Edited to correct the omission of a word that reversed my intended meaning. Correction is in bold type below.
Nielk Mike wrote:
No one questions that the f1.4 is a good lens capable of producing sharp and good looking images. 35mm images often have the center of attention at the middle of the frame anyway. And without much cropping, sharpness will not been issue, even at f1.4 in the center.
That paragraph has the fundamental truth, regardless of the comparative sharpeners at f/2.
I suppose that if you are right that the 35mm f/1.4 is not sharp enough in the corners at f/1.4 (that’s not my experience, but for the sake of argument, let’s go with it for this paragraph), and you photograph flat field subjects at f/1.4 a lot and you print them at 30” x 40” sizes and you inspect them with a magnifying glass…
;-)
Geoff D F wrote:
I have both lenses and can't see the difference. It may be there, but the question is whether the difference is significant enough to be a differentiator. There are other aspects that differentiate the lenses. For my needs at least, sharpness does not.
That mirrors my experience. As I have written, at one point I thought that the f/2 might be a better optical performer than the f/1.4 based on various reviews (and that it might focus faster and more accurately.) So I took advantage of an opportunity to have both of them for a month, during which I photographed with them side-by-side and carefully compared the files, looking for any significant difference.
I could not find any. I felt that my f/2 was maybe ever so slightly less sharp in the corners wide open, but to such a small degree that it was completely immaterial. (Basically I had to put images from both lenses on the screen side by side, magnified to 100% or larger, and switch between them. If you had shown me one on its own and asked which lens it came from, I would not have have been able to tell you.)
Nielk Mike wrote:
Don't have membership to post images…
You don’t need membership to share images. Simply post the url to any file ending in “.jpg” and it will show up here. You can also easily post from Flickr. (I post images here regularly, and I never upload to FM.)
Nielk Mike wrote:
Geoff: It is not my job to convince you which lens resolves more…
C’mon, Mike. You’ve just spent a good part of this thread trying to do just that. Your claim carries no more weight that that of others of us who have used both lenses and disagree with your assertions. In fact, it carries less weight when you won’t show us images that prove it. (Though “proving” that a lens is poor is trickier than just showing a photo made with the lens, since lots of things having nothing to do with lens optics can lead to poor results.)
The crazy thing is that earlier in this thread you essentially agreed with the fundamental point that many of us have made: Both the f/2 and the f/1.4 are fine lenses and that the f/1.4 can be a better choice if you feel you need the larger aperture while the f/2 can be the best choice if you don’t:
Nielk Mike wrote:
Unless you need f1.4, I woulkd go with the f2.
"The crazy thing is that earlier in this thread you essentially agreed with the fundamental point that many of us have made: Both the f/2 and the f/1.4 are fine lenses and that the f/1.4 can be a better choice if you feel you need the larger aperture while the f/2 can be the best choice if you don’t"
And I still stand by that statement. But that doesn't change the fact that the f2 lens resolves more and the f1.4 is soft away from the center up to 2.8 or even 4. If you do a search on the lens, you will find many reviewers who have also seen that. But it is also not my job to convince you. If the 1.4 works for you- great. For me, the f2 is the better option.
Geoff D F wrote:
Perhaps you could post images showing the sharpness difference? I have both lenses and can't see the difference. It may be there, but the question is whether the difference is significant enough to be a differentiator. There are other aspects that differentiate the lenses. For my needs at least, sharpness does not.
Sharpness at the edges is always nice to have, I see no great virtue in not having it, the 1.4 standard lenses have always tended to be used for portraiture etc as the small DoF gives you the separation and in such usage as is rightly said edge and corner sharpness isn't so important, nor was it possible until aspherics came along. The f/2 standards were always a better general purpose lens, sharper across the frame at f/2 and fully usable on the odd occasion you had a flat field and not much light.
For years I owned both 1.4 Summilux and f/2 Summicron for my Leicas, and similarly 1.4 and 1.8 Nikk9rs 50s for my Nikons.
There's nothing special about showing photos on a website browser to demonstrate it, it's such a poor medium to judge. Plenty of proper tests show that the Fuji 35 f/2 is sharper at centre and edges at f/2 and 2.8 at least than the 35/1.4. They are different tools for different jobs.
You can now 'have your cake and eat it' with Fuji's 33/1.4, which like the Leica Summilux aspheric give much better sharpness at the edges at 1.4 than the older lenses did, at the expense of price and bulk. If the Fuji 35/1.4 was that good why would they go to the trouble of making the 33?
This online test pretty much shows the precise differences in center and edge sharpness between the two lenses. Looking at his posted center crops, what I see is the f1.4 lens is perhaps just a tad sharper than the f2 lens at f2, with that flipping to slight advantage f2 lens at f2.8, then pretty comparable after that. Edge sharpness is interesting too: I don't see ANY difference at f2, a slight advantage to the f2 lens at f2.8, then no difference thereafter. Corner sharpness. Again interesting to my eyes: The 35/1.4 is notably better at EVERY aperture! More important I think is my use of the word "slight" for center and edge is so small as to be hardly measurable, and wholly insignificant for the vast majority of images one might make with either lens. Of course if you're a 200% pixel peeping measurebator at image corners, then YMMV; and in fact if you're that, size and cost don't matter and you're going to be better off with the 33/1.4 anyway
Here is the author's summary, noteworthy for sure: "Overall, the 35mm f1.4 performs better in the center and much better in the corners and even in the edges at those faster apertures. At higher apertures like f8, the difference isn’t as extreme, except the 35mm f2 still has some corner issues that never resolve." As I read this, it aligns with MY OWN experience and is nearly 100% counter to Mike's arguments. Again, YMMV, but I suspect @Nielk Mike (plus "all the reviewers" he cited) have a very poor copy of the 35/1.4...
Also noteworthy are his bokeh comparisons and f1.4 vs f2 lens shots. Oh, and pay attention to his distortion comparison
PS: Weather resistance? The 35/2. Absolute minimum weight? The 35/2, but only by a bit. Lower noise, slightly faster focusing? The 35/2. Bokeh? The 35/1.4. Shallower DoF? The 35/1.4. Sharpest corners? The 35/1.4. Lowest Distortion? The 35/1.4(!!!) The one *I'd* use more? The 35/1.4
Jack Flesher wrote:
This online test pretty much shows the precise differences in center and edge sharpness between the two lenses. Looking at his posted center crops, what I see is the f1.4 lens is perhaps just a tad sharper than the f2 lens at f2, with that flipping to slight advantage f2 lens at f2.8, then pretty comparable after that. Edge sharpness is interesting too: I don't see ANY difference at f2, a slight advantage to the f2 lens at f2.8, then no difference thereafter. Corner sharpness. Again interesting to my eyes: The 35/1.4 is notably better at EVERY aperture! More important I think is my use of the word "slight" for center and edge is so small as to be hardly measurable, and wholly insignificant for the vast majority of images one might make with either lens. Of course if you're a 200% pixel peeping measurebator at image corners, then YMMV; and in fact if you're that, size and cost don't matter and you're going to be better off with the 33/1.4 anyway
Here is the author's summary, noteworthy for sure: "Overall, the 35mm f1.4 performs better in the center and much better in the corners and even in the edges at those faster apertures. At higher apertures like f8, the difference isn’t as extreme, except the 35mm f2 still has some corner issues that never resolve." As I read this, it aligns with MY OWN experience and is nearly 100% counter to Mike's arguments. Again, YMMV, but I suspect @Nielk Mike@ (plus "all the reviewers" he cited) have a very poor copy of the 35/1.4...
Also noteworthy are his bokeh comparisons and f1.4 vs f2 lens shots. Oh, and pay attention to his distortion comparison
PS: Weather resistance? The 35/2. Absolute minimum weight? The 35/2, but only by a bit. Lower noise, slightly faster focusing? The 35/2. Bokeh? The 35/1.4. Shallower DoF? The 35/1.4. Sharpest corners? The 35/1.4. Lowest Distortion? The 35/1.4(!!!) The one *I'd* use more? The 35/1.4 ...Show more →
This very much aligns with my view as an owner of both lenses. While there might be sharpness differences they are at most minor and for most people shouldn't be a deciding factor. On the other hand, if you want weather sealing, slightly smaller size, slightly quieter focussing at less cost go the f2. If you want f1.4 and the more interesting rendering go the f1.4.
And regarding size, i would put them in the same class. They both have about the same depth, and I find the slightly increased girth of the 1.4 inconsequential when carry in a camera bag.
Both pretty good, at 2 the 1.4 is slightly better in the middle but the 2 is better at the edges, for me that more generally useful characteristic, as long as you don't need 1.4 for isolation. F/2 AF is better too, I don’t like AF lenses with slow and noisy AF, rather have manual focus.
Both pretty good, at 2 the 1.4 is slightly better in the middle but the 2 is better at the edges, for me that more generally useful characteristic, as long as you don't need 1.4 for isolation. F/2 AF is better too, I don’t like AF lenses with slow and noisy AF, rather have manual focus.
Gerry
But the f2 lens’ corners still suck at every aperture, and for me edge performance includes corners? What good are better edges if the corners aren’t usable 🤷🏼
Both pretty good, at 2 the 1.4 is slightly better in the middle but the 2 is better at the edges, for me that more generally useful characteristic, as long as you don't need 1.4 for isolation. F/2 AF is better too, I don’t like AF lenses with slow and noisy AF, rather have manual focus.
Gerry
I generally trust photozone reviews and have no reason to disagree with these. What I would point out though is, based on the measured difference in mtfs, that difference is only likely to be visible at very large print sizes viewed closely or pixel peeping at 100 per cent. If that's your thing then fine, but then you might be better of with the 33mm f1.4 or better still shooting at f8 on a tripod.
Jack Flesher wrote:
But the f2 lens’ corners still suck at every aperture, and for me edge performance includes corners? What good are better edges if the corners aren’t usable 🤷🏼
Those charts show the f/2 better , edges and corners at every aperture. What are you looking at!!
gyoung143 wrote: Those charts show the f/2 better , edges and corners at every aperture. What are you looking at!!
Gerry
I’m looking at actual images from both lenses in the link I posted above! In that he shows center, edge AND corner crops from both lenses at each aperture. It’s pretty darn definitive.
Geoff D F wrote:
I generally trust photozone reviews and have no reason to disagree with these. What I would point out though is, based on the measured difference in mtfs, that difference is only likely to be visible at very large print sizes viewed closely or pixel peeping at 100 per cent. If that's your thing then fine, but then you might be better of with the 33mm f1.4 or better still shooting at f8 on a tripod.
Indeed, both pretty good lenses, we are lucky to have a choice. Differences hardly likely to be visible unless we peer attendance corners of a large print. So since I long ago discovered I have no use for 1.4 in general photography I chose the one which is smaller, cheaper (at the time I bought it) and had better AF.
Now I'm retired I no longer have to do 'formal' portraiture (which I was never very good at) so have no use for the 1.4, if I do people it's candids.
Jack Flesher wrote:
This online test pretty much shows the precise differences in center and edge sharpness between the two lenses. Looking at his posted center crops, what I see is the f1.4 lens is perhaps just a tad sharper than the f2 lens at f2, with that flipping to slight advantage f2 lens at f2.8, then pretty comparable after that. Edge sharpness is interesting too: I don't see ANY difference at f2, a slight advantage to the f2 lens at f2.8, then no difference thereafter. Corner sharpness. Again interesting to my eyes: The 35/1.4 is notably better at EVERY aperture! More important I think is my use of the word "slight" for center and edge is so small as to be hardly measurable, and wholly insignificant for the vast majority of images one might make with either lens. Of course if you're a 200% pixel peeping measurebator at image corners, then YMMV; and in fact if you're that, size and cost don't matter and you're going to be better off with the 33/1.4 anyway
Here is the author's summary, noteworthy for sure: "Overall, the 35mm f1.4 performs better in the center and much better in the corners and even in the edges at those faster apertures. At higher apertures like f8, the difference isn’t as extreme, except the 35mm f2 still has some corner issues that never resolve." As I read this, it aligns with MY OWN experience and is nearly 100% counter to Mike's arguments. Again, YMMV, but I suspect @Nielk Mike@ (plus "all the reviewers" he cited) have a very poor copy of the 35/1.4...
Also noteworthy are his bokeh comparisons and f1.4 vs f2 lens shots. Oh, and pay attention to his distortion comparison
PS: Weather resistance? The 35/2. Absolute minimum weight? The 35/2, but only by a bit. Lower noise, slightly faster focusing? The 35/2. Bokeh? The 35/1.4. Shallower DoF? The 35/1.4. Sharpest corners? The 35/1.4. Lowest Distortion? The 35/1.4(!!!) The one *I'd* use more? The 35/1.4 ...Show more →
FWIW, that roughly aligns with what I saw when I tested the two lenses against one another for a month. The bottom line was that in the end I felt that both were very good lenses and that any differences between their optical performance were so small as to be meaningless compared to the larger differences: maximum aperture, size. weight, cost.
Jack Flesher wrote:
I’m looking at actual images from both lenses in the link I posted above! In that he shows center, edge AND corner crops from both lenses at each aperture. It’s pretty darn definitive.
I don't know what Mr griffin does when he takes photos, which is why I don't put any faith in subjective tests unless I know the person's techniques. Objective tests are as good as any other standard lens I know, and I don't see a problem in years of use. Others here think they are good lenses.
Geoff D F wrote:
I generally trust photozone reviews and have no reason to disagree with these. What I would point out though is, based on the measured difference in mtfs, that difference is only likely to be visible at very large print sizes viewed closely or pixel peeping at 100 per cent. If that's your thing then fine, but then you might be better of with the 33mm f1.4 or better still shooting at f8 on a tripod.
Aside from testers, no one is actually shooting the same subject matter with two lenses and then comparing them side by side. It's an entirely subjective decision as to what lens you want more.
And almost everyone is going to apply some amount of baseline sharpening to an image in post. If not CA removal, noise reduction, etc.
gyoung143 wrote:
I don't know what Mr griffin does when he takes photos, which is why I don't put any faith in subjective tests unless I know the person's techniques. Objective tests are as good as any other standard lens I know, and I don't see a problem in years of use. Others here think they are good lenses.
Gerry
Real images tell the real story. Lens reports often do not. The link above is a prime example, and moreover supports what those here that have used both have discovered. So what, actual hsers showing real examples must be wrong because Photo Zone says different? Ridiculous.
gyoung143 wrote:
I don't know what Mr griffin does when he takes photos, which is why I don't put any faith in subjective tests unless I know the person's techniques. Objective tests are as good as any other standard lens I know, and I don't see a problem in years of use. Others here think they are good lenses.
Gerry
The question of user images (referred to above as “subjective tests”) and more objective tests isn’t exactly a a lack and white issue.
It is true that if you want objective data about the performance of a lens carefully performed and recorded objective tests can provide those data. That’s a good thing, but it is only useful if translated to how those data affect actual photography.
Here, various sorts of “subjective data” (I’ll continue to use that term here, though I think it is an unfortunate one*) are critical to understanding the real world significance of those data.
For example, let’s say that lens A gets some small improvement over lens B in measured LP/MM performance in the center of the frame. That’s sounds like an endorsement for Lens A, right?
Maybe and maybe not.
Let’s say that many photographers use both lens A and lens B and we can look at a lot of images produced with those two lenses. At some point near the high performance end of the curve, if the difference is photographically meaningful we should start to see some clear differences between the photographs produced with lenses A and B. But what if we don’t? What could explain this?
It may well be that both lenses perform above the threshold necessary to match or exceed sensor resolution. It may be that other factors besides LP/MM numbers favor lens B instead of lens A and thus compensate? It may be that we are looking at a “distinction without a difference” — e.g. a measurable difference that produces no sensible difference in output. Or that one would need to produce very specialized conditions for the difference to be visible — e.g very large prints, inspected very closely, side by side, over a period of time.
Then we come to an even more complex set of issues. Let’s say that lens A has “better” optical performance than lens B in some objectively measurable parameter. But let’s say that one is manual-only and the other will autofocus. Or that one is much larger/smaller than the other. Or that there’s a 10:1 cost differential. Or that we already have another lens that covers the focal length and/or aperture. Or that we never reproduce larger than small web-image sizes. Or that one brand has reliability issues. Or can no longer be serviced. And on and on…
And there is a very real risk, at least for some photography enthusiasts, that chasing after the “best specs” begins to become the main object and quite disconnected from actual photographs.
Starting with some objective facts is a fine and useful thing, but to think that no subjective factors come into play (or that they sometimes will trump the objective facts) leaves an incomplete idea of how to evaluate things in the real world.
- - -
* Sometimes it seems like there’s an assumption that only “objective” tests have value and the “subjective” reactions are not important. Tell that to manufacturers (or buyers) of most products, who are often quite interested in subjective responses to things. If 95 out of 100 people subjectively prefer A over B, that is meaningful information.
mdude85 wrote:
Aside from testers, no one is actually shooting the same subject matter with two lenses and then comparing them side by side. It's an entirely subjective decision as to what lens you want more.
This is also a reminder that not all differences need to imply a hierarchy. It is not always that case that when two things are different that one is objectively better than the other. Sometimes they are simply… different. *
And when seeing a difference requires one to (say with lenses) put two 200% magnification images side by side on the screen and very carefully and laboriously scan back and forth between them trying to find the smallest perceptible difference…
… perhaps the resulting difference is nothing more than a minor and perhaps imperceptible difference… rather than a “this is better than that” outcome.
- - -
Addencum:
* Being different does mean that one might be better suited to one person's needs and exceptions, while the other might be a better fit for a different photographer.
gdanmitchell wrote:
This is also a reminder that not all differences need to imply a hierarchy. It is not always that case that when two things are different that one is objectively better than the other. Sometimes they are simply… different.
And when seeing a difference requires one to (say with lenses) put two 200% magnification images side by side on the screen and very carefully and laboriously scan back and forth between them trying to find the smallest perceptible difference…
… perhaps the resulting difference is nothing more than a minor and perhaps imperceptible difference… rather than a “this is better than that” outcome. ...Show more →
Two independent test sites (Optical Limits and LensTip) show that the f1.4 already away from the center and to the edges performs not as good as the f2. The f1.4 hardly reaches very good levels even stopped down to f5.6. That seem to be pretty obvious facts. Why is it so hard to just simply acknowledge that and then talk about the what other features still make the f1.4 for some a better choice (like character and speed).
Here is a quote from Alik Griffin review:
"On the technical side, like sharpness, distortion, CA, etc., this lens is just okay. I think most review sites would give it a B+ or something. However, some of this was by design, and the lens was left less than perfect in favor of “the look”. . . So they say."
And there are many more. Does it mean it is not good lens? Of course not. But facts are facts.
gdanmitchell wrote:
* Sometimes it seems like there’s an assumption that only “objective” tests have value and the “subjective” reactions are not important. Tell that to manufacturers (or buyers) of most products, who are often quite interested in subjective responses to things. If 95 out of 100 people subjectively prefer A over B, that is meaningful information.
There seems to be a clear distinction in how engineer-brain vs artist-brain process data they feel is relevant. I am perhaps a conundrum as I am definitely more to the engineer brain than artist at heart, but when it comes to actual, tangible results I tend to do my own testing simply because I've seen so much incorrect or exaggerated bias in equipment tests; and especially lens tests. Many seem to based on values gleaned from nothing more than reading manufacturer MTF graphs as opposed to the tangible results shared from guys who post actual images -- hence I tend to favor those when making my decisions. And to be clear, this bias is not just relegated to photography, it's present in virtually every facet of every gear review for anything I've ever read. Anyway, hence my skepticism when people make broad-stroke claims like have shown up regarding these two lenses. Someone's testing is fouled and the only way to figure who's "right" is to test ourselves. And for those who've actually done it, it seems there's a clear winner, and in the case of "across the frame resolution" the f2 lens is NOT the winner...
Those charts show the f/2 better , edges and corners at every aperture. What are you looking at!!