35mm f/1.4 vs. 35mm f/2: size/weight difference significant?

[yardcoyote]

I know that there are a million threads/reviews/blog posts, etc. comparing these two lenses, but I am interested in one specific aspect. For those of you with experience with both, is the size/weight difference between these two lenses significant? Is it something you notice? Does it depend on what camera body you are using? Is there a difference in the pointing/handling behavior of the camera when one lens is mounted as opposed to the other?

 

[johnbandry]

17g and 5mm less length/diameter don't make a huge difference in handling. The f2 is more discreet though, especially when each has its lens hood attached. It has more of a Leica look about it.

 

[steven_k]

I have tried both on my X-Pro2 though I prefer the newer 35/2 I ended up with the 35/1.4

To me a sharper lens across the entire frame and I believe the 1.4 is optically corrected where as the 35/2 is software corrected.

 

[moawkwrd]

To me a sharper lens across the entire frame and I believe the 1.4 is optically corrected where as the 35/2 is software corrected.

Not sure what you mean by this.

 

[johnbandry]

Optically corrected = no (little) distortion

Software corrected = the distortion data are embedded in the raw file and applied by the raw decoder s/w (in camera or e.g. Lightroom) to produce a correct image, at the expense of some edge/corner detail.

 

[Peter Foiles]

The difference comes down to the f2 version is not visible in the optical viewfinder of the X-Pro 1/2 and the 1.4 is. Otherwise the size difference is not significant. The f2 focuses faster.

 

[moawkwrd]

Optically corrected = no (little) distortion

Software corrected = the distortion data are embedded in the raw file and applied by the raw decoder s/w (in camera or e.g. Lightroom) to produce a correct image, at the expense of some edge/corner detail.

 

[johnbandry]

Optically corrected = no (little) distortion

Software corrected = the distortion data are embedded in the raw file and applied by the raw decoder s/w (in camera or e.g. Lightroom) to produce a correct image, at the expense of some edge/corner detail.

I got that, but surely optical correction isn't actually a thing... because its part of the design of the lens elements in the first place. All lens are therefore optically corrected to some degree and it's redundant to say a lens is optically corrected.

You're right, optical correction is applied in all lens designs; that doesn't mean it isn't a thing. I'd say that's evidence of its thingness.

My take on what Steven wanted to express was (as above) that the optical correction was good enough that there was little or no distortion that would be corrected by software, hence little or no edge/corner softness resulting from that software correction.

 

[moawkwrd]

My issue was that what he said made it sound like the 35/2 isn't optically corrected, only software corrected, which I doubt is the case.

 

[Vic Chapman]

17g and 5mm less length/diameter don't make a huge difference in handling. The f2 is more discreet though, especially when each has its lens hood attached. It has more of a Leica look about it.

 

[Vic Chapman]

My issue was that what he said made it sound like the 35/2 isn't optically corrected, only software corrected, which I doubt is the case.

Pedantry taken to the nth degree!

The guy is making a very valid point that might make a difference to the OP's choice should he not want to risk stretched corners. All you have done is thoroughly muddy the waters - not helpful.

 

[borgein]

I've used both extensively. While I prefer the handling, size, design, weather resistance and focusing speed and lack of focusing noise of the f/2 lens, it doesn't have the same "magic" as the 1.4 lens at it's widest aperture.

 

[Veijo Vilva]

My issue was that what he said made it sound like the 35/2 isn't optically corrected, only software corrected, which I doubt is the case.

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

 

[moawkwrd]

My issue was that what he said made it sound like the 35/2 isn't optically corrected, only software corrected, which I doubt is the case.

Pedantry taken to the nth degree!

The guy is making a very valid point that might make a difference to the OP's choice should he not want to risk stretched corners. All you have done is thoroughly muddy the waters - not helpful.

--
The sky is full of holes that let the rain get in, the holes are very small - that's why the rain is thin.
Spike Milligan

And as always, your contribution adds nothing. The link provided by Veijo above was all that was required to clarify the situation.

 

[Vic Chapman]

My issue was that what he said made it sound like the 35/2 isn't optically corrected, only software corrected, which I doubt is the case.

Pedantry taken to the nth degree!

The guy is making a very valid point that might make a difference to the OP's choice should he not want to risk stretched corners. All you have done is thoroughly muddy the waters - not helpful.

 

[yardcoyote]

Got it in one. This s definitely one of the issues between these two lenses that I am most concerned about as I try to make a decision.

The f/1.4 is definitely in the lead right now,

 

[uniball]

My issue was that what he said made it sound like the 35/2 isn't optically corrected, only software corrected, which I doubt is the case.

Please...

 

[laddsmith]

Correct, and the F2 is weather resistant. The F1.4 is a little sharper, but the F2 is a remarkable lens and the focusing speed is very fast.

 

[Veijo Vilva]

Got it in one. This s definitely one of the issues between these two lenses that I am most concerned about as I try to make a decision.

The f/1.4 is definitely in the lead right now,

It isn't always so straight cut, see also the following for the differences between the corner and center resolutions of these two 36 mm lenses, http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Fujifilm_Fujinon_XF_35mm_f2_R_WR/sharpness.shtml

 

[yardcoyote]

I meant that the 1.4 is ahead in general. Actually, pure, bench test style sharpness is not of huge importance to me compared to basic usability and "character". I just plain like the looks of the images coming out of the older lens, and I have been balancing that primarily against the faster focus of the f/2. (Other factors, including WR and "visible through the OVF on rangefinder style bodies" will depend on the body I choose, which is still somewhat up in the air.)

If I decide to get further involved in Fuji ILC after this pilot project (1 body, 1 lens) I can easily see myself owning both these lenses.