I swapped out my 35mm 1.4 immediately when I got the 33mm. Had no regrets, but after a year and looking at old images nostalgia hit me hard. I sold my 33mm, my xh2 and picked up the xe5. I figured the old 35mm would be nice to have again, so I caved in and picked up the 35mm again. Lovely lens, lovely bokeh but the AF & motor noises can be annoying.
Derkuehlschrank wrote:
I swapped out my 35mm 1.4 immediately when I got the 33mm. Had no regrets, but after a year and looking at old images nostalgia hit me hard. I sold my 33mm, my xh2 and picked up the xe5. I figured the old 35mm would be nice to have again, so I caved in and picked up the 35mm again. Lovely lens, lovely bokeh but the AF & motor noises can be annoying.
It's a lot like the GF 55...disgusting in hand to use, but the images are undeniable.
Derkuehlschrank wrote:
…but the AF & motor noises can be annoying.
I’ve never understood this. Unless you are shooting in an utterly silent situation and listening for it, you’ll never even notice the sound of either of those.
Yes, there’s a sound. But it is very quiet, and virtually always masked by other sounds in your environment.
Perhaps if you are using it for video and using the camera’s mic it might get picked up? Maybe?
For video it would be useless to use, if the audio from camera is what you are using. It WILL be picked up. But, for most situations people probably won't notice, but the one behind the lens pushing the shutter will notice.
The hunting AF is more of an issue to me. Not a huge one. It hunts like the 60mm or 80mm macros hunt.
One thing about the 35mm old Fuji lens (original) is that it really isn't much bigger in depth than putting the 35mm Fujicron 2.8 on. Bigger around, but mounted in a bag they take up the same amount of space. But the Fujicron is sharper. But sharper in this sense is tiny and the only one that will really notice is the one that has tried both and compared.
RoamingScott wrote:
It's a lot like the GF 55...disgusting in hand to use, but the images are undeniable.
Really? I read this and thought all Gfx lenses are about the same. Then I went through the 110, 55, and 20-35 focusing on various objects around my office and the noises they make. Turns out the 20-35 is pretty much silent and the 110 and 55 make a little noise, about the same as each other. But I truly have never paid attention or been annoyed by it. Maybe its a relative thing, I also use adapted Contax 645's and they make way more noise than any of the native Fuji's. But they're old and I love them and I give them a pass. But other than those, I couldn't tell you which of my lenses are the noisiest. Same with the 35/1.4, don't recall any noise at all.
RWNPhoto wrote:
For video it would be useless to use, if the audio from camera is what you are using. It WILL be picked up. But, for most situations people probably won't notice, but the one behind the lens pushing the shutter will notice.
I'll agree that using a whole bunch of different lenses with in-camera audio while recording video is poor practice. If you are serious about this you'll use and external mic.
The hunting AF is more of an issue to me. Not a huge one. It hunts like the 60mm or 80mm macros hunt.
I have all three of those lenses, and they most certainly do NOT hunt the same. The 60mm (so-called) macro is definitely a slow focusing lens that can hunt. The 80mm macro can hunt in some cases, but mostly if you aren't in the right distance range for your subject. The 35mm used to hunt som on older cameras, but it isn't really much of an issue on modern Fujifilm cameras.
One thing about the 35mm old Fuji lens (original) is that it really isn't much bigger in depth than putting the 35mm Fujicron 2.8 on. Bigger around, but mounted in a bag they take up the same amount of space. But the Fujicron is sharper. But sharper in this sense is tiny and the only one that will really notice is the one that has tried both and compared.
I also had the 35mm so-called "Fujicron" (f/2, not f/2.8) lens alongside the f/1.4, and their real-world optical performance is so similar that you'd never be able to tell which was used by looking at good sized prints from the two of them. I know. I've tried.
The 35mm f/1.4 is not as small as the f/2, though the length isn't much different. And that's part of what is impressive — and useful — about the f/1.4. It is quite small for an f/1.4 lens.
If you want the slightly narrower DOF of f/1.4 or think that the aperture will be useful in low light, then the f/1.4 has some advantages over the f/2. If you don't feel that you need f/1.4, the f/2 "Fujicron" is a great lens, and its price is right.
SGinNorcal wrote:
Hi Jack, thanks for your help here, much appreciated. I initially read your post and was convinced that I was close in setting yet getting different results. No funky profiles or DR settings. As I said before, I have fought C1 on highlights in bright light situations. Anyway, pulled up C1 and looked at the film curve, it was in Auto. I knew I had changed that before but apparently C1 was changing it back as I hadn't saved Film Standard as a default curve. So I saved that as a default along with making sure all Auto Adjustments are zero'd out. The only other thing that varies is I have the export set to Adobe RGB. That might be C1 default, I have no idea what these formats represent. Changed that to sRGB as well. The output is better here, my sky is correct color and highlight not wacky. Here's one of the shots with these settings. Oh, also outputting as JPEG with 2000 width for FM as usual....Show more →
Auto in C1 always uses the film sim your camera was set to.
