Geoff D F wrote: Nielk Mike wrote:
Owning both, the 1.4 and 2, I prefer the Fujicron f2. The F1.4 needs to be stopped down to f2.8 for the outer images areas to sharpen up. The f2 resolves more detail when it peaks at f4. The Fujicron is smaller and perfect with the X-Pro line. Unless you need f1.4, I woulkd go with the f2.
It is a common expression to say unless one needs the faster aperture go with the smaller aperture lens. There are always ways to get by with slower aperture lenses but they come at a tradeoff - higher ISO, slower shutter speeds, deeper depth of field. In this case, the f2 lens offers weather sealing, slightly faster and more quiet focussing, a slightly smaller size and nuetral rendering versus more classical rendering.
Owning both, these seem the relevant tradeoffs to me. I wouldn't base my choice on sharpness difference between the two. Both are very sharp.
Your "choice" analysis matched mine when I tested the two lenses extensively against one another. Frankly, I don't think there is any significant optical performance difference.
I'm one of those folks who tell people to get the f/1.4 if they need the larger aperture but to get the f/2 if they don't. Why get the f/2 if the optical performance is so similar and you might eke out a little better image at f/2? Aside from the fact that the f/2 lens seemed pretty good wide open, it is much less expensive and it is smaller and lighter.
To the f/1.4 lens's credit, it is quite small for a f/1.4 lens, so the size/weight penalty here is not nearly as large as if you were comparing the 23mm f/1.4 to the f/2 version or comparing the 50m f/2 to the 56mm f/1.2.
After testing the the two, I did decide to keep the f/1.4. I do a lot of night photography so I felt that the larger aperture might make engouh of a difference.
Geoff D F wrote: Nielk Mike wrote:
Owning both, the 1.4 and 2, I prefer the Fujicron f2. The F1.4 needs to be stopped down to f2.8 for the outer images areas to sharpen up. The f2 resolves more detail when it peaks at f4. The Fujicron is smaller and perfect with the X-Pro line. Unless you need f1.4, I woulkd go with the f2.
It is a common expression to say unless one needs the faster aperture go with the smaller aperture lens. There are always ways to get by with slower aperture lenses but they come at a tradeoff - higher ISO, slower shutter speeds, deeper depth of field. In this case, the f2 lens offers weather sealing, slightly faster and more quiet focussing, a slightly smaller size and nuetral rendering versus more classical rendering.
Owning both, these seem the relevant tradeoffs to me. I wouldn't base my choice on sharpness difference between the two. Both are very sharp.
Your "choice" analysis matched mine when I tested the two lenses extensively against one another. Frankly, I don't think there is any significant optical performance difference.
I'm one of those folks who tell people to get the f/1.4 if they need the larger aperture but to get the f/2 if they don't. Why get the f/2 if the optical performance is so similar and you might eke out a little better image at f/2? Aside from the fact that the f/2 lens seemed pretty good wide open, it is much less expensive and it is smaller and lighter.
To the f/1.4 lens's credit, it is quite small for a f/2.4 lens, so the size/weight penalty here is not nearly as large as if you were comparing the 23mm f/1.4 to the f/2 version or comparing the 50m f/2 to the 56mm f/1.2.
After testing the the two, I did decide to keep the f/1.4. I do a lot of night photography so I felt that the larger aperture might make engouh of a difference.
Dec 12, 2025 at 07:23 PM
Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #16947350 « thoughts of the fuji 35mm f2 »
