Since getting my Fuji X-E5 I have been shooting with my Fuji 23mm f2 and enjoying the combo and images. However, I had a chance to get a Fuji 35mm f2 from a forum member. The 35 mm arrived today and I have only shot a few images around the house with it. Would those of you who use this lens on your Fuji camera, please share your thoughts. TIA
It's a very good lens. Sharp wide open. It renders very nuetrally like a modern lens. It also has a more modern focus motor. The 35mm f1.4 is equally sharp, renders more classicly and has a slightly slower, more noisey focus motor. Most of the time I prefer the 35mm f1.4 for the f1.4 and the rendering which I think can produce some unique images in a subtle way. But the 35 f2 is a very good lens without any real flaws.
It's a fine lens. However for the same money and at virtually same size, you can pick up the 35/1.4 -- which is at least as sharp or sharper at f2, and has the extra stop and glorious rendering.
gaopa wrote:
Since getting my Fuji X-E5 I have been shooting with my Fuji 23mm f2 and enjoying the combo and images. However, I had a chance to get a Fuji 35mm f2 from a forum member. The 35 mm arrived today and I have only shot a few images around the house with it. Would those of you who use this lens on your Fuji camera, please share your thoughts. TIA
A few years back I had a chance a chance to use a copy for about a month, and I tested it against my35mm f/1.4. In the end I decided that both are very good optically, and that it was actually pretty hard to tell which I had used by just inspecting the files.
If you need f/1.4 get the f/1.4 version. If not, the f/2 version is very good.
In July of this year I purchased my 1st Fuji, a X-T5 (silver). I have both the Fuji 35 f2 and 35 f1.4 . The 35 f2 is used with 3 other silver Fujicrons (16 f2.8, 23 & 50 f2) as my general kit with all lenses being compact and WR.
The 35 f1.4 was the first Fuji lens I bought, mostly for portraits. This kit includes my Sigma 56 f1.4 and soon to arrive Fuji 90mm f2.
Owning both, the 1.4 and 2, I prefer the Fujicron f2. The F1.4 needs to be stopped down to f2.8 for the outer images areas to sharpen up. The f2 resolves more detail when it peaks at f4. The Fujicron is smaller and perfect with the X-Pro line. Unless you need f1.4, I woulkd go with the f2.
Nielk Mike wrote:
Owning both, the 1.4 and 2, I prefer the Fujicron f2. The F1.4 needs to be stopped down to f2.8 for the outer images areas to sharpen up. The f2 resolves more detail when it peaks at f4. The Fujicron is smaller and perfect with the X-Pro line. Unless you need f1.4, I woulkd go with the f2.
It is a common expression to say unless one needs the faster aperture go with the smaller aperture lens. There are always ways to get by with slower aperture lenses but they come at a tradeoff - higher ISO, slower shutter speeds, deeper depth of field. In this case, the f2 lens offers weather sealing, slightly faster and more quiet focussing, a slightly smaller size and nuetral rendering versus more classical rendering.
Owning both, these seem the relevant tradeoffs to me. I wouldn't base my choice on sharpness difference between the two. Both are very sharp.
After shooting my Fuji 23/2 on my X-E5 since getting the camera a few months ago, it was a real change to mount my newly acquired Fuji 35/2 on my camera. It has been interesting getting used to the different focal length of a 50mm equivalent lens. It reminds me of my first SLR, a Canon A1/50mm back in the early 80s. Here is a photo from a brief outing today.
Geoff D F wrote:
It is a common expression to say unless one needs the faster aperture go with the smaller aperture lens. There are always ways to get by with slower aperture lenses but they come at a tradeoff - higher ISO, slower shutter speeds, deeper depth of field. In this case, the f2 lens offers weather sealing, slightly faster and more quiet focussing, a slightly smaller size and nuetral rendering versus more classical rendering.
Owning both, these seem the relevant tradeoffs to me. I wouldn't base my choice on sharpness difference between the two. Both are very sharp.
Your "choice" analysis matched mine when I tested the two lenses extensively against one another. Frankly, I don't think there is any significant optical performance difference.
I'm one of those folks who tell people to get the f/1.4 if they need the larger aperture but to get the f/2 if they don't. Why get the f/2 if the optical performance is so similar and you might eke out a little better image at f/2? Aside from the fact that the f/2 lens seemed pretty good wide open, it is much less expensive and it is smaller and lighter.
To the f/1.4 lens's credit, it is quite small for a f/1.4 lens, so the size/weight penalty here is not nearly as large as if you were comparing the 23mm f/1.4 to the f/2 version or comparing the 50m f/2 to the 56mm f/1.2.
After testing the the two, I did decide to keep the f/1.4. I do a lot of night photography so I felt that the larger aperture might make enough of a difference from time to time.
Geoff D F wrote:
It is a common expression to say unless one needs the faster aperture go with the smaller aperture lens. There are always ways to get by with slower aperture lenses but they come at a tradeoff - higher ISO, slower shutter speeds, deeper depth of field. In this case, the f2 lens offers weather sealing, slightly faster and more quiet focussing, a slightly smaller size and nuetral rendering versus more classical rendering.
Owning both, these seem the relevant tradeoffs to me. I wouldn't base my choice on sharpness difference between the two. Both are very sharp.
True, but the f2 resolves more. Anyhow, with today's sensors and post software, about one ISO step is hardly an issue. IBIS in some bodies helps, too, for static subjects, and the visual difference in DoF is small. Sharpness and resolution isn't not everything - but it does help a lot when cropping on a 40MP sensor.
Nielk Mike wrote:
True, but the f2 resolves more. Anyhow, with today's sensors and post software, about one ISO step is hardly an issue. IBIS in some bodies helps, too, for static subjects, and the visual difference in DoF is small. Sharpness and resolution isn't not everything - but it does help a lot when cropping on a 40MP sensor.
Hmmm. Maybe some copies of the f2 lens resolve more at f2 than the f1.4 lens at f2, but I don’t think it’s universally true. If one is wanting ultimate resolution in a normal focal, the 33/1.4 is going to be the lens to get. That said, superior resolution rarely guarantees a better image. And as for a pleasing classic rendering, the 35/1.4 is tough to beat; it’s IMO very “Mandler-esque.”
The new 23f1.4WR resolves quite well, too. It is obvious that good images and highest possible resolution and sharpness are not tied together. Everyone here knows that. But a photographic system should provide the highest possible quality in the most realistic way possible. Lenses (or cameras) that add something through "character" I find suspicious. Back in film days those "character" lenses may have added something that was hard to add in post.
The 35f1.4 resolves about 65 lpmm at f4 while the 35f2 resolves about 79 lpmm at that f-stop. I guess one of the reasons why Fuji updated the f1.4/f1.2 line. It shows on 40 MP in crops. That said, the 35f1.4 is a nice little fast lens that can return sharp images.
Nielk Mike wrote:
The new 23f1.4WR resolves quite well, too. It is obvious that good images and highest possible resolution and sharpness are not tied together. Everyone here knows that. But a photographic system should provide the highest possible quality in the most realistic way possible. Lenses (or cameras) that add something through "character" I find suspicious. Back in film days those "character" lenses may have added something that was hard to add in post.
The 35f1.4 resolves about 65 lpmm at f4 while the 35f2 resolves about 79 lpmm at that f-stop. I guess one of the reasons why Fuji updated the f1.4/f1.2 line. It shows on 40 MP in crops. That said, the 35f1.4 is a nice little fast lens that can return sharp images. ...Show more →
It's going to be a rare situation where I would be cropping so much that the difference between the f1.4 and the f2 lens becomes noticeable. Indeed I can't see a difference between them pixel peeping at 100 per cent. On the other hand I can see a difference between f1.4 and f2 for dof and especially the character of the bokeh. We may have copy variations.
Nielk Mike wrote:
The new 23f1.4WR resolves quite well, too. It is obvious that good images and highest possible resolution and sharpness are not tied together. Everyone here knows that. But a photographic system should provide the highest possible quality in the most realistic way possible. Lenses (or cameras) that add something through "character" I find suspicious. Back in film days those "character" lenses may have added something that was hard to add in post.
The 35f1.4 resolves about 65 lpmm at f4 while the 35f2 resolves about 79 lpmm at that f-stop. I guess one of the reasons why Fuji updated the f1.4/f1.2 line. It shows on 40 MP in crops. That said, the 35f1.4 is a nice little fast lens that can return sharp images. ...Show more →
All I know is that when I use the 35mm f/1.4 with my 40MP APS-C sensor, it produces extremely sharp images...
- - -
asekcsc5 wrote:
is there a fuji 35mm f2.8? Or you meant the 27?
c.
My bad! Thanks for catching that. I revised my earlier post.
gdanmitchell wrote:
All I know is that when I use the 35mm f/1.4 with my 40MP APS-C sensor, it produces extremely sharp images...
- - -
My bad! Thanks for catching that. I revised my earlier post.
The 35f1.4 can be sharp across stopped down to f2.8, and peaks at f4. But still resolves less than the 35f2 - which makes the latter the better lens on a 40MP sensor for cropping - which for me is the only reason to use a 40MP sensor in the first place. As I said, there has been a reason why Fuji updated the 1.4/1.2 line.
Nielk Mike wrote:
The 35f1.4 can be sharp across stopped down to f2.8, and peaks at f4. But still resolves less than the 35f2 - which makes the latter the better lens on a 40MP sensor for cropping - which for me is the only reason to use a 40MP sensor in the first place. As I said, there has been a reason why Fuji updated the 1.4/1.2 line.
Mike, a question. You’re arguing the minor advantages of the 35/2 resolution here, but to this day have claimed the gains between the 26mp and 40mp X sensors is so insignificant as to be irrelevant. I’m curious about how you can see one but not the other? In my case, even my lowly 35/1.4 looked better off my 40mp sensor than it did the 24/26 sensors. The two views seem to run distinctly counter to each other 🤷🏼
Jack Flesher wrote:
Mike, a question. You’re arguing the minor advantages of the 35/2 resolution here, but to this day have claimed the gains between the 26mp and 40mp X sensors is so insignificant as to be irrelevant. I’m curious about how you can see one but not the other? In my case, even my lowly 35/1.4 looked better off my 40mp sensor than it did the 24/26 sensors. The two views seem to run distinctly counter to each other 🤷🏼
Amen.
It may or may not be true that the measured test-bench LP/MM numbers for one of these lenses may be better than the numbers for the other one…
… but both a quite sharp, and it hardly seems that choosing one over the other for sharpness value makes any sense at all. There are plenty of good reasons to pick one or the other (price, size, weight, max aperture), but some supposed sharpness difference isn’t one of them.
For me, the 35 f2 offers an ideal balance of image quality and lens size for walkabout with my X-T5 (as it did with my X-Pro2 earlier). It is a bit sharper than the 23 f2 that I owned previously, which I have since upgraded to the 23 1.4 WR.
Jack Flesher wrote:
Mike, a question. You’re arguing the minor advantages of the 35/2 resolution here, but to this day have claimed the gains between the 26mp and 40mp X sensors is so insignificant as to be irrelevant. I’m curious about how you can see one but not the other? In my case, even my lowly 35/1.4 looked better off my 40mp sensor than it did the 24/26 sensors. The two views seem to run distinctly counter to each other 🤷🏼
The difference between 26 and 40MP is relatively small and certainly not a step in the right direction on the part of Fuji. But: There seems to be little choice for Fuji given that they source their sensors from Sony. 26MP is more than enough for most every use case, and there is no lens out-resolving the 26MP sensor. All current Fuji primes including the older ones return sharp images on the 26MP sensor, though some need to be stopped down to f4 to get acceptable sharpness across.
But that is only one side of the story. Since I had to plunge into 40MP territory with the X-E5 (my other cameras are the X-T2, X-T3, X-Pro3 and X-E3) I decided that I can as well make use of the only advantage that I see with that sensor: Cropping. My basic lens set is consists of three lenses: Sigma 12mm, XF23f1.4WR and 56f1.2 WR. If I need small, I go with the 16/23/50 Fujicrons.
The 40MP sensor allows me to turn those 3 focal lengths into 7: 12/18 and 23/35 and 56/85/120. It also allows me to use 2x crop with the 12 and 23 if needed (if there is no time to switch lenses from, say, the 12 to 23. The images of the 12/23/56 are visibly sharper and very even across already at f1.4 when I crop compared to the older f1.4/f1.2 lenses.
