Ok, I actually own both the XF 14 & 35 and Touit 12 & 32. I like them all for different reasons.
The user who say 14 and 12 have different views are absolutely right on. 18mm and 21mm are close but different so if you have a preference one way or the other at the current pricing either is a great option. At original introduced prices of $1100 vs $900 for the 12 and 14 you had to give it a little thought about what you wanted to do. For some it was a done deal since the 14 was real and the Touit hadn't come out yet. At the summer pricing you have to give some thought again to what focal length you really want.
As far as the 32 and 35 again timing was everything. Since the 35 was out there and established and the Touit price was in $900 vs the $500-600 range again most people voted with their pocketbooks which is understandable.
Zeiss should have gone at the open spots like 23-24 or 56mm to prevent overlap. Not sure why the didn't. Some agreement with Fuji, some thinking that they focal lengths were really driven by Sony NEX needs and the XF just ended up overlapping Fuji to much, who knows. Could have taken the Sony/Zeiss 24mm f/1.8 and adapted it to an XF mount maybe.
Now that I have them I will eventually thin the heard. Right now I use my 32 more than the 35. Something about it just appeals to me. Need to put my finger on it. As far as the 12 and 14. I will keep them both unless the 10-14 wins me over in some way.
At these prices I might just by the E-mount pair to use on my A7R. It would give me 16MP images that compete with the Fuji But if I do this it will only be because I need some kind of wide angle and 12 will give me an 18mm equivalent and the fact that I have serious GAS.
Finally, I have a very good set of Zeiss ZM lenses from my Zeiss Ikon and when adapted to the X mount they perform wonderfully. Now that Fuji finally has decent focus peaking I might just start doing that again with the M mount adapter.
The user who say 14 and 12 have different views are absolutely right on. 18mm and 21mm are close but different so if you have a preference one way or the other at the current pricing either is a great option. At original introduced prices of $1100 vs $900 for the 12 and 14 you had to give it a little thought about what you wanted to do. For some it was a done deal since the 14 was real and the Touit hadn't come out yet. At the summer pricing you have to give some thought again to what focal length you really want.
As far as the 32 and 35 again timing was everything. Since the 35 was out there and established and the Touit price was in $900 vs the $500-600 range again most people voted with their pocketbooks which is understandable.
Zeiss should have gone at the open spots like 23-24 or 56mm to prevent overlap. Not sure why the didn't. Some agreement with Fuji, some thinking that they focal lengths were really driven by Sony NEX needs and the XF just ended up overlapping Fuji to much, who knows. Could have taken the Sony/Zeiss 24mm f/1.8 and adapted it to an XF mount maybe.
Now that I have them I will eventually thin the heard. Right now I use my 32 more than the 35. Something about it just appeals to me. Need to put my finger on it. As far as the 12 and 14. I will keep them both unless the 10-14 wins me over in some way.
At these prices I might just by the E-mount pair to use on my A7R. It would give me 16MP images that compete with the Fuji But if I do this it will only be because I need some kind of wide angle and 12 will give me an 18mm equivalent and the fact that I have serious GAS.
Finally, I have a very good set of Zeiss ZM lenses from my Zeiss Ikon and when adapted to the X mount they perform wonderfully. Now that Fuji finally has decent focus peaking I might just start doing that again with the M mount adapter.
