this size for a full size HDMI port.
On the positive note, there is a little navigational joystick that helps with menu navigation. On the negative side, however, there is no full menu navigation by touch, which isn’t true of most of the competing (non-Fuji) cameras. There are two other buttons below this for further control.
The limited touch capacity makes navigating Fuji’s menus a little clunkier than other cameras where you can use whatever combination of touch and/or physical control that you like. I’m mostly frustrated here because I haven’t seen any progress on this front in all the time I’ve been using Fuji. The reactiveness of what touch is there (touch to focus, navigating the Q-menu, etc…) feels imprecise and with a lower reactiveness than competing cameras.
Another disappoint regarding the screen is a fairly low resolution. This is a 3″ fully articulating screen (which I personally like!), but the resolution is just 1.04 million dots. That’s not great when the screen is your only compositional tool. There is no viewfinder. While the screen has reasonable brightness, it is definitely very hard to see in bright, sunny conditions. There were many times in those situations where I instinctively began to bring the camera up to my eye only to remember that there was no viewfinder.
Also missing is one of Fuji’s useful control points – an easy to use switch that controls the focus mode (Manual, Continuous, and Single Shot). This is more missed on Fuji than other cameras because most Fuji lenses do not have an AF | MF switch because this is usually handled by a camera-based switch.
All we have on front is the aforementioned control dial and a lens release button located on the right side of the lens mount.
The shutter is threaded in a typical Fuji fashion, and surrounding it is the ON/OFF toggle. You can choose either a mechanical style shutter with a 1/4000th shutter speed limit, or an electronic shutter that can reach a much higher 1/32,000th shutter speed. Fuji has a nice hybrid option where you can choose to use the mechanical shutter for slower shutter speeds (with all of the advantages that come with a mechanical shutter) and then automatically switch to the electronic shutter when faster shutter speeds are needed.
The X-M5 is compatible with Fuji’s FAN-001 cooling fan accessory. It seems like most of their recent cameras with a fully articulating screen can use this. It’s an interesting (if somewhat clunky) interesting concept, as it plugs into the body in the port pictured above with the screen rotated out and actively cools the camera chassis to extend video recording time. You aren’t going to be able to close the screen with the FAN-001 attached (for obvious reasons), but it seems like a fairly intelligent solution to a common problem for those focused on long format video capture at higher bitrates and resolution levels. I didn’t have the FAN-001 on hand, but here’s what it looked like attached to the X-S20.
The X-M5 is a very cool looking compact camera that definitely wins style points, though, as per usual, the compact nature of the camera comes with some serious ergonomic challenges.
To me, going back to my X-H2 was a treat, but I’m more of a fan of more conventional controls and chunkier camera bodies. If you want small, and compact, the X-M5 may be perfect for you.
Kit Lens
I’ll take a moment to give you a look at the potential kit lens, which is the XC 15-45mm F3.5-5.6 OIS PZ. Bought in kit, it will only set you back an additional $100, but bought separately it will cost three times as much! You’ll obviously want to make that decision before purchasing the camera!
This is a useful focal length, and I will give some credit for having a slightly brighter aperture than some competing lenses (F6.3 is pretty common on the telephoto end). The lens also provides OIS (Optical Image Stabilization), which could be important since the camera body itself has no stabilization.
I also appreciate the fact that while the lens is a retractable zoom design (the inner barrel emerges when the lens is powered on), it doesn’t require a manual twist to make the lens usable like Canon’s RF kit lenses do (a feature I hate!!)
The lens is a PZ, or Powerzoom lens, which means that the zooming mechanism is motorized. When you twist the larger of the two rings the lens will zoom either in or out depending on the direction. This allows for smoother zooming than you can accomplish with a typical twisting zoom, making it useful if you want zooming shots. In the VLOG mode you will also get on-screen zoom controls that will allow you another option for zooming.
A kit lens can be useful in a few scenarios: 1) if you are new to photography or to Fuji and don’t have any lenses. Buying a kit lens means that you can immediately start taking pictures, and at $100, the XC 15-45mm offers a low cost point of entry. 2) If you want a general purpose video zoom. The lens is lightweight, has a useful focal range, and gives you some stabilization.
But there’s a good chance you’ll quickly want an optical upgrade, particularly for stills. Kit lenses tend to be cheap for a reason, and that’s true here right down to the plastic lens mount. Sometimes video is a little less demanding for optical performance, but for stills I sometimes find the image quality rather soft.
Fortunately there are a lot of great, inexpensive options for sharper image quality (particularly if you are willing to use prime lenses, or those with a single focal length). Zoom lenses are fewer and more expensive, but I’m very fond of the Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 DN, which I reviewed here. You can see the Sigma’s sharpness advantage in the center:
…and along the edges of the frame, where it has noticeably stronger contrast.
It’s also considerably more expensive, however, so if you’re on a tight budget, the kit lens at least gives you a functional lens, and I’ve definitely seen worse kit lenses.
Vlogging Mode
One of the key features of the X-M5 that positions it to directly compete with a camera like the Sony ZV-E10 II is the dedicated vlogging mode and associated features. We’ve already noted that when you turn the mode dial to “VLOG”, completely different screen controls appear. New options include zoom control (if a powerzoom is present). When I attached the non-PZ XF 16-50mm F2.8-4.8, that option disappeared. Other new controls include record (to begin or end video record), playback, and then a menu button.
If you touch the menu option, a number of other options will arrive displayed around the edges of the screen.
It’s a little frustrating in one sense, as while the touchscreen still isn’t amazingly responsive, it does show that Fuji is capable of doing more with their touch capabilities. There are a decent amount of menu options here, and that gives you more direct access to some of these controls. It’s also worth noting that these controls can be easily accessed if you have the touchscreen facing you in “selfie mode”, which could save a bit of frustration of going back and forth.
But it isn’t just software, as the X-M5 also has hardware upgrades to the audio recording. According to Fuji, “(the) FUJIFILM X-M5 is the first X Series model to feature three built-in microphones for the highest-quality audio. Four different audio modes are available: Surround, Front Priority, Back Priority, or Front & Back Priority, giving the flexibility to get crystal-clear sound from any direction.”
If you touch the Mic option on the touchscreen, you’ll get a nicely illustrative menu that gives you the four different options for sound recording.
Because there are actually multiple mics, these options will in fact really change the way that sound is recorded by the camera. There’s a bit less of an obvious difference between the “surround sound” and “front/rear” (1st and 4th options) if there isn’t a lot of sound to the sides, but there is a very obvious difference in the sound if you are selecting either front or back modes. I tested in vlogging mode, with the camera faced towards me, and when I had the rear only mode engaged my voice was recorded at a much lower level and a different sound quality than when the front microphones were activated.
The best sound in many cases will come from using separate mics, but you definitely have more creative options here than are typical with most cameras using the built in mics.
There are a few other design elements that reflect modern content creation. There is a “Shorts” mode that allows you to record short clips (up to 60 seconds) in vertical mode…but without having to rotate the camera.
Also, in addition to being able to record high bitrates and high quality footage, you can also record at very low bitrates (as low as 8Mbps) to allow for quick sharing or transfer.
You’ll have a few other options regarding focus and the look of videos. Background defocus mode will simply choose the largest maximum aperture available on the lens you have attached so the background is blurred more, but that’s going to be limited to by your lens selection (don’t expect a strong background blur with the kit lens, for example). Portrait Enhancer will do some skin smoothing, with three levels of intensity that is user selectable. Product priority mode will set the autofocus to focus on anything that is moved towards the camera rather than staying locked on the presenter. It allows you to highlight a product or item you want the camera to focus on.
In many ways I was reminded of the ZV-E10 II, as a lot of these same features are making priority lists for these type of cameras.
Autofocus Performance
Ahhh, my least favorite section when reviewing Fuji cameras. Over the years that I’ve been reviewing Fuji I’ve seen a variety of improvements, but somehow the end result is always just falling further and further behind the competition. When I first reviewed the X-T3, I though the autofocus was fairly good (at least for stills) relative to, say, the Sony a6500 I owned at the time. But since that point Sony, Canon, and Nikon have all made great strides and have nearly perfected autofocus for stills and video, but Fuji’s AF has only made very incremental improvements. I’ve become convinced that what is needed is not the continual focus algorithm updates, or even the AI chip and tracking, but rather a more fundamental hardware improvement.
Fuji says, “FUJIFILM X-M5 features the same built-in AI-driven subject detection autofocus as FUJIFILM X100VI and X-T50 mirrorless digital cameras. Along with Fujifilm’s latest-generation image processor, this delivers incredible focus accuracy in nearly all lighting conditions, even if your subject is moving. X-Processor 5 features subject detection autofocus that is built withdeep-learning AI technology. In addition to providing incredible AF tracking and detection for human faces and eyes, FUJIFILM X-M5 can also automatically detect and track a broad range of subjects, including animals, birds, cars, motorcycles, bicycles, airplanes, trains, insects, and drones.
FUJIFILM X-M5 is equipped with Fujifilm’slatest predictive algorithm, recording subjects with highly accurate AF even in scenes requiring tracking of moving objects or in low-contrast environments. It tracks a wide range of subjects, including sports and animals, and subjects in motion.“
So yes, the X-M5 receives all of Fuji’s most recent autofocus improvements, but they are almost all software rather than hardware based. The underlying hybrid Contrast/Phase Detect autofocus system that has undergirded Fuji’s cameras for the past few generations is still in place (and in need of an upgrade!), but it has been augmented in the most recent generation of cameras with Fuji’s X-Processor 5.
This adds AI based deep learning for subject detection AF to accurately track a range of subjects. The system detects animals, birds, cars, motorcycles, bicycles, airplanes, trains, insects, and drones (though you choose “bird” to track insects and “airplane” to track drones). My experience with Fuji’s most recent autofocus in a variety of cameras is that the AF system definitely works best when there is a trackable subject in frame.
The most recent firmware updates to cameras like my X-H2 and what’s present in the X-M5 do feel like a more significant improvement in terms of stills autofocus. I found that things don’t feel too far behind my other cameras for shooting stills.
Obviously focus is going to depend somewhat on the lens you have attached, but using the most recent generation of Fuji lenses produces good results (the new 16-55mm F2.8 II was used for the shot above). I did notice in my “around the house” shots that I’ve gotten very accustomed to having IBIS in my cameras, and I wasn’t quite as attentive to shutter speed as I should be, resulting in some unexpected motion blur in some of my shots captured with the X-M5.
I’m not sure I would treat this as an action camera. Fuji’s tracking capabilities vary quite bit according to what lens is attached, but even at its best it doesn’t quite match what other brands can do. More relevant here, however, is that tracking action (particularly in varying lighting conditions) without a viewfinder is TOUGH.
The burst speeds here vary according to what shutter is being used. The mechanical shutter has an upper limit of 8FPS, which does place it behind some of the competing cameras. You have the option to switch into electronic shutter mode, however, and get up to 20FPS with the full sensor and then up to 30FPS with a sports crop of 1.25x. These electronic shutter burst rates are faster than what competing cameras offer. As per usual, however, there will be some limitations with the electronic shutter in a camera that doesn’t have a particularly fast readout speed. Here’s a breakdown of some of the primary burst rates along with the buffer depth per file size and compression.
The lower resolution point of 26MP (relative to their 40MP sensor) helps considerably with buffer depth, as the JPEG buffer rates aren’t too bad, with as much as 173 frames (mechanical at 8FPS) or as little as 127 frames (electronic at 20FPS). If you try to get it all (Uncompressed RAW + JPEG), that buffer will fill really fast (in about a second)! The lossless compressed RAW (my preferred format) buffers are relatively shallow, but compressed RAW isn’t too bad. If this is your only camera, then by all means use it to capture action, but don’t buy this camera particularly for that purpose. Cameras without viewfinders are rarely top choices for capturing high speed action.
Fuji’s eye detection has definitely improved, with better recognition of the eye and better stickiness once the eye is acquired. One questionable ergonomic decision persists, however, in that Fuji separates human eye detection from AI detection of any other subject. This means that you have to separately access these two features, so if you want to assign eye detection to a button, for example, you can’t put both types of eye or subject detection on one button. I have to have two separate shortcuts set up on my X-H2, for example, which just means that you have one less thing you could map to your camera.
Some brands have started to add a smart auto subject detection mode, a move I applaud as it allows photographers to be more reactive to changing subjects and conditions. Fuji is improving in overall detection performance, but it does still lag somewhat behind competitors.
Video Autofocus
Video focus has been the area where I feel like Fuji has fallen the most behind. I have been able to rely on face detection to provide stable footage for my review videos when I’m in front of the camera for years on my Sony and Canon cameras. I don’t hesitate to set up a tripod with a wide variety of lenses and get in front of it, knowing that focus will be rock solid during the video clip. I used to shoot at least a portion of my review videos with the lens or camera that I was testing, but I stopped doing that early on with Fuji reviews because often there would be so much hunting and focus slippage that my audience would complain about how distracting it was.
This area, at least with good lenses, has improved on the X-M5. I shot some test segments using the XF 16-55mm F2.8 II and got reliable focus results when I was sitting in front of the camera. I didn’t notice any focus pulsing or slippage, and focus remained solid during the clip of roughly one minute in length. That’s progress, and it shows that the AI detection is certainly helping.
I also had good results while moving along in selfie mode while walking through the forest and talking to the camera. Focus changes are minimal in that scenario (the subject is mostly a constant distance from the camera), but I did have to periodically duck under branches and focus stayed consistent. I could see in the articulated screen that the tracking box was staying locked on an eye, though it it would occasionally swap eyes.
Where things really fell apart is during persistent movement, however. I ran multiple tests where I stepped into frame, pause for a moment to give the camera a chance to detect me, and then walked towards the camera. While the camera initially picked me up, focus was quickly lost as I started to move, as you can see above. This is a relatively simple test that most cameras from other brands handle just fine, so that’s an area for concern if your video capture includes action.
Video Performance
Outside of the video autofocus performance, video performance is actually a relative strength relative to the competition. Most competing cameras will top out at 4K60 recording (some even at 4K30 like the Canon alternatives), but the X-M5 will allow for open gate 6K recording. What is open gate? It is essentially allow for the whole sensor to be recorded…in its native ratio. We are accustomed to seeing video in 16:9 ratio, which would look like this:
There are plenty of 16:9 crops (and even 17:9) crops available here, but the open gate 6K is using all of the pixels of the sensor for recording video just as it would for recording stills. That results in a 3:2 aspect ratio, which looks like this:
There’s obviously a whole lot more on frame that would have been cropped out in a 16:9 crop. It gives more flexibility to the videographer in post, as with those extra pixels they could more easily produce a vertical crop for a reel:
This is what enables the camera to do the short clips in 9:16 (vertical) while in vlogging mode. It is taking the crop from the open gate image rather than requiring the photographer to rotate the camera vertically.
So, just know that you won’t get 6K 16:9 footage. If you want to do the typical widescreen look, you will have to do a 16:9 crop in post. The good news is that you’ll have more flexibility on how you choose to frame those shots, as you can crop closer to the top or bottom than would normally be allowed.
4K60 recording is also available, though that does come with a mild 1.18x crop (though that is more than the ZV-E10 II and its 1.10x crop). 4K30 or 4K24 is shot without any crop.
Bitrates range from 8Mbps to 200Mbps, and footage will come in either the MOV or MP4 wrapper depending on your choices. Here’s a list of some of the bitrates and framerates available.
There are high speed full HD modes available in either 17:9 or 16:9 aspect ratios with framerates as high as 240FPS. These will be shot in the higher 200Mbps bitrates.
Both FLog 2 and HLG recording are available, and of course all of Fuji’s film simulations and your custom tweaks can be made. There is a digital stabilization available when shooting movies, though that does come with a pretty significant crop attached to it (as much as 1.44x, depending on shooting mode).
Footage generally looks good. It has nice detail and color. My computer doesn’t recognize the codecs on the open gate footage, however, so that might be something to watch for.
Image Quality
The X-M5 used Fuji’s familiar 26.1Mpx X-Trans sensor. I’ve reviewed at least half a dozen cameras with this same sensor. The sensor was originally developed for the X-T3, where Fuji said of the X-T3’s sensor, “[with] a newly developed sensor, the X-T3 features an APS-C-format 26.1MP X-Trans CMOS 4 sensor, which has a back-illuminated design to afford smooth tonal rendering, improved low-light performance, and a low native ISO 160 setting. As an X-Trans sensor, it still utilizes the randomized pixel array, too, which provides a high degree of image quality and sharpness due to the omission of an optical low-pass filter. Versus conventional pixel patterns, the X-Trans design more closely mimics the organic nature of film in order to produce nuanced colors and tonal transitions, while also reducing moiré and aliasing.”
It used to be that this was the higher resolution point of the Fuji X lineup, with a more standard Bayer 24MP sensor used on some lower models, but now a number of cameras utilize the higher resolution 40MP sensor. This 26MP sensor is a good but not exceptional one. I’ve spent time with and reviewed most all of the competition, so, my quick conclusion is that this sensor is a competitive but not a clear winner in any category. Sony’s 26MP sensor sports a little more dynamic range (about a half stop) but slightly inferior high ISO performance.
After reviewing at least ten cameras with Fuji’s X-Trans sensors, I can safely say I personally think that the disadvantages of the X-Trans sensors outweigh the advantages over traditional Bayer sensers being used by competitors. Fuji says that the X-Trans sensor produces a more film-grain-like noise pattern, I don’t really see it, and it is rare that I run into the real world moiré issues that X-Trans supposedly reduces.
Here’s a look at the various file sizes and framing options:
If you don’t want the technicalities, here’s a brief summation of the sensor performance. This sensor has a smaller native ISO range than cameras with the 40MP sensor, with an ISO range of 160-12,800 (those cameras have a base ISO of 125). Most competing camera from Sony or Canon have a larger ISO range that starts even lower at ISO 100. I like to charitably call this Fuji being conservative and avoiding the marketing extremes. I have found that Fuji competes well with, say, Sony, across most of its ISO range (things even out around ISO 12,800).
Likewise, Fuji’s sensors don’t quite have the same amount of dynamic range as competing Sony sensors (close to a stop less DR at base ISO), though the Fuji sensors are more competitive at higher ISO values. I found that shadow recovery is clean, but I start to see highlight clipping earlier on. Fuji does have a feature called DR200/DR400 that open up at higher ISO values (320/640) that will sample the highlight information from the base ISO while taking the midtone and shadow information from the selected ISO value. This does help the dynamic range to be more competitive.
I also find Fuji images a little more complex to sharpen, as the X-Trans sensors have a unique way of handling information.
But what the sensor does have is Fuji’s excellent color science. Many people love Fuji colors (myself included), and they include a number of their film simulations that can give a unique “feel” to images and/or video footage. I’m currently loving the REALA ACE profile for a great look that works well on a wide variety of images. Fuji also has a fantastic JPEG engine, so if you just want to take photos and not spend a lot of time editing them to get the look you want, you may really enjoy the Fuji approach. Fuji also does a great job with in camera correction profiles, and so often the JPEG output looks even better than what the RAW images might suggest is possible. Note: as there are no changes to the sensor itself, the following are results given from earlier reviews of this sensor (in this case from X-S20).
ISO Performance
The native ISO range of Fuji’s 26Mpx X-Trans sensor is more limited than alternatives from Sony or Canon, running from ISO 160 to 12,800, with an expanded range going down to ISO 80 and moving up to 51,200 on the high end. I personally don’t ever use expanded ISO ranges and consider them more marketing than actually useful.. The native range is usable throughout, and even images ISO 12,800 are perfectly usable in many situations. Here’s a look at an image and crop of a guitar taken at ISO 12,800:
There’s some obvious noise at a pixel level, but the basic image is perfectly useful. Here’s another image at ISO 12,800 where I’ve used the Fuji ACROS + G monochrome simulation, and I would argue that the noise in this image is quite film-like and pleasing.
So how about at lower extremes? At ISO 800 there is a tiny addition of noise only detectable in the shadows. There isn’t a lot of difference from base ISO, however, and moving on to ISO 1600 shows little difference. At ISO 3200 there is slightly less contrast and slightly more noise, but still at a very acceptable level:
That pattern continues at ISO 6400 and 12,800, where the noise becomes rougher and more visible in shadow areas, with 6400 being cleaner than ISO 12,800.
You can go up into an “extended” range that gives you the 25,600 and 51,200 options. The first might be usable in non-critical situations, but few people will be happy with what ISO 51,200 is going to give you for any kind of application.
I will say that ISO 25,600 in particular does do a good job of “color fastness”. If we step back and look at the images on a global level, we can see that the sensor has done a good job of keeping a consistent color balance without color shift or color banding.
This is a solid ISO performance, and this is at least one area where the older 26MP sensor found in the X-S20 is going to deliver better results than the larger resolution 40MP sensor of the X-H2 or X-T5.
Dynamic Range Performance
I value dynamic range within a camera in two specific areas: the ability to cleanly lift shadows without introducing noise or color banding and the ability to recover highlights without introducing “hot spots” where information has been permanently lost. The value of good dynamic range is in the margins of photography, as eliminating shadows or recovering blown out highlights doesn’t always produce the better image. Having good dynamic range (particularly if you shoot RAW), allows you a lot more creative vision over how the final image will turn out (particularly with Adobe’s new AI tech for getting more information out of the sky). This shot, for example, has all of the rich detail in the shadows and colors of the trunk of the fallen tree and the moss on it, but also allowed me to recover the sky rather than just a blown out mess. This shot was taken with the new Fujinon XF 8mm F3.5, which is a very sweet little lens, by the way.
Fuji has an extra trick up its sleeve to help you maximize dynamic range performance in such scenes, which we’ll get to in just a moment.
In my tests, I found that the X-S20 (or X-M5) did an excellent job of recovering shadows very cleanly. Here we have an image that I purposefully underexposed by four stops. As you can see in the original RAW image, there is very little information left there. In post I added those four stops back into the recovered image. What we find is an image that has been recovered with very little penalty. Contrast looks good and the image is nice and bright.
Here’s a look at that same image at a pixel level. We see little additional noise, no banding or discoloration, and a nice restoration of contrast to the image.
As is often the case, however, highlight recovery lags behind shadow recovery. While a 2 stop highlight recovery is nice and clean, by 3 stops the recovered image is not natural looking at all:
Moving beyond that is obviously a fools errand. But Fuji does have a nice workaround if you want more dynamic range. If you move beyond the base ISO to either ISO 320 or 640 (and beyond), two new options open up in the menu. These are DR200 and DR400. What these do is essentially split the sensor readout so that the shadow information is gathered from the current ISO setting while the highlight information comes from base ISO. At ISO 320 that gives you one additional stop in the highlights, while at ISO 640 you gain two. This allows you to overexpose the image slightly so that you have plenty of information in the shadows, but since there is one or two stops less exposure in the highlights, you have plenty of ability to recover blown out areas in post. A three stop highlight recovery using DR200 looks just fine:
I can go even further using DR400. Here’s a four stop overexposure (look how blown out the image is on the left), and how cleanly it recovers using DR400:
I certainly will often utilize this for landscape images when I’m shooting Fuji. My priority was exposing for the interesting textures of the little barn in this shot, but rather than a white, blown out sky, I was able to recover something interesting in the sky to add to the image.
I personally enable DR400 in camera, and then it is ready if I have to raise the ISO level (either intentionally or not). Dynamic range naturally diminishes as the ISO raises anyway, so it can be a way of getting better results when the ISO is up. That’s not to say that you should shoot this way all the time, as often retaining contrast and either crushed shadows or blown out highlights makes for a better photograph, but having this technique available to improve dynamic range certainly has its uses…just don’t go too crazy on those sliders!!
X-M5 Color
Color science is the one area where there is a fair amount of consensus on Fuji. It’s definitely something that Fuji does well, and I think it’s true both on the camera sensor side and in their optical glass. Fuji color tends to be really nice, with good saturation levels and a pleasing transition of color tones. I shot this image of a still lake with the 8mm F3.5 and the X-S20, and I think the colors look lovely.
Likewise a standard shot of the woods, where the greens look really rich but without feeling garish:
Fuji has long been famous for their excellent film simulations. Fuji is pretty much a JPEG shooter’s dream, as you can tweak your recipes to get images you love right out of camera. RAW images with film simulations will arrive (as usual) flat in Lightroom, as you can easily apply any of 20 film simulations in post.
Here’s an example from the X-T4 shown first with Adobe’s Landscape profile.
Now Astia (Soft)
Now Classic Chrome
Provia
Velvia
Eterna (Cinema)
Classic Chrome is little less saturated but often has a tasteful look to it. I find Velvia (which is Vivid) is often too intense for me, but can be great for landscapes. Provia is the Standard, and it is fairly neutral. Astia is “Soft”, and it’s another one I like. A more recent addition to Fuji’s portfolio (REALA ACE) is one of my favorites for general purpose use.
I also enjoy the monochrome film simulations and also the ability to go into the menus and tweak the look in several ways. For example, if I select Acros, I’ve got the added ability to select whether to apply a Yellow Filter (more contrast, darker skies), Red (slightly more extreme of yellow), or Green (for better skin tones). There is also an option to warm or cool the monochrome image in camera. You can move to near-sepia on the warm side and near-selenium on the cool side. This shot of a coiled rope looks great in Acros + R (red filter):
You can also control grain (if that’s your thing) in camera as well. Bottom line is that color science and the ability to manipulate color in camera remains a great strength for Fuji cameras…and you can utilize that same color science in video as well.
Conclusion
The Fujifilm X-M5 is a camera designed to appeal to a certain segment of the camera landscape. It will be Fuji’s lowest price current model at $799 USD (undercutting the X-T30 II by $100), but Fuji’s pivot to marketing it as a Vlog/creator’s camera is a potentially wise one. It does have a bit of the desirability factor of the X100VI, though as an interchangeable lens model.
It’s easy to define this camera by its shortcomings, but the truth of the matter is that the true competitors for this camera don’t have IBIS or even a viewfinder. Critiquing this model in particular for these lacks doesn’t seem just. I am more apt to critique the autofocus system which still lags noticeably behind competing cameras.
But Fuji also offers up a few more video features than competing cameras along with a great looking physical design. I don’t personally love the ergonomics here, but I could learn to live with them. Fuji’s rapidly growing library of first party and third party lenses is also a calling card, as no other brand is devoting as much attention to the APS-C space. If you can live with the shortcomings I’ve detailed here, the X-M5 is a solid option at its reasonable price tag of $800 USD.
Pros:
Cool retro style (particularly in silver!)
Interesting vlogging specific features
Microphones give options
More video features than competitors
AI Tracking upgrade
Huge video spec upgrade
Cheaper than competitors
More robust library of APS-C specific lenses on Fuji
Cons:
Limited grip means that I’m “pinching” the camera
Autofocus experience only so-so
Lack of viewfinder makes composing in bright light tough
Keywords: Fujifilm, X-M5, Fuji X-M5, Fujifilm X-M5, Fuji X-M5 Review, Fujinon, Dustin Abbott, Review, Sensor, Tracking, IBIS, Stabilization, Eye AF, XF, 40MP, 40 MP, Review, Hands On, Video Test, Sharpness, High ISO, Autofocus, Dynamic Range, 26MP, 26 MP, Lens, Comparison, Test, Dustinabbott.net, APS-C, X-Trans, letthelightin, DA #letthelightin, #DA, #Fujifilm
DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
It was just a year ago that TTArtisan released the first version of this lens and I covered it in my reviews. It’s rare for a company to do such a quick refresh of a newly released lens, but clearly TTArtisan is in a rush to get things right and felt like there were a few key areas that they could make improvements. My two two negatives from my review were 1) a very odd lens hood design and 2) rather poor minimum focus distance (60cm) and maximum magnification. The new TTArtisan 35mm II deals with both of those issues, with a more conventional hood design, a reduced minimum focus distance (40cm), and a smaller, lighter physical design to boot. Priced at only $125, this new lens is going to be a very hard one to ignore for those looking for a budget “normal” lens for their APS-C camera. Should you get one? Dive into my video review or read my text review, 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.
It’s pretty clear the TTArtisan’s ability to improve their lens designs is rapidly growing, as just a year has gone by and already we have a lens that is improved in pretty much every area. One of the key priorities for TTArtisan was to reduce the size of the lens.
TTArtisan managed to shrink the lens by a full 16mm, which may not seem like a lot, but in a lens this size that is nearly a 25% reduction in size. Weight has also dropped by 23g, making for a truly lightweight 176g. The biggest challenge for TTArtisan comes from a fellow Chinese company, Viltrox, whose new AF 35mm F1.7 Air lens will almost certainly be the chief competitor. The Viltrox lens is made of high quality plastics rather than metal (TTArtisan), but is even lighter at 170g despite having a slightly faster maximum aperture of F1.7. The TTArtisan 35II wins for size, however, coming in shorter by about 5mm.
35mm is a slightly oddball focal length on APS-C, landing at a 52.5mm full frame equivalent. It stands to reason why the 33mm (49.5mm) is more conventional, as it is delivering that typical 50mm “normal” angle of view. That extra 3mm is hardly likely to make much of a difference. This is a great focal length that gives a very normal, relatable point of view.
There’s no question that this is a pretty impressively good little lens for just $125…but how improved is it? Read or watch the reviews to get more info.
Keywords: TTArtisan AF 35mm F1.8 II, II, 2, TTArtisan, TTArtisan 35mm, TTArtisan AF, Autofocus, TTArtisan 35mm F1.8, 35mm, 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 50mm F2 AIR FE Gallery 
Viltrox AF 50mm F2 AIR Review 
Sony FE 400-800mm F6.3-8 G OSS Gallery 
Sony FE 400-800mm F6.3-8 G OSS Review 
