One Year On... Fuji 35mm F/2

Just about a year ago, I impulse-bought a used X-E2 and a used Fuji 35/2 at my local camera store. Up to that point, my only digital camera was an X100F, having exclusively used the X100* series since switching from Sony in 2012. How much have I used this lens in the last year?

Well, not that much.

It turns out that I have a hard time getting away from my beloved X100F. I went on 7 different camping trips in 2018, with a seasoning of day-trip hikes to taste, and that damn X100F came with me on every. single. one. My bad, dudes.

BUT I did take a bunch of random indoor snapshots, and so while I'll have to make a concerted effort to use the X-E2 more often in 2019 (especially given this year's much more expensive impulse purchases), I do think I have a good feel for the Fuji 35mm f/2.

Two samples at f/2 in low light, and one with some fill flash straight out of the '90s:

1. https://www.flickr.com/photos/ipwnedgoliath/27302129819/lightbox
2. https://www.flickr.com/photos/ipwnedgoliath/45511944895/lightbox
3. https://www.flickr.com/photos/ipwnedgoliath/46466398181/lightbox

Handling

This lens is so small! And light! I do find myself always moving the aperture ring when putting it on/off the camera, which can be annoying. There isn't really a good way to grip the lens when doing this. It feels great on the X-E2, and balances just fine. I'll touch on the focus ring later. I am primarily a wide-angle shooter with the X100F, but also have a 42mm Olympus 35SP and 50mm Olympus OM-1, so 35mm on the XE-2 is familiar enough. I found that my shooting mindset did not change; I was still looking for environmental pictures, i.e., compositions that had context, scenes instead of subjects.

Image Quality

The X-E2 isn't the best at ISO 6400, which is typically where I'm going to be indoors. This also means I'm likely to be shooting wide open. The 35/2 is, as such, at least sharp enough. I still need to get this thing out in some bright daylight. Bokeh is quite pleasing, I don't notice much, if any, vignetting, and the colors in Velvia are about what I expect. In other words, I am limited by my own abilities, which is good!

Autofocus

Again, we find that the X-E2 isn't exactly impressive, so sometimes the lens will hunt, especially on areas of low contrast or when pulling/pushing a great distance. This never takes more than a few seconds, but sometimes I have to focus two or three times to actually grab where I'm aiming. It's hard for me to say if this is the lens or the body, but since most people say this lens is super fast, perhaps it is the body? On the other hand, using good ole focus-and-recompose, I don't think I ever lost focus, and I probably would not have been any faster focusing manually. The lens is also very quiet, which is nice. The X100F sounds like an MRI machine in comparison. I don't shoot a lot of moving subjects, so can't say much about the subject tracking, but that's more on the body, right?

Manual Focus

The focus ring is smooth, and with peaking, I can nail focus pretty easily. The focus-by-wire is still a nitpick for me, but it's WAY quieter and less ratchety than the X100F. No complaints here.

Overall

Great lens. I wish I had an X-Pro2 or X-T2. For a hobbyist like myself who shoots stills and who shoots slowly, I do not have any problems with this lens. However, knowing that I have not yet pushed the 35mm f/2 to its limits, I do not think I can fairly rate it 5 stars - so 4.5!

Hi! It's very interesting that you stayed glued to the X100F. I was in a somewhat similar position, and would still regard the X100F as the most enjoyable camera to shoot I've ever owned or seen.

Having said that, the reason I sold it was the focal length itself. I wanted to play with a 35mm. Owning the X-T2 + 35mm f2 now, I can say that I am very pleased with this lens (and the combo itself - though I always miss having an X-Pro2).

What is interesting is that in the past few months since I bought this combo, it has ended up being not my default lens on the X-T2. Rather, the 60mm has.

Presumably, I see that in theory I could also only own a nice good wide and the 60mm and not need anything in between.

This is not to say anything bad about the 35mm f2. I would think that overall it is possibly the best lens I've ever held. WR, size, rendering and ultra quick AF.

tokumeino wrote:

Doesn't it mean that you should have bought the f/1.4 instead, so as to reduce ISO and increase IQ ? It is not much larger and as far as AF is concerned, the difference between the f/2 and the f/1.4 is much smaller than between both 23mm.

Possibly, but it's not really such a problem that I am wanting the 1.4. I can live with f/2 and 1/125 or 1/60 - or just use the flash!

I do plan on getting an X-Pro2 someday, which would be way better (if my X100F is any indication).

ViMa wrote:

Hi! It's very interesting that you stayed glued to the X100F. [...] Having said that, the reason I sold it was the focal length itself. I wanted to play with a 35mm.

[...]

Presumably, I see that in theory I could also only own a nice good wide and the 60mm and not need anything in between.

[...]

Time for a bit of my story! As a child, my dad had a Pentax Spotmatic with a 35/3.5, 55/1.8, and 135/2.5. Not really knowing anything yet, I used the 35. When I started taking classes in high school, our cameras had 35s and 50s on them. So from the get go, I was already biasing toward wide/standard. For this reason and its ease of use, I don't know if I'll ever not have an X100* camera.

The X-E2/35 was truly an impulse purchase. Not even lying, I went to the camera store to avoid traffic for half an hour and browse. They just so happened to have a used X-E2 and a used 35mm f/2, both marked EX. So why not??? I gave them a number, and they agreed (which probably meant I could have gone lower haha); out the door I went with my new kit.

I do find with the 23mm X100F that I miss certain shots for lack of reach. That's almost never a problem, but 35mm is juuuust enough to let me bring elements closer without losing context, and without having to change how I compose. I am specifically thinking of a recent trip to where I wanted to take a picture of some research telescopes off in the distance, nestled in a small mountain range, but the trail was just the right distance away that they would never be more than a few small specks. A 35 or 50 would have been been perfect, and I do actually regret not having the right lens for that one.

I agree that a good wide/standard and a good short-medium tele make for a solid kit. I just picked up a 90mm f/2 to really see if I can get away from wide-angle, and as a luxury piece, a 100-400 so that I can finally take pictures of all the wildlife and birds whenever I am out camping/hiking.