To me, the Fuji XF18/1.4 is really good. I haven't tried the Voigtlander so I can 't compare. But I feel the Xf18/1.4 is one of the best Fuji XF lenses.
The XF 18/1.4 is really good, no vices and gives clean, crisp images.
It's pretty much in the modern style, no quirks, and sharp across the frame.
It'll make nice sunstars when given a backlit situation and flare is well controlled.
Fuji XF 18mm f/1.4 is about as good as it gets. No it isn't as small as other options, but makes up for it in all other aspects. It is the lens I always reach for if I can only have one lens with me.
I have 2 lenses @ 18mm for my X-T5 and X-E5, the C/V 18mm f2.8 CS and the just bought Sigma 18-50 f2.8 DC DN. I am in Thailand right now for another month and the 18-50 was bought as a general purpose zoom as all my other lenses for Fuji are primes and I wanted that versatility for my 2 month trip.
The C/V 18 mm is a really good lens, the colors are rich, the corners are sharp and it is so small to carry, I mainly use it on the X-E5 and I definitely prefer using this over the zoom. The Sigma zoom is a one lens solution that I have only used a few times when I wanted to go with just a real light, 1 or 2 lens setup and it preforms just fine, very versitle. But it is still somewhat large, it barely fits mounted in the PD 3L sling bag with another lens, where I can get the X-E5 with up to 4 primes in the bag, 2 being the C/V 18 CS and C/V F2 27mm Ultron. (18-50 Fits fine in my 2nd bag, the PD 6L sling, with 3-4 other lenses though.)
Just an FYI for 18mm MF. I am not really used to shooting with a 18mm and in taking about 280 photos a week ago at a beautiful and very large park in Bangkok (Benjakiti Park) I was somewhat surprised at how the DOF at f5.6 was not as wide as I thought it might have been. (I shoot a lot with primes at f1.4 and f2). The MF aids are not that great on the X-E5, I am using peaking, and if a subject was 3m away the building in the background was not sharp, even if the peaking showed it was, or vice versa if the background was sharp, the subject was not. Totally my fault, next time I will start at F8 or f11. With the Sigma, the AF seemed to pick a middle ground between the 2 and more backgrounds were in focus.
18 1.4 is supposed to be the best for x mount. I wanted something Q like without spending $5k so I just picked one up on buy and sell here for an absolute steal. Excited to see how it compares, as I've owned a q before.
The Fuji 18/1.4 is truly excellent, but when I retired and purged gear I sold that and kept my original Fuji 18 f/2 pancake lens. I just prefer how it renders.
I have the 18/1.4, CV 18/2.8, 18-55, 16-80. The zooms are softer in the corners and have compromises. The 18/1.4 is by far the best but it is large. The 18/2.8 is tiny and pretty good all around.
I had the 18 f/2 for a bit and didn't get along with it. I love the focal length, but something about that lens I just didn't love. Then I got the CV 18 f/2.8. It's fantastic, but I'm considering letting it go since I now have the 18 f/1.4 which is one of a kind. It has quickly become my favorite lens full stop.
mivadep wrote:
I had the 18 f/2 for a bit and didn't get along with it. I love the focal length, but something about that lens I just didn't love. Then I got the CV 18 f/2.8. It's fantastic, but I'm considering letting it go since I now have the 18 f/1.4 which is one of a kind. It has quickly become my favorite lens full stop.
Totally get that - the only thing to complain about with the 18/1.4 is the size. Optics are fantastic. But trying to choose between the 1.4 and the CV 18/2.8 for a 12 hour day of walking around Rome has me leaning to the 18/2.8 and the 27/2 in a pocket for no bag to carry. I don't consider myself "old" yet, but at 67, I appreciate the reduction in weight of what I carry. Shooting from the car or short walks - the 1.4 is my goto - I consider it mount on the XT5 to be my Q2 (since I will never be able to afford the Leica stuff.
