gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
I have some contrary experience with some of the Fujifilm lenses in this focal length range. (Because I'm very happy with the lens I use, I do not have experience with the 33mm f/1.4.)
I have owned and extensively used the 35mm f/1.4 since I first adopted the x-trans system as my alternate system (it complements a full frame system from another manufacturer) about a decade ago. It was actually the lens that sold me on the system back then. I continue to use it and it remains an excellent performer. I find the criticisms of the lens to be largely overblown and perhaps affected by gear lust for newer things.
(Recently there was a kerfuffle because it is not included on the "ready for 40MP" lens list from Fujifilm. That baffled me, so I went out and made some test images with the XT5 using the lens... and it is more than "ready" for 40mp.)
Where my experience specifically differs with your report when it comes to the relative performance of the 35mm f/2. (The short summary up. front about it is, "Great lens, but...")
I was excited when the 35mm f/2 first came out. I read reports that concluded that it was much quieter (though that hadn't been an issue with the 35mm), that it focused a lot faster — though reports of optical performance varied. Some said it was better than the 35mm (which seems to be a theme with new lenses in this focal length range, eh?), while others suggested that you would give up image quality for its faster focus, lower price, and smaller size/weight.
While I was considering weather a move to the f/2 lens would be worthwhile, circumstances allowed me to obtain one and shoot it side-by-side with my 35mm f/1.4 for several weeks. My biases going into the test were that the f/2 would AF faster but that the f/1.4 would have better optical quality... but that if IQ was about the same or even better the smaller lens would be better for my typical use at that time.
After weeks of shooting both, thinking about what I observed about mechanical performance (especially AF speed and accuracy, but also sound) and image quality (assessed in many ways ranging from a gestalt view of images with both lenses to intense side-by-side comparisons of images on screen at high magnifications) I decided...
... that both produced images that were just about the same and that the reported AF speed improvement, if it existed at all, was so small as to be imperceptible. Since the sound of the f/1.4 had never something I even noticed, any difference from the f/2 was meaningless.
I ended up keeping the f/1.4, but mainly because it gave me an extra stop in a very small package and I like to do night street photography. If my photography were a bit different I would have chosen the f/2.
My advice?
If you have the 35mm f/1.4, you have an excellent lens. Look at your results rather than listening/reading too many online reports telling you how awful your lens is. It is a very fine lens. Its virtues are excellent image sharpness, quite decent AF performance, the f/1.4 aperture, and its small size and weight.
If you don't need f/1.4 and you want an even smaller lens with approximately equal performance at a significantly lower cost, the 35mm f/2 is an excellent choice. Your photographs will look pretty much the same from either lens, but there's no sense paying more or getting a bigger lens if it does the job.
Regarding IQ, after staring closely at files from the two lenses at high magnifications, generally I would have been unable to tell which lens they came from if I had not made the exposures. Trying really hard to find any difference, I could sometimes, maybe, sort of, if I tried really hard and looked at 200% and larger, kind of convince myself that the corners might have sometimes looked a little bit different... but not in a way that was going to actually be visible.
As to the newer 33mm lens, I have no direct experience. I do know that the 35mm makes beautiful photographs, and I also know that reviewers and forum posters generally inflate the reality and meaning of purported performance differences. I also know that when the smaller, lighter f/1.4 lens performs so well, that I have a hard time imaging that any IQ improvements from the 33mm lens would outweigh its cost, size, and weight.
YMMV.
Dan
sebjmatthews wrote:
I won't talk about the 23s, because although I've used all the Fuji 23 lenses, I simply don't like that focal length, so I have a hard time making recommendations.
The 33/35s, on the other hand, I've used and like a lot and I will recommend both the 35mm f/2 and 33mm f/1.4 as big upgrades over the original 35mm f/1.4, with one caveat.
Of the three XF lenses, the 35mm f/2 is the fastest-focusing, smoothest-focusing, quietest-focusing, and in my experience the most consistent-focusing. It is also the most soundly-built and sealed. Of the three, it's the one I have gotten the most use out of. I have gotten equal use out of the XC 35mm f/2, which is the same optics and focusing but in a much cheaper, unsealed shell; I leave that on the smaller bodies, which aren't sealed themselves anyway, for when I want to cut down weight as much as possible.
The 33mm f/1.4 has the best optics in a 'test chart' sense. It's the highest-resolving, highest-contrast, and in general best-corrected. The focusing is much better than the original 35mm f/1.4, though not quite as good as the f/2. However, it is of course the largest and heaviest, and many people complain that the optics are too 'clinical'; I don't quite agree, but I do find the 33's optics a bit boring.
Which brings me to the caveat, which is that some people do really love the optics of the original 35mm f/1.4, so much so that they see the f/2 and the 33 as downgrades. I'm not one of those people, but I recognise they exist. For that reason I can not guarantee that you will prefer either the f/2 or the 33; you might find out you're one of those people who likes the original's optics enough to give up the technical advancements of the other two lenses. Unfortunately, that's not something anyone can know but yourself, and you'll only know it once you've actually tried one or both of the newer lenses...
One other thing to note is that you mentioned needing something for "low light", and depending on exactly how "low" you mean, you might not find the f/1.4s are enough. None of the f/1.4 lenses are a full stop faster than the f/2s, but more like 3/4 of a stop; in my experience, the f/2 lenses with the ISO and shutter speed bumped by 1/3rd of a stop is enough to equalise the exposure with the f/1.4s, while still having better focus. The limitation only comes when you get down to about -4.5EV (i.e. partly cloudy moonlight), where some Fuji bodies suddenly refuse to focus with the f/2s. That's where the f/1.4s actually start to make a difference in low light, since they'll still attempt to focus (albeit very slowly and inconsistently). Of course, most people don't shoot under light that dim anyway.
So think hard about exactly how "low" your "low light" is, and don't bank on buying or keeping an f/1.4 lens just for the sake of shooting in the dark. Get or keep the f/1.4s because you like the optics and handling, rather than for the negligibly brighter exposure. You probably don't "need" the f/1.4 for "low light" as much as you might think you do.
TL;DR:
The 33mm f/1.4 is the best upgrade if you are one of those people who values sharpness above all else.
The 35mm f/2 is the best upgrade if you value focus and build above all else.
Some people love the original lens the most anyway, so nothing is guaranteed....Show more →
|
The new lenses don't do that.