gyoung143 wrote: Nielk Mike wrote: 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.
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.
Gerry
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.*
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.
Dan
*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 larger 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 be in the center of the frame and 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…
Mar 24, 2026 at 10:59 AM
Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #17008964 « My thoughts on Fuji XF 35 vs. 33 »
