Who says the 35/f2 has no magic?

Sjak wrote:

kiwidad wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

Meetmer wrote:

You have expressed those views on other threads and I think most people seem to disagree with you. The 35 mm F2 is not perfect, but it’s totally awesome . Can’t recommend it enough.

Disagree that it has color fringing and distortion or disagree that it isn't a great lens to use? Both aberrations are documented/able. So you must mean the latter which is of course not what I'm saying.

I laugh how we argue over these refinements when folk are clamoring over old russian coke bottle lenses for their "character"

Some people think it's the (real or imaginary) optical aberrations' fault when pictures are crap. Others think a picture is crap when not enough aberrations are visible. It's so easy to blame the equipment.

The 35 2.0 has a very neutral rendering

What does that look like?

, and it really took adaptation for me, as I typically use lenses with a "wilder" or more vintage rendering.

I've never heard vintage referred to as "wilder". What is a vintage or wild rendering like?

stevo23 wrote:

markusw wrote:

Many are saying that the 35 f1.4 has a specific magic. My point with this thread was simply that the 35 f2 is on par, as long as f2 is enough. It is more about demystifing the „clean look“ of the f2 and the „magical“ rendering of the f1.4

Ah - I like this explanation for your thread. In reality, there is no magic with any lens, only the image it creates and every aspect of that can be described in objective terms. So if someone says, "buy this lens because it's magic", that doesn't help the buyer.

So, this thread and all the posts here are about helping buyer to buy lens? I am not aware of that...

nonicks wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

markusw wrote:

Many are saying that the 35 f1.4 has a specific magic. My point with this thread was simply that the 35 f2 is on par, as long as f2 is enough. It is more about demystifing the „clean look“ of the f2 and the „magical“ rendering of the f1.4

Ah - I like this explanation for your thread. In reality, there is no magic with any lens, only the image it creates and every aspect of that can be described in objective terms. So if someone says, "buy this lens because it's magic", that doesn't help the buyer.

So, this thread and all the posts here are about helping buyer to buy lens? I am not aware of that...

Is it? I wasn’t aware of that.

Ed B wrote:

It's just a shot that could have been taken with almost any lens.

I would agree.

Most shots taken with similar focal lengths fall into this category. Sometimes the combination of colors subject bokah etc combine to produce something another lens might not produce. I cant say I have ever found this phenomenom reproducible however and over the years I have owned some of these "magical" lenses.

stevo23 wrote:

kiwidad wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

Meetmer wrote:

You have expressed those views on other threads and I think most people seem to disagree with you. The 35 mm F2 is not perfect, but it’s totally awesome . Can’t recommend it enough.

Disagree that it has color fringing and distortion or disagree that it isn't a great lens to use? Both aberrations are documented/able. So you must mean the latter which is of course not what I'm saying.

I laugh how we argue over these refinements when folk are clamoring over old russian coke bottle lenses for their "character"

What refinements are you thinking of?

Well I would consider a sharp lens refined for instance of a russian helios 58 lens when it comes to sharpness.

One of the big problems we have in digital is apples and oranges. One manufacturer applies different levels of sharpness for instance in jpgs for instance than another so they have a reputation of being sharper. The average shooter doesn't hit RAW and make those comparisons.

I have no issue with what my camera captures thru the 35 f2. Does it have flaws? perhaps.. do any lenses not have flaws? I haven't found perfect one (I can afford) yet.

kiwidad wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

kiwidad wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

Meetmer wrote:

You have expressed those views on other threads and I think most people seem to disagree with you. The 35 mm F2 is not perfect, but it’s totally awesome . Can’t recommend it enough.

Disagree that it has color fringing and distortion or disagree that it isn't a great lens to use? Both aberrations are documented/able. So you must mean the latter which is of course not what I'm saying.

I laugh how we argue over these refinements when folk are clamoring over old russian coke bottle lenses for their "character"

What refinements are you thinking of?

Well I would consider a sharp lens refined for instance of a russian helios 58 lens when it comes to sharpness.

One of the big problems we have in digital is apples and oranges. One manufacturer applies different levels of sharpness for instance in jpgs for instance than another so they have a reputation of being sharper. The average shooter doesn't hit RAW and make those comparisons.

Around here, I think there are enough people testing these things with Raw and certainly plenty of objective tests to be able to cut through those differences. Don't you think?

I have no issue with what my camera captures thru the 35 f2. Does it have flaws? perhaps.. do any lenses not have flaws? I haven't found perfect one (I can afford) yet.

So Otus isn't in your budget? Don't you have a car you can sell?

stevo23 wrote:

kiwidad wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

kiwidad wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

Meetmer wrote:

You have expressed those views on other threads and I think most people seem to disagree with you. The 35 mm F2 is not perfect, but it’s totally awesome . Can’t recommend it enough.

Disagree that it has color fringing and distortion or disagree that it isn't a great lens to use? Both aberrations are documented/able. So you must mean the latter which is of course not what I'm saying.

I laugh how we argue over these refinements when folk are clamoring over old russian coke bottle lenses for their "character"

What refinements are you thinking of?

Well I would consider a sharp lens refined for instance of a russian helios 58 lens when it comes to sharpness.

One of the big problems we have in digital is apples and oranges. One manufacturer applies different levels of sharpness for instance in jpgs for instance than another so they have a reputation of being sharper. The average shooter doesn't hit RAW and make those comparisons.

Around here, I think there are enough people testing these things with Raw and certainly plenty of objective tests to be able to cut through those differences. Don't you think?

I have no issue with what my camera captures thru the 35 f2. Does it have flaws? perhaps.. do any lenses not have flaws? I haven't found perfect one (I can afford) yet.

So Otus isn't in your budget? Don't you have a car you can sell?

Kinda hard to get to work on a lens lol. and if someone did make a 12-600 f.95 zoom someone would find something wrong with it!

tell me again how "magic" is defined in technical terms?

You are bing excessively harsh, the purple fringing issues are minor . Other distortions are corrected by software in camera and do not impact the output. On BH photo, 97% of the 244 people who reviewed that lens gave it 4 or 5 stars (89% 5 star and 8% 4 star). So basically, even if the lens is not optically perfect......no one cares !  I especially don’t because I have taken hundreds of awesome shots with the lens and I am thrilled.

ediblestarfish wrote:

Kidding.

One of my favorite lenses for close portraits.

That's cheating. These girls would be gorgeous with flip phone taken by a drunk.

TRIODEROB wrote:

absquatulate wrote:

TRIODEROB wrote:

absquatulate wrote:

It's just rendering, only the photo creates any magic, the lenses is just a tool to assist in image creation. I understand the enthusiasm for some lenses, and that in itself can motivate us to go and take more images, and once in a while come up with something we love, but in reality it's only us that can make the magic happen.

what if I could show you where highly trained professional optical engineers from germany and japan are not in agreement with this statement ?

It's not a statement from an optical engineer's perspective, it's a statement from photographer's perspective.

would you find it interesting information ?

Go for it....

the 35 1.4 is very close to this design

here is what Zeiss has to say about it:

"The C-SONNAR T* 1.5/50 ZM is a very special lens; based on a classical lens design concept from the 1930´s. .... This lens ‘draws’ your subject in a fine, flattering manner and is therefore ideally suited for portraiture. It renders a sharpness that is slightly rounded, being less aggressive than in contemporary lens designs..."

That is marketing speak for "We didn't know how to make lenses as sharp as we can today".

"sharpness that is slightly rounded". Really? What does that even mean? I presume it is in contrast to the squarish sharpness that is all the rage? Or are we moving on to trapezoidal sharpness this year?

There is sharpness and there is contrast. Tightly related in the subjective evaluation of an image. Aberrations add to the mix but in simple terms sharpness is objective as is contrast. The amount and proportion of each renders the image and thus the subjective appreciation of the image.

Then we have the crowd that notes a good macro lens is "too sharp for portraiture". I think I prefer the lens that is "too sharp" to the one that is "too soft" for photography.

kiwidad wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

kiwidad wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

kiwidad wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

Meetmer wrote:

You have expressed those views on other threads and I think most people seem to disagree with you. The 35 mm F2 is not perfect, but it’s totally awesome . Can’t recommend it enough.

Disagree that it has color fringing and distortion or disagree that it isn't a great lens to use? Both aberrations are documented/able. So you must mean the latter which is of course not what I'm saying.

I laugh how we argue over these refinements when folk are clamoring over old russian coke bottle lenses for their "character"

What refinements are you thinking of?

Well I would consider a sharp lens refined for instance of a russian helios 58 lens when it comes to sharpness.

One of the big problems we have in digital is apples and oranges. One manufacturer applies different levels of sharpness for instance in jpgs for instance than another so they have a reputation of being sharper. The average shooter doesn't hit RAW and make those comparisons.

Around here, I think there are enough people testing these things with Raw and certainly plenty of objective tests to be able to cut through those differences. Don't you think?

I have no issue with what my camera captures thru the 35 f2. Does it have flaws? perhaps.. do any lenses not have flaws? I haven't found perfect one (I can afford) yet.

So Otus isn't in your budget? Don't you have a car you can sell?

Kinda hard to get to work on a lens lol. and if someone did make a 12-600 f.95 zoom someone would find something wrong with it!

tell me again how "magic" is defined in technical terms?

That's a good question, one I've been asking for a long time.

Meetmer wrote:

You are bing excessively harsh, the purple fringing issues are minor .

Actually, compared to all my other Fuji lenses, they are not minor. Compared to all my other Nikon lenses, they are not minor.

Other distortions are corrected by software in camera and do not impact the output. On BH photo, 97% of the 244 people who reviewed that lens gave it 4 or 5 stars (89% 5 star and 8% 4 star).

That's relevant to fringing and distortion how? Did all those people comment on the optical perfection of the lens?

So basically, even if the lens is not optically perfect......no one cares !

They don't? I think there are plenty who care very much.

To the extent that a lens' aberrations actually ruin a shot, this lens hasn't ruined many shots for me, especially if you know how to work around it's issues. But it's nard not to see it when it occurs as it's at a surprisingly high level. And the distortion never goes away. I had a couple in mind to show you, but I've since deleted them.

I especially don’t because I have taken hundreds of awesome shots

Let's see 'em!

with the lens and I am thrilled.

I certainly didn't come out to dampen your enthusiasm. But don't put your head in the sand and pretend like it's not there. That's the worst kind of self deception.

Again, know a lens and then you know how to use it.

TRIODEROB wrote:

Photomonkey wrote:

TRIODEROB wrote:

absquatulate wrote:

TRIODEROB wrote:

absquatulate wrote:

It's just rendering, only the photo creates any magic, the lenses is just a tool to assist in image creation. I understand the enthusiasm for some lenses, and that in itself can motivate us to go and take more images, and once in a while come up with something we love, but in reality it's only us that can make the magic happen.

what if I could show you where highly trained professional optical engineers from germany and japan are not in agreement with this statement ?

It's not a statement from an optical engineer's perspective, it's a statement from photographer's perspective.

would you find it interesting information ?

Go for it....

the 35 1.4 is very close to this design

here is what Zeiss has to say about it:

"The C-SONNAR T* 1.5/50 ZM is a very special lens; based on a classical lens design concept from the 1930´s. .... This lens ‘draws’ your subject in a fine, flattering manner and is therefore ideally suited for portraiture. It renders a sharpness that is slightly rounded, being less aggressive than in contemporary lens designs..."

That is marketing speak for "We didn't know how to make lenses as sharp as we can today".

"sharpness that is slightly rounded". Really? What does that even mean? I presume it is in contrast to the squarish sharpness that is all the rage? Or are we moving on to trapezoidal sharpness this year?

There is sharpness and there is contrast. Tightly related in the subjective evaluation of an image. Aberrations add to the mix but in simple terms sharpness is objective as is contrast. The amount and proportion of each renders the image and thus the subjective appreciation of the image.

Then we have the crowd that notes a good macro lens is "too sharp for portraiture". I think I prefer the lens that is "too sharp" to the one that is "too soft" for photography.

you can say what ever you want but the 1.4 gives the look I want and Fuji knows what they are doing

the F2 on the other hand lacks the magical rendering

here are a few of mine from yesterday

great images but I don't see any different magic than any other 1.4 lens wide open.

People will give you hell because you used the term “magic”, but that’s only because we live in age where people generally lack imagination and are politically correct about every label we apply to something.

I am fine with using the term magic to describe this lens. I have owned hundreds of optics over the years and only a handful really left a lasting impression. I call this “magic”, because the lens has a certain unique way of rendering that produces a very attractive end result, especially so with portrait work.

These days your internet morons think lens sharpness is the most important factor. Fuji lenses are not sterile, they were designed to produce a certain look using a balance of strengths. There is a great article in Japanese if I can dig it up which details how Fuji was after this type of look that certain gems only seem to deliver. They realized that being super sharp was a trade off with other important attributes such as bokeh, color, etc.

i would state without hesitation that the Fuji is on par and in some cases optically better than a few highly regarded Canon L primes, Zeiss primes, and even a few Leica gems.

My only complaint is I wish it was faster, but I guess that is the trade off in size.