Jump to content

Fuji X lens autofocus speed leaderboard


Recommended Posts

Hello everyone!


I thought this would be a fun and useful thread (once complete).

Basically I don't know of any post/site/blog that has ranked each Fuji X lens based on it's autofocus speed.

Let's crowd source the info! I'd like to build a complete list ranking from the slowest to the fastest focussing lenses.


I don't have all the lenses, so can only provide a ranked list of what I own. Hoping the community will help complete the list :)


Here's the incomplete list based on my own experience, ranked fastest to slowest.



Rank 1  –  35mm f/2

Rank 2  –  16-55 f/2.8

Rank 3  –  14mm f/2.8


Rank 4  –  18-55 f/2.8-4

Rank 5  –  18mm f/2

Rank 6  –  35mm f/1.4

Rank 7  –  56mm f/1.2

Rank 8  –  60mm f/2.4


Rank ?? – 10-24mm f/4

Rank ?? – 16mm f/1.4

Rank ?? – 16-50mm XC f/3.5-5.6

Rank ?? – 27mm f/2.8

Rank ?? – 50-140mm f/2.8

Rank ?? – 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8

Rank ?? – 50-230mm f/4.5-5.7

Rank ?? – 90mm f/2.0

Rank ?? – 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6



Rank ?? – Zeiss 12mm f/2.8

Rank ?? – Zeiss 32mm f/1.8



Help complete the list! Let me know if X lens is faster than Y lens and I'll update this post :) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

May I enquire on how did you measure the speed of the lenses that you mention and were all the lenses measured with the same method? ( camera settings, luminosity, color, texture, contrast ) Did you measure with some machine or is your evaluation based on some sort of spitzen Fingergefühl ? 


If you don’t set a common methodology with other testers and you don’t use a machine to do repeated measurements ( which by definition imply numerical results to compare with others) this is nothing else than anecdotes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All my lenses focus fast enough in normal lighting conditions.

The 60mm F/2.4 is slower to focus when doing Macro work, but no other lens I own is even capable of doing that.


I agree with the above, that all lenses should be tested under the same situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are totally right! I haven't set a common methodology for testing. My tests were in no way scientific. Just through my own experience with the lenses. I'm will try to devise a way of testing that anyone could easily repeat. I am thinking with a phone stopwatch perhaps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We could just ask Fuji, since they measure all their lenses? ;)


There are a few thing we could say without it too. 

1. Wide angles are in general faster (less glass needs to be moved) 

2. Newer lenses are faster (new motors and algorithms/cpus) 

3. There are a lot of different factors in play.


The numbers are the best case, where there is enough light and the phase detect autofocus does the work. In real life AF speed will depend upon light, settings (size of af field, AF-C or AF-S) and a lot of other things.

But generally the list should look something like this:


16-55mm (@16mm)

35mm WR



16-55mm (@55mm)

18-55mm (@18mm)

50-140mm (@50mm) 



55-200mm (@55mm) 


50-140mm (@140mm) 


---- (here we have reached 0.23sec according to cipa test standards. Fastest measured value for the 16-55mm is 0.06sec) 



100-400mm (@400)




Again, this is just phase detection autofocus in the best scenario. As soon as there is more emphasis on contrast detect autofocus things will look differently (and the camera used becomes more important too) 


As I said, settings are important too. I noticed the 90mm being incredibly fast with a big AF square, put hunts quite a bit with the smallest in not so good light. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

" Unfortunately, there are only 5 XF lenses that can receive the benefit of the fast contrast AF: XF16-55mm, XF50-140mm, XF90mm, XF35mmF2, and the XF100-400mm. The wide angle lenses such as XF10-24mm and the XF14mm already have fast AF. We can say that the fast AF can be enjoyed through the entire focal range. Use and enjoy switching lenses that are most suitable for each scene. "



Source: http://fujifilm-x.com/en/x-stories/is-the-x-pro2-af-faster/

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have found the following things from usage in good light and low light (X-Pro2 findings marked separately):


Lenses used extensively: 10-24, 16-55, 18-55, 50-140, 14, 16, 23, 35 1.4, 35 2.0, 56, 90


Lenses currently in possession: 18-55, 16, 23, 35 1.4, 56, 90


16-55 is faster than the 50-140, slightly faster than the 18-55. I found the 10-24 to be fast in good light but, due to the aperture, drops in speed at low light. The 14 is very fast and on the same level as the 35 2.0 imo.


Findings on the X-Pro2:


35 1.4 is faster than the 35 2.0. I don't know what they did to the 1.4 but the improved AF on the Pro2 makes this thing compact-camera-quick. I can just press the shutter down and the camera snaps into focus instantly. No delay whatsoever. Even with the f/2 it had a slight focus delay. When the light fades, the 35 1.4 is far ahead of the 2.0 which is to be expected due to the aperture difference. The 1.4 definitely is a damn speed demon. The performance on the Pro2 even tops the speed boost the 1.4 got when FW 4.0 arrived on the X-T1.


16 and 23 are both faster than the 56 and 90 with the order:







from fast to not as fast.


From my experience, I cannot support Fujis chart. I couldn't believe just HOW GOOD the AF on the 35 1.4 is on the X-Pro2. They even drastically improved tracking with the 35 1.4 and 56 1.2. I can now confidently track wide open and get 9 out of 10 shots in focus consistently.


The final list for my lenses would look something like that:


35 1.4

14 2.8 / 35 2.0





18-55 / 10-24




Putting the 35 1.4 in the top spot may not suit everyone's opinion. But it's the fastest focusing lens I have and multiple events and portrait shoots support my opinion. I have no idea what Fuji has been doing to that lens since 2012 but they just keep injecting some weird digital steroid stuff into that little thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess that really emphasises an important consideration, it really entirely depends on what body, firmware and focus assist modes you use.


Basically speaking: yes. X-Pro1, X-M1, X-A1, X-A2 are lacking in that department. X-T1/X-E2 after FW 4.0, X-E2s and X-T10 are better and the X-Pro2 tops it. Still, I have no explanation for the fact that the 35 1.4 is the oldest and fastest lens that I own.


What do you mean by focus assist modes?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologise already in advance in case I read over it, but does anyone know if Fuji is planning to update the old XF lens line with the new chip set to meet the new AF requirements introduced with the X-Pro2? 

Let me put it differently: I just bought my first Fuji camera (X-Pro2) and was determined to start with a 35 f/2 and a 56 f/1.2. Instead I came home with only the 35 f/2, because I was aware of the AF differences between the new and old camera systems. Is it worth waiting for a 56 f/1.2 mkII, or is this wishful thinking?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
  • 2 years later...

I am digging up this old thread because AF speed is still an issue for me. At the moment, I own three AF lenses for the Fuji X system: the 90mm f/2, the 18-135mm zoom, and the Zeiss Touit 12mm f/2.8. I use these with two X-T2 bodies.

Of the three lenses, the 90mm has by far the fastest and most reliable autofocus. I wish all Fuji lenses were like this one.

The 18-135mm is significantly slower but still performs well under normal daylight conditions. However, it tends to hunt for focus when it gets darker. (For example, I was trying to focus a squirrel sitting right in front of me under a tree on a cloudy day, and the lens focussed back-and-forth several times without hitting the subject.)

The 12mm Touit has a rather slow AF, but apart from that, it focuses reliably at least in single-AF mode. Low light doesn't seem to affect its performance. Continuous AF on the other hand is much too slow for most applications, such as cats or squirrels walking towards the camera.

I assume low-light AF performance depends a lot on aperture, at least this would explain why the 90mm f/2.0 and the 12mm f/2.8 perform better in dark environments than the 18-135mm with its f/5.6 at 135mm.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • I'm surprised as well - I have that lens currently on the X-H2S and there is no obvious play.
    • Hi GO I am comparing it to all my FujiFilm bodies and the other marque in my (as my beloved would put it) 'too many cameras' fleet. Ken stated that the IQ was 'muddy' compared to the X-T4 and having tested it alongside my X-T4 and X-S10 (and for fairness sake my X-H1 and X-T3) I can find absolutely no difference in IQ between the newest bodies (X-T4/X-S10) which are marginally better than the older ones (X-T3/X-H1/X-Pro2) if you really start down the IQ pixel-peeping route. Its not a route I go down. I have been more than happy with the IQ of the X-T4 and X-S10 but the subject aquisition and focus success rate of the X-H2S takes it to a different level above both of those super cameras and that is/was the rationale for buying it. As well as the phenominal speed and buffering and stacked sensor. That's on the FujiFilm 'compared to what' side. If I then compare the X-H2S with my Sony A7 iv (my only full frame camera) I would say that the Sony is marginally better on focus speed, tracking and (pixel peeping) detail but, as I have more FujiFilm lenses and prefer the tactile feel of the Fuji's over the more clinical Sony, I am more than satisfied with the X-H2S. Each to their own! His point that the IQ was no better or worse than previous much less expensive models was an irrelevance to me as I wasn't after a quantum leap in IQ (I am more than satisfied), I just wanted a much better focus and aquisition rate which I now have with the cracking X-H2S. I like Ken and his thoughts on FujiFilm lenses just about mirror mine though I confess to not owning/using as many as him. But of those that I do own, they feature in his 'top-5'. I even prefer my 16-80mm over the bag of primes 16-55mm! Whilst I do find his reviews very refreshing and interesting/different, I find Maarten Heilbronn, Andy Mumford and the Hybrid Shooter offer a more balanced viewpoint coupled with actual photo examples which I,  as a simple retired soldier, can relate to and form an opinion/judgement on. Unless I have missed them, I cannot recall ever seeing any actual examples taken by Ken to prove beyond all reasonable doubt, the contentious and (sometimes) contemptious and dismissive views he holds. Again whilst I respect his views, I reserve the right to disagree with them and in the case of the FujiFilm X-H2S, I clearly do! I hope that answers your point on the 'compared to what'. Kind regards Pat    
    • Hi Patr, I'm sure its a cracking camera but as Ken would say "Compared to what?' That what he claimed, the image was no better or worse than previous much less expensive models.          Regards, GO  
    • I found this forum in a link from another Fuji forum so I'm glad to be here.  Regarding Ken, he's a strong, unique personality and part of his identity is to rattle the pots and pans. He's a quirky, intelligent person who has opinions, like we all do. His presentation can be extremely off putting, but he's worth listening to when deciding on a new Fuji.  I agree with others here who say it's best to rent a new camera if possible, and compare to one's own knowledge base and shooting preferences. 
  • Create New...