Simply the best Fujinon 35mm

Super compact lens that fits well with the logic of a compact system (weight and size).

Pros:
Built quality
Weight and dimensions
Image quality and clarity from f / 2 (The peaks are reached at f / 4 and f / 5.6)
Well-notched aperture ring
WR

Cons (annoying points):
Sunshade included too small and not efficient

An excellent normal focal lenses to consider without hesitation

Compare to f/1.4

With a SLR camera, a large aperture offers an undeniable advantage of brightness in the viewfinder, of course, but this is not an argument with an electronic viewfinder where you can see clearly regardless of the light conditions.

Why pay more for a larger lens, which sorely lacks edge / center sharpness, with slow AF, and which, moreover, is not even WR?

This lens achieves a certain uniformity only at f / 5.6, but without ever reaching the sharpness of f / 2 ...! (All tests prove it)

Be advised !

RTJR wrote:

Super compact lens that fits well with the logic of a compact system (weight and size).

Pros:
Built quality
Weight and dimensions
Image quality and clarity from f / 2 (The peaks are reached at f / 4 and f / 5.6)
Well-notched aperture ring
WR

Cons (annoying points):
Sunshade included too small and not efficient

An excellent normal focal lenses to consider without hesitation

Compare to f/1.4

With a SLR camera, a large aperture offers an undeniable advantage of brightness in the viewfinder, of course, but this is not an argument with an electronic viewfinder where you can see clearly regardless of the light conditions.

Why pay more for a larger lens, which sorely lacks edge / center sharpness, with slow AF, and which, moreover, is not even WR?

This lens achieves a certain uniformity only at f / 5.6, but without ever reaching the sharpness of f / 2 ...! (All tests prove it)

Be advised !

I disagree with everything you said from the "Compare to F1.4" implied conclusion (don't get the 35/1.4 NO point, all test have shown this)

Do I read you correctly here?

What about low light, bokeh, general rendering? Not everybody is a lab-rat and follows MFT charts. There is far more to a lens than just MFT - or a brighter viewfinder.

You see to be quite new so I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you simply didn't know that this has been discussed here at nauseum, close to Nikon vs Canon//APPLE vs PC.

What people that use the 35/2 often lack - you might be different who knows - is to provide some examples, their shots and not just conclusions based on MFT charts or youtube trail-blazers alleged findings.

All the same to you with a strong bias towards the 35/2 you think?

Would you mind showing some of your shots then? You know what they say: a picture is ...

Deed

RTJR wrote:

Why pay more for a larger lens, which sorely lacks edge / center sharpness, with slow AF, and which, moreover, is not even WR?

This lens achieves a certain uniformity only at f / 5.6, but without ever reaching the sharpness of f / 2 ...! (All tests prove it)

Be advised !

Because great character comes with its cost!!

I owned both and I sold the f2, without hesitation.

Did you ever actually use the f1.4?

Also, you're conveniently ignoring the fact that one captures a full stop more light than the other.

I suspect not, I too owned both the 35mmf2 and f1.4 and sold the f2. I've used the f1.4 outdoors in the wet and never had a problem, and never missed a shot from poor focus speed. In a lab then yes its slower but I don't take many images in labs !

The f1.4 DOF and character are areas that define the f1.4, that f2 will never achieve.

Given most Fuji mirrorless aren't the quickest focusing cameras anyway if that's super important to you then perhaps a Sony A9 system is what he needs

I don't think this would be possible with a 35f2

Fujiukian wrote:

I suspect not, I too owned both the 35mmf2 and f1.4 and sold the f2. I've used the f1.4 outdoors in the wet and never had a problem, and never missed a shot from poor focus speed. In a lab then yes its slower but I don't take many images in labs !

The f1.4 DOF and character are areas that define the f1.4, that f2 will never achieve.

Given most Fuji mirrorless aren't the quickest focusing cameras anyway if that's super important to you then perhaps a Sony A9 system is what he needs

I disagree with you. One extra stop does not guarantee anything . Character is equally reliant upon an able photographer. I have taken many fabulous shots with my 35 mm F 2 and unless I also had 1.4 side by side you wouldn’t be able to come to any comparative conclusions.

my feelings about the 1.4 vs the 2.0 is that they both offer some unique advantages, both can produce great shots , and the photographer can be successful with either. Variety is the spice of life, if they didn’t offer choices these forums would be boring.

Doug

I sold my 35/f2 and bought the 35/f1.4 and I am loving it. Contrary to many reviews the f1.4 turned out to be sharper in most situations. I believe that many reviewers were fooled by MFT charts.

The charts are actually correct, but what I noticed is that many people, including professional reviewers, often confuse contrast with sharpness and that one is not the same as the other. MFT charts evaluate contrast, not sharpness. What my tests showed is that the f1.4 indeed produces less contrast at wider apertures than the f2, but at the same time it was noticeably sharper! Adding more contrast to the f1.4 images turned out to be one of the easiest things in the world. Adding more sharpness to the f2 images wasn't easy at all. I posted the results in this forum. It looks like most reviewers didn't want to contradict MFT charts, or to how they understand it. It is also possible for an image to have less contrast, but more detail and resolution and this actually happens very often at wide apertures.

Hi,

I bought my 35/1.4 when it was the only 35mm lens available and I still have it....  I don't doubt that the 35/2 is a good lens.  In some respects its capabilities exceed those of the 35/1.4 - it has upgraded AF, is sealed and the lab site tests show it to be  whisker sharper.  OTOH, I haven't yet been persuaded to change. The old lens delivers wonderful rendering of people with an OOF background that the f2 lens doesn't quite match.  And it's sharp enough for landscapes stopped down.

As for the weight issue - well, the 35/2 weighs 170g, the 35/1.4 weighs 187g.  Not much more.  I'm a hiker and weight conscious about gear - but even for me it's too little to worry about.  It always struck me as peculiar that the first small series lens that Fuji produced in a duplicate FL was the 35mm, then the 23mm and then a new FL, the 50mm.  Then, most recently, the 16/2.8.  No-one was complaining about the weight of the 35/1.4 where many lamented the weight of the 16/1.4.  They should have offered the 16/2.8 as the first of the smaller series.  Now we need a small 90mm......

Regards, Rod

Fujiukian wrote:

I don't think this would be possible with a 35f2

Wow! I looked at her eyes on the "View:Original Size" at 100%. This is a seriously good example of why I love my 35 1.4.

MartinEA wrote:

To add some balance I have owned two copies of the Fuji 35 1.4 and now own a single Fuji 35 f2 purchased at the start of December 2019. The only difference I have found is the obvious one stop of light but gained faster silent auto focus. You make your own choice.

Who cares about balance? What we want is facts. One thing I can tell you for sure is that you haven't noticed a lot and I am not talking about any sort of magic...

How about distortion? The f2 distorts like crazy and it relies on digital correction which involves interpolation and cropping. The f1.4 is optically corrected and it doesn't require digital correction, consequently, it doesn't require interpolated pixels and cropping. This often becomes very important during post processing.

Scroll down to the distortion section of this (or any for that matter) review:

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

RTJR wrote:

Super compact lens that fits well with the logic of a compact system (weight and size).

Pros:
Built quality
Weight and dimensions
Image quality and clarity from f / 2 (The peaks are reached at f / 4 and f / 5.6)
Well-notched aperture ring
WR

Cons (annoying points):
Sunshade included too small and not efficient

An excellent normal focal lenses to consider without hesitation

Compare to f/1.4

With a SLR camera, a large aperture offers an undeniable advantage of brightness in the viewfinder, of course, but this is not an argument with an electronic viewfinder where you can see clearly regardless of the light conditions.

Why pay more for a larger lens, which sorely lacks edge / center sharpness, with slow AF, and which, moreover, is not even WR?

This lens achieves a certain uniformity only at f / 5.6, but without ever reaching the sharpness of f / 2 ...! (All tests prove it)

Be advised !

Have you ever tried this lens or are you one of these photographers who speculate about spec but never take any pictures? I think the latter applies to you.

Let the sword rattling begin.... 👀

Meetmer wrote:

I disagree with you. One extra stop does not guarantee anything . Character is equally reliant upon an able photographer. I have taken many fabulous shots with my 35 mm F 2 and unless I also had 1.4 side by side you wouldn’t be able to come to any comparative conclusions.

Sorry, but one extra stop does guarantee a whole extra stop of light and photography is all about light. No light = no magic...