I so wish one of you can do a side by side test of the 35/1.4 vs a (CV 35/1.2 or 35 Summilux ASPH) on (M8 or NEX5N or GXR), just to see how good the 35/1.4 really is. Can this be done please?
aleksanderpolo wrote:
I so wish one of you can do a side by side test of the 35/1.4 vs a (CV 35/1.2 or 35 Summilux ASPH) on (M8 or NEX5N or GXR), just to see how good the 35/1.4 really is. Can this be done please?
Don't have those but I do have a very good Pentax SMC 35 3.5 which I may test mounted on the NEX-7 against the Fuji 35 1.4. I tested this Pentax against a Zeiss ZF 35 (on a Sony A900) and it was sharper with more contrast than the Zeiss in the center of the frame so it's no slouch.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Don't have those but I do have a very good Pentax SMC 35 3.5 which I may test mounted on the NEX-7 against the Fuji 35 1.4. I tested this Pentax against a Zeiss ZF 35 (on a Sony A900) and it was sharper with more contrast than the Zeiss in the center of the frame so it's no slouch.
That would be great for the stop down performance, I have the SMC 35 too and it is a great little gem
On the other hand I would like to see its performance at the f1.4-2 range against the top performer, hence my original request.
I actually have the 35/1.2 and the GXR A12 M mount. I think it would be an interesting comparison for sure.
I honestly think the Fuji 35/1.4 is slightly better wide open at longer distances as I think the sharpness fall off of the CV35/1.2 will be more pronounced. Also, I think the Fuji 35/1.4 will be better for stopped down infinity shots.
Worth taking into consideration is that the CV35/1.2 is an excellent full frame lens. So the sharpness fall off might of course be less pronounced on APS-C.
Up close (and personal) I think the CV35/1.2 will hold it's own and it has a special, if not unique look to it. It grows on you for sure, the more you use it. For build quality the CV35/1.2 is excellent. I haven't shot the CV35 much outside yet but I think it isn't as spectacular for long range shots, but of course no way near bad.
kosmoskatten wrote:
Jim Colwell; have you tried out the 60 macro yet? I am curious to find out if you get the internal reflections that have been reported in tests. Shooting a macro of a coin head on seems to be able to provoke it.
I just tried to setup for macro with flash, but I can't find a simple synch cord. Unfortunately the stupid camera won't fire a dumb shoe mount flash, or at least I can't figure out how to enable it. I'm charging some C batteries to fire up an old Sunpak Auto-622.
You'll probably feel a disturbance in The Force when it goes off.
Ha, I am still holding out. If Lightroom could process the raws I would have ordered one this week. I have a trip to Singapore coming up on the 28th and am trying to decide if I should get this or stick with the X100 for that trip.
One feature I used on the X100 which is very handy for comparing images is the built in raw converter. Using the one built into the X-Pro1 with the Hydrant raw image file shown above, I set the camera back to it's default for jpegs - STD/ Provia color and Noise at 0 instead of -2. To my surprise though, the terrible jpeg/ sharpening artifacts are still there. I then set the sharpening to "soft" which is the lowest setting and the artifacts are gone but I'm still not happy with the jpeg result. So, at least under some situations, the jpegs can really suck with the X-Pro1 (which was not my experience with the really decent X100 jpegs). This is all the more reason we really need more third party raw options to show up sooner rather than later.
That's interesting Tariq. I've generally been very happy with X100 jpegs, when they're the right solution. Hopefully, the X-Pro 1 jpeg engine will get a 'fix' in the near future.
jcolwell wrote:
That's interesting Tariq. I've generally been very happy with X100 jpegs, when they're the right solution. Hopefully, the X-Pro 1 jpeg engine will get a 'fix' in the near future.
I do think the example I posted is a worse case scenario. I noticed the over sharpening jpeg artifact right off when shooting the 35 1.4 wide open as it's pretty easy to see in the oof areas. Stopped down, It's not as noticeable. I have to say though that I never ran into this problem on the X100 jpegs.
One more jpeg issue and then I will leave the poor jpegs alone. There is definitely an issue with the way reds are rendered with in camera jpegs. The below comparison is with a straight raw conversion on the left and an in-camera jpeg on the right using all defaults with STD/ Provia color (which is the most neutral). The good news is that the raws seem fine as far as I can tell thus far so the issue is with the jpeg engine (which maybe can be fixed via firmware).
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I do think the example I posted is a worse case scenario. I noticed the over sharpening jpeg artifact right off when shooting the 35 1.4 wide open as it's pretty easy to see in the oof areas. Stopped down, It's not as noticeable. I have to say though that I never ran into this problem on the X100 jpegs.
I've wondered about this previously, but could it be that Fuji is processing XP1 JPEG files differently depending on the lens and aperture used? Generally a fast 35mm lens has a bit of SA glow wide open. I see this in my Voigtlander 35 f/1.2 and samples of the 35 Lux ASPH pre-FLE. It just amazes me that Fuji could produce a $600 35mm f/1.4 that is this clean with such pop wide open. The comparisons of the Silkypix conversions vs. straight from camera JPEGs are very interesting to see the differences, such as in the rendering of the plants in the last crop of the flowers (not sure if that was shot wide open though).
rscheffler wrote:
The comparisons of the Silkypix conversions vs. straight from camera JPEGs are very interesting to see the differences, such as in the rendering of the plants in the last crop of the flowers (not sure if that was shot wide open though).
Yes, that is wide open at 1.4 and is a 100% crop.
Also, did you see the moire pattern in the reflective letters of the stop sign? The moire pattern is not in the jpeg version, only in the raw.
Jim; thanks, it seems like you are not likely to have ghosting under normal shooting conditions, which is all good. Regarding the Sunpak; do I smell molten plastic..?
VladiD; CA is present in the high contrast shots, but it looks certainly manageable. Looks good. Punchy and crisp shots.
Tariq; seems like you managed to provoke moiré, which would be a first for the X Pro 1, it seems very resilient to moiré. Do I say congratulations or that I am sorry? Anyway, that is a very unforgiving subject and it is not present in the jpeg version. The reds, seems not to be a strong point of Fuji, I am not happy with the way reds are rendered in the X10 either.
People rave about Fuji colors, I don't find them as accurate as some of the competition.
Heh sorry for not contributing to the tecnical discussion, I'm not very technical myslef (most of the time I dont know what you're talking about ) but I could add a couple of real world photos if you dont mind
I think that 35 is the beez kneez, and I dont like the 50mm fov, I dont even remember the last time I shot 50... but I like this lens. I like it at middle distances which is where it will be mostly used I guess
The lens is IMHO as close to a summilux as you can get for $600 and a reason to buy into the system just to get your hands on it.
The 18... I absolutely love it, but I dont have many photos because I got sucked in with the 35. The 18 optically is decent but not excellent, still any potential flaws are irrelevant to my style and are more than forgiven because of the size, weight and f2 (which i find lovely up close)
The camera? I'm probably not the best person to comment because when the first rumours came out I knew I would buy it even if it was 6mp, scale focus and maxed ISO at 400
I just love this form factor + a nice bright OVF, these two things are enough for me to start clicking away and take the camera everywhere. Before the x100 came about I was shooting Contax G, Hexar AF and various rangefinders, last month I sold the last of them as I just dont see the point anymore. Fuji got me covered.
As for the AF, basically I dont care, but truth me told it is a bit 90s, Contax G kinda 90s. I find everything else about the camera ranges between nice and very nice
) but I could add a couple of real world photos if you dont mind 