-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Is there still demand for fast primes?
- Thread starter ChrisH37
- Start date
sportyaccordy
Forum Pro
It's a tough dance. I don't shoot Fuji, but fast primes are fast primes. I find for wider glass I do appreciate the added speed, even with IBIS, as I tend to use wider glass indoors under low lighting. From ~50mm and up I'm OK with F/2 or even slower... the difference in DoF from F/2 to F/2.8 is very hard to see even back to back, and by F/2.8 even a cheapo nifty fifty from the 60s is basically tack sharp.
I will say this though- and this is not meant to inflame or insult- but to me it seems that throwing ridiculously fast and expensive glass on a crop body kind of misses the point. A 33/1, if it performs well at all wide open, will probably weigh 2lb and cost thousands of dollars. People with that kind of money to burn will usually just go with a larger format. And not to evangelize, but there are several 50 1.4s for FE mount, which def weigh and cost less than a theoretical 33/1.
I will say this though- and this is not meant to inflame or insult- but to me it seems that throwing ridiculously fast and expensive glass on a crop body kind of misses the point. A 33/1, if it performs well at all wide open, will probably weigh 2lb and cost thousands of dollars. People with that kind of money to burn will usually just go with a larger format. And not to evangelize, but there are several 50 1.4s for FE mount, which def weigh and cost less than a theoretical 33/1.
Pritzl
Senior Member
I'm sure there is. But what is "fast enough"?
Being a recent convert to Fuji, the tussle of choosing between the F1.x vs F2 lenses is fresh in my mind. What I ended up realizing is that, while I am an unabashed bokeh-lover, I would end up shooting those faster F1.x lenses slightly stopped down to avoid any issues they might have wide open. With that in mind, the F2 versions were cheaper, sharp from wide open, faster and quieter to AF, WR and, above all, smaller which is the primary reason I considered mirrorless in the first place.
A revised 35 F1.4 would have been preferable to the 35 F2 I settled on. (not too dissimilar size, weight and price) In its absence, I loved the aperture ring and AF of the F2 version enough to put it over the top versus the current version. For the other focal lengths, the disparity in those 3 areas swing the pendulum firmly in favour of the F2 versions. I find it hard to see how even revised versions of them would entice me personally. But then again, I don't shoot professionally so I don't really need F1.x - I'd love it, but I don't really need it.
Being a recent convert to Fuji, the tussle of choosing between the F1.x vs F2 lenses is fresh in my mind. What I ended up realizing is that, while I am an unabashed bokeh-lover, I would end up shooting those faster F1.x lenses slightly stopped down to avoid any issues they might have wide open. With that in mind, the F2 versions were cheaper, sharp from wide open, faster and quieter to AF, WR and, above all, smaller which is the primary reason I considered mirrorless in the first place.
A revised 35 F1.4 would have been preferable to the 35 F2 I settled on. (not too dissimilar size, weight and price) In its absence, I loved the aperture ring and AF of the F2 version enough to put it over the top versus the current version. For the other focal lengths, the disparity in those 3 areas swing the pendulum firmly in favour of the F2 versions. I find it hard to see how even revised versions of them would entice me personally. But then again, I don't shoot professionally so I don't really need F1.x - I'd love it, but I don't really need it.
On a crop sensor camera if you came from 35 mm, it is not a tussle between f1.4 and f2 - it is a tussle between f2.2 and f3.1. I can accept f2 on a 35 mm. F2.8 was recognized as fast enough on normal and wide angle prime lenses in the 1950's. Today Nikon does not even make a 50 f2.8 - the slowest is f1.8.
I though long and hard about buying the Pro2 for this very reason. If not for the 35 f1.4 which is a nice lens and I can live with f2 (35 mm equiv) - same as my Leica 50 mm cron - I would not have bought a Fuji. I would have either kept wrestling with my D800E or bit the bullet and bought a Leica M.
Fuji has to really nice fast primes. The 35 f1.4 and the 56 f1.2. I also would call the 90 f2 reasonably fast for it's focal length. I tried all three on the Pro2 when I tried it out. These lens and the Pro 2 OVF is what sold me.
Pritzl
Senior Member
I am familiar with 35mm equivalence. But I did not come from full frame. Faster is preferable of course but if I end up shooting the 35F1.4 @F2 anyway because it's too soft for my taste then I don't see the point. At comparable apertures the 35F2 is sharper.
If you need F1.4, then you need it. I don't and that made up my mind.
If you need F1.4, then you need it. I don't and that made up my mind.
If you look the Zeiss master primes, Otus and milvus line or Sigma Art then Fujifilm don't really have good silky smooth bokeh lens around 23mm.
This may be issue with the wide angle lens design in general for small sensors. Not only for Fujifilm x mont lenses. The M43 Nokton 17.5mm has also ugly bokeh. Zeiss ZF.2 25mm is not looking that hot either and it's FF lens.
ZM Distagon 35mm 1.4 has really nice bokeh, but this design most likely can not be made for aps-c.
http://www.verybiglobo.com/zeiss-distagon-35mm-f1-4-zm-review/5/
Ultron 35mm 1.7 VS2 has nice creamy bokeh, that's missing from 23mm.
http://joerivanderkloet.com/cosina-voigtlander-351-7-ultron-review/
This may be issue with the wide angle lens design in general for small sensors. Not only for Fujifilm x mont lenses. The M43 Nokton 17.5mm has also ugly bokeh. Zeiss ZF.2 25mm is not looking that hot either and it's FF lens.
ZM Distagon 35mm 1.4 has really nice bokeh, but this design most likely can not be made for aps-c.
http://www.verybiglobo.com/zeiss-distagon-35mm-f1-4-zm-review/5/
Ultron 35mm 1.7 VS2 has nice creamy bokeh, that's missing from 23mm.
http://joerivanderkloet.com/cosina-voigtlander-351-7-ultron-review/
Is that what you meant to say? A FF lens can be put on in front of an APS-C with no degradation.
http://www.verybiglobo.com/zeiss-distagon-35mm-f1-4-zm-review/5/
Ultron 35mm 1.7 VS2 has nice creamy bokeh, that's missing from 23mm.
http://joerivanderkloet.com/cosina-voigtlander-351-7-ultron-review/
--
Truman
www.pbase.com/tprevatt
What i mean, to make 35mm FF equivalent lens in wider like 23mm, it's harder if not impossible.
Like here the double image glow with Cosina M43 Nokton lenses, this issue is similar with 23mm WR wide open in minimum closeup range
The cosina M43 lenses are 500g, compared to FF Voigtländer M lenses, they are larger and heavier, more expensive and less sharp.
John Gellings
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 11,472
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 9,345
How could you know the number of working pros that use Fuji "fast primes?"
You have sales numbers?
Maybe it isn't smart business?
Fuji has two excellent 50mm equiv lenses.
Sigma is selling which system?
What job aren't you able to do with the other 50mm equivalent lenses?
Even though I've played devil's advocate, I would still like to see a 33mm 1.0 lens.
Last edited:
John Motts
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 5,857
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 1,604
I also use these two as main lenses for weddings. It's not to do with bragging rights, it's just using the tools that suit the way you personally work and your style.
I'm not particularly after anything else because I just use one lens per body and I now think and see images in those two focal lengths. It works beautifully.
I have a 16-55 for wider angles when needed and for back up, but I rarely use it because I personally find the f/2.8 aperture quite restricting when compared with the glorious primes.
That said if Fuji were to update these, particularly the 56, to focus better in the dark (think fast moving dance shots), then I would buy them in a heartbeat.
John Motts
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 5,857
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 1,604
Synthesaur
Member
- Messages
- 44
- Reaction score
- 33
18mm F1.4 would be a beaut.
I might even return to use fujis
I might even return to use fujis
Advent1sam
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 9,089
- Solutions
- 6
- Reaction score
- 4,212
As much as it pains me to say................. , the xtrans is my preference, but the lens selection is a weakness, we don't even have a reasonably light 70-300 option ;(
John Gellings
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 11,472
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 9,345
The horror... yeah, move on, this system is certainly not for you. No big deal.
They do have the 50-230mm lens which is a 75mm to 345mm.
Last edited:
Now I got it. Focal length is a fix physical property of the lens. At some point it becomes harder to accurately bend light over the entire spectrum (refractive index is a function of wavelength) over a large field and be able to do that with the focal plane varying.
It turns out that a 50 mm more or less is the sweet spot for lens design. Look at the first high quality lens coming out of Leitz - a 5 cm f3.5 lens. That is a small range around 50. I would classify a 23 mm a super wide angle - lens based on its absolute focal length - not on its field of view on a APS-C sensor. So yes I think your point is quite valid.
Personally I never like the rendering in a 24 or shorter lens. I never owned anything shorter than 28 (all 25 mm equivalent). I do own an 18 Fuji X but that is only when I am in tight places and have no other option. Otherwise I can make my 35 f1.4 work.
Advent1sam
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 9,089
- Solutions
- 6
- Reaction score
- 4,212
Yes, plastic mount slow zoom, it's not for me correct!
John Motts
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 5,857
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 1,604
Depends what you want - everyone has different needs.
When I switched from Nikon I chose Fuji over Sony A7 mainly because of Fuji's lens range at the time. It looks like Sony has filled a lot of gaps since but there's nothing missing from Fuji's line up for me personally and Sony's range is not as consistent in terms of image quality.
Other users will differ, but as far as I can see Fuji's range of lenses is a very good reason for sticking with Fuji.
Last edited:
HowlinDawg
Active member
The original primes could do with an update.
They're optically excellent but the build quality is lacking for the price point.
The new f/2 primes have the build quality I expect from a modern lens with fast, quiet motors and WR sealing.
If / when Fuji get around to releasing a mark II version of the fast primes, with the original optical quality but better motors and WR, I'll be all over them and strongly suspect I won't be the only one.
They're optically excellent but the build quality is lacking for the price point.
The new f/2 primes have the build quality I expect from a modern lens with fast, quiet motors and WR sealing.
If / when Fuji get around to releasing a mark II version of the fast primes, with the original optical quality but better motors and WR, I'll be all over them and strongly suspect I won't be the only one.
Advent1sam
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 9,089
- Solutions
- 6
- Reaction score
- 4,212
Hi John, I am hearing decent things for the 10-18 so I see that as a good replacement for my 10-24, some reduction on the tele. Also the sigma 30 1.4 is probably a great fast modern alternative to my 35 1.4 I am hoping, that for me bridges the 35 and 50 focal length. I loved the 20mm 1.7 on m43 so am comfortable with the 40mm fl, in fact I always wanted a tiny bit more fl than 40 but not as much as 53. The sony 50 1.8 gets great reviews compared to the 55 1.8, I think it will give decent results and bokeh at 75, again I like that length. The new fe 85 1.8 is also super sharp a good option to the 90 2 fuji, imo. I could go 90 2.8 macro yet instead. I will add a 20mm option, probably the 2.8 pancake which has a very cool 21mm equivalent wide adapter. Not expecting the earth from the pancake but for a pocketable take anywhere should be ideal. I will add maybe a fe70-300 or 70-200 2.8 1.4x later, you can adapt 100-400 sigma or 150-600 with mc11. All in all I am comfortable with the switch, in theory!
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum