Robert Capa famously stated, “If your photos aren’t good enough, you’re not close enough.” A macro lens, which allows you to focus more closely to the subject, takes this idea to an entirely new level. You can get extremely close! The smallest of details, which might normally be overlooked, can become the subject itself.
Fujifilm has three such lenses for the X-series: Fujinon XF 80mm f/2.8 R LM OIS WR Macro, Fujinon XF 60mm f/2.4 R Macro, and Fujinon XF 30mm f/2.8 R LM WR Macro. The 80mm lens is the most premium of these, and is a must for anyone who is serious about macro photography on Fujifilm cameras. The 60mm lens isn’t technically a macro lens, as it doesn’t have 1:1 magnification, but it is near-enough to be designated as such; it is an older Fujinon model, and not as sharp or quick as the others. The 30mm lens is the latest macro offering by Fujifilm, giving close-focus capability to a very useful focal length.
MPB is the sponsor of this article. They loaned me a Fujinon XF 30mm f/2.8 R LM WR Macro lens to try out for a couple of weeks. For those who don’t know, MPB is an online platform where you can buy, sell, or trade used photo and video gear. “At MPB, there’s something for everyone who wants to try something new, hone their skills, or pursue their passion—and it won’t cost the earth.” If you’re in the market for used camera gear, be sure to check out their platform—you can learn more about MPB here. Thank you, MPB, for making this article possible!
Normally, macro lenses are telephoto, such as the Fujinon 80mm f/2.8, because otherwise the lens might get too close and disturb the subject—either by scaring the subject away (if it’s an insect or animal) or by casting a shadow on it. The 30mm focal length is 45mm full-frame-equivalent on Fujifilm X-series cameras, and is a “normal” field-of-view for photography—essentially, a nifty-fifty; however, it is not the most practical choice for macro photography. In fact, you may want to remove the lens hood for up-close pictures, because it can get in the way. While I found the lens to be somewhat challenging for macro images, the fact that it doubles as a standard focal-length lens—not too dissimilar from the Fujinon 27mm f/2.8 or Fujinon 35mm f/2—means that it’s great for everyday walk-around photography. That versatility is quite intriguing.
The downside of this lens compared to the 27mm f/2.8 or 35mm f/2 is that the 30mm f/2.8 Macro is much larger (0.9″ and 1.8″ long compared to 2.75″ without the hood and 3.75″ with the hood, respectively). It is quite compact and lightweight for what it is, but if you’re looking for an everyday carry option, this isn’t quite as small as those. If macro or near-macro photography is of interest to you, this is an excellent lens to own; otherwise, you might better appreciate some of the other options.
Macro lenses are often extremely sharp because the nature of their work demands it, but the downside is that they are often slow. Not only do they typically have smaller maximum apertures, but they are almost always a bit slower to focus, since they have such a large range to cycle through. The Fujinon 30mm f/2.8 Macro is indeed very sharp and largely free of any optical flaws, and definitely lives up to the Fujinon reputation. Surprising to me, it is also quite quick to find and lock focus, which is somewhat unusual for a macro lens. From a technical point-of-view, there’s a lot to be impressed with.
For someone wanting to get into macro photography (or if you are already into macro photography, but are switching to Fujifilm from another brand), I would highly recommend starting with the Fujinon 80mm f/2.8. The Fujinon 30mm f/2.8 is an excellent complimentary option for when you need something less telephoto and/or bulky, but in my opinion it shouldn’t be your first or main macro lens. For someone who’s not really into macro photography per se, but would like to sometimes get closer to their subjects, and is also interested in a solid everyday-carry option, this lens will do the trick very well.
Getting closer to your subject to improve your photography has been common advice for over 75 years now, and I think there is just as much truth to it today as when Robert Capa first coined it in the 1940’s. Perhaps macro photography takes it more literally than Capa had intended, and certainly merely getting closer isn’t a cure-all fix to uninspired images. With that said, I do believe that lenses like the Fujinon XF 30mm f/2.8 R LM WR Macro provide the opportunity to grow as a photographer, and certainly the challenge of using it effectively will improve ones photography over time. So, yeah, if your pictures aren’t good enough, maybe it’s because you’re not close enough, and this lens will allow you to get much closer.
Photographs I captured using the Fujinon 30mm f/2.8 Macro lens on my Fujifilm X-E4:
Previously in this series:
Fujifilm X-Pro2 — The camera that got away (again)
Fujifilm X-T50 + Fujinon 23mm F/2 = Interchangeable-Lens Fujifilm X100VI??
Leica Q2 from the perspective of a Fujifilm photographer
Fujifilm X30 — Fujifilm’s Forgotten Retro Compact Zoom
Up next: Traveling Light with the Fujifilm X100VI + WCL-100 II & TCL-100 II Conversion Lenses
You can tell you’re not at the macro focus distance for most of these – and with good reason. It’s a lens that’s great for putting on as a walkaround and never having to worry about how close you get. As a macro it leaves a lot to be desired, and I’d even stick my neck out and say it’s harder to use than the 80, as at macro distance it’s going to be more or less compulsory to focus stack and be creative with secondary light sources.
And as a walkaround, it’s not super compact, but as an alternative to heavier, faster options, a welcome change. But I do find that it is mandatory to stop down to f4 to get decent sharpness. And that takes the edge off. A 35 f2 is about the same size.
I wanted to like it, but it’s no easier to use for macro than using extension tubes, and doesn’t hit the spot for walkaround for me. Over hyped imo.
My basic opinion is that it is a good option if you do macro photography and already own the 80mm, and want something that’s a little better for walkaround or maybe travel (than the 80mm). If you don’t do macro, I would recommend some different lenses. If you want to get a little closer than most lenses will get you, this lens will do it. Personally, I have no intentions of owning the 30mm f/2.8 macro… if I did own it, I’d likely only use it occasionally; however, I’m not really into macro photography myself, so I understood going into it that’s it’s not really a lens for me. I think those who it makes the most sense for is a fairly small group.
Not mentioned in the article: it is supposed to be a good lens for infrared, as apparently it doesn’t have IR hotspots. I did not get a chance to try it for that purpose, unfortunately, to confirm. There aren’t a ton of lens options for IR photography, so that is a positive that I wish I could have talked about, but since the opportunity to try it for that purpose didn’t happen, I had to leave it out of the article.
I bought this lens just after it was launched about 2 years ago specifically to digitize the thousands of slides and negatives I’ve got. About half are mine, the rest were taken by my father, uncle and grandfather. A few date back to the early 50s on the original Kodachrome.
Nearly two years later I’ve finally finished the task, although in that time I’ve used a handful more films to keep the lens busy!
I’m very pleased with the results and it’s a much faster and more pleasant experience than any of the various scanners I’ve used.
I’m intending to try the lens out with other subjects as well, both macro and ordinary. I mostly use a 35mm f2 so it’ll be interesting to see whether the extra bit of wideness makes a noticeable difference to my photography.
Dan Allen also uses the lens for that purpose, and I was quite impressed with his “scans” using the 30mm f/2.8 macro and an X-T5. Very high quality, definitely much better than the scanner that I own. I appreciate the input!
I forgot to buy this lens. When I went from my X-E2 to an X-Pro3, I decided to branch into autofocus lenses, and not just vintage or modern manual focus lenses. I’d seen the 30/2.8 announced on the roadmap, figured I’d enjoy it as a good walk-around normal where I never have to worry about getting too close. But then forgot it was about to release, and just bought the 35/2.
I think it looks like a lot of fun for a standard lens. Looking at vintage film lenses, typically the big SLR companies would have both a telephoto macro, but also often a 50mm macro. A lot of folks just like the versatility of a standard lens that can get incredibly close when you need to. Telephoto options are probably better positioned for serious macro work, but that’s not something most people do that often. So that’s part of the appeal of standard macros like this. And this seems like a nice one to use. WR is nice, and while it’s bigger than the non-macro alternatives, nearly everything is bigger than the 27, and the 35 is also quite small.
I don’t regret it, however, since the 35mm is great, and I eventually went for the 60.
I’d call it a macro, since there are lots of classic film lenses labeled as Macro that were only 0.5x reproduction, the classic Micro-Nikkor 55mm versions, for example, and a lot of Pentax and FD Canon 50mms. Seems like the idea that only 1.0x magnification lenses are macros is a somewhat newer distinction. But mostly… I think of it as a short-tele portrait lens, like a 50/2 or 56/1.2, with it’s own advantages and disadvantages. It’s nearly as small as the 50/2, with nice rendering (the OG trio of the 18/2, 35/1.4, and 60/2.4 have a charm), and fantastic close focus capabilities compared to any of the other lenses with about the same focal length. Having even 0.5x macro is probably as close as most folks need most of the time (can’t fit an entire Lego minifig in frame in landscape orientation), and it lets the lens be half a stop faster than the f/2.8 that most other macros have. The biggest disadvantage is probably the slow autofocus, but most of my context is screw-drive SLR lenses, so it seems fine to me. I think it offers a great option for a short tele for someone who shoots more flowers when walking around town than actual portraits.
I know there are better pure portrait lenses–I just don’t really shoot many portraits, and the 0.5x macro adds versatility.
I had the 60mm Macro for awhile… used it extensively on an X-Pro2 back in 2018… but ultimately it just didn’t mesh well with me. I got to use the 80mm Macro for just a couple weeks (also awhile back) and was blown away by it, but it is expensive and I already own the 90mm f/2, so I couldn’t justify it. I do like the 75mm-equivalent to 135mm-equivalent focal-lengths in general (I find myself more drawn to telephoto than wide-angle), and there are a lot of good options, thankfully. For everyday walkaround, the 35mm f/2 and 27mm f/2.8 are so good while also compact and affordable, it’s difficult to recommend anything else; however, the 30mm f/2.8 is also quite good and has added versatility for close focusing.
I appreciate the input!
Well I’m in the case of having the 3 macro lenses…
So I fully concur with Ritchie that the 30/2.8 macro is a very nice complement to the 80.
I like very much my 30/2.8 as it is a nice Fujicron. Perfect for going light with 1:1 macro possibility if needed during a hick / walk. So yeah it is a very good allrounder lens for me, which make me prefer it over my 35/2 many times when I’m going in my forest walks for example.
Of course the 80 is for serious macro work, being a tele, etc..
About IR capability, like the other Fujicrons, it is perfect for FS and IR photography. No hotspot in IR on the whole aperture range.
Tested on my X-E1 IR 720nm and my X-A3 FS with a Kolari Vision IR 1000nm filter.
See Rob Shea web page on IR capable Fujifilm lenses.
Rob is by the way reporting that Dan Allen tested it successfully in IR 😉
So I will say that the 30/2.8 has a lot to be liked for because of it’s multiple possibilities. Of course it’s a compromise (as always).
Nice to have in the catalogue.
About the 60, well it is indeed fully KO for IR photography since the wide apperture with a significant hotspot. But as reported by Kokari Vision, for UV photography, the 60 just shines.
I’ve tested it on my X-A3 FS with the Kokari Vision UV filter. Works great as advised.
Awesome! I know that a lot of people don’t do IR photography, but for those who do, it’s great to know that it is a solid option.
So far haven’t gotten around to UV photography, but I know I’ll get there someday…..