Fujifilm 35mm F/1.4 vs F/2

Started 4 months ago | Polls
MatMayer Contributing Member • Posts: 900
Re: Fujifilm 35mm F/1.4 vs F/2
1

shigzeo wrote:

MatMayer wrote:

I see the f2 as a far left liberal. The f1.4 is anti abortion, but I don't know if that beats being a green haired liberal. The f2 is against free speech and the f1.4 is mostly for free speech. But the f1.4 believes in Jesus and coal. The f1.4 is so old it was originally used on film cameras in the Vatican. 4% of Catholic priests have been accused of pedophilia so that is definitely a possible downside.

The f2 has most of its chakras aligned and the optical formula was made on a Macbook Air in Yosemite after climbing El Capitan. That is a great accomplishment. I think the f2 might be in Antifa, so that means that I hereby abstain from this question. Not least because I own neither lens.

Out of a rating of 10 I score both lenses twelvety. I hope that clears this up once and for all. This post was sponsored by Squarespace, where you too can make a website that looks like everyone else's.

Both lenses touched me in my bad place, one on the far left of my body, one on the far right

The Nikon plastic fantastic went for the middle. That one I didn’t mind it so much.

This is an outrage. Both these lenses are sick. Nobody should buy either. Its the 2Kg 1 foot long 33 f1 or nothing. That lens will have a clean record. Chernobyl probably happened because of all the radioactive elements in old Fuji lenses. Keep the f1.4 and its black magic and the f2 with it's fascism away from your kids. Only true Fuji fans will do this. Anyone who gives the f1.4 and the f2 the time of day is a Fuji hater!

#33mmf1 #savecherbobyl #fujilivesmatter

This reminds me... why don't Russians wear Y fronts?

kiwidad Regular Member • Posts: 397
Re: So put some beef into the pudding, please!
4

deednets wrote:

Toby43 wrote:

There’s nothing magic about the 1.4 you wouldn’t get with the cheapest Nikon 50mm. If you want to shoot wide open all the time I wouldn’t bother too much with an APSC sensor. Narrow depth of field is one of the sacrifices you make using lighter camera gear.

So idiots only here on this forum?? The cheapest Nikon is the 50/1.8 plastic-fantastic AF-D.

Here in New Zeaaland you can get one of those brand new with warranty for US$ 120.00 including original box!

Any examples you would care to share taken with this Nikon lens?

You might be correct of course, no rounded blades, 2002 design, but a standard lens and therefore an easy enough achievement to play with the best and beat them regarding general rendering, bokeh, sharpness (I don't doubt this lens can be sharp, but that's not everything right??) etc.

Let's just assume you weren't just talking through a hole in your head, would you care to share some example shots to put some beef to your argument here?

Please??

Not to defend the poster your referring to but that those older cheap nikon are pretty decent glass encapsulated in ever decreasing build quality.. I think the newest is a new formula but the previous ones are an inexpensive way to get some sharp glass not peanuts.... yeah yeah more aperture brings and bokeh another story perhaps...

the amusement in this whole thread is people keep posting pictures illustrating nothing. Even the reviewers comparing  the two lenses at their respective wide open apertures as opposed to both at f2 for instance.

 kiwidad's gear list:kiwidad's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm X-T3 Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm 50-230mm +2 more
John Gellings Veteran Member • Posts: 5,400
Re: Fujifilm 35mm F/1.4 vs F/2

skalsa wrote:

Oh Jesus, please stop that nonsense about 35 f2 vs f1.4.

Yet you go on to add to the nonsense...

One is a Zeiss Sonnar design, the second one is a modern-rendering lens (Fuji designed the lens to be a small lens with some drawbacks (distortion)). If you want more bokeh and a bit dreamy look (less contrast, more pop) with a bit classic lens rendering (a bit harsh but interesting classic bokeh), just buy 35 f1.4 (ideal for a wedding). If you do street photography and need WR and faster AF, buy 35mm f2. Maybe even buy 35 f2 and Mitakon 35 f0.95 II. I used both of them and did not find f2 version interesting - a bit clinical - but I love how fast it is with a nice aperture ring etc. I mostly shoot at f1.4 and I need f1.4 to take portraits. Buy whatever you need and dont say one lens is better than other.

 John Gellings's gear list:John Gellings's gear list
Sony RX100 VI Ricoh GR III Sony a7R II Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm X-E3 +8 more
MrALLCAPS
MrALLCAPS Contributing Member • Posts: 766
It Aint Even A Question..

1.4 by a mile, if soley for image quality. I have both, on my 2nd f/1.4, because I originally sold it for the f/2.

 MrALLCAPS's gear list:MrALLCAPS's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm X-E3 Fujifilm X-H1 Nikon Z6
jjz2 Senior Member • Posts: 1,197
Re: So put some beef into the pudding, please!

Toby43 wrote:

Wdeednets wrote:

Toby43 wrote:

deednets wrote:

Toby43 wrote:

There’s nothing magic about the 1.4 you wouldn’t get with the cheapest Nikon 50mm. If you want to shoot wide open all the time I wouldn’t bother too much with an APSC sensor. Narrow depth of field is one of the sacrifices you make using lighter camera gear.

So idiots only here on this forum?? The cheapest Nikon is the 50/1.8 plastic-fantastic AF-D.

Here in New Zeaaland you can get one of those brand new with warranty for US$ 120.00 including original box!

Any examples you would care to share taken with this Nikon lens?

You might be correct of course, no rounded blades, 2002 design, but a standard lens and therefore an easy enough achievement to play with the best and beat them regarding general rendering, bokeh, sharpness (I don't doubt this lens can be sharp, but that's not everything right??) etc.

Let's just assume you weren't just talking through a hole in your head, would you care to share some example shots to put some beef to your argument here?

Please??

I’d try and avoid that second bottle of Oyster Bay personally.

I just bought some Matakana wine this arvo so no Oyster bay for me tonight.

I take it you only have some sweet words but no substance to offer??

Deed

Apart from owning both lenses you mean. I don’t post photos on forums, I can’t be arsed when it’s easier just to annoy a Kiwi. I don’t see many full frame manufacturers churning out prime lenses with anything slower than 1.8 do you? The Fuji is f2+ which is nothing special for narrow dof. There’s a reason people buy ff 1.4 lenses and it’s not because they like spending money or carrying more weight. It’s just a trade off. Sure the 35mm 1.4 takes nice photos but they’re a little flat compared to my Nikon 50mm 1.4. I still use it, as it’s a great lens. Horses for courses.

The Fuji is a nice lens but actually think the Nikon 50mm 1.8g looks better and even narrower dof on a full frame sensor. Not saying it’s a better lens, prob just look of the sensor on something . The af of the 50mm 1.8g is on another level also. It’s a cheap 199 lens.

However I carry my Fuji gear way more.

I have shot very few lenses I thought had a magic look to them... one of the few was the Nikon 135 dc. It would do stuff to the images I wasn’t expecting.

 jjz2's gear list:jjz2's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 7artisans 35mm F1.2 Fujifilm 15-45mm F3.5-5.6 OIS PZ
afwares Regular Member • Posts: 150
Re: So put some beef into the pudding, please!

@kiwidad, give your search on this subject another try.  I read every comparison between these lenses before making my choice and I found plenty that showed the exact same subject cropped the exact same amount at the exact same aperture and posted directly side by side so you could easily look back and forth and see how they compare.    The comparisons you're looking for are out there, maybe you just haven't run across them yet.

 afwares's gear list:afwares's gear list
Fujifilm X30 Pentax K100D Fujifilm X-T20 Tamron AF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di LD Macro Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R +3 more
theronsan New Member • Posts: 7
Re: Fujifilm 35mm F/1.4 vs F/2
1

I have never used the 35 f/2 but I love my XF 35mm f/1.4 lens. It is the best XF lens that I have in terms of how it renders photos.

Autofocus is fast, but not as fast as my 23 f/2.

It is tack sharp, but the 56 f/1.2 is perhaps sharper.

If the 35 f/1.4 was weather resistant, it would be perfect.

 theronsan's gear list:theronsan's gear list
Fujifilm X70 Leica Q2 Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 23mm F2 R WR
notchy
notchy Regular Member • Posts: 333
Re: Fujifilm 35mm F/1.4 vs F/2

DarnGoodPhotos wrote:

kiwidad wrote:

pastures-new wrote:

I have both. Over time I’ve completely converted to the 1.4 and I’ve have relegated the f/2 to the role of second lens when I am using a long or wide lens and want to have something small and with broader application “in the bag”. I have used the 1.4 In all sorts of climates and the focus speed is fine.

can you put your camera on a tripod and shoot the same image with identical settings on both lenses and lets compare. Maybe something near and something distant at a couple of different aperture and remove the EXIT data before you upload and lets see if a difference can be seen!

To save Pastures several hours of work, I just googled the comparison. There are many out there, draw your own conclusions.

https://alikgriffin.com/fujifilm-35mm-f1-4-vs-35mm-f2-lens-comparison/

There's also this from 3.5 years back:

https://admiringlight.com/blog/fuji-35mm-f1-4-vs-fuji-35mm-f2/

It looks like the test shots were done with the X-T1 and/or the X-E2. It would have been good to see some portrait comparisons, but hey, not wishing to look a gift horse in the mouth...

There are some interesting comments following the article, including one from Damien Lovegrove who wrote that he regards the performance of the author's f1.4 to be "shocking".

 notchy's gear list:notchy's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm X-H1 Fujifilm X-T3
stevo23 Forum Pro • Posts: 22,409
Re: Fujifilm 35mm F/1.4 vs F/2

eRaCer001 wrote:

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.?

No magic in either. Not Fuji's crowning achievements, either of them. Neither is the Touit 32mm Zeiss's greatest. If it were me, I would have the 35mm 1.4 and the 23mm 2.0. As it stands, I have the 23mm 1.4 (great lens, but perhaps not worth it) and the 35mm 2.0.

 stevo23's gear list:stevo23's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R +3 more
tokumeino Senior Member • Posts: 2,549
One stop

A lens can be versatile wrt focal length control and/or wrt aperture control. If I buy a prime and give up focal length control, then I want it to provide most versatility wrt aperture control.

So, IMO, a f/2 lens is just too slow to justify the sacrifice of focal length versatility. The 28mm/2.8 is another story because it is so small, so with different use cases.

I didn't answer the poll because I've never tried the 35mm/2. The 1.4 is one stop faster, and not significantly larger, so I've bought this one. Just because f/1.4 justifies more as a prime. On a XT30, the AF is much faster than on my former XE3.

 tokumeino's gear list:tokumeino's gear list
Fujifilm X-T30 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 Canon G7 X II Samyang 8mm F2.8 UMC Fisheye +5 more
Marcos Villaroman Veteran Member • Posts: 6,012
Re: Fujifilm 35mm F/1.4 vs F/2
1

The f/2 version has a lot going for it, including faster AF and WR; but, the images coming out of the 35/1.4 have a little bit more character and I like f/1.4.

I read somewhere that the Fujifilm lens designer deliberately selected an older lens design for the 35/1.4 to achieve the optical look it produces.  I don't use the 35mm primes enough to be able to see this difference for myself; but, pixie dust is pixie dust. 

https://www.fujirumors.com/the-magic-of-the-fujinon-xf-35mm-f-1-4-explained-and-why-fujifilm-should-not-make-an-xf-35mm-f-1-4-mk-ii/

The manual/AF clutch selection is also interesting on the 35/1.4.

 Marcos Villaroman's gear list:Marcos Villaroman's gear list
Sony RX100 IV Canon EOS 5D Mark III Fujifilm X-H1 Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM Fujifilm XF 56mm F1.2 R +60 more
stevo23 Forum Pro • Posts: 22,409
Re: Fujifilm 35mm F/1.4 vs F/2

Marcos Villaroman wrote:

The f/2 version has a lot going for it, including faster AF and WR; but, the images coming out of the 35/1.4 have a little bit more character and I like f/1.4.

I read somewhere that the Fujifilm lens designer deliberately selected an older lens design for the 35/1.4 to achieve the optical look it produces. I don't use the 35mm primes enough to be able to see this difference for myself; but, pixie dust is pixie dust.

https://www.fujirumors.com/the-magic-of-the-fujinon-xf-35mm-f-1-4-explained-and-why-fujifilm-should-not-make-an-xf-35mm-f-1-4-mk-ii/

The manual/AF clutch selection is also interesting on the 35/1.4.

That's an old myth about the 35 1.4 that has never been confirmed and frankly has no merit whatsoever. Scoring high on MTF vs. "character" is silly talk. However I do like the images people produce with it - if that's character due to the lens, great lens.

And I can say without question that the 35 f/2 is a weaker lens optically. It has very high distortion to the extent that the auto correction doesn't even correct it well enough. And the fringing can be high.

If I'm taking shots where I think the distortion and weaknesses of the 35 f/2 might hurt the image, I don't use it. And to be honest, I've seen quite a few great images from that lens.

 stevo23's gear list:stevo23's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R +3 more
Marcos Villaroman Veteran Member • Posts: 6,012
Re: Fujifilm 35mm F/1.4 vs F/2
1

stevo23 wrote:

Marcos Villaroman wrote:

The f/2 version has a lot going for it, including faster AF and WR; but, the images coming out of the 35/1.4 have a little bit more character and I like f/1.4.

I read somewhere that the Fujifilm lens designer deliberately selected an older lens design for the 35/1.4 to achieve the optical look it produces. I don't use the 35mm primes enough to be able to see this difference for myself; but, pixie dust is pixie dust.

https://www.fujirumors.com/the-magic-of-the-fujinon-xf-35mm-f-1-4-explained-and-why-fujifilm-should-not-make-an-xf-35mm-f-1-4-mk-ii/

The manual/AF clutch selection is also interesting on the 35/1.4.

That's an old myth about the 35 1.4 that has never been confirmed and frankly has no merit whatsoever. Scoring high on MTF vs. "character" is silly talk. However I do like the images people produce with it - if that's character due to the lens, great lens.

Yeah.  I was trying for mild sarcasm in my last post.

I don't use either 35mm prime that much as I prefer the 23mm FOV.  But, the 35/1.4 can go f/1.4 and its optical imperfections remind me of older 50mm primes from other systems where there has been a price paid for fast glass.  Hence I think the 50/1.4 has "character".  Not like Instax prints have "character"; but, I can make images that I'm very happy with using it.

And I can say without question that the 35 f/2 is a weaker lens optically. It has very high distortion to the extent that the auto correction doesn't even correct it well enough. And the fringing can be high.

If I'm taking shots where I think the distortion and weaknesses of the 35 f/2 might hurt the image, I don't use it. And to be honest, I've seen quite a few great images from that lens.

I noticed the image quality difference a little when doing a direct A/B of 35/2 vs. 35/1.4 and 50/2 vs. 56/1.2.  Especially when shot at closer distances.  The differences are not big enough to make me think it has to be one version over the other.  I'm really happy about the f/2 primes' small size, decent pricing, WR, and AF speeds.  It is just none of these lenses makes me sell any of my f/1.4 to f/1.2 primes.

 Marcos Villaroman's gear list:Marcos Villaroman's gear list
Sony RX100 IV Canon EOS 5D Mark III Fujifilm X-H1 Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM Fujifilm XF 56mm F1.2 R +60 more
Mark Regular Member • Posts: 184
Re: None. But...
1

wooly1 wrote:

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

Agreed the same here. Duration of my mistake from 2016 to 2019

stevo23 Forum Pro • Posts: 22,409
Re: Fujifilm 35mm F/1.4 vs F/2

Marcos Villaroman wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

Marcos Villaroman wrote:

The f/2 version has a lot going for it, including faster AF and WR; but, the images coming out of the 35/1.4 have a little bit more character and I like f/1.4.

I read somewhere that the Fujifilm lens designer deliberately selected an older lens design for the 35/1.4 to achieve the optical look it produces. I don't use the 35mm primes enough to be able to see this difference for myself; but, pixie dust is pixie dust.

https://www.fujirumors.com/the-magic-of-the-fujinon-xf-35mm-f-1-4-explained-and-why-fujifilm-should-not-make-an-xf-35mm-f-1-4-mk-ii/

The manual/AF clutch selection is also interesting on the 35/1.4.

That's an old myth about the 35 1.4 that has never been confirmed and frankly has no merit whatsoever. Scoring high on MTF vs. "character" is silly talk. However I do like the images people produce with it - if that's character due to the lens, great lens.

Yeah. I was trying for mild sarcasm in my last post.

I don't use either 35mm prime that much as I prefer the 23mm FOV. But, the 35/1.4 can go f/1.4 and its optical imperfections remind me of older 50mm primes from other systems where there has been a price paid for fast glass. Hence I think the 50/1.4 has "character". Not like Instax prints have "character"; but, I can make images that I'm very happy with using it.

And I can say without question that the 35 f/2 is a weaker lens optically. It has very high distortion to the extent that the auto correction doesn't even correct it well enough. And the fringing can be high.

If I'm taking shots where I think the distortion and weaknesses of the 35 f/2 might hurt the image, I don't use it. And to be honest, I've seen quite a few great images from that lens.

I noticed the image quality difference a little when doing a direct A/B of 35/2 vs. 35/1.4 and 50/2 vs. 56/1.2. Especially when shot at closer distances. The differences are not big enough to make me think it has to be one version over the other. I'm really happy about the f/2 primes' small size, decent pricing, WR, and AF speeds. It is just none of these lenses makes me sell any of my f/1.4 to f/1.2 primes.

Agree - not sure any of them pass over the pain point of replacement. However, I think the 50 f/2 stands alone in that it's performance is really good all the way around. Not enough to make you switch or add, but enough to make me willing to buy one myself.

 stevo23's gear list:stevo23's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R +3 more
Cagey75
Cagey75 Senior Member • Posts: 1,118
Re: Fujifilm 35mm F/1.4 vs F/2

Both 35mm lenses are a bit dull tbh, I have the F2 atm and trying to sell it, had the 1.4 for a couple of years and yes, it produces nice results but so does the F2.  At similar apertures you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference, awful load of nonsense re the 1.4 and it's "magic" eurgh [I know it's become a bit of a meme almost but it's still cringe inducing BS]  They are much of a muchness outside a couple of factors.  Which would you prefer in a dimly lit scenario - the 1.4, which would you prefer out in the rain? the F2 ... which would you rather use for video if needed? the F2, which do you prefer the aesthetic of? - personal preference completely on that one.  I did prefer the look of the 1.4 but since I've gotten used to the F2 it certainly feels better, tougher and the snout-nose look grows on you.

 Cagey75's gear list:Cagey75's gear list
Fujifilm X-H1 Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 R WR Fujifilm 50mm F2 R WR +1 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads