35mm battle Nikon Z 35 vs fuji?

beatboxa wrote:

vegetaleb wrote:

beatboxa wrote:

vegetaleb wrote:

beatboxa wrote:

vegetaleb wrote:

Just out of curiosity, anyone has or had both Fuji XF 23mm f1.4 and Nikon Z 35mm f1.8?

If yes is the bokeh better on the fuji? I mean is it creamier or both can be busy with some background?

I have both of these lenses. The Nikon is better, no question.

From a technical sense, the Nikon has a larger aperture (19mm vs. 16mm) and the same angle of view--so the Nikon already starts with a thinner DoF and less busy background. Don't let the F-number fool you--it's about the absolute aperture = "equivalent f-number" (which would make the Fuji equivalent to a Nikon 35mm F/2.1).

I don't define bokeh as being just about out-of-focus areas--it's the difference between what's in focus and what's out of focus. So sharper lenses tend to have better bokeh. And the Nikon is clearly sharper wide open.

The Nikon is clearly better. If you want, I can post some comparisons later.

Thank you

Yes it would be nice

Here you go. BTW, I didn't have much time, so this is quick & dirty. These are both wide open (F/1.4 on the Fuji and F/1.8 on the Nikon). I did some quick brightness adjustments on the Nikon to come close to matching the Fuji. I took these from the same spot (roughly 1-2 meters from the tree in the foreground), though afterwards, I noticed there is a slight angle difference. Shouldn't make a huge difference though.

Obligatory side-by-side zooms:

And even more zoomed in, individually:

Btw did you edit the Fuji photos with LR or Capture 1?

Neither. These were the OOC JPEGs. The Fujis always seem to have more muddled fine details--I think this is likely due to XTrans debayering.

Yes used to have many times muddled bushes for exemple, though using raw in capture 1 is a bit better