Fujifilm 35mm F/1.4 vs F/2

I know that there's a ton of threads and youtube videos on this question, but I thought it might be interesting to have a poll.

Some say that the f/1.4 is magic, and has a certain undefinable quality.  Others say that they prefer the f/2 for sharpness across the board.

I'll be using the lens with the X-T30, which I understand may improve the AF speed over older bodies.  So, which would you choose if money wasn't an issue and you would use it to shoot a diverse range of photos, including kids, portraits, hikes, travel, etc.?

f/2 has WR, is slightly more compact and faster/quieter autofocus; that's where the differences end.

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

Let's be real here, all Fuji lenses have passable autofocus, most of us on this forum are not shooting in the rain, and the size difference is also a wash for most "should I take it" considerations.

I'm not saying the f/2 is bad, but the f/1.4 has f/1.4, there's nothing that can replace that.

I have the 35 F2 for my X-T20 but I've just bought a used 35 1.4 on eBay this morning for £253 using a 10% off voucher so I'll be able to compare the two when it arrives. I like the F2, it's nice and compact and produces good images, but I'll probably end up selling it if the 1.4 lives up to its 'magic' reputation!

akin_t wrote:

f/2 has WR, is slightly more compact and faster/quieter autofocus; that's where the differences end.

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

Let's be real here, all Fuji lenses have passable autofocus, most of us on this forum are not shooting in the rain, and the size difference is also a wash for most "should I take it" considerations.

I'm not saying the f/2 is bad, but the f/1.4 has f/1.4, there's nothing that can replace that.

I see you don't own the lens?

I originally didn't have any desire or application in my mind with regards to this lens but then I borrowed the lens for a little while (30 or so minutes at a model shoot) and decided I wanted one of these ...

I like the gentle falloff of this lens. Had the 35/2 as well for more than a year, but bought the 1.4 again because of the rendering ...

Deed

deednets wrote:

akin_t wrote:

f/2 has WR, is slightly more compact and faster/quieter autofocus; that's where the differences end.

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

Let's be real here, all Fuji lenses have passable autofocus, most of us on this forum are not shooting in the rain, and the size difference is also a wash for most "should I take it" considerations.

I'm not saying the f/2 is bad, but the f/1.4 has f/1.4, there's nothing that can replace that.

I see you don't own the lens?

I originally didn't have any desire or application in my mind with regards to this lens but then I borrowed the lens for a little while (30 or so minutes at a model shoot) and decided I wanted one of these ...

I like the gentle falloff of this lens. Had the 35/2 as well for more than a year, but bought the 1.4 again because of the rendering ...

Deed

I borrowed it, it's decent but was too similar to my 32mm Touit to consider a purchase.

Hi Had the 35 f2 sold it to get the 35 f1.4 - I think that says it all - the f2 was a silly mistake - Michael

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.

When I first switched to Fuji a couple years back the 35 1.4 pretty much lived on my XT1.  I switched to M43 for a while but recently returned to Fuji with the XH1.  I went looking for a nice used copy of the 1.4 but people were looking for almost new prices! I came across a more budget friendly F2 so went for it.  It's in as new condition and was £100 less than people were looking for the 1.4, and they weren't exactly great condition [marks all over the hood, scratches to the lens body etc]

So I have the F2 atm, and it's growing on me.  I have to admit that at first I hated it, I found it hunts a lot in lower light more than it should, and even in good light it does this focus breathing thing.  This is where it seems to shoot past your target then back before locking on.  This is annoying at times but I have gotten used to it's quirks.  It is also soft for close ups at F2, the further back you focus the sharper it seems to get.  I like shooting close up so that's another con.  For general use though, it is sharp, has lovely punchy contrast and I like the fact it is WR, and also tiny - great for when you want to be stealthy, it draws zero attention even on the XH1

Would I swap it for the 1.4 now after using it a few weeks? tough decision, I remember the 1.4 being a bit of a slug when it comes to AF and noisey too.  Also it's not WR which is a bit of a bummer, when you know the F2 is.  It boils down to just a few differences.  If you need 1.4 then your decision is done, but if F2 is sufficient and you need WR and prefer quieter focusing? then get the F2

akin_t wrote:

f/2 has WR, is slightly more compact and faster/quieter autofocus; that's where the differences end.

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

Let's be real here, all Fuji lenses have passable autofocus, most of us on this forum are not shooting in the rain, and the size difference is also a wash for most "should I take it" considerations.

I'm not saying the f/2 is bad, but the f/1.4 has f/1.4, there's nothing that can replace that.

I’d be most happy if Fujifilm contemporaneously developed a non aspherical version of the 35 1,4. Cant stand that opinion bokeh. That and improved autofocus would be great. Other than that a great lens.

Both!  Really, you cannot go wrong here...

The 1.4 is a sweet lens for my use.

35mm f1.4

35mm f1.4

Cheers!

markusw wrote:

...I decided for the Zeiss Touit 32mm.

Only reason this lens isn't talked about more is because of the high price at launch.

I tried to prefer the 35 f/1.4 over the Zeiss, but it simply didn't bring anything else to the table to make me consider selling the Zeiss.

shigzeo wrote:

akin_t wrote:

f/2 has WR, is slightly more compact and faster/quieter autofocus; that's where the differences end.

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

Let's be real here, all Fuji lenses have passable autofocus, most of us on this forum are not shooting in the rain, and the size difference is also a wash for most "should I take it" considerations.

I'm not saying the f/2 is bad, but the f/1.4 has f/1.4, there's nothing that can replace that.

I’d be most happy if Fujifilm contemporaneously developed a non aspherical version of the 35 1,4. Cant stand that opinion bokeh. That and improved autofocus would be great. Other than that a great lens.

Opinion bokeh? The blur behind the head?

Good one!! 😎

deednets wrote:

akin_t wrote:

f/2 has WR, is slightly more compact and faster/quieter autofocus; that's where the differences end.

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

Let's be real here, all Fuji lenses have passable autofocus, most of us on this forum are not shooting in the rain, and the size difference is also a wash for most "should I take it" considerations.

I'm not saying the f/2 is bad, but the f/1.4 has f/1.4, there's nothing that can replace that.

I see you don't own the lens?

I originally didn't have any desire or application in my mind with regards to this lens but then I borrowed the lens for a little while (30 or so minutes at a model shoot) and decided I wanted one of these ...

I like the gentle falloff of this lens. Had the 35/2 as well for more than a year, but bought the 1.4 again because of the rendering ...

Deed

I see only one pic at f1.4 and the subject distance would nullify and DOF difference...  perhaps a comparison side by side of the two lenses on a body on a tripod and lenses swapped at f2 and other apertures. Personally with modern ISOs the difference between f1.4 and f2 is nothing

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?

kiwidad wrote:
Personally with modern ISOs the difference between f1.4 and f2 is nothing

It is if you are already shooting at ISO6400 or higher.