I’ve been sitting on the idea of reviewing this lens for a very long time. The lens was first introduced in 2012, and I’ve had a copy since maybe 2015/16. It is definitely one of my favourite lenses, but it’s not a lens that you see reviewed very often – maybe this is more about how long it has been in production than anything else, but as we’ll see it is a lens that deserves significant accolades and attention.
It occupies a critical focal length equivalent to 21mm in 35mm format and is made for landscapes, nightscapes and architectural photography. While I also own the 10-24mm zoom, a slower lens, but one that has built in stabilisation and greater versatility, I feel the 14mm prime is the better optic. There is no doubt that the fixed focal length (all be it a “sweet spot” focal length) limits its appeal to prospective buyers. This is likely amplified by the third option available to wide angle aficionados – the Fuji 8-16mm f/2.8 R LM WR. So, here we have three separate Fuji lenses that embrace 14mm (21mm in full frame format). This choice, and the obvious limitations of a prime lens that cannot adapt its perspective to suit all subjects is probably the reason there are fewer reviews around on this lens. I have no idea what the relative sales figures are for the 14mm, but I’d guess that the 10-24mm f/4 lens would be the better seller – not surprising as I think, overall, it has been my most used optic over the years.
Despite these limitations, If I ever needed to travel light and wanted the best quality images in the most understated package, then I’d probably travel with the 14mm f/2.8, perhaps attached to my Fuji X-Pro 3. I don’t own the new XE-5, but I keep thinking that the 14mm attached to the Fuji XE-5 would be a dream combination.
A few years ago, I made a brave decision to travel to New Zealand with one camera and a single prime lens. Sometimes having fewer choices and looking for landscapes that fit a given perspective (14mm) sharpens the mind and helps yield a better cache of images. I’d already visited New Zealand with a Canon and wide-angle zoom lens, so rationalised that I’d caught many great shots already, so travelling light with only the 14mm would likely enhance my travel experience. I was absolutely correct on this.
I set off to New Zealand’s South Island with an X-Tn body and 14mm lens, circular ND and ND grads and a travel size tripod. What I ended up with was a set of Fuji pictures that were (to my eyes) very pleasing. They were on a par with what I’d captured on previous trips to New Zealand on my Canon equipment, and the fixed 14mm Fuji prime lens generated as many winning exposures as the Canon with its ostensibly more versatile wide-angle zoom. It’s completely subjective, but I felt that the character and compositions along with the colours were just that bit better on the Fuji lens. I also feel that using the lighter, but very capable Fuji gear, is that bit more pleasurable than using the heavier Canon kit – let’s face it photography should be fun and Fuji equipment is definitely fun to use. Others may disagree, but this is my take on things.
Something that I didn’t realise until I started writing this review is that I have more pictures from these trips hanging on my walls taken on the 14mm lens (2x) than taken with the Canon wide-angle zoom (1x). Even though the Canon was FF and the Fuji was APS-C, the Fuji pictures are both large at 36 inches while the Canon is only A3 size. So good things do come in small packages! To be fair, I think there were an equal number of files from both Canon and Fuji that were good enough to print large. I’ll add a couple of Canon shots to this article (at the end) in order to be as fair as possible.
From a use-case perspective, in my mind I suspect that part of this win by Fuji is the convenience of hiking and accessing difficult terrain with a lighter package. When I travelled with the Canon, I also had a long telephoto zoom. As I get older, I really do appreciate the smaller form factor of Fuji.
The Fuji 14mm f/2.8 R lens has a close focusing distance of 0.18 metres (0.12x reproduction), has no OIS, does not come with a lens hood (available separately) and weighs a diminutive 235g. The filter size is only 58mm, although I use a step-up filter so I can use all my old 77mm filters.
Of course, those among you who are chasing optical perfection will ask the obvious question – which is the best performer, the 14mm at f/2.8 or the 8-16mm at 14mm and f/2.8. Well, I can’t really see any difference – the ultra-wide zoom is to my eye, optically perfect. So, if you can afford it buy the zoom. However, be aware that a) the lens is much heavier (and larger) than the 14mm prime lens, and b) You will need to buy a separate and expensive filter system for the ultra-wide zoom as it has no filter thread and a bulbous front lens element.
It’s hard to decide which lens to choose – I understand the dilemma. I opted for the Nisi filter system on my 8-16mm zoom and for all my lenses I am slowly transitioning over to Nisi from Hoya and B+W, which I’ve used historically. I love the neutral colour balance of Nisi, and they’re a great company to deal with.
Keeping things simple and opting for the Fuji XF 14mm lens makes a lot of sense and I was very pleased how well the lens performed, how light and convenient it was and the sharpness of its output when rendered as a large print. It worked well for waterfalls, mountains, lakes, rivers, coastal scenes and pretty much anything I challenged it with. As far as Fuji prime lenses are concerned, the nearest ones to the 14mm would be the 16mm or 18mm lenses. I like the 16mm perspective, but am not overly impressed by the image quality on the XF 16mm f/1.4 R WR, which lacks crispness. By contrast, the XF 18mm f/1.4 R LM WR is very sharp indeed, but 28mm (FF equivalence) is a slightly boring focal length that matches the default focal length of your smart phone. Often, it’s too wide for portraits and not wide enough for landscapes. The XF 14mm f/2.8 R zaps both the 16mm and 18mm lenses into oblivion in my humble opinion. I keep the 18mm on my X-Pro 3, but seldom get excited about any of the images it renders (there are a few gems from time to time though). I find the 14mm perspective easy to compose with and particularly good at creating foreground interest with good depth of field. If I had to choose three lenses for a rail or coach tour holiday, I’d recommend 14mm f/2.8 R, 23mm f/2.8 R WR and 60mm f/2.4 R lenses combined with the new XE-5 body – I don’t own the body, but feel it would be an unbeatable lightweight combination for this sort of holiday.
The downside of this lens is the lack of weather sealing, although this has never been a problem for me. Anyway, who spends all their hard-earned money and then lets their lens get a soaking? It’s easy enough to take precautions! Also, I’m not a fan of the manual focus clutch – I simply never shoot in manual focus on Fuji as their fly by wire focus leaves a lot to be desired. The only caveat to this being when I’m shooting astro night shots and then I switch the camera over to manual once autofocus has hit its mark. In landscape and nightscape, a lack of OIS is not a problem as I would always use a tripod given that most scenes benefit from being shot in low light at the beginning or end of the day to make them work. In any event, Fuji bodies are now mostly benefitting from sensor-based stabilisation, so the lens not having OIS is a non-issue.
What I noticed with the 14mm lens is that it is very consistent at kicking out technically perfect shots – of course the aesthetic quality is down to you but given a good eye this lens will reward you with great images.
The following images show three of my favourite Canon shots from New Zealand for comparison. Theoretically, composition should have been easier as they were all taken with a zoom lens. To be honest, I didn’t feel that the 21mm FF equivalent Fuji prime lens held me back at all……judge for yourselves.
