Est. 2020

Fujifilm 8mm F3.5 Review

*This post may contain affiliate links. Affiliate links are links to external websites that provide monetary value to me if you decide to purchase a product on their website. This is at no extra cost to you. For more information, please see the Affiliate Disclosure and the Privacy Policy

Quick Facts about the Fujifilm 8mm F3.5 WR

  • Weight: 7.6 oz/215 Grams 
  • Weather Sealed: Yes
  • Filter Size: 62mm 
  • Angle of View: 121 Degrees
  • Focusing Distance:  7.08 inches /18 centimeters
  • Max Aperture: F3.5
  • Minimum Aperture: F22
  • Image Stabilization: No
  • Mount System: Fuji X
  • Price: $799
  • Maximum Magnification: .07x

Table of Contents

Who is the Fujifilm 8mm F3.5 for?

Prior to the announcement of the Fujifilm 8mm F3.5, there was one Fujifilm XF mount lens that extended beyond the 10mm (15mm full-frame) field of view. However, there were some third-party options such as the Laowa 9mm and a few fish-eye lenses. 

I wouldn’t say that XF photographers have specifically asked for this lens, as there are numerous other holes within their line-up. (cough. F2.8 Standard Zoom for video.) 

So, with a market this narrow, I would be asking myself, “Who would purchase this lens?” In all honesty, I can really only think that architecture and landscape photographers might need something this wide. Perhaps vloggers, too, but that will come in the review. A small target market might be why such a small lens is expensive at launch MSRP. ($800)

What other XF Wide-Angle lenses exist that cover this focal length?

The 8-16mm F2.8 would be one of my favorite lenses within the XF ecosystem, but it’s heavy, expensive, and doesn’t accept circular filters. Regarding image sharpness, however, the output is exceptional. If I had to compare the 8mm F3.5 vs the 8-16mm, the 8mm would find its way into my camera bag more often strictly due to size and balance. Throughout this review, you are going to see various comparisons to this lens.

Dials, Switches, Buttons, and More

There is only one button on the lens, and that is the aperture lock button. If you push the zoom ring all of the way to the left, you then can control the aperture with a command dial. 

The aperture ring is marked. 

Finally, this lens does not contain optical image stabilization. 

Build Quality

From the first impressions, I was honestly surprised by how small (and well-balanced) the 8mm was. It is actually shorter in length than many of Fujifilm’s other summicron (23mm, 35mm and 50mm F2’s). It did not feel out of place on either the X-T20 or X-T4. 

That being said, the build quality is excellent. I found the aperture ring to have the right amount of tension and clicks. Meanwhile, the manual focus ring might be a bit loose for some, as it does have a relatively short lens-throw. 

The lens is weather-sealed, which is typical of Fujifilm lenses at this point. 

Note: The lens hood just looks weird because of the large field of view.

8-16mm vs 8mm F3.5 Build Quality

All around, I found the materials comparable to the 8-16mm (Which is kind-of sad when you compare the prices.) So, the same typical metal as other Fujifilm prime lenses.

Macro Performance and Max Reproduction Ratio

You really shouldn’t be using this lens for macrophotography. The maximum reproduction ratio is .07x, and the minimum focusing distance is 18 cm.

Sharpness Test

All around, considering its size, I think the output from the 8mm F3.5 is certainly acceptable. Of every Fujifilm prime lens I have tested, I do believe that this lens performs worst in regards to the center to corner fall-off, however. 


  • When looking at the beginning, the 8mm F3.5 performs well at F3.5 in the center of the frame. 
  • I really did not notice an improvement at F4 or F5, and it was still holding strong at F8 and F10. 
  • Around F14, I did start to notice a gradual decrease in overall quality, and it progressed rather until F18.
  • F22 performs much worse than F3.5. 



The corners perform much weaker than the center.

  • At F3.5, to me, the corners start out with poor quality. However, it is between F4 – F8 that this lens performs the best.
  • The image degradation does occur around F10, and the point of none-usability is F18.
  • F22 is the same. (I wouldn’t trust it.)

Note: This is an expandable gallery. 

8mm F3.5 Color Fringing

I was not able to change the lighting in the search for color fringing with this lens, as the sun did not come out as much as I needed it to. However, in the few photos that I was able to capture, I really did not see much purple or green fringing. Thankfully, with an aperture of F3.5, this won’t be expected too much.

Fujifilm 8mm at F3.5 - Color Fringing

Bokeh Review

You are not going to get an average amount of bokeh with this lens, as the depth of field is basically infinity at F8. If you push the lens to the extreme, you are able to a slight amount, but it just looks weird imho.

Bokeh Balls – Test

Cropped 100% to Center/Right Corner

Bokeh balls were near impossible to achieve with this lens. However, when I was able to get the lighting close enough, the corners and the FOV contributed to them streaking in the corner. 

It looks like there might be a slight, soap bubble effect too. However, it is very rare that you will rely on the bokeh balls from this lens. 

Autofocus Test

Despite lacking linear motors, I was not going to complain about the autofocus. The autofocus was quiet, and it moved quite fast. (Even from minimum to infinity.) 

I feel comfortable using this lens for video or photo work. 

*Test on the X-T4. X-T20 is currently with Fujifilm Repair. 

Vlogging Test

IBIS Review This Wide 

Personally, I thought the 8mm performed better than the 10-24 for vlogging, while the 10-24 actually includes optical image stabilization.

Yes, the corners were rather wobbly. However, it was certainly usable and felt almost natural. 

Meanwhile, the 10-24 and I have a mixed relationship. In all of my footage, I feel like the IBIS and OIS are actually fighting against each other until 16 or 18mm. 

iPhone 13 vs X-T4 with 8mm F3.5 

When cropping in a little bit, I definitely thought that the results were passable for a “vlogging” mode when cropping into a 9×16. And the results were far superior than my iPhone 13 could muster. (I viewed it on my 4k monitor) 

However, when displayed on the Phone 13, I didn’t necessarily notice a difference in quality compared to the back camera on my iPhone. It was just too small of a display. The stabilization is better on the phone, however. 


Fujifilm automatically corrected the distortion in the JPEGs. 

However, there was barrel distortion which resulted in the photographs taken to always have their edges cut off. 


There is a pretty heavy vignetting with this lens, and so I wanted to see if it compared. This is with the Capture One Profile corrected, while the second photo one is not correct. Finally, here is the JPEG. 


The ghosting and flaring on the 8mm was quite better than I expected, especially considering the wide field-of-view. This video shows that there is a slight “ghost,” but I don’t find it distracting.


The 8-16mm is a lot better for starbursts. For the 8mm F3.5, it is only further down the aperture around F11 that the starburst effect even appears subtle. I was not able to get a distinct starburst to allow for creative effects. #oh well.

I suppose at F18, F20, and F22 the results were… passable. Meanwhile, it’s around F9 that sunstars excel on the 8-16mm. 

Sample Images

Pros and Cons of Fujifilm 8mm F3.5

With this lens, if you question whether you need it or not, the answer is you don’t. It’s fun but not practical for everyday photography. I actually felt somewhat limited with this lens, as 90% of the photos were shot downtown and focused on buildings. Landscape and Architectural photographers may disagree with me, however. (Sure enough, the first Instagram Reel on my feed was a landscape photograph with the 12mm full-frame lens.) 

If you need something a bit more versatile, I believe the 10-24mm F4 is a worthy competitor. If you purchase a used copy, it is cheaper than this lens. Plus, it’s really not that much heavier. Meanwhile, the Laowa 9mm (a manual-focus lens) is half-the-cost. 

Pros of the 8mm F3.5

  • Learn New Styles of Photography 

The 8mm lens is going to challenge your photography skills thinking about composition with wide-angle lenses + background. The trick to landscape photography is foreground, subject, background. 

  • Weight 

The wide angle and the weight that accompanies it is a joy to shoot with. I never felt tired carrying this lens all-day. 

Cons of the 8mm F3.5

  • Corner Performance 
I have never seen anything like it. 

  • Heavy Vignette 
About two stops, if I had to estimate 

My Rating

Price: 3.5/5 

Coming in with an MSRP of $800, this lens is entirely way too expensive within its class. Yes, there is nothing quite like it. However, stitching a panoramic photo with the 10-24mm F4 might yield similar results to this lens. Plus, that costs about $400 less. The biggest competitor, as a small prime, APS-C lens for the X-Mount is the Laowa 9mm F2.8. I have not had the pleasure of testing that manual-focus lens, but it’s retail MSRP is half of the 8mm F3.5. (The 8mm retails for $799; The Lawowa is $399.) I had to update my 8-16mm F2.8 review, too, after they dropped the price to $1,499 MSRP. 

Reliability: 4/5

We are not going to lose any points for the disappointing bokeh or bokeh balls, but rather losing a point for the heavy loss of image quality in the corners. I have previously written about how the 8-16mm F2.8 suffers in image quality, too, on the wider end. But I did feel like the drop in image quality in the corners was substantially worse on this lens. 

Functionality: 3.5/5

We lost .5 a point for the heavy vignette. Meanwhile, another -.5 a point is also lost for the lack of defined sunstars. A final (albeit personal) half-a-point is lost for the niche-use case. 

Style: 5/5

For as much as a problem I gave this lens, I thought it was cool and cute. Plus, its size actually makes it comfortable for daily carry. 

Total: 16/20 or about 80%