Fujifilm 35mm F/1.4 vs F/2

DarnGoodPhotos wrote:

kiwidad wrote:

DarnGoodPhotos wrote:

kiwidad wrote:

DarnGoodPhotos wrote:

akin_t wrote:

Image quality is a wash, all the talk about "magic" can be attributed to f/1.4; and if money was no object, I would get the f/1.4

The 35f1.4 has a different optical construction from the 35f2, so the “magic” is actually attributable to that; it’s the reason why the two lenses don’t render the same at f2. In an interview Fuji said they designed the f1.4 to have a specific type of rendering, and while having an extra stop of light gathering is great, that is not actually the reason why people like it’s IQ.

Fuji have never intentionally made a lens to inaccurately reproduce,,,,

please define how rendering and accurately reproduce are different?

I don't have time to find it for you, but there was an interview with a Fuji rep and he said that the 35 f1.4 was specifically designed to have the look it does and the 35 f2 is different.

sounds like a fun rep smoked something

But seriously why can I not find and side by side comparisons. Everything I find are shot claimed to be magic and different shots claimed to not be!

Do you really think that lenses with different optical constructions will render the scene exactly the same? And an extra stop of light can be the difference between using PD-AF and Contrast-AF.

Just google for comparisons, there are plenty of them out there.

I'm going to be honest with you... When people say "magic rendering" they sound like the folks that would talk of Zeiss "3D effect" some 5 years ago.

It's all subjective, the fact that words like "magic" and "effect" are being used as opposed to objective metrics like contrast and saturation speaks volumes... My guess is that people avoid using objective (and measurable) metrics since they are forced to back it up with comparisons.

Not calling anyone out, that's just how it comes across to me. If you shoot both lenses at f/2 or smaller, is this "magic" still apparent?