I don't use it for portraits. However, if you need this lens, you don't really have much of a choice. If you can get away with the 23, then buy that used for a fraction of the price. Otherwise, if you need 20mm or you need to zoom because of harsh shooting conditions like dusty canyons or wet areas or rapidly moving models, then this is your only real choice. Performance is very close to the 23 prime, but the prime is better corrected. The 20-35 has a good amount of distortion that is corrected digitally. It is strongest at 20-25mm and then gets weaker by 35mm. At f/8 it's excellent at all focal lengths.
I probably could have lived with the 23 but — 1) I mainly wanted it for landscape/cityscape and 2) having zoom is hugely beneficial for that; 3) the zoom is essentially the same size as the prime(!) and 4) I got a used one for about a 50% delta over the prime used, so it was a no-brainer for me; and 5) finally the difference a few mm makes at the wide end can be significant.
A lot of people complain about the 23 not being versatile enough and if you're photographing something while laying on the sidewalk you're going to want some versatility so you don't have to worm crawl to zoom in. cbass wrote:
I don't use it for portraits. However, if you need this lens, you don't really have much of a choice. If you can get away with the 23, then buy that used for a fraction of the price. Otherwise, if you need 20mm or you need to zoom because of harsh shooting conditions like dusty canyons or wet areas or rapidly moving models, then this is your only real choice. Performance is very close to the 23 prime, but the prime is better corrected. The 20-35 has a good amount of distortion that is corrected digitally. It is strongest at 20-25mm and then gets weaker by 35mm. At f/8 it's excellent at all focal lengths.
JadedWriter wrote:
A lot of people complain about the 23 not being versatile enough and if you're photographing something while laying on the sidewalk you're going to want some versatility so you don't have to worm crawl to zoom in.
It wasn't for me. I rented a 20-35 to see if I could get away with the 23 prime instead. This was for the four corners region and into some canyons. There were many situations where 23mm would not have been wide enough. Also, in the dusty canons switching lenses become not only inconvenient, but also a good way to contaminate your sensor. The 20-35mm range worked exceptionally well. Optically, I really enjoy the 20-35. It is sharp wide open from center to corner at 20-25mm. It also has very high contrast. Fuji's official published MTF agrees. Stopped down CA are a non-issue.
Technically around 20-25mm the 20-35 has better corner performance wide open than the 23mm prime. Although it has crazy optical distortion of 5% at 20mm. Not the end of the world after software correction. At 25mm the distortion is around 1% like the 23 prime so comparable in that range. There isn't much downside to getting the zoom over the 23mm. That's probably why the price of the 23mm prime has tanked after the 20-35 was released.
gear-nut wrote:
I probably could have lived with the 23 but — 1) I mainly wanted it for landscape/cityscape and 2) having zoom is hugely beneficial for that; 3) the zoom is essentially the same size as the prime(!) and 4) I got a used one for about a 50% delta over the prime used, so it was a no-brainer for me; and 5) finally the difference a few mm makes at the wide end can be significant.
There isn't much downside to the 20-35 zoom over the 23 prime other than the used price of the 23 prime being much better. They are the same speed at f/4. They perform virtually identical at 23mm. They are similar size and weight. They both have 82mm filters. The 23 prime does have a linear motor, however, and that might result in faster auto focus, but I that's an assumption and I have no data backing that up.
Any opinions on how the 20-35 handles shooting into the sun, particularly whether you can create nice sunstars at any aperture? I’ve read through a bunch of reviews and can’t find anything on this point.
Yeah the 20-35 just seems perfect for what I need it for. The 23 prime just seems too niche. I love a good prime, but those primes are normally at some sort of common sense portrait focal length. cbass wrote:
It wasn't for me. I rented a 20-35 to see if I could get away with the 23 prime instead. This was for the four corners region and into some canyons. There were many situations where 23mm would not have been wide enough. Also, in the dusty canons switching lenses become not only inconvenient, but also a good way to contaminate your sensor. The 20-35mm range worked exceptionally well. Optically, I really enjoy the 20-35. It is sharp wide open from center to corner at 20-25mm. It also has very high contrast. Fuji's official published MTF agrees. Stopped down CA are a non-issue.
Technically around 20-25mm the 20-35 has better corner performance wide open than the 23mm prime. Although it has crazy optical distortion of 5% at 20mm. Not the end of the world after software correction. At 25mm the distortion is around 1% like the 23 prime so comparable in that range. There isn't much downside to getting the zoom over the 23mm. That's probably why the price of the 23mm prime has tanked after the 20-35 was released.
ketang wrote:
Any opinions on how the 20-35 handles shooting into the sun, particularly whether you can create nice sunstars at any aperture? I’ve read through a bunch of reviews and can’t find anything on this point.
I don't remember which review I saw, but sun stars are nothing spectacular from what I remember. I have not tested it personally for this trait. Here is a section I found from a review:
The Fujifilm 20-35 f4 lens has minimal barrel distortion that is easily corrected. The distortion is most apparent at 20mm. It creates beautiful colors with pleasing contrast, and I appreciate the possibility of the deep blacks when there is ample contrast. You’ll notice a natural vignetting that’s easily remedied if you’re not a fan of it. It’s even possible to get sun stars and light stars with this lens. Any sun flare is subtle and can be embraced or edited out, depending on your taste.
Thanks so much, that answers the question. I wonder why the lens designers didn’t consider including that. The full frame lenses that I’ve used at the same price point all produce decent sunstars or better.
ketang wrote:
Thanks so much, that answers the question. I wonder why the lens designers didn’t consider including that. The full frame lenses that I’ve used at the same price point all produce decent sunstars or better.
They may have considered it. The reality is that they probably have to make a choice on what they can correct and what rendering a lens has while considering manufacturing ease and cost. They can't make it all happen and they need to make choices.
cbass wrote:
There isn't much downside to the 20-35 zoom over the 23 prime other than the used price of the 23 prime being much better. They are the same speed at f/4. They perform virtually identical at 23mm. They are similar size and weight. They both have 82mm filters. The 23 prime does have a linear motor, however, and that might result in faster auto focus, but I that's an assumption and I have no data backing that up.
FWIW, the 20-35 has the LM too and focuses pretty fast — notably faster than the 55 for example.
fuji says the lens has stepper motors on the site, also lacks the LM designation in the branding. gear-nut wrote:
FWIW, the 20-35 has the LM too and focuses pretty fast — notably faster than the 55 for example.
JadedWriter wrote:
fuji says the lens has stepper motors on the site, also lacks the LM designation in the branding.
Read that too, but then a review claiming linear and the performance matches. I should have said linear performance. Perhaps it’s more steppers, IDK. And of course wides need less total element movement to get focus. In my experience it’s still pretty fast whatever the actual motors are.
I like the fact that it's wide enough that I can take one photo and crop it, and it gives me the same pano effect as taking 2 or 3 pictures with my 32-64 and stitching them together.
Looking through my GF and XF lenses at which are LM and which are stepper motor. Not sure there is much of a correlation in focus speed between the two designs. All the small F2 XF lens are quick to focus, no LM's there. The XF80mm has LM's and its probably the slowest focus or all of them. The 20-35 is a fast as the others to focus with no LM's (at least in practical use). So I think the decision to use LM's has more facets than we know. Its also interesting that the LM's all have the telltale clunk when turned off and the focus mechanism flops around. Except for the GF100-200 which has LM's yet doesn't clunk. Apparently they added a locking feature on it.
Beauregard1910 wrote:
I like the fact that it's wide enough that I can take one photo and crop it, and it gives me the same pano effect as taking 2 or 3 pictures with my 32-64 and stitching them together.
Yah, I like shooting in 65:24 with the 20-35. Since the RAF file will be un-cropped, I added a 65:34 crop setting in Capture 1.
