LensTip.com

Lens review

Fujifilm Fujinon XF 8-16 mm f/2.8 R LM WR

21 November 2018
Maciej Latałło

4. Image resolution

The resolution test of the Fujinon XF 8–16 mm f/2.8 R LM WR was based on RAW files from the Fujifilm X-T2 camera. These files were developed with help of dcraw program (with the 3-pass X-trans filter algorithm) and analyzed by the Imatest software package.

Let’s remind here that the best fixed-focal Fujifilm X lenses tested that way can reach as high as about 80 lpmm and the decency level is situated near 44-45 lpmm. Lately we’ve tested the Fujion XF 50 mm f/2 R WR with the help of the X-T2 and it proved to be one of the sharpest lenses of the system, getting results of 83 lpmm or so.

Now let’s check how the Fujinon 8-16 mm compares in the frame centre – an appropriate graph can be found below.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - advertisement - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fujifilm Fujinon XF 8-16 mm f/2.8 R LM WR - Image resolution


At the maximum relative aperture, no matter what focal length you employ, the lens reaches almost 70 lpmm. Taking into account the superior fastness of this device and its focal range, these values are excellent. With stopping down of the aperture you start to notice differences between particular focal lengths. In the 12-16 mm range the performance is sensational, with results of 80 lpmm so close to records. The lens performs a bit weaker, but not bad at all, at the 8 mm focal length – in that case the maximum values exceed 74 lpmm which we still consider a performance worth praising. In the frame centre the Fujinon 8-16 mm constructors really did a splendid job.

What happens on the edge of the frame? Let’s glance at a graph below.

Fujifilm Fujinon XF 8-16 mm f/2.8 R LM WR - Image resolution


Once again the 12-16 mm range is distinctly better; here we have no reservations concerning even the maximum relative aperture where the lens lands way above the decency level and on stopping down you can enjoy very good image quality across the frame.

The shortest focal length is a bit problematic, though. At the maximum relative aperture you get results below the decency level; in order to reach it you have to stop down the lens to a value near f/4.0. It can make any user a bit dissatisfied. With such dimensions of the lens and such a price tag I thought the performance at 8 mm would be similar to the performance in the 12-16 mm range. On the other hand the correction of such wide angles of view across the frame is very difficult. It’s enough you remind yourself that at their minimal focal lengths neither the Sigma 8–16 mm f/4.5–5.6 DC HSM, nor the Canon EF 11–24 mm f/4L USM nor the Sigma A 12–24 mm f/4.0 DG HSM provided fully acceptable images on the edge of the frame in the full range of apertures not limited by diffraction.

At the end of this chapter, traditionally, we present crops taken from photos of our resolution testing chart saved as JPEG files alongside RAW files used for the analysis above.

Fujifilm X-T2, JPEG, 12 mm, f/2.8
Fujifilm Fujinon XF 8-16 mm f/2.8 R LM WR - Image resolution
Fujifilm X-T2, JPEG, 16 mm, f/4.0
Fujifilm Fujinon XF 8-16 mm f/2.8 R LM WR - Image resolution