Lenses

Here is a list of Fujifilm X-mount lenses – both XF and XC – and the dates they were released. And at the end is a list of the prime lenses and zoom lenses that are optimised for the 40 MP sensor on the X-T5 and X-T50.

As of February 2025, Fujifilm has relased 39 lenses for its X system, 23 primes and 16 zooms, and all within a space of 13 years.

Fuji introduced the X-mount lens system in 2012, starting with three lenses that were all fairly short range. The 35mm f1.4 R was known for being slow to focus and made a screechy noise as it focused, and I can testify to that.

I’ve heard it said that the 35mm f1.4 focuses faster with newer bodies. Despite its shortcomings, some photographers still like the look of the images it produces and prefer it to the 33mm f1.4 that was released in 2021.

Older doesn’t mean less capable. Fuji released its first long zoom, the 55-200mm, in 2013 and photographers still swear by it today.

That said, two reasons for looking at later lenses are that they focus faster and that optically they are built for the greater demands of sensors with more megapixels. So if you are looking at the 40MP cameras in the Fuji range, maybe look for the later lenses that are built to pair with them.

A word about the nomenclature in the lens descriptions. OIS stands for optically image stabilised and you will notice that none of the primes are stabilised. LM stands for linear motor, meaning the lens uses a linear motor for faster, smoother autofocus. R in the nomenclature means the lens has an aperture ring, and WR stands for weather resistant.

2012:
XF 18mm f2.0 R
XF 35mm f1.4 R
XF 60mm f2.4 R Macro

2013:
XF 14mm f2.8 R
XF 18-55mm f2.8-4 R LM OIS
XF 55-200mm f3.5-4.8 R LM OIS
XF 27mm f2.8
XF 23mm f1.4 R

2014:
XF 10-24mm f4 R OIS
XF 56mm f1.2 R
XF 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 R LM OIS WR
XF 50-140mm f2.8 R LM OIS WR
XF 56mm f1.2 R APD

2015:
XF 16-55mm f2.8 R LM WR
XC 16-50mm f3.5-5.6 OIS ||
XC 50-230mm f4.5-6.7 OIS ||
XF 16mm f1.4 R WR
XF 90mm f2 R LM WR
XF 35mm f2 R WR

2016:
XF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 R LM OIS WR
XF 23mm f2 R WR

2017:
XF 50mm f2 R WR
XF 80mm f2.8 R LM OIS WR Macro

2018:
XC 15-45mm f3.5-5.6 OIS PZ
XF 200mm f2 R LM OIS WR
XF 8-16mm f2.8 R LM WR

2019:
XF 16mm f2.8 R WR
XF 16-80mm f4 R OIS WR
XF 33mm f1.0 R WR

2020:
XC 35mm f2
XF 50mm f1.0 R WR
1 XF 10-24mm f4 R OIS WR

2021:
XF 27mm f2.8 R WR
XF 70-300mm f4-5.6 R LM OIS WR
XF 18mm f1.4 R LM WR
XF 23mm f1.4 R LM WR
XF 33mm f1.4 R LM WR

2022:
XF 150-600mm f5.6-8 R LM OIS WR
XF 18-120mm f4 LM PZ WR
XF 56mm f1.2 R WR
XF 30mm f2.8 R LM WR

2023:
XF 8mm f3.5 R WR

2024:
XF 16-50mm f2.8-4.8 R LM WR
XF 16-55mm f2.8 R LM WR II
XF 500mm f5.6 R LM OIS WR

Prime Lenses Optimised For The 40 MP Sensor

XF 16 mm f/ 2.8 R WR
XF 18mm f/ 1.4 R LM WR
XF 23mm f/ 1.4 R LM WR
XF 23 mm f/2 R WR
XF27 mm f2.8 R WR
XF30mm f2.8 R LM WR Macro
XF 33 mm f/ 1.4 R LM WR
XF 35mm f/ 2 R WR
XF 50mm f/ 1.0 R WR
XF 50mm f/2 R WR
XF 56mm f/ 1.2 R WR
XF 80mm f/2.8 R LM OIS Macro
XF 90mm f/ 2-R LM WR
XF 200mm f/2 R LM OIS WR

Zoom Lenses Optimised For The 40 MP Sensor

XF 8-16mm f/ 2.8 R LM WR
16-55mm t/ 2.8 R LM WR
XF 18-120mm f/ 4 LM PZ WR
XF 50- 140mm f/ 2.8 R LM OIS WR
XF 70-300mm f/ 4-5.6 R LM OIS WR
XF 100-400mm mmlf/4.5-5.6 R LM OIS WR
XF 150-600mm f/5.6-8 R LM OIS WR

Just now I was looking at the metadata on photographs I took with my Nikon D500 and the Nikon 70-300mm VR AFP ED. It is a full-frame (FX) lens with an aperture of f/4.5 at the short end and f5.6 at the long end. The reason I was looking was to see what focal length ‘reach’ I would need to marry with a Canon EOS R6. The D500 is a crop-sensor camera whereas the Canon is full frame. So I need to multiply the crop by 1.5 to compare the Nikon focal length with the Canon.

I shot this first image at 300mm, which is equivalent to 450mm in full frame. And I shot the second image at 240mm, which is equivalent to 360mm in full frame.

Canon makes full frame RF mount lenses for cameras like my EOR R6. The company makes lenses that would cover the distances needed for these photos.

But look at the prices! £3,000 for a lens. I like the images that come out of the R6, but if I were starting again I am not sure I would allow the look of the images to trump everything else.

Perhaps I will need to look at EF lenses and a converter.

Or when will Sigma or one of the other third-party lens manufacturers be allowed in to the Canon ecosphere?

A few days ago I tried the Canon RF 24-105mm f4L IS USM lens and I expected it to be great. The man in the shop let me to put the lens on my Canon R6 and I shot off a few frames inside the shop, so the light was mixed. Had the weather outside been better I might have asked to take a shot at least through the open door. But it was very dull and dark and raining so I didn’t.

Well, that and the fact that the man had told me the reason the cameras were behind glass in cases and not on the tables was because of theft. When I say the cameras could have been on the tables, I don’t mean loose on the tables but fastened down with a fixed white grip. Obviously it hadn’t been enough to protect them.

So I photographed one of the men serving in the shop. And when I put the images up on the screen I was shocked (that might be a bit strong of a word) to see that the images looked a bit lifeless. Desperate not to criticise the lens I put it down to the mixed lighting in the shop.

Then earlier today I watched a video of a photographer comparing various Canon RF lenses, and a couple of times he mentioned that the Canon RF 24-105mm f4L IS USM Lens lagged behind the others and that the shots seemed a bit flat and lacking contrast.

On the other hand, everyone says how lovely the Canon RF 28-70mm f2.8 IS STM Lens is.

I am not an impulse buyer when it comes to spending serious money. So I agonised and then agonised again and eventually bought a copy.

The photos that follow are substantial crops, and still you can tell what a good lens it is. This first crop is about one thirteenth of the total area of the frame. I shot the dancer at f/ 3.5, 1/1250 of a second at ISO 1000, and the man standing in the road at fl 2.8, 1/320 of a second atISO 200.

Hey, But

This is where some errant reader among my overwhelmingly intelligent readers thinks that primes are better than zooms so the results can’t be that good. The facts say otherwise.

Modern zoom lenses are not optically inferior to prime lenses, contrary to old beliefs. Primes still have advantages in size and weight, but then to cover the range of focal lengths that the zoom covers you need a bunch of primes. That fact is one of the compelling reason for zooms. The other reason is of course that it does away with having to switch primes all the time.

Maximum aperture, advancements in lens design and materials over the past 50 years have significantly improved zoom lens quality. That applies to primes and to zooms. Beyond a certain point the incremental differences show less and less significant results. The bottom line is that zooms and primes have converged in optical quality to the point that both of them are so good that the differences really don’t dictate one or the other.

Tests and discussions with experienced photographers confirm that, on average, zooms perform as well as primes—sometimes even better. That is not to say that someone might not have a bad copy.

It is an unpalatable fact thatIndividual lens performance varies, and you will only really know by testing to determine whether your lens is superior in quality. What you can do though is to narrow the field and choose a lens manufacturer known for consistent close tolerances.

Fine words, but the Canon RF 24-105mm f4L IS USM Lens disappointed me. Was it the copy I used in the shop? Who knows?

But the Canon RF 28-70mm f2.8 IS STM lens has not disappointed, at least not my copy.