Reading mode: Light Dark

Fuji 35 mm comparisons

Go to last post
T

TonyTguy

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
359
Reaction score
107
Location
All, Ali Oil, SA
Anyone do the F 1.4 vs 2.0 comparison just based on image quality at equal F stops under same lighting etc.. where the lens is the only variable
 
There are a couple on the internet.

The results tend to be, if you have the 35 1.4 only buy the f2 if you need WR or the smaller size.

IQ differences are minimal.
 
waldoh said:
There are a couple on the internet.

The results tend to be, if you have the 35 1.4 only buy the f2 if you need WR or the smaller size.

IQ differences are minimal.
Click to expand...
From what I've read AF is a big plus for the 35 f2 as well.
 
Depends on what you are photographing and your personal style. I have the f/1.4 and have no complaints whatsoever about its focusing speed, but I shoot primarily static and slow moving subjects and work at a deliberate pace.
 
yardcoyote said:
Depends on what you are photographing and your personal style. I have the f/1.4 and have no complaints whatsoever about its focusing speed, but I shoot primarily static and slow moving subjects and work at a deliberate pace.
Click to expand...
Sure, you're right, only you can determine whether the difference is important or not but either way the advantage is still there and should be noted so that anyone reading this thread can make the right decision for themselves.
 
There are lots of reviews to read about them at this point.

35mm f/1.4 vs 35mm f/2 focus speed: similar on X-T1 / X-T10, 35mm f/2 is faster on older bodies like X-E1.

35mm f/2 is weather sealed, 35mm f/1.4 is not.

35mm f/2 has a narrower field of view than 35mm f/1.4 due to software-corrected optical distortion. There's significant distortion compared to 35mm f/1.4 which is optically corrected for it.

35mm f/2 doesn't suffer from hazing near minimum focus distance when wide open at large apertures.

35mm f/1.4 has better corner performance, where 35mm f/2 is is softer there.

Both lenses protrude outward a similar amount, 35mm f/2 is just a smaller conical shape in diameter.
 
Last edited:
Of course, but there are always those who interpret "faster autofocus" in a new model to mean that the previous model is now outdated and completely useless. Sometimes it's wise to point out that the latest and greatest isn't automatically the best choice for everyone.
 
OrdinarilyInordinate said:
35mm f/1.4 vs 35mm f/2 focus speed: similar on X-T1 / X-T10, 35mm f/2 is faster on older bodies like X-E1.
Click to expand...
I had not heard this before. I assumed that focus speed improvements also impacted use on the X-T1. Did you read this is a review, or personal experience? Any one else have the same experience or thoughts?
 
chris24net said:
OrdinarilyInordinate said:
35mm f/1.4 vs 35mm f/2 focus speed: similar on X-T1 / X-T10, 35mm f/2 is faster on older bodies like X-E1.
Click to expand...
I had not heard this before. I assumed that focus speed improvements also impacted use on the X-T1. Did you read this is a review, or personal experience? Any one else have the same experience or thoughts?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
OrdinarilyInordinate said:
There are lots of reviews to read about them at this point.

35mm f/1.4 vs 35mm f/2 focus speed: similar on X-T1 / X-T10, 35mm f/2 is faster on older bodies like X-E1.

35mm f/2 is weather sealed, 35mm f/1.4 is not.

35mm f/2 has a narrower field of view than 35mm f/1.4 due to software-corrected optical distortion. There's significant distortion compared to 35mm f/1.4 which is optically corrected for it.

35mm f/2 doesn't suffer from hazing near minimum focus distance when wide open at large apertures.

35mm f/1.4 has better corner performance, where 35mm f/2 is is softer there.

Both lenses protrude outward a similar amount, 35mm f/2 is just a smaller conical shape in diameter.
Click to expand...
Can you link me to the review that mentions the distortion comment. I haven't read anything about that.
 
Rico

"Image quality appears to be very good at various aperture settings, but it’s worth mentioning that the lens exhibits optical barrel distortion that is digitally corrected at the RAW conversion stage (as long as your RAW converter supports Fujifilm’s lens correction metadata). The extent of this correction is comparable to the digital distortion correction in the more expensive Zeiss Touit 1.8/32 lens (so it’s much less prominent than, for example, in the Leica Q). As you probably already know, the classic XF35mmF1.4 R is optically corrected for distortion and hence doesn’t apply any digital distortion correction."

Lenstip Review

It's a mixed bag. I bought the f/2 version for WR and size. I wish it were a $300 auto-focus version of the Leica APO-Summicron-M 50mm f/2 ASPH. but it isn't. I still like it.
 
Which part specifically? About distortion? If so, there are lots of reviews on that.

http://www.lenstip.com/456.6-Lens_review-Fujifilm_Fujinon_XF_35_mm_f_2_R_WR_Distortion.html

If on the field of view, there are also a number of comparisons. I have to search again, but so far this is a result that came up right away (compare the framing and the size of the central object: tighter framing and the central object is larger):

http://www.thephoblographer.com/201...ilm-35mm-f2-r-wr-vs-35mm-f1-4-r/#.V0HwP_krIUE

I assume this is due at least partially to software distortion correction for JPEGs.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top