gdanmitchell wrote:
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....Show more →
Dan, the images from the 35f1.4 appear sharp if viewed at normal size from a normal distance. Even at f1.4. That changes once you begin to look closer. Softness I find unacceptable and no, it is not nonsense. It is an observation. You may find the performance acceptable at those f-stops - the measurements and my own experience is different.
The 35f1.4 performs very well from f2.8 and up. But that is not the point. The point is that if I have to pay such a price for a good lens, then I want the best possible quality. There is no point in buying a larger and more expensive f1.4 lens if the smaller and cheaper f2 version performs better already at f2. And the 35f2 does. The new 33 f1.4 is better, but for me too large and not designed for the X-T/X-E/X-Pro line. The revised f1.4/1.2 lenses really are for the X-H line.
gdanmitchell wrote:
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....Show more →
Dan, my experience with the 35/1.4 echos yours. I used it frequently wide open and never found it lacking. Was it perhaps a bit softer than at f2.8? Yes. But was it what I'd call unusably soft? Heck no, and frankly liked the classic look it achieved there, especially at night with specular background lights... But I'll add that it was not "bitingly sharp" wide open; pleasantly sharp, yes; usably sharp, for sure; a very good lens overall in a relatively lightweight and compact package, absolutely! Would I buy it again? Probably not. I'd probably buy the Viltrox 35/1.7 Air lens for it's even lighter weight and excellent optical performance AND near-disposable low cost. If I wanted the best there is to offer in a normal focal for the Fuji X system, hands down I'd choose Fuji's 33/1.4.
Jack Flesher wrote:
Dan, my experience with the 35/1.4 echos yours. I used it frequently wide open and never found it lacking. Was it perhaps a bit softer than at f2.8? Yes. But was it what I'd call unusably soft? Heck no, and frankly liked the classic look it achieved there, especially at night with specular background lights... But I'll add that it was not "bitingly sharp" wide open; pleasantly sharp, yes; usably sharp, for sure; a very good lens overall in a relatively lightweight and compact package, absolutely! Would I buy it again? Probably not. I'd probably buy the Viltrox 35/1.7 Air lens for it's even lighter weight and excellent optical performance AND near-disposable low cost. If I wanted the best there is to offer in a normal focal for the Fuji X system, hands down I'd choose Fuji's 33/1.4. ...Show more →
Never said it is unusably soft. It performs less well than the 35f1.4 and 35f2 wide open. That's all I am saying. And thus I would not chose it over the 325f2.
Nielk Mike wrote:
Never said it is unusably soft. It performs less well than the 35f1.4 and 35f2 wide open. That's all I am saying. And thus I would not chose it over the 325f2.
Mike, you literally wrote that you have to stop down to f/2.8 or further to get “acceptable” sharpness, which is the same as saying that the performance is not acceptable at f/2 and f/1.4 and sometimes not at f/2.8.
Nielk Mike wrote:
One needs to stop down to at least f2.8 to get overall acceptable sharpness.
comparisons often show the 1.4 sharper at f2 than the f2 lens and vice versa. But they're always close either way except maybe the farthest edges. if you're not happy with it being a bit soft at 1.4, like most fast lenses) i get that. But the f2 being better at f2 is not the normal case. Unless of course you got a bad copy of the lens. There will invariably be differences between copies of the same lens, but the expected sharpness at f2 should be roughly similar on the 35 1.4. and f2.
Neither are biting sharp at f2 either way, but i would say reasonably sharp. The 33 fixes that. But finding a small, fast, auto focus lens the quality of the 33 but smaller is almost impossible. So if you don't need the 1.4 use the f2. I love the photos i get at 1.4.
Even on ig you can tell they are decently sharp, but it does reduce them a lot. But I can't seem to upload here. I can upload some samples to flickr in a day or two.
Jack Flesher wrote:
Dan, my experience with the 35/1.4 echos yours. I used it frequently wide open and never found it lacking. Was it perhaps a bit softer than at f2.8? Yes. But was it what I'd call unusably soft? Heck no, and frankly liked the classic look it achieved there, especially at night with specular background lights... But I'll add that it was not "bitingly sharp" wide open; pleasantly sharp, yes; usably sharp, for sure; a very good lens overall in a relatively lightweight and compact package, absolutely! Would I buy it again? Probably not. I'd probably buy the Viltrox 35/1.7 Air lens for it's even lighter weight and excellent optical performance AND near-disposable low cost. If I wanted the best there is to offer in a normal focal for the Fuji X system, hands down I'd choose Fuji's 33/1.4. ...Show more →
gdanmitchell wrote:
Mike, you literally wrote that you have to stop down to f/2.8 or further to get “acceptable” sharpness, which is the same as saying that the performance is not acceptable at f/2 and f/1.4 and sometimes not at f/2.8.
There is a difference between acceptable and unusable. Never said unusable. But not acceptable (for me) given the alternatives.
Nielk Mike wrote:
There is a difference between acceptable and unusable. Never said unusable. But not acceptable (for me) given the alternatives.
You wrote that you have to stop down to f/2.8 or “sometimes” further to get “acceptable” results.
That clearly says that results at f/1.4 or f/2 are not acceptable, and further that that “sometimes” they are not “acceptable” at f/2.8.
I cannot see how else your post can be interpreted. Either something is acceptable or it is unacceptable. There’s no intermediate state called “usable.”
Dan, yes there is. The 35f1.4 is very usable if one doesn't need sharpness across at f1.4 and f2. But instead of going down the road of semantics: The fact is that the 35f1.4 is soft at f1.4 and f2 away from the center. It is been tested, I have tested and seen it. It is a fact. And that fact is what would make me choose be between the 33 and 35. And that is all I have been saying.
This was a very useful and interesting thread for a while. The 35 1.4 is a very good example of the old style 1.4 standard, by Fuji's own 'admission' a portrait oriented design where edge performance is not so important at full aperture and helps separation from the background.. it can hardly be anything else from its optical design.
There's nothing wrong with technical tests, they show what a lens is capable of in particular and usually ideal situations. All of those tests I have ever found show the 35 f/2 better at the edges by a good margin at larger apertures, and sharper too in the centre at similar apertures, although the difference is small enough not to be noticed in most use. Different tools for different jobs. The 33/1.4 shows improvement in sharpness centre and edges at largest apertures over the 35/1.4, as you would hope and expect from the design, and the bulk.
There are a lot of reasons why personal experience might differ from the technical test results, sample variation, 'testing' without sufficient rigour, or personal prejudice etc. If your results are different from a mass of technically competent scientific tests the prudent tester looks for reasons, if you are out of step with the army, its not the army's fault.
gyoung143 wrote:
If your results are different from a mass of technically competent scientific tests the prudent tester looks for reasons, if you are out of step with the army, its not the army's fault.
Gerry
My results don't differ from the test. Marching in step :-) Of course I know that this lens can be useful for portrait work. But if I have to chose between the 33 and 35, the 33 is the better lens for me. But it is too big :-( So the 35f2 is it.
Nielk Mike wrote:
My results don't differ from the test. Marching in step :-) Of course I know that this lens can be useful for portrait work. But if I have to chose between the 33 and 35, the 33 is the better lens for me. But it is too big :-( So the 35f2 is it.
I was surprised that anyone would think the 35/1.4 was that bad. I likewise chose the f/2, over the 1.4, for the same reasons I always did in the past when we have has similar choices. Although for a fair while I did have both a Summicron and a Summilux 50mm, which experience confirmed that I didn't have a use for the 1.4 if it meant losing the edge performance at wider apertures. The 33mm is an example of something that has only relatively recently been possible, but at the expense of weight, bulk and money! And with good high performance the larger aperture is not so desirable. If I want separation I would rather use something longer anyway.
gyoung143 wrote:
I was surprised that anyone would think the 35/1.4 was that bad. I likewise chose the f/2, over the 1.4, for the same reasons I always did in the past when we have has similar choices. Although for a fair while I did have both a Summicron and a Summilux 50mm, which experience confirmed that I didn't have a use for the 1.4 if it meant losing the edge performance at wider apertures. The 33mm is an example of something that has only relatively recently been possible, but at the expense of weight, bulk and money! And with good high performance the larger aperture is not so desirable. If I want separation I would rather use something longer anyway.
The fact is that we have a nice set of very competent lenses from Fujiflm in the 33mm to 35mm range.
I’ve written before that I had an opportunity to test the f/2 and f/1.4 lenses side-by-side for a month a few years ago. I ended up keeping my f/1.4 for reasons specific to my photography, but the f/2 was a great performer and I think it would be the right choice for a lot of photographers. Clearly the 33mm f/1.4 is also a fine lens.
Each has somewhat different pluses and minuses that will make one or another line up best with the needs of specific photographers.
The 33mm lens is relatively large and heavy and costs more, but it optimizes f/1.4 sharpness in the corners* and by all accounts is a fine optical performer.
The f/1.4 is a very good lens that gives one the narrow DOF of f/1.4, has plenty of sharpness for 40MP sensors, and is smaller, lighter, and less expensive for a f/1.4 lens. It gives up some corner sharpness compared to the 33mm at the largest apertures (center sharpness is still excellent)* and is in the same league at other apertures.
Images made with the f/2 are, in my experience, indistinguishable in real world output from those made with the f/1.4 lens. (I have not tested it against the 33mm nor have I read any detailed comparisons in that regard.) It is a good, sharp lens in a smaller, lighter, package at a lower cost.
- - -
*About the reported “softer corners at f/1.4,” whether that is an issue or not depends on several things. A typical primary use for the f/1.4 aperture is to create very narrow DOF so that elements of the scene other than the primary subject are OOF and soft. In these cases, corner sharpness at f/1.4 is not an issue, since in virtually all cases the primary subject will not be in the corners of the frame — the narrow DOF is chosen specifically to make corners and other non-subject areas softer! On the other hand if one shoots flat subjects in extremely low light at f/1.4 and needs maximum corner sharpness…
I set up this non-test without direct comparison photos because I didn't want it to be that sort of evaluation. More casual, less analytical. But as I was shooting each, I did walk thru apertures from wide open to stopped down. Then simply picked my favorites from each. In my group of five for the 35/1.4, I noticed none were at f1.4 and went back to see if I could include something at 1.4. I didn't really like any of them and didn't care for the OOF/bokeh of it. In post #20, Geoff showed how the 35/1.4 bokeh could be used with nice effect. The #2 photo for the 35/1.4, dog in the mud puddle, I do believe the corner softness is visible at f2 (even at post low res) but not in a way that bothers me at all. So to me, its certainly possible to use this lenses "weaknesses" to positive effect. I do think it is very useful to have a couple lenses to soften digital harshness/precision/clinical looks in your arsenal.
SGinNorcal wrote:
I do think it is very useful to have a couple lenses to soften digital harshness/precision/clinical looks in your arsenal.
For that there is software or very affordable vintage lenses like the Carl Zeis Jena 35f2.8 silver. Spending a lot on a lens for that - well I don't know.
Nielk Mike wrote:
For that there is software or very affordable vintage lenses like the Carl Zeis Jena 35f2.8 silver. Spending a lot on a lens for that - well I don't know.
For sure a personal choice. Maybe different in your neighborhood, but in mine, a Zeiss 35/2.8 is more dollars than a hardly used Fuji 35/1.4 that has modern features. But whatever floats your boat.
Nielk Mike wrote:
For that there is software or very affordable vintage lenses like the Carl Zeis Jena 35f2.8 silver. Spending a lot on a lens for that - well I don't know.
Software softness—or diffusion, or any other after-the-fact digital filtration—is never as believable or nuanced as the real thing. If you like it, awesome for you, but to me it’s all usually obvious, heavy-handed or just plain ugly in an image; and ditto for tone-mapping as long as I’m ranting on crappy effect processing…
SGinNorcal wrote:
For sure a personal choice. Maybe different in your neighborhood, but in mine, a Zeiss 35/2.8 is more dollars than a hardly used Fuji 35/1.4 that has modern features. But whatever floats your boat.
I got my Carl Zeiss Jena (GDR) from the 50ies for €80.
Jack Flesher wrote:
Software softness—or diffusion, or any other after-the-fact digital filtration—is never as believable or nuanced as the real thing. If you like it, awesome for you, but to me it’s all usually obvious, heavy-handed or just plain ugly in an image; and ditto for tone-mapping as long as I’m ranting on crappy effect processing…
That kind of softness towards the edges can be done ever so slightly and you wont be able to tell the difference using modern software. And I am not talking about the heavy handed and often not natural looking "background blur" function.
I surprised to see anyone still referring to that infamous “ready for 40mm” list. It has been thoroughly debunked. (Folks misinterpreted the list as suggesting that lenses not on the list were not good enough for 40MP sensors, but Fujifilm did not say that. Some excellent lenses were left off, and Fujifilm put some mediocre lenses on it. [1] It was a marketing effort designed to persuade buyers of 40MP cameras that they needed new lenses.)
Just a quick test image made while out on a walk last fall. Handheld with the 35mm f/1.4 on the 40MP XT5.
Full image.
100% magnification crop.
Seems pretty sharp.
- - -
Jack Flesher wrote:
Software softness—or diffusion, or any other after-the-fact digital filtration—is never as believable or nuanced as the real thing. If you like it, awesome for you, but to me it’s all usually obvious, heavy-handed or just plain ugly in an image; and ditto for tone-mapping as long as I’m ranting on crappy effect processing…
I’d generally rather get my narrow DOF OOF stuff from a large aperture lens, but… I wonder if it has occurred to you that you notice the “ obvious, heavy-handed or just plain ugly” examples while careful, well-done, examples escape your notice because they look fine.
(I’m reminded of the old HDR fad a few years back. Some of you may remember a few social media types who made their name with really obvious examples. As a result HDR got a bad name. Meanwhile a number of really good, respected photographers were applying HDR techniques but without the “HDR look” — and their positive contribution never got noticed because it didn’t have the HDR look.)
Enhancing out of focus non-subject areas in post can look early awful, but it can also be pretty effective when used with care.
- - -
[1] Some favorite inconsistencies in that list: The old 27mm f/2.8 (without the aperture ring) was not on the list but the new 27mm f/2.8 with the aperture was — but they are optically identical. The 18-55 kit zoom was on the list. It is a pretty good lens for an inexpensive kit zoom, but it most certainly is not more “ready for 40MP” than the 35mm f/1.4 prime. There are others…
