That was actually my biggest complaint with the lens. Where bokeh went from creamy to jittery was somewhat inconsistent and of course mostly unnoticeable in the VF. This is one area the 33 excels in, and along with its better resolution especially in the first two aperture regions, I would choose it next time and live with the weight. But that’s just me.
Jack Flesher wrote:
That was actually my biggest complaint with the lens. Where bokeh went from creamy to jittery was somewhat inconsistent and of course mostly unnoticeable in the VF. This is one area the 33 excels in, and along with its better resolution especially in the first two aperture regions, I would choose it next time and live with the weight. But that’s just me.
I view its bokeh as a positive. It is far more interesting than the ubiquitous modern lenses with nuetral rendering and it isn't nervous the way a lot of aspheric zooms can be.
Geoff D F wrote:
I view its bokeh as a positive. It is far more interesting than the ubiquitous modern lenses with nuetral rendering and it isn't nervous the way a lot of aspheric zooms can be.
Redheads, blondes or brunettes; Ford, Chevy or Mopar; Sony, Nikon or Canon.
This has been an interesting discussion to follow, since I have been thinking of replacing my 35/1.4 with the newer 33/1.4. If anyone could post some more shots with the 33 I'd be grateful.
I've had the 35 for a long time. To me, it's OK but kind of dull. I can't see the special character that it adds to the images. On the plus side: it's small and very lightweight; sharpness and contrast are good already at f/1.4; you won't have problems with ghosting and reflections from streetlights, etc. And I really like the 50 mm equiv. focal length.
On the negative side: noisy autofocus; bokeh that's bordering on ugly; not enough subject separation. For this, a longer lens is necessary, such as the excellent 56/1.2.
I actually like the Planar design of the Zeiss 32mm better than any of the Fuji offerings. You get rendering AND sharpness. It's like the 33 & 35 put together.
I've owned and loved the 35 for years. Had the 33 a while now. I'm still torn.
The 33 is sharper. I never found my 35 to be bad, and sometimes it's very sharp. But wide open in certain conditions it has a sort of Vaseline quality to the edges of contrasting lines/details. This is non existent on the 33. The 33 is probably better in every way, and yet i love the size and weight of the 35 so much. On the xe5 or an xt body it's just perfect. But no wr. Worse focus consistency. Softer wide open. More aberrations.
So i constantly debate. Is wr really that important? If i was happy before do I really need the slight improvements at the cost of size and weight?
Still not sure. But i can say both are excellent. And there are times the bokeh of each looks better. I think it has to do with how the field curvature of the 35 was designed. It really brings out the subject and creates a very smooth and 3d bokeh. The focus fall off is nice and the curvature makes the scene look deep with blur areas like you're looking into the out of focus areas like a sort of tunnel effect.
The 33 is more clinically perfect, so this effect isn't as strong. But then when there is a more consistent background across the frame it renders more smoothly snd less jittery looking. So both have slightly different bokeh characteristics, but side by side the difference is very small. But it is there.
I would honestly tell people who have the 35 to keep it and not upgrade unless a) you constantly find your images aren't sharp enough, b) you want weather sealing, or c) you really find the af not good enough...
To me none of those thigns sre hugely different but they are all improved on the 33...
I’ve read this thread with a lot of interest. I’ve returned back to Fuji after being away for few years and all my bodies use the latest version 5 40 Mpixel sensors. I was going for small size so In the midrange I first bought the small XF 35mm f/2 R WR and then when I found a mint used copy got the older XF 35mm f/1.4 R. On my first use of Fuji those where the two lenses I owned at this focal length. I’ve never owned the XF 33mm f/1.4 R LM WR because of its cost and larger size. Do own two of the R LM WR mid range zooms, both the smaller XF 16-50mm f/2.8-4.8 at only 240 grams and XF 16-55mm f/2.8 version II at 410 grams when I need flexibility on the X-H2. The XF 33mm f/1.4 is 360 grams.
swldstn wrote:
I’ve read this thread with a lot of interest. I’ve returned back to Fuji after being away for few years and all my bodies use the latest version 5 40 Mpixel sensors. I was going for small size so In the midrange I first bought the small XF 35mm f/2 R WR and then when I found a mint used copy got the older XF 35mm f/1.4 R. On my first use of Fuji those where the two lenses I owned at this focal length. I’ve never owned the XF 33mm f/1.4 R LM WR because of its cost and larger size. Do own two of the R LM WR mid range zooms, both the smaller XF 16-50mm f/2.8-4.8 at only 240 grams and XF 16-55mm f/2.8 version II at 410 grams when I need flexibility on the X-H2. The XF 33mm f/1.4 is 360 grams.
The simple answer is yes. But your question is vague: Is *what* really good enough for its weight? Is the 33 good enough to justify its extra weight? Yes, I believe so. Is the 35 good enough to justify its lower weight? Yes again.
I personally feel people over-obsess about their gear weight. The Fuji X cameras, including the XH2, are already quite compact and lightweight even with faster primes attached. I believe there is a point of diminishing tradeoff in the lightweight search, and these two lenses pretty much underscore it.
To me, as long as a lens balances well, 300-500 grams is lightweight enough for comfort. On the X-T5 I find the 33 very well balanced and I really enjoy its look.
mivadep wrote:
To me, as long as a lens balances well, 300-500 grams is lightweight enough for comfort. On the X-T5 I find the 33 very well balanced and I really enjoy its look.
With any lens, it's all about where the weight is. You can get away with a chunkier lens if the center of mass is closer to the camera.
Looked at in isolation, the difference in size/weight between the 33mm f/1.4 and the 35mm f/1.4 is arguably not earth-shaking. (I’d argue that same about IQ, but that’s a different issue.)
But when the smaller versus larger issues play out over a system the impact is more significant. The difference between carrying, say, a XH2 weigh the 23mm f/1.4, 33mm f/1.4, 56mm f/1.2 versus, say, a XE5 with the 23mm f/2.8, 35mm f/1.4, and 50mm f/2 starts to become more significant.
In some cases, the downsides of the extra size and weight aren’t so important, but in others they can be.
The size difference between the two lenses is significant. But even though the 35 is small and works better with the X-Pro as well as with the X-E line, it is simply soft at f1.4 and f2. If, and it is a big if, one needs a fast 1.4 lens, then I'd rather take one that is sharp at that aperture. The 35 is not. One needs to stop down to at least f2.8 to get overall acceptable sharpness. And it shows not only on a 40MP sensor, but also on a 26MP one. Now, if you count softness as part of the "character" - fine. I don't.
P.S.: I think the new f1.4 lenses are really designed for use with the X-H line. For the X-T and X-E line, they are too big. But fortunately, there are the f2 Fujicrons.
Nielk Mike wrote:
P.S.: I think the new f1.4 lenses are really designed for use with the X-H line. For the X-T and X-E line, they are too big. But fortunately, there are the f2 Fujicrons.
Admit the same feeling which is why for my X-T5 and X-E5 I went with the two pancake lenses along with the f2 Fujicrons. Did get the X-H2 as well to try some of the larger heavier glass like the XF 16-55/2.8 R LM WR II and the Viltrox 56mm f/1.2.
Will see if I should pick up one of the new generation R LM WR primes for that kit.
Did compare the weight of the X-H2 paired with the XF 33mm f/1.4 to the Sony A7 V/A7R V with the Sony FE 55mm f/1.8 ZA Sonnar which is a hair lighter. Interesting.. for sure.
Nielk Mike wrote:
One needs to stop down to at least f2.8 to get overall acceptable sharpness. And it shows not only on a 40MP sensor, but also on a 26MP one.
So, it is your position that the optical performance of the 35mm f/1.4 is unacceptable at f/1.4 and f/2, and that f/2.8 is is merely “acceptable,” but not really any good?
Softer at 1.4 maybe. Soft? Not really. Unless maybe you super crop. F2? F2 is plenty sharp in the middle. Still reasonably sharp on the edges.
-Fujifilm_Fujinon_XF_35_mm_f_1.4_R_Image_resolution.html
Sure the 33 is better, but the 33 is "incredibly" good optically. the 35 is still "very" good.
But i digress. It's all relative. You could say the 33 is soft vs a full frame top tier sony lens... Or the 35 is super sharp vs a cheaper lens...
gdanmitchell wrote:
So, it is your position that the optical performance of the 35mm f/1.4 is unacceptable at f/1.4 and f/2, and that f/2.8 is is merely “acceptable,” but not really any good?
gdanmitchell wrote:
So, it is your position that the optical performance of the 35mm f/1.4 is unacceptable at f/1.4 and f/2, and that f/2.8 is is merely “acceptable,” but not really any good?
OK, then…
Yes. After a lot of testing with subjects at different distances. Noticeably softer at f1.4 and f2. It performs very well once stopped down. But what is the point of a larger and more expensive f1.4 lens if it doesn't perform as well wide open? Same for 23mm f1.4 (old) and 56mm f1.2 (old). The new fast primes perform significantly better at wider apertures - but are too big and too expensive. That's why I continue to use the f2 Fujicrons: Best compromise in Size, speed, qualtiy and price.
"Ultra-large aperture lenses tend to have corner issues at large aperture settings and the Fujinon follows the norm here. The center performance is already great but the outer image region is quite soft both at f/1.4 and f/2. The center quality is outstanding at f/2.8 and the borders/corners are at least lifted to a good level. The peak performance is reached around f/5.6 with a very good quality across the image field. Diffraction effects are visible at f/11 but the results are still very impressive here. The field curvature stays pretty low across the tested aperture range."
Same if you look at the LensTip review.
Now, I am not saying it is a bad lens. If resolution away from the center doens't matter much at 1.4 and 2, then this is a great, small lens. But if I pay for extra speed, I want the lens to be sharp at all apertures. If it is not, I can as well pick a smaller, slower, less expensive one.
Nielk Mike wrote:
Yes. After a lot of testing with subjects at different distances. Noticeably softer at f1.4 and f2. It performs very well once stopped down. But what is the point of a larger and more expensive f1.4 lens if it doesn't perform as well wide open? Same for 23mm f1.4 (old) and 56mm f1.2 (old). The new fast primes perform significantly better at wider apertures - but are too big and too expensive. That's why I continue to use the f2 Fujicrons: Best compromise in Size, speed, qualtiy and price.
"Ultra-large aperture lenses tend to have corner issues at large aperture settings and the Fujinon follows the norm here. The center performance is already great but the outer image region is quite soft both at f/1.4 and f/2. The center quality is outstanding at f/2.8 and the borders/corners are at least lifted to a good level. The peak performance is reached around f/5.6 with a very good quality across the image field. Diffraction effects are visible at f/11 but the results are still very impressive here. The field curvature stays pretty low across the tested aperture range."
Same if you look at the LensTip review.
Now, I am not saying it is a bad lens. If resolution away from the center doens't matter much at 1.4 and 2, then this is a great, small lens. But if I pay for extra speed, I want the lens to be sharp at all apertures. If it is not, I can as well pick a smaller, slower, less expensive one.
Do you or have you actually own or owned either of these lenses and actually shot with them? Or are you relying solely on the online lenstest and other online reviews to draw your conclusions?
Jack Flesher wrote:
Do you or have you actually own or owned either of these lenses and actually shot with them? Or are you relying solely on the online lenstest and other online reviews to draw your conclusions?
The Fuji lenses I currently own and use are: 16f2.8, 16f1.4, 23f2.8, 23f2, 23f1.4, 27f2.8, 35f2, 35f1.4, 50f2, 56f1.2 and 90f2. But I am considering selling the f1.4 lenses except for the 16f1.4, which performs well even at the widest aperture. The pancakes and Fujicrons for the X-E5 and the X-Pro3, the 1.4 and 90 for the X-T3. Lens Tip and Optical Limits only confirm what I am seeing.
Nielk Mike wrote:
The Fuji lenses I currently own and use are: 16f2.8, 16f1.4, 23f2.8, 23f2, 23f1.4, 27f2.8, 35f2, 35f1.4, 50f2, 56f1.2 and 90f2. But I am considering selling the f1.4 lenses except for the 16f1.4, which performs well even at the widest aperture. The pancakes and Fujicrons for the X-E5 and the X-Pro3, the 1.4 and 90 for the X-T3. Lens Tip and Optical Limits only confirm what I am seeing.
Jack Flesher wrote:
Do you or have you actually own or owned either of these lenses and actually shot with them? Or are you relying solely on the online lenstest and other online reviews to draw your conclusions?
You asked Mike, but I’ll answer for me. I have owned and used both the 35mm f/1.4 and the 23mm f/1.4 for years. I’ve used them for a lot of things, but especially for night street photography. I’ve never had an issue with them being soft much less producing “unacceptable” sharpness at the larger apertures.
Is the 33mm f/1.4 lens sharper by some measurements than the 35mm f/1.4? Given its extra weight and cost and bulk, I would certainly hope that Fujifilm maximized it performance! But the fact that a sharper thing exists doesn’t mean the other thing is not sharp, and the 35mm f/1.4 is an excellent performer that I’ve used in a wide variety of situations at all apertures.
Focusing on on some single set of measurements at the expense of all other objective features makes no sense. In a world full of sharp lenses, there are lots of real world situations in which the smaller size and lighter weight of an excellent (and sharp) lens is more important than owning a larger, heavier, and more expensive lens that is to merely sharp but maybe the most sharp.
I’m also not a fan of hyperbole. Writing that the 35mm f/1.4 only provides (merely) “acceptable”performance at f/2.8 (and therefore unacceptable performance at f/2 and f/1.4) is nonsense, plain and simple.
