Fujifilm XF 10–24mm F4 R OIS WR Review: Capable, but Not for Me

Introduction

The Fuji­film XF 10–24mm F4 R OIS WR is a minor Octo­ber 2020 refresh of the orig­i­nal lens, which Fuji­film released back in Decem­ber 2013 as their first ultra-wide zoom for the X‑series sys­tem. This updat­ed ver­sion address­es a cou­ple of com­plaints about the original—adding weath­er seal­ing, and tweak­ing the aper­ture ring and exter­nal design—but keeps the same opti­cal for­mu­la and inter­nals. It’s fair to say Fuji­film didn’t exact­ly go all out with this update. For exam­ple, they didn’t both­er adding mod­ern anti-reflec­tive coat­ings, some­thing Canon thought worth­while when they refreshed their EF 70–200mm F2.8 L IS USM II to the III, even though they left the optics unchanged.

I owned the first ver­sion of this lens for 4.5 years, from 2018 to 2022, but sold it after look­ing at my lens sta­tis­tics in Light­room Clas­sic and real­is­ing I bare­ly used it. This was odd because its full-frame equiv­a­lent focal range, 15–36mm, mir­rors the Canon EF 16–35mm F2.8 L USM II, which I reached for con­stant­ly when I shot Canon DSLRs. How­ev­er, some­thing about the Fuji­film ver­sion just didn’t click for me (haha!).

Ear­li­er this sum­mer, I decid­ed to revis­it the 10–24mm focal length and give the Fuji­film XF 10–24mm F4 R OIS WR a shot. I was curi­ous to see how it com­pared, not just to the first ver­sion I recall so well but also to my recent­ly pur­chased XF 8mm F3.5 R WR (reviewed here). Do the updates entice me to use this lens more often, or is it still des­tined for stor­age in my made in Cana­da Nanuk 935 roller case? Let’s find out.

---

---

Features

While the Fuji­film XF 10–24mm F4 R OIS WR car­ries over the same core fea­tures of the orig­i­nal, its mar­quee upgrade—and the fea­ture that head­lines this version—is right there in the name: Weather Resis­tance. This addi­tion makes the lens far more appeal­ing to out­door pho­tog­ra­phers who reg­u­lar­ly shoot in rain, snow, or dusty envi­ron­ments. Frankly, weath­er resis­tance should nev­er have been absent from the orig­i­nal lens. For five years, it was Fuji­film’s only ultra-wide option, leav­ing land­scape photographers—who, unsur­pris­ing­ly, work outside—to Mac­Gyver solu­tions just to keep it work­ing when the weath­er turned naughty. When­ev­er man­u­fac­tur­ers omit such obvi­ous fea­tures, the cyn­ic in me assumes they’re just sav­ing them for sub­se­quent revi­sions. 

Beyond weath­er seal­ing, the lens retains much of what made the orig­i­nal a sol­id per­former, main­ly its great opti­cal for­mu­la. The con­stant max­i­mum ƒ/4 aper­ture offers con­sis­tent expo­sure across the zoom range, though it’s not par­tic­u­lar­ly bright for low-light sit­u­a­tions. The Opti­cal Image Sta­bil­i­sa­tion (OIS) remains unchanged and still deliv­ers up to 3 stops of cor­rec­tion.

Fuji­film also took the oppor­tu­ni­ty to tweak the aper­ture ring design, cor­rect­ing anoth­er curi­ous omis­sion from the orig­i­nal. Fujifilm’s XF lens­es (as opposed to the crap­pi­er XC lens­es) sport the “R” tag in their names to sig­ni­fy a ded­i­cat­ed aper­ture ring. This time, the aper­ture ring fea­tures engraved f‑stop posi­tions, where­as the old ver­sion baf­fling­ly left the ring unmarked, like a large, sin­gle-pur­pose com­mand dial. Unmarked aper­ture rings typ­i­cal­ly make sense on lens­es with vari­able max­i­mum aper­tures, where fixed posi­tions aren’t prac­ti­cal. But the orig­i­nal had a con­stant ƒ/4, so … hey, look, anoth­er rea­son to upgrade!

The updat­ed aper­ture ring also fea­tures an Auto­mat­ic (“A”) posi­tion for seam­less inte­gra­tion with Shut­ter Speed Pri­or­i­ty (S), Pro­gram AE (P), or full auto modes. Switch­ing in or out of “A” requires press­ing the aper­ture ring lock release but­ton.

Under the hood, the opti­cal for­mu­la remains unchanged—14 ele­ments in 10 groups, includ­ing 4 aspher­i­cal and 4 ED ele­ments to con­trol aberrations—and that’s a good thing, because the orig­i­nal lens was a strong per­former. You still get Fujifilm’s stan­dard coat­ings to reduce flare and ghost­ing, but it’s hard not to feel Fuji­film missed an oppor­tu­ni­ty here. Adding a flu­o­rine coat­ing would have enhanced its WR cre­den­tials, while improved anti-reflec­tive coat­ings could have boost­ed per­for­mance fur­ther. Then again, it seems those perks are reserved for prici­er “red badge” lens­es, like the XF 8–16mm F2.8 R LM WR.

The 72mm front fil­ter thread remains—a plus for land­scape pho­tog­ra­phers who rely on ND or polar­is­ing fil­ters. While the updates might seem minor over­all, the addi­tion of weath­er resis­tance alone gives this lens a prac­ti­cal edge over its predecessor—where its absence was a chief complaint—for those who shoot in chal­leng­ing con­di­tions.

Design and Handling

Like most of Fujifilm’s XF lens­es, the XF 10–24mm F4 R OIS WR fea­tures a most­ly met­al exte­ri­or, lend­ing it a sol­id and reas­sur­ing feel. The aper­ture and focus rings, fil­ter thread and hood mount, and lens mount are all paint­ed met­al, while the zoom ring is a ribbed rub­ber whose tex­ture is con­sis­tent with oth­er XF zoom lens­es. Only the aper­ture ring lock release but­ton and the bar­rel sec­tion behind the aper­ture ring are plas­tic. The lens feels sub­stan­tial but not exces­sive.

At 385 grams and 87mm from mount to front edge, it strikes a mid­dle ground: not feath­er­weight, but far from the XF 8–16mm F2.8 WR’s hefty pro­por­tions. Some­where in the redesign process, the lens shed 25 grams com­pared to its pre­de­ces­sor, but the result isn’t earth-shat­ter­ing. It bal­ances well on larg­er Fuji­film bod­ies like the X‑H2S and X‑T4, though it feels slight­ly hol­low com­pared to denser primes like the XF 23mm F1.4 R LM WR. On small­er bod­ies, the lens is usable but starts to feel front-heavy.

The zoom ring oper­ates smooth­ly with a good bal­ance of resis­tance and flu­id­i­ty, and there’s no hint of zoom creep. How­ev­er, the aper­ture ring leaves some­thing to be desired. While Fuji­film addressed the lack of engraved f‑number mark­ings on the orig­i­nal lens and added a lock for the “A” posi­tion, the detents are weak—too weak, in fact, for cold hands or when shoot­ing with gloves. If you rely on count­ing clicks to adjust aper­tures, good luck. This is one of the slop­pi­er aper­ture rings Fuji­film has made in recent years, and it’s baf­fling they didn’t take this update as an oppor­tu­ni­ty to bring it in line with the crisp and con­fi­dent detents found on their mod­ern XF lens­es. If I were to fol­low my own rule about man­u­fac­tur­ers sav­ing obvi­ous fix­es for the next revi­sion, well … you know where this is going.

The absence of an OIS switch is anoth­er head-scratch­er. The orig­i­nal lens had one, but Fuji­film decid­ed to rel­e­gate image sta­bi­liza­tion con­trol to the camera’s menus (or, if you’re lucky, a cus­tom but­ton). For a wide-angle lens that will often find itself mount­ed on a tri­pod for land­scapes or archi­tec­ture shots, hav­ing a phys­i­cal switch to dis­able sta­bil­i­sa­tion is far more prac­ti­cal. Addi­tion­al­ly, OIS and IBIS don’t always play nice­ly with ultra-wide lens­es; cor­rec­tions are typ­i­cal­ly cen­tred on the mid­dle of the frame, caus­ing notice­able edge shifts. This isn’t as much of a prob­lem with tele­pho­to lens­es, where the field of view is nar­row­er, but here it’s less than ide­al.

Weath­er seal­ing is a stand­out fea­ture for the WR ver­sion, but it comes with a small curios­i­ty: although the lens doesn’t extend when zoom­ing, part of the front ele­ment assem­bly still shifts with­in the iden­ti­fi­ca­tion ring as depict­ed in the two pho­tos above. It’s fair to assume that Fuji’s engi­neers have includ­ed ade­quate weath­er seal­ing there, but I’d hedge my bets and install a pro­tec­tion fil­ter in wet and dusty envi­ron­ments. I haven’t stress-test­ed this lens to destruc­tion (this isn’t that kind of review), but in reg­u­lar rain, light snow, and tem­per­a­tures down to ‑5°C, the lens held up admirably.

The fin­ish of the lens bar­rel is glossy and prone to fin­ger­prints, while the paint­ed met­al com­po­nents wear in a way that Fuji­film shoot­ers will find famil­iar: expect scratch­es along the bar­rel and chips around the fil­ter thread and hood mount. In my opin­ion, it’s the type of wear and tear that adds char­ac­ter.

From a prac­ti­cal stand­point, the lens is com­pact enough but not ide­al for light­weight setups. It flares out notice­ably at the front to accom­mo­date its 72mm fil­ter thread—necessary to avoid vignetting when using screw-on fil­ters, but it adds bulk. While typ­i­cal fil­ters fit well, there are a cou­ple of frus­tra­tions: my 72mm Urth VND fil­ter blocks the lens hood from mount­ing, and the hood itself lacks a win­dow to adjust cir­cu­lar polaris­ers.

Last­ly, while design is sub­jec­tive, I find lens­es that flare out at the front quite objec­tion­able. This one isn’t as egre­gious as the Zeiss Touit 12mm F/2.8, but it’s sig­nif­i­cant enough to give me trum­pet vibes. That said, it adheres well to Fujifilm’s over­all design ethos, with the famil­iar rib­bing pat­terns on its aper­ture, zoom, and focus rings and the black-paint­ed met­al fin­ish tying it into the XF line­up.

Optical Performance

Sharpness

The Fuji­film XF 10–24mm F4 R OIS WR shares the same opti­cal design as its non-WR pre­de­ces­sor, and that makes for a win­ning for­mu­la. The lens deliv­ers excep­tion­al sharp­ness in the cen­tre through­out its entire focal length range and pro­duces strong results in the mid­frame and cor­ners as well.

Before div­ing into specifics, I need to add a caveat: I’m con­fi­dent my XF 10–24mm F4 R OIS WR falls on the poor­er side of sam­ple vari­a­tion. Com­pared to my pre­vi­ous non-WR ver­sion, my cur­rent lens is notice­ably soft­er in the mid­frame and cor­ners across all focal lengths. This left me con­flict­ed about writ­ing this review—evaluating a less-than-ide­al sam­ple feels inher­ent­ly unfair. How­ev­er, sam­ple vari­a­tion is a fact of life with pho­to­graph­ic lens­es. A buy­er nev­er knows where on the spec­trum their pur­chased lens will land, and pre­sent­ing sharp­ness results exclu­sive­ly from the best pos­si­ble sam­ples cre­ates an unfair pos­i­tive bias.

With all that said, the sharp­ness results I’ll show here are large­ly invis­i­ble in real-world use unless you’re pix­el-peep­ing on a large mon­i­tor. If any­thing, con­sid­er this a “worst-case sce­nario” for the lens. If your copy per­forms as well as my old non-WR ver­sion, you’ll be very pleas­ant­ly sur­prised by how sharp this lens can tru­ly be. Let’s break sharp­ness down at the four indi­cat­ed focal lengths on the zoom ring:

10mm:

The cen­tre is as sharp as it gets—super sharp—right from the start at ƒ/4, with no per­cep­ti­ble improve­ments when stop­ping down. The mid­frame and cor­ners (quite lit­er­al­ly the top-left cor­ner of my lens) see steady improve­ments up to ƒ/8. Dif­frac­tion begins to nib­ble at cen­tre detail from ƒ/8 and high­er and becomes notice­able across the frame from ƒ/11 onwards on high-DPI mon­i­tors.

14mm:

At 14mm, the cen­tre is sharpest wide open at ƒ/4, and dif­frac­tion begins to degrade detail notice­ably at ƒ/8 and beyond. Mid­frame and cor­ners improve vis­i­bly by ƒ/5.6, hold steady at ƒ/8, and start to suc­cumb to dif­frac­tion as you stop down fur­ther.

18mm:

The cen­tre is sharp at ƒ/4 but gains a slight edge at ƒ/5.6. It remains sta­ble at ƒ/8, with dif­frac­tion tak­ing its toll from ƒ/11 onwards. The mid­frame and cor­ners start off just “alright” at ƒ/4 but improve steadi­ly to a peak at ƒ/8, beyond which dif­frac­tion begins to soft­en the image.

24mm:

At the long end, the cen­tre is sharpest some­where between ƒ/4 and ƒ/5.6, with a steady decline in sharp­ness beyond ƒ/8. The mid­frame peaks at ƒ/5.6, while the cor­ners hit their stride at ƒ/8. Dif­frac­tion becomes increas­ing­ly appar­ent across the frame from ƒ/16 and wors­ens fur­ther at small­er aper­tures.

Over­all Obser­va­tions

Across all focal lengths, stop­ping down to ƒ/22 ren­ders the image prac­ti­cal­ly unus­able for large repro­duc­tions or sig­nif­i­cant crop­ping due to heavy dif­frac­tion-induced soft­ness. This lens per­forms best in its sweet spot: ƒ/5.6 to ƒ/8 for mid­frame and cor­ner sharp­ness, and ƒ/4 for peak cen­tre detail.

Although my copy dis­ap­points in the mid­frame and cor­ners com­pared to my non-WR sam­ple, the XF 10–24mm F4 R OIS WR remains an opti­cal­ly strong lens where it mat­ters most in prac­ti­cal use, and you’d be hard pressed to find flaws in the sam­ple pho­tos accom­pa­ny­ing this review. For most pho­tog­ra­phers, these results will nev­er be an issue.

Bokeh

Bokeh—the aes­thet­ic qual­i­ty of out-of-focus areas—isn’t usu­al­ly a major sell­ing point for wide and ultra-wide lens­es like the XF 10–24mm F4 R OIS WR. With a max­i­mum aper­ture of ƒ/4 and com­mon sub­jects like land­scapes and archi­tec­ture, you’re not going to see much blur. But when you do, the lens sur­pris­es.

At 10mm and focused near its min­i­mum focus­ing dis­tance (MFD), back­ground blur is sur­pris­ing­ly pleas­ant, with smooth tran­si­tions from sharp focus to blur. At 24mm, back­ground bokeh is even bet­ter when focused to at or near MFD—smooth and down­right pret­ty, sim­i­lar to the per­for­mance of a good prime lens—aside from mild onion rings in out-of-focus high­lights.

Unfor­tu­nate­ly, it’s not all good news. Fore­ground bokeh, par­tic­u­lar­ly when focused on dis­tant sub­jects, isn’t as appeal­ing. It can look busy, with ner­vous inter­fer­ence pat­terns show­ing up in the blurred regions. To add to the mix, my copy of the lens los­es con­trast across the frame when focused at MFD at 24mm at ƒ/4. You can see this loss of con­trast in the two exam­ples above; the sec­ond pho­to shows a notable loss of con­trast in the shad­ows. Whether that’s sam­ple vari­a­tion or some­thing else, I can’t say for sure.

The pho­to below demon­strates back­ground bokeh. Pass your cur­sor over the pho­to to see fore­ground bokeh. Pay spe­cif­ic atten­tion to the watch at the bot­tom right, where the rel­a­tive quan­ti­ty of blur remains con­stant.

The fol­low­ing com­pares bokeh of the XF 10–24mm F4 R OIS WR (ini­tial pho­to) to the XF 23mm F1.4 R WR with both at ƒ/4. Pass your cur­sor over the pho­to to see view the lat­ter lens.

Aberrations

The XF 10–24mm F4 R OIS WR does a good job man­ag­ing aber­ra­tions, and they’re not some­thing you’re like­ly to notice in nor­mal pho­tos unless you’re active­ly hunt­ing for them. That said, there are some trans­verse chro­mat­ic aber­ra­tions (CA) at the edges and cor­ners, which show up as colour fring­ing in high-con­trast areas. Stop­ping down doesn’t fix trans­verse CA, but both in-cam­era pro­cess­ing and Lightroom’s lens pro­files do an excel­lent job of clean­ing it up.

On the plus side, axi­al chro­mat­ic aber­ra­tions (which show up as colour fring­ing in front of or behind the plane of focus) are basi­cal­ly a non-issue here. I couldn’t find any note­wor­thy lev­els of axi­al CA in my tests, which is a relief for a lens with such a wide focal range.

Below is an exam­ple show­ing trans­verse chro­mat­ic aber­ra­tions in the top-right cor­ner at ƒ/4, with and with­out Light­room cor­rec­tions applied.

Distortion and Vignetting

Opti­cal dis­tor­tions, like bar­rel and pin­cush­ion dis­tor­tions, can make straight lines appear curved, alter­ing the image’s geom­e­try. Like many Fuji­film lens­es, the XF 10–24mm F4 R OIS WR is a tale of two lens­es with respect to opti­cal dis­tor­tions: with lens cor­rec­tions enabled (in-cam­era or in edit­ing soft­ware), dis­tor­tion is min­i­mal and well-con­trolled. How­ev­er, dis­abling lens cor­rec­tions in raw files reveals sig­nif­i­cant opti­cal dis­tor­tion, par­tic­u­lar­ly at the edges.

At 10mm, there’s notice­able bar­rel dis­tor­tion, which grad­u­al­ly dimin­ish­es by 14mm. By 18mm, dis­tor­tion tran­si­tions to mild pin­cush­ion dis­tor­tion. At 24mm, pin­cush­ion dis­tor­tion becomes quite pro­nounced. Below are two pho­tos demon­strat­ing the extent dis­tor­tions are cor­rect­ed by soft­ware.

This pho­to is at 10mm. Pass your cur­sor over the pho­to to view the uncor­rect­ed dis­tor­tions.

And this pho­to is at 24mm.

Vignetting, or the dark­en­ing of the image cor­ners, is large­ly invis­i­ble thanks to Fujifilm’s in-cam­era cor­rec­tions, which can­not be dis­abled. How­ev­er, uncor­rect­ed raw files reveal mod­er­ate-to-strong vignetting at ƒ/4. It improves sig­nif­i­cant­ly by ƒ/5.6, and min­i­mal vignetting is achieved at ƒ/8. From there, vignetting remains con­sis­tent up to ƒ/22.

Below are exam­ples of uncor­rect­ed vignetting at dif­fer­ent aper­tures using real-world scenes rather than blank sur­faces. The first image com­pares cor­rect­ed vignetting at ƒ/4 against the same image with cor­rec­tions dis­abled. Pass your cur­sor over the pic­ture to see the dif­fer­ence.

And this image shows uncor­rect­ed vignetting at ƒ/4 against the uncor­rect­ed reduc­tion in vignetting at ƒ/8. Pass your cur­sor over the pho­to to view the dif­fer­ence.

Flare and Ghosting

The XF 10–24mm F4 R OIS WR han­dles flare well over­all. Veil­ing flare—where bright light wash­es over the image—is min­i­mal, and the colour­ful orbs from light sources along the opti­cal axis are sub­dued enough to add char­ac­ter with­out over­whelm­ing the frame. Stop­ping down reduces their size but doesn’t elim­i­nate them entire­ly.

Of course, every lens will flare if you push it hard enough. To avoid it, sim­ply don’t shoot direct­ly into bright light sources. If used thought­ful­ly, the sub­tle flare can add a cre­ative touch to cer­tain com­po­si­tions. The gallery below shows some real-world exam­ples and the extent of flare and ghost­ing under con­trived con­di­tions. (Please keep in mind that the red spots around the sun in the third and fourth pho­tos is grid flare, which is unre­lat­ed to lens flare and ghost­ing.)

Sunstars

The lens’s sev­en round­ed aper­ture blades pro­duce 14-point sun­stars when stopped down to at least ƒ/11. Unfor­tu­nate­ly, these sun­stars lack crisp­ness and def­i­n­i­tion until ƒ/22, by which point dif­frac­tion degrades the over­all image qual­i­ty. While these sun­stars can add a touch of artis­tic flair, they fall short of what lens­es with straight-blad­ed diaphragms can achieve.

It’s a good reminder that pho­tog­ra­phy is the art of com­pro­mise: you get smooth out-of-focus tran­si­tions from round­ed blades, but it comes at the expense of sharp, defined sun­stars.

The pho­tos below demon­strate sun­stars at ƒ/11, ƒ/16, and ƒ/22, respec­tive­ly.

Focusing and Autofocus

On my X‑H2S—Fujifilm’s most capa­ble aut­o­fo­cus performer—autofocus speed with the XF 10–24mm F4 R OIS WR ranges from 1/3 to 2/3 sec­onds, depend­ing on light­ing and scene com­plex­i­ty. Accu­ra­cy is excel­lent, though the cam­era can occa­sion­al­ly grab the wrong sub­ject in busy focus areas, which is more a user issue than a lens flaw.

The focus motor is qui­et, but the lens some­times trig­gers a sub­tle flut­ter in the iris diaphragm, which slows focus­ing and is often accom­pa­nied by hunt­ing. This hap­pens incon­sis­tent­ly, even in con­trolled setups, and is unre­lat­ed to aper­ture set­tings, as I’ve seen it occur at ƒ/4.

Fuji­film claims a close focus dis­tance of 24cm, but I mea­sured clos­er to 21.5cm—consistent with my find­ings on the XF 8mm F3.5 R WR. This extra close­ness is a nice bonus for those who like to push lim­its in close-up work.

The focus ring rotates smooth­ly, but for bet­ter man­u­al con­trol, I rec­om­mend set­ting focus ring sen­si­tiv­i­ty to “Non­lin­ear” in Button/Dial Set­tings > Lens Zoom/Focus Set­ting on your cam­era. The “Lin­ear” set­ting pro­vides too short a throw for fine adjust­ments. For man­u­al focus assist, skip the gim­micks like dig­i­tal split prism and stick with mag­ni­fied view for accu­ra­cy.

Final­ly, there’s almost no focus breath­ing, which is great for cre­at­ing deep focus land­scapes using focus stack­ing.

Conclusion

After own­ing both gen­er­a­tions of Fujifilm’s XF 10–24mm F4 optics, I find myself in famil­iar territory—hesitating to use this lens despite its strengths. My WR copy doesn’t per­form as well as my orig­i­nal sam­ple opti­cal­ly, but the big­ger issue lies in how lit­tle the lens inspires me to reach for it. To be truth­ful, this review required a lot of forced effort, dri­ven by how lit­tle I enjoy using the lens.

It’s dif­fi­cult to pin the blame on a sin­gle flaw. Per­haps it’s the mushy aper­ture ring, which feels like a step back­ward com­pared to Fujifilm’s oth­er mod­ern lens­es. Or maybe it’s the awk­ward flar­ing at the front of the bar­rel, which I find visu­al­ly unap­peal­ing. Then there’s the slow ƒ/4 max­i­mum aper­ture, which trans­lates to a full-frame depth of field equiv­a­lent of ƒ/6—fine for land­scapes and archi­tec­ture, but lim­it­ing for sub­ject iso­la­tion, even at 24mm, unless you’re shoot­ing at the min­i­mum focus­ing dis­tance.

Anoth­er issue is how I tend to use this lens. Look­ing at my stats for both the WR ver­sion and its pre­de­ces­sor, about three-quar­ters of my pho­tos were tak­en at 10mm. That’s a prob­lem because I’m car­ry­ing a rel­a­tive­ly large, slow zoom lens only to use it at its widest focal length. In that case, the XF 8mm F3.5 R WR is a bet­ter choice across the board: it’s small­er, lighter, faster, equal­ly sharp, has a bet­ter aper­ture ring, and a small­er fil­ter diam­e­ter.

Beyond all the prac­ti­cal con­cerns, there’s an intan­gi­ble bar­ri­er. Pho­tog­ra­phy is as much about the emo­tion­al expe­ri­ence of shoot­ing as it is about the results. With the XF 10–24mm F4 R OIS WR, the process feels more like work. The lit­tle annoy­ances add up to lens that’s sim­ply not reward­ing to use. Even when I’ve tak­en great pho­tos with this lens or its pre­de­ces­sor, it’s always been after coerc­ing myself to bring it along, nev­er because I felt inher­ent­ly drawn to it.

If you’re some­one look­ing for a ver­sa­tile ultra-wide zoom for land­scapes or archi­tec­ture and can live with its quirks, the XF 10–24mm F4 R OIS WR can deliv­er beau­ti­ful results. But for me, the XF 8mm F3.5 R WR is a bet­ter fit, offer­ing a more enjoy­able and fun shoot­ing expe­ri­ence with­out feel­ing like its forced.

---

Sample Photos

The sam­ple pho­tos below fea­ture a com­bi­na­tion of the XF 10–24mm F4 R OIS WR and my orig­i­nal XF 10–24mm F4 R OIS. Giv­en the iden­ti­cal opti­cal for­mu­la, OIS sys­tem, focus motor, and coat­ings, the results are inter­change­able.