Edited to correct the omission of a word that reversed my intended meaning. Correction is in bold type below.
Nielk Mike wrote:
No one questions that the f1.4 is a good lens capable of producing sharp and good looking images. 35mm images often have the center of attention at the middle of the frame anyway. And without much cropping, sharpness will not been issue, even at f1.4 in the center.
That paragraph has the fundamental truth, regardless of the comparative sharpeners at f/2.
I suppose that if you are right that the 35mm f/1.4 is not sharp enough in the corners at f/1.4 (that’s not my experience, but for the sake of argument, let’s go with it for this paragraph), and you photograph flat field subjects at f/1.4 a lot and you print them at 30” x 40” sizes and you inspect them with a magnifying glass…
;-)
Geoff D F wrote:
I have both lenses and can't see the difference. It may be there, but the question is whether the difference is significant enough to be a differentiator. There are other aspects that differentiate the lenses. For my needs at least, sharpness does not.
That mirrors my experience. As I have written, at one point I thought that the f/2 might be a better optical performer than the f/1.4 based on various reviews (and that it might focus faster and more accurately.) So I took advantage of an opportunity to have both of them for a month, during which I photographed with them side-by-side and carefully compared the files, looking for any significant difference.
I could not find any. I felt that my f/2 was maybe ever so slightly less sharp in the corners wide open, but to such a small degree that it was completely immaterial. (Basically I had to put images from both lenses on the screen side by side, magnified to 100% or larger, and switch between them. If you had shown me one on its own and asked which lens it came from, I would hnot ave have been able to tell you.)
Nielk Mike wrote:
Don't have membership to post images…
You don’t need membership to share images. Simply post the url to any file ending in “.jpg” and it will show up here. You can also easily post from Flickr. (I post images here regularly, and I never upload to FM.)
Nielk Mike wrote:
Geoff: It is not my job to convince you which lens resolves more…
C’mon, Mike. You’ve just spent a good part of this thread trying to do just that. Your claim carries no more weight that that of others of us who have used both lenses and disagree with your assertions. In fact, it carries less weight when you won’t show us images that prove it. (Though “proving” that a lens is poor is trickier than just showing a photo made with the lens, since lots of things having nothing to do with lens optics can lead to poor results.)
The crazy thing is that earlier in this thread you essentially agreed with the fundamental point that many of us have made: Both the f/2 and the f/1.4 are fine lenses and that the f/1.4 can be a better choice if you feel you need the larger aperture while the f/2 can be the best choice if you don’t:
Nielk Mike wrote:
Unless you need f1.4, I woulkd go with the f2.
Nielk Mike wrote:
No one questions that the f1.4 is a good lens capable of producing sharp and good looking images. 35mm images often have the center of attention at the middle of the frame anyway. And without much cropping, sharpness will not been issue, even at f1.4 in the center.
That paragraph has the fundamental truth, regardless of the comparative sharpeners at f/2.
I suppose that if you are right that the 35mm f/1.4 is not sharp enough in the corners at f/1.4 (that’s not my experience, but for the sake of argument, let’s go with it for this paragraph), and you photograph flat field subjects at f/1.4 a lot and you print them at 30” x 40” sizes and you inspect them with a magnifying glass…
;-)
Geoff D F wrote:
I have both lenses and can't see the difference. It may be there, but the question is whether the difference is significant enough to be a differentiator. There are other aspects that differentiate the lenses. For my needs at least, sharpness does not.
That mirrors my experience. As I have written, at one point I thought that the f/2 might be a better optical performer than the f/1.4 based on various reviews (and that it might focus faster and more accurately.) So I took advantage of an opportunity to have both of them for a month, during which I photographed with them side-by-side and carefully compared the files, looking for any significant difference.
I could not find any. I felt that my f/2 was maybe ever so slightly less sharp in the corners wide open, but to such a small degree that it was completely immaterial. (Basically I had to put images from both lenses on the screen side by side, magnified to 100% or larger, and switch between them. If you had shown me one on its own and asked which lens it came from, I would have have been able to tell you.)
Nielk Mike wrote:
Don't have membership to post images…
You don’t need membership to share images. Simply post the url to any file ending in “.jpg” and it will show up here. You can also easily post from Flickr. (I post images here regularly, and I never upload to FM.)
Nielk Mike wrote:
Geoff: It is not my job to convince you which lens resolves more…
C’mon, Mike. You’ve just spent a good part of this thread trying to do just that. Your claim carries no more weight that that of others of us who have used both lenses and disagree with your assertions. In fact, it carries less weight when you won’t show us images that prove it. (Though “proving” that a lens is poor is trickier than just showing a photo made with the lens, since lots of things having nothing to do with lens optics can lead to poor results.)
The crazy thing is that earlier in this thread you essentially agreed with the fundamental point that many of us have made: Both the f/2 and the f/1.4 are fine lenses and that the f/1.4 can be a better choice if you feel you need the larger aperture while the f/2 can be the best choice if you don’t:
Nielk Mike wrote:
Unless you need f1.4, I woulkd go with the f2.
Dec 18, 2025 at 10:23 AM
Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #16950759 « thoughts of the fuji 35mm f2 »
