gyoung143 wrote: gdanmitchell wrote: mivadep wrote:
I don't really get the complaints about the newer Fujiluxes being too big. The 23 may be longer than its predecessor but it's noticeably skinnier. The 33 isn't really *that* much bigger than the 35 f/1.4. They're still all generally smaller than modern full frame equivalents and they fit quite well at least on a X-T5 or X-H2 body. If they're too big for you, get the older versions or the Fujicron versions which are tiny in comparison.
As with everything in optics, it's all about tradeoffs.
As I mentioned above, the increase in size in newer models is not universal — see the 16-55mm f/2.8 v.1 and v.2, where the latter is actually smaller and lighter.
The 33mm f/1.4, however, is a LOT bigger than the 35mm f/1.4. Given the excellent quality of the older lens in this case, it is hard for me to see that any performance/optical gains are worth it.
The 35 1.4 is a museum piece, typical of the old pre aspheric standard lenses for 35mm, with lots of uncorrected aberration to give the character people love. Correcting that for a 1.4 max aperture takes a lot more glass, makes them bigger, have you seen the latest fast 50s for full frame? Tests show much better edge performance at large apertures. If you want similar and f/2 is enough then the 35 f/2 will do nicely.
As far as the 16-55 is concerned, the old one was an oddity, far heavier than the opposition offerings for no better performance, the new one is at last better and no heavier than my 12 yearold 17-50 Tamron and it's contemporary Nikon lenses for aps-c.
Gerry
Based on my long experience with the 35mm f/1.4 you are grossly exaggerating the supposed issues with the lens. It is really an excellent performer already.
I had the 35mm f/2 for about a month. I got it as part of a "kit" with the XPro2 back in the day. I was curious because a) the smaller lens would make sense for the way I use Fujigilm cameras, b) it was said to AF much more quickly due to a newer mechanism than in the f/1.4, and c) is easy said (by some) to be optically superior to the f/1.4... and by others to be inferior!
I tested both lenses against one another pretty extensively during that month and at the end of the month decided that there clearly was little meaningful difference between them in terms of IQ,AF performance, or other functional issues. If I tried really hard by staring back and forth at 100% and 200% magnification crops displayed side-by-sice on my 27" monitor that maybe, possibly, but just barely if at all, the f/1.4 might have been a tiny bit better in the far corners.
In the end I decided that they are essentially equivalent in terms of image quality, and any AF speed difference was so small as to be meaningless. I kept the f/1.4 because it is reasonably small and I do night street photography. But if I didn't think f/1.4 was a big advantage (and for many it is not) I would get the excellent f/2 lens at a lower cost and smaller size and weight.
mivadep wrote:
Fair, I concede the point on the 35 vs 33. I didn't realize the 35 was so lightweight!
Its small size and weight is really pretty remarkable for being a f/1.4 lens. That's one of the big attractions.
