Hi all,
I've had the Fuji XF33/1.4 since purchasing my X-T5, an early X system purchase as a fundamental prime. I like the lens very much but I've been intrigued by comments by several FM'ers on the original XF35/1.4. I decided to go ahead and purchase the 35 and give it my own evaluation side by side as a still consider this focal a key length to have in the system. This is not intended to be a technical evaluation in any way. Simply my opinion only with examples of things I have photographed at length. The subject matter is my daily dog walk, informal shooting, not A/B examples of the same shot on a tripod. I wanted this to be examples of how I would use the lens, no brick walls or MTF's. Each lens did the same walk one day apart. I took some of the same shots but then selected my favorites of each. The set of photos in this post will be 35 followed by 33. Then I'll attempt to draw my conclusions.
X-T5Fujifilm Fujinon XF35mmF1.4 R lens35mmf/2.81/5000s125 ISO-0.7 EV
35/f2 Rosie in the mud puddle
X-T5Fujifilm Fujinon XF35mmF1.4 R lens35mmf/2.01/640s125 ISO-0.7 EV
35/f8 Camomile for days
X-T5Fujifilm Fujinon XF35mmF1.4 R lens35mmf/8.01/56s125 ISO-0.7 EV
35/f8 Buttercup
X-T5Fujifilm Fujinon XF35mmF1.4 R lens35mmf/8.01/20s125 ISO-0.7 EV
35/f5.6 Across the valley
X-T5Fujifilm Fujinon XF35mmF1.4 R lens35mmf/5.61/400s125 ISO-0.7 EV
I really like both of these lenses and didn't see a giant change one to the other. They seem to be siblings to my eyes. Comments based on shooting with my X-T5.
Strengths of the 35/1.4
I would agree with those that marvel over the rendering of the 35/1.4. It seems to be at its best with rich color, especially dark brown (the mud), yellow/orange, and the rust patina. Detail is not quite as sharp as the 33. Best stopped down to f2 or more. Very light and small. Bokeh is a little busy/vibration like almost.
Strengths of the 33/1.4
Better at 1.4 than the 35, excellent wide open. A little more detail but only noticeable on shots that have the detail to show, like the cat tail. A little cooler rendering especially with yellow/orange. Heavier, slightly more solid feeling build. Bokeh and oof areas a little smoother and in my opinion, nicer.
Conclusion
I really like these lenses but for different things. I like the color of the 35 and the details/background of the 33. The 33 is clearly the modern, detail oriented, second generation of this lens. But I think Fuji was wise to keep the 35 around. I'm keeping them both for awhile at least. Should I end up with a smaller body, that 35 would do well parked on it.
You summed up the differences between these 2 lenses quite nicely. I own the 35 f1.4 R, it was my first lens purchased for my X-T5 last year. My pre-purchase searching showed its rendering was not quite as modern, or clinical, as the 33 f1.4 and that is what I wanted. Your first photo of the Mustard plant says it all, It reminded me of my Nikkor 58 f1. 4 G lens I loved so much for my Nikon DSLR FF bodies. Love the smaller size/weight too.
Awesome comparison! I think real comparisons like this are far more beneficial than the studio charts zoomed in 1000000% percent haha. In those tests, there's a massive difference between the two, but in practicality, it seems like it boils down more to what you said: more pleasing color rendition vs more pleasing background.
I had a chance to get the 33 when I worked at a camera shop a year or two ago. It came in on a trade in and I think we gave the guy like $330 or so for it, so I could have purchased it for that. I'm an idiot for not getting it, but I wasn't a fan of that focal length at all at that point. Hindsight, right?
I really want the 35, but not sure if I want it bad enough to pay $400 for one. I have the cheap TTArtisans 35 1.8 and use it occasionally, since its my only autofocus prime now.
Portraits between the 2 might show different results, or results that make one lean one way or the other. Today's world is "razor sharp".
I have the 33mm f/1.4 and a great lens. Sharp, perfect focal, maybe big, but not gigantic, but solid.Also have the 35mm f/2 and it is different in every way, except it is solid also.
I'll probably unload one pretty soon, with other lenses for some spring cleaning, and surprise, it probably be the 33mm f/1.4
I think for portraits, I would probably go 33/1.4. For street, probably 35/1.4. Landscape is a little tougher to say. I think the 33 get the detail in the distance a little better but I like the 35 color. Both lenses are solid. I kind of expected someone to say with color editing that either could look the same. That's probably true, I'm not a heavy post processing color manipulator plus wanted the native look to come through. My photos were only adjusted for minor exposure/highlight tweaks.
I’ve had the 35 for several years but never tried the 33. I know the 33 is compared favorably with the Fuji 18/1.4, which I have. The 18/1.4 is a fantastic lens. That said, I see no reason to trade my 35/1.4 for the 33. The 35/1.4 is solid. Thanks for confirming that. Eric.
I cannot comment on the 33mm lens since I have never used it!
On the other hand, I’ve had the 35mm lens essentially since it was introduced, a dozen or years since I got my first Fujifilm x-trans camera up through today’s XT5.
Perhaps the 33mm measures sharper? I have no way of knowing. But I do know that the 35mm is an exceptionally sharp lens, and in my own testing it holds up to taking full advantage of the resolution of the 40MP sensor. (It is hard for me to imagine the 33mm improving on the 35mm for landscape or anything else shot at typical apertures, though I can’t make any comparative claims about f/1.4 except to say that its pretty good on the 35mm.)
I’m not so sure about the “character” thing, though. I suspect that there would be no real visible “character” difference between shots made by talented photographers using the 33mm and the 35mm lens. (There’s a tendency among some photographers to start talking about “character” any time a lens is older. ;-)
One plus for some of us with the 35mm lens is is remarkably small size for a 35mm f/1.4 lens. Put the little rectangular hood on the thing and it is quite small.
Regarding bokeh quality, I also can’t offer much based on my experience except to say that its is quite good on the 35mm. (Is it just me, or do the 33mm examples earlier in this thread have “busier” bokeh than the 35mm examples.)
gdanmitchell wrote:
Regarding bokeh quality, I also can’t offer much based on my experience except to say that its is quite good on the 35mm. (Is it just me, or do the 33mm examples earlier in this thread have “busier” bokeh than the 35mm examples.)
Since bokeh is in the eye of the beholder, I can confirm it's just you
gdanmitchell wrote:
Put the little rectangular hood on the thing and it is quite small.
I have a "square" (They are really rectangular) hood on my 35mm f/2 and it is way smaller, and has character too (and yes, I can see it at times, but it doesn't smack you in the face, so, true dat)
Dan, you were actually one of the people who made me want to try to the 35/1.4 based on your positive comments.
To my eyes, the 33 is very slightly sharper but I had to compare with a subject that had very fine details and/or pixel peep. At every aperture other than 1.4, I'm not sure the difference is meaningful to most people. At 1.4, I thought the 33 was clearly sharper and that lens changes very little stopping down where the 35 improved at f2 to more closely match the 33.
Regarding "character", I was avoiding using that term as you always challenge its use and meaning (to which I agree somewhat though lack an alternative). Did I use it somewhere? I won't claim to be a "talented photographer" but to my eyes, the yellow/orange color has a more vibrant characteristic on the 35 and I liked it. Similar with the mud around the puddle. Yes, I sure that could be changed in color edits, I chose not to.
Size, yes no question, and the square hood is cool looking. Found it slightly hard to get the lens cap off with it on though.
On bokeh, the photos I chose were my favorites from each lens. There was one of the 35 that I thought particularly busy, I'll look and see if I still have it. But overall, I liked the bokeh of the 33 more and why I would choose it if I was focus on portraits. YMMV.
If I were forced to choose one or the other today, I'm not sure which way I would go. They both have their strengths to my eyes and this focal length is multi-use for me.
mivadep wrote:
Since bokeh is in the eye of the beholder, ...
It isn't, actually. There are differences in the quality/nature of bokeh among lenses. Some are smoother and some show more of a busy, textured quality.
Compare the lower left corner areas of the first image in the first set above with the same area of the final image in the second set, for example.
- - -
The 35mm f/2 is a great little lens.
I had both the f/2 and f/1.4 versions for a month back when I got my XPro2 when it first came out. I already had the f/1.4 and I bought that camera in a bundle that included the f/2. I liked the f/1.4 a lot but had heard great things about the f/2, so I thought I'd shoot them side-by-side for a month and then decide which to keep.
At the end of the month I decided that any difference between them were trivial. If I stared long enough at 200% magnification crops of the far corners, going back and forth between examples of the two lenses I thought that I might be able to see a [I]tiny[/I] bit more sharpness in the f/1.4 lens in those corners. Maybe, Possibly. Sometimes. Or maybe I was convincing myself. In any case, it would not be visible even in a good sized print.
I had also heard that the f/2 was supposed to focus more quickly than the f/1.4, having more modern AF motors or some such. It may be that there's some micro-second difference detectable on the test bench, but I could never discern it in actual use.
In the end kept the f/1.4 since I do urban night street photography and thought there might be some situations where f/1.4 could be an advantage... and because I knew and trusted the lens. But in reality, they are both excellent. I think the f/2 is the better choice for folks who don't think they'll need f/1.4, who prefer the smaller form factor, and who want to save some money. The f/1.4's main plus is the larger maximum aperture.
But they are both excellent.
- - -
SGinNorcal wrote:
Regarding "character", I was avoiding using that term as you always challenge its use and meaning (to which I agree somewhat though lack an alternative). Did I use it somewhere? I won't claim to be a "talented photographer" but to my eyes, the yellow/orange color has a more vibrant characteristic on the 35 and I liked it. Similar with the mud around the puddle. Yes, I sure that could be changed in color edits, I chose not to.
I don't think you used the term here, and I wasn't replying specifically to anything you wrote.. I was just referring to the common claim that the 35mm lens has some special character. I can't dispute that it may be "different" than the 33mm in some subtle visible ways, but in my experience such differences among lenses don't really count of rmuch when we look at photographs made with them.
(The other kind of character claim, which I don't see too much with these lenses, is that a lens has "character" because of its optical flaws, for example vignetting excessively or possibly not being particular sharp. I guess that a lens deficiency could be called "character" in the same way that we might say about some people with, uh, "issues that they "are real characters! ;-) )
In any case, my main points are that I accept the claims that the 33mm f/1.4 is optically a very good lens (since that's what I read everywhere) but that the 35mm f/14 is also a very good lens (since I've seen it with my own eyes).
- - -
Between the two lenses, I'll admit to a bias for the smaller one based on my own use patterns. I'd have to see something remarkable (and relevant to my photography) from the larger, more expensive lens, and given how well the 35mm works it is hard for me to see how that would happen.
gdanmitchell wrote:
It isn't, actually. There are differences in the quality/nature of bokeh among lenses. Some are smoother and some show more of a busy, textured quality.
Compare the lower left corner areas of the first image in the first set above with the same area of the final image in the second set, for example.
- - -
The 35mm f/2 is a great little lens.
I had both the f/2 and f/1.4 versions for a month back when I got my XPro2 when it first came out. I already had the f/1.4 and I bought that camera in a bundle that included the f/2. I liked the f/1.4 a lot but had heard great things about the f/2, so I thought I'd shoot them side-by-side for a month and then decide which to keep.
At the end of the month I decided that any difference between them were trivial. If I stared long enough at 200% magnification crops of the far corners, going back and forth between examples of the two lenses I thought that I might be able to see a [I]tiny[/I] bit more sharpness in the f/1.4 lens in those corners. Maybe, Possibly. Sometimes. Or maybe I was convincing myself. In any case, it would not be visible even in a good sized print.
I had also heard that the f/2 was supposed to focus more quickly than the f/1.4, having more modern AF motors or some such. It may be that there's some micro-second difference detectable on the test bench, but I could never discern it in actual use.
In the end kept the f/1.4 since I do urban night street photography and thought there might be some situations where f/1.4 could be an advantage... and because I knew and trusted the lens. But in reality, they are both excellent. I think the f/2 is the better choice for folks who don't think they'll need f/1.4, who prefer the smaller form factor, and who want to save some money. The f/1.4's main plus is the larger maximum aperture.
The differences are stark, though your coloring makes it a bit hard to suss out certain properties.
The OG 35 remindes me a lot of how the X100V/VI lens renders wide open...it never QUITE sharpens up as much as you'd want and it has a subtle glow that the 33 does not.
The 33 winds up looking somewhat bland and utilitarian next to the 35. You can always soften up the 33 with a mist filter or in post, but I have a gut feeling it will still lack that certain je ne sais quoi.
Is the 35/2 in the middle somewhere or totally different?
RoamingScott wrote:
The differences are stark, though your coloring makes it a bit hard to suss out certain properties.
The OG 35 remindes me a lot of how the X100V/VI lens renders wide open...it never QUITE sharpens up as much as you'd want and it has a subtle glow that the 33 does not.
The 33 winds up looking somewhat bland and utilitarian next to the 35. You can always soften up the 33 with a mist filter or in post, but I have a gut feeling it will still lack that certain je ne sais quoi.
RoamingScott wrote:
The differences are stark, though your coloring makes it a bit hard to suss out certain properties.
Can you explain this a bit more? I do know that I tend to be sensitive to bright highlights and often pull them down along with often using negative exposure comp. Or referring to the late hour waning light? As mentioned, no color editing was done. I tried to treat them the same.
.....Regarding "character", I was avoiding using that term as you always challenge its use and meaning (to which I agree somewhat though lack an alternative). Did I use it somewhere? I won't claim to be a "talented photographer" but to my eyes, the yellow/orange color has a more vibrant characteristic on the 35 and I liked it.
Don’t know why Dan has a bug about using the word "Character” in describing the optics and results in some lenses. Fuji’s own glass engineers, including their head lens designer pictured below, in last weeks Focus On Glass video used that word twice in describing the 35 f1.4 R lens.
He said : We like to create a true Mark II version that fully inherits the character of this lens. The issue is how to inherit the unique character and appeal of this lens while making the optics entirely new.” He also said “this lens ranks near the top or our in-house hit list even today.”
So if it is good enough for Fuji to describe a lens with character, it should be OK for us.
Though I have only had the 35 f 1.4 for about 8 months, it’s character reminds me of 2 of the best rendering portrait lenses I have ever used. They are the Nikkor 85mm f1.4 D IF (1988) and the Nikkor 58mm 1.4 G (2013). Rendering for portraits is outstanding and though the AF is also a bit slow on both, due to the results you didn’t care.
SGinNorcal wrote:
Can you explain this a bit more? I do know that I tend to be sensitive to bright highlights and often pull them down along with often using negative exposure comp. Or referring to the late hour waning light? As mentioned, no color editing was done. I tried to treat them the same.
The white balance is...odd...as well as the overall tones if they are unedited. Are these JPEGs with a fuji profile applied, or RAW files?
Either way, my point was you can glean certain characteristics about the transition zones and bokeh by looking at color, in a way that I'm unable to do here. It's tangential to my overall impressions which I shared.
And regarding character, I'd like to think we're all done caring about pleasing one contrarian who can't leave well enough alone. The 35 has character in spades and that's what makes it special.
RoamingScott wrote:
The white balance is...odd...as well as the overall tones if they are unedited. Are these JPEGs with a fuji profile applied, or RAW files?
Either way, my point was you can glean certain characteristics about the transition zones and bokeh by looking at color, in a way that I'm unable to do here. It's tangential to my overall impressions which I shared.
And regarding character, I'd like to think we're all done caring about pleasing one contrarian who can't leave well enough alone. The 35 has character in spades and that's what makes it special.
