That summarizes a lot of relevant information for my decision making. Thanks

I had the 16mm 2.8 but I didn’t use it as much as I thought I would because I’m often shooting photo and video in low light. I replaced it with the 18mm 1.4 and discovered I like the slightly tighter focal length. I’m just more comfortable taking documentary photos and videos with it since it matches the main camera on the phones I shot on for years before I had a dedicated camera.

This was a good review, thank you :)

awesome review! i happen to own the 35mm 1.4 and its aperture ring clicks nicely, not too loose. I bet some issues fuji needs to work on with their quality control.

Best Video on the subject! 👏❤

I got the 16mm f/2.8 and while it is my least used lens, it's fun to use. I don't have enough experience with this focal length and I have problems using this one 😄 Idk if I still want this lens. It's an attractive one, but the 2.8 version is good enough for me and if I need a faster lens, I should go for the Sigma 16mm or spend more money and get the new 18mm.

The 23 is also a clutch focus system, which I also own. I prefer the 16 however. I have used the 16 on several of my fashion shoots for ELLE magazine.

I had one and sold it, it wasn't sharp but did render colours nicely. I've replaced mine with the viltrox 13mm f1.4.

thanks Matt- regarding your journey to video as you mentioned, what about the fact that most lenses perform best 2 stops above their minimum? so I'm wondering if shooting video on this lens at f2.8 could produce stunning results? I've just ordered this lens so look forward to comparing it against my Cine lenses. Thx for the video. Nice and natural, nice chatting.

24mm is 1mm narrower than my S23 standard phone camera, so it’s still a standard focal length if you’d include phone photography which I think nowadays you have to. For me it’s a bit in an awkward spot where the 12-13 Samyang & Viltrox do more standout wide angle shots while the 18mm 1.4 LM is the better allrounder lens. I just wish there was a cheaper alternative to the Fuji one

You should try out the 14mm f2.8. It's very overlooked, but the IQ and sharpness are on par with the 16mm f1.4 I would say. It's also smaller and lighter too.

I've just switch from Viltrox 13mm to Fujinon 16mm. Chromatic aberration is huge on 16. But i want to give it a chance. I like design of 16mm. Viltrox is too big/long for my xpro3. I'm wondering is it just my copy have so big CA.

I have many of the Fujinon XF lenses & I do agree with you regarding issues with the “loose” aperture rings on many of their lens offerings. The 33mm f1.4 does NOT have this problem.

I'd use that for landscape all day long!

Great review!! I had the 16mm and it was great for low light events, and up close macro style shots but I sold it for the more versatile 18mm 1.4

If you photograph events you will find out exactly what a lens can do,as a portrait lens its not made for half body or head shots, the best photo I shot was the bride coming out of a really old Buick, I converted it to a black &white photo and it definitely was a wall hanger.

This compared to the Viltrox 13mm f1.4 ?

I put a skylight over the front to protect the lens, and it doesn't let me use the hood. Ideas?

Hola muy buenas, tengo la XT4 y viene de camino la XH2, solo tengo zoom el 10-24mm, 18-55mm, 50-200mm, 100-100-400mm y me gustaría tener un fijo ya que me gusta el detalle en arquitectura, monumentos, paisajes e incluso callejera y hago en ocaciones recortes por eso es la XH2 para no perder muchos detalles en el recorte, ¿Que objetivo me recomendarias nítido y luminoso gran angular?

Where do you get your square hoods for your 16mm and 33mm?

Have you tried the 16/2.8? Based upon your comments, it might be a better fit for you. I have it and it is among my favorites.

Was it ever the best though? Think rather overrated for the reasons you mention. Outside of close up wide open, the weaknesses of the lens really show - borders and corners bokeh can be horrible unless stopped down a lot, then add in the distortion, chromatic aberration, and poor AF when close to a subject. It has its specific use case, but it's also not so unique anymore either. The 16 2.8 is actually wider (16mm f1.4 closer to 17mm), sharper and focusses almost as close. But not f1.4. The 18mm seems like the spiritual successor, but optically better in nearly every way. It's not far from the nearly 17mm FL of the 16 1.4. But doesn't focus as close. The 23 1.4 LM WR has the same magnification ratio as the 16 1.4 but obviously a different field of view. Then there's the Viltrox 13 1.4, but the close focussing isn't as impressive. So, still unique - yes, with caveats. 16/17mm seems the sweet spot for close focussing with a wide aperture. But having owned the 16 1.4 for a couple of years and now having the 18 1.4 and 16 2.8, I don't miss it at all.

I buy this lens and don't know to use it. Too distortion to normal photo, end less dramatic for wide shoot. I guess that's why people sell this lens for half price.

I can confirm this is NOT their best lens. I got the 33mm 1.4 recenty and my photos have gone up a notch compared to usng this thing