Fstoppers Reviews: The Fujifilm 16mm f/2.8 R WR

Fstoppers Reviews: The Fujifilm 16mm f/2.8 R WR

Earlier this year, Fujifilm released the 16mm 2.8 R WR (AKA the 16mm 2.8). A compact prime lens for their Fujifilm X system. I got to play with it for about three weeks and there is a lot to love, but it isn't without its imperfections.


In street photography, there is a common discussion of whether to go with a full-frame equivalent of 28mm, or 35mm. Now with the new 16mm f/2.8, Fujifilm users have the option of both, with the 16mm covering the 28-ish (Really, 24) and the 23mm f/2.0 covering the 35-ish. I'm a 35mm focal length guy myself but I still learned to love the 16mm, but it is an easy lens to love. The 16mm is an even easier lens to love for walking around and going on trips, it is wide enough to capture the scene, and light enough to take on a hike, and paired with an X-T30 it is a perfect traveling lens for some simple landscapes.

There are three things on a technical level most people consider when picking up a lens and those are vignetting, flares, and sharpness so let's get down to it.

First off, when it comes to sharpness, I find these discussions overrated so I will keep it very brief. This lens is quite sharp, which isn't surprising since it's a prime from Fuji, and like almost any modern f/2.8 prime, it is soft in the corners at f/2.8 and the sweet spot is f/5.6 where everything is tack sharp. We get a little bit of diffraction as we go more and more stopped down, but that will happen on almost every lens out there, period. Especially on smaller sensor camera's like the APS-C sensor of the X-T3.

Secondly, we have vignetting and while there is some when wide open, I often add a slight vignette to my images anyway so it doesn't really matter to me all that much and most, if not all, of it is gone at f/4.0 so if you hate vignettes, it is easy to get rid of by either stopping down or just removing it in post with the vignette tool.

The third way to commonly grade a lens is flares and how it deals with backlight, and the 16mm f/2.8 is a total champ here. The lens handles back lighting beautifully, and hard light right in the front element seems to not be a problem in the slightest. As you can see in the shot below, even firing straight into the sun, I get some nice and controlled starbursts but that's about it.

monochrome shot testing the flaring of this lens in an absolute worstcase scenario

One disadvantage to the 16mm focal length on an APS-C body like the X-T3 I used for this review is that 24mm is also the same focal length of most phones. The latest Pixel, iPhone, Galaxy,(and more) all have lenses that are around 28mm full frame equivalent so you have to be wary that you don't end up with a shot you could have gotten on your phone. Take advantage of that big sensor!


I was fortunate enough to shoot a music video in the three weeks I had this lens and its fantastic. The ability to shoot at the 3M focal length is perfect for gimbals and such. It focuses smoothly and quietly, unlike the f/1.4 variant. The lens is also similar in size and weight to the 23mm f/2.0, just 25 grams or so, when using a gimbal you don't have to worry too much about rebalancing (you still should, but it is easier than, say, going from the 23 to the 56mm 1.2.

What I Liked

The 16mm f/2.8 is really an amazing walk around lens. My favorite quote from the NBC show Community I feel wraps it up succinctly. "It's not just good! It's good enough!" 

This lens is right on the border of being amazing. It is light, sharp, water resistant, and silent for video. but, there are a few things that weren't quite there specifically I feel like it could have been smaller — but that may have come at the cost of Fujifilm's much beloved aperture ring — and they do make a 27mm pancake so maybe a 16mm pancake is on the way too.

looking through a tunnel, straight into harsh sunlight

What I Didn't Like

Is this lens sharp? Yes

Are there sharper 16mm lenses for the Fujifilm X-System? Also yes - thee 16mm f/1.4 comes to mind.

Does this lens have a great size to weight ratio? Yeah it does! But there are other lenses for the system that are lighter and smaller if you really want to be incognito.

16mm is wide, however it is almost exactly the same FOV as the camera on my phone — other than resolution (which for web is kind of moot) it can be difficult to find a difference in images. Below I have two photos, one shot on the X-T3 with the 16mm lens and one on the Google Pixel 3XL. Can you tell which is which?

A black and white building, with a dark sky.

black and white building with a dark sky


In conclusion, the Fujifilm 16mm f/2.8 WR R is a fantastic lens in the Fuji lineup! It's sharp, it's fast, it's light, and it looks gorgeous, and let's stop lying to ourselves and saying that the last point doesn't matter at all. However, the focal length can make photos look like they were taken on a phone, but not always. The large sensor results in less depth of field, which is great for fashion and landscape, but unless you need the exact 16mm focal length, to may be better off with the 23mm f/2.8 which is eerily similar in size. 

Fujifilm has a lot of options for the 16mm focal length, it's nice that they have finally made us a compact prime, but here is hoping they release an 8mm rectilinear lens next, as the 8-16 2.8 is real tempting.

What do you think of the 16mm f/2.8 R WR? Are you going to pick one up? Do you already have one? Sound off in the comments and let me know everything I got wrong! I mean, let me know what you think of the lens!

David J. Fulde's picture

David J. Fulde photographs people. Based in Toronto, ON, he uses bold lighting and vibrant colours to tell people's stories. His work in the film industry lends a cinematic energy to his photographs and makes for an always-colourful studio -- whether he's shooting portraits, fashion, or beauty.

Log in or register to post comments

Great test with a real life verdict. I may buy one.
I'm confused, my Fuji lens needs to be multiplied 1.5x to get a full frame equivilent. So this makes a 16mm the same as 24mm FF. How did you get to 28mm?

There's an 18mm pancake that gets you to 27mm. Don't know why the author would try to stretch 24mm to 28mm. They really are quite different focal lengths. At the wide end of the focal length spectrum, 1mm makes a lot more difference than at the long end.

This. Sounds like the author is unaware of the 18mm ƒ/2, one of the first lenses released for X-series.

Don't you mean the smartphone camera provides greater depth of field (i.e. less DOF control) due to the sensor size?

FYI, Fuji has a 28mm-equivalent pancake lens, and it's even an f2! (Might need to rework this article a bit.)

"We get a little bit of diffraction as we go more and more stopped down, but that will happen on almost every lens out there, period. Especially on smaller sensor camera's like the APS-C sensor of the X-T3."

The sensor size changes the diffraction of light? LOL. Hilarious.

Don't you love it when newcomers to photography write about things they know very little about?

There's a reason why large format lenses for to f64 while others don't. You notice diffraction at different fstops depending on your image plane's size

Seriously fstoppers, you should remove this review. It is woeful. It is factually wrong (16mm on 1.5 crop is closer to 24mm FFE not 28mm) and secondly his main claim of 'imperfection' is that he doesn't like the focal length (he couldn't work out what it was anyway.....) because he feels that it looks like a camera phone

It is almost as bad as Andy Day's preview of the XPro 3


That XPro 3 preview was pure garbage. However, this reviewer doesn't say the 16mm is a 28mm, he says it's close enough. I am guessing he's not shot at 24mm to see that there's an appreciable difference between the two.

The camera phone comparison was retarded. The "there are sharper lenses at this focal length" was without substance - which ****ing lenses? The sensor size and diffraction of light thing is comical.

Why don't they get someone who understands the camera series and the lenses to review these things?

They'd never put out such a half-baked set of articles on Nikon, Sony or Canon.

I think all of you are taking this casual review far too serious. He stated up front that it's a "28-ish" FFE lens. That means roughly or aproximately. You didnt click this review expecting to get Dustin Abbott level accuracy, did you?

I really like his comparison to the POV of the phone and 2 completely different images to compare.

Lazy article. Everything said was common sense. I’d say Fstoppers deserves better, but most of their reviews these days are below par.

A lazy and bad review.

I own it and while it's not quite at the level of the 16 f/1.4, it's one helluva lens. I love it and for the money it's an absolute steal. Sharp, contrasty, lightweight.