35mm battle Nikon Z 35 vs fuji?

Started 7 months ago | Discussions
vegetaleb
vegetaleb Senior Member • Posts: 2,510
35mm battle Nikon Z 35 vs fuji?

Just out of curiosity, anyone has or had both Fuji XF 23mm f1.4 and Nikon Z 35mm f1.8?

If yes is the bokeh better on the fuji? I mean is it creamier or both can be busy with some background?

-- hide signature --

For lenses reviews and tutorials about Fuji Raf editing https://fujiandstuff.wordpress.com/
My shutterstock https://www.shutterstock.com/g/jeffmerheb
My Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/147690104@N02/

 vegetaleb's gear list:vegetaleb's gear list
Fujifilm X-T3 Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 R WR
beatboxa Veteran Member • Posts: 7,530
I have both
6

vegetaleb wrote:

Just out of curiosity, anyone has or had both Fuji XF 23mm f1.4 and Nikon Z 35mm f1.8?

If yes is the bokeh better on the fuji? I mean is it creamier or both can be busy with some background?

I have both of these lenses. The Nikon is better, no question.

From a technical sense, the Nikon has a larger aperture (19mm vs. 16mm) and the same angle of view--so the Nikon already starts with a thinner DoF and less busy background.  Don't let the F-number fool you--it's about the absolute aperture = "equivalent f-number" (which would make the Fuji equivalent to a Nikon 35mm F/2.1).

I don't define bokeh as being just about out-of-focus areas--it's the difference between what's in focus and what's out of focus. So sharper lenses tend to have better bokeh.  And the Nikon is clearly sharper wide open.

The Nikon is clearly better.  If you want, I can post some comparisons later.

vegetaleb
OP vegetaleb Senior Member • Posts: 2,510
Re: I have both
1

beatboxa wrote:

vegetaleb wrote:

Just out of curiosity, anyone has or had both Fuji XF 23mm f1.4 and Nikon Z 35mm f1.8?

If yes is the bokeh better on the fuji? I mean is it creamier or both can be busy with some background?

I have both of these lenses. The Nikon is better, no question.

From a technical sense, the Nikon has a larger aperture (19mm vs. 16mm) and the same angle of view--so the Nikon already starts with a thinner DoF and less busy background. Don't let the F-number fool you--it's about the absolute aperture = "equivalent f-number" (which would make the Fuji equivalent to a Nikon 35mm F/2.1).

I don't define bokeh as being just about out-of-focus areas--it's the difference between what's in focus and what's out of focus. So sharper lenses tend to have better bokeh. And the Nikon is clearly sharper wide open.

The Nikon is clearly better. If you want, I can post some comparisons later.

Thank you

Yes it would be nice

-- hide signature --

For lenses reviews and tutorials about Fuji Raf editing https://fujiandstuff.wordpress.com/
My shutterstock https://www.shutterstock.com/g/jeffmerheb
My Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/147690104@N02/

 vegetaleb's gear list:vegetaleb's gear list
Fujifilm X-T3 Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 R WR
mjw3 Regular Member • Posts: 280
Re: I have both
1

beatboxa wrote:

vegetaleb wrote:

Just out of curiosity, anyone has or had both Fuji XF 23mm f1.4 and Nikon Z 35mm f1.8?

If yes is the bokeh better on the fuji? I mean is it creamier or both can be busy with some background?

I have both of these lenses. The Nikon is better, no question.

From a technical sense, the Nikon has a larger aperture (19mm vs. 16mm) and the same angle of view--so the Nikon already starts with a thinner DoF and less busy background. Don't let the F-number fool you--it's about the absolute aperture = "equivalent f-number" (which would make the Fuji equivalent to a Nikon 35mm F/2.1).

I don't define bokeh as being just about out-of-focus areas--it's the difference between what's in focus and what's out of focus. So sharper lenses tend to have better bokeh. And the Nikon is clearly sharper wide open.

The Nikon is clearly better. If you want, I can post some comparisons later.

I'll agree the Nikon is superior lens overall.

However, "better" bokeh is a qualitative impression of the out of focus area, judged as being more pleasing. You're describing the effect of a very narrow DOF (which is not typical use of a wide angle). And from what I have experienced, sharpness has nothing to do with how smooth the out of focus areas are. I'm sure someone much more experienced than I can opine on that.

The Nikon bokeh can be a bit nervous at times. But I personally wouldn't judge a 35mm based primarily on what is out of focus. Especially since that is more to do with camera-subject-background distance relationships.

The can of works have been opened.

beatboxa Veteran Member • Posts: 7,530
Re: I have both
3

mjw3 wrote:

beatboxa wrote:

vegetaleb wrote:

Just out of curiosity, anyone has or had both Fuji XF 23mm f1.4 and Nikon Z 35mm f1.8?

If yes is the bokeh better on the fuji? I mean is it creamier or both can be busy with some background?

I have both of these lenses. The Nikon is better, no question.

From a technical sense, the Nikon has a larger aperture (19mm vs. 16mm) and the same angle of view--so the Nikon already starts with a thinner DoF and less busy background. Don't let the F-number fool you--it's about the absolute aperture = "equivalent f-number" (which would make the Fuji equivalent to a Nikon 35mm F/2.1).

I don't define bokeh as being just about out-of-focus areas--it's the difference between what's in focus and what's out of focus. So sharper lenses tend to have better bokeh. And the Nikon is clearly sharper wide open.

The Nikon is clearly better. If you want, I can post some comparisons later.

I'll agree the Nikon is superior lens overall.

However, "better" bokeh is a qualitative impression of the out of focus area, judged as being more pleasing. You're describing the effect of a very narrow DOF (which is not typical use of a wide angle). And from what I have experienced, sharpness has nothing to do with how smooth the out of focus areas are. I'm sure someone much more experienced than I can opine on that.

The Nikon bokeh can be a bit nervous at times. But I personally wouldn't judge a 35mm based primarily on what is out of focus. Especially since that is more to do with camera-subject-background distance relationships.

The can of works have been opened.

I don't know how you read that I was talking about DoF as being the same as bokeh. I literally just explained why this is not the case just above. In fact, when you talk about "nervous bokeh," you are probably conflating DoF for bokeh.

So let me now illustrate it.

Both of these lenses have the same aperture and the same DoF (the first is from the 35mm F/1.8S, but the other is not the Fuji--these are past images I've taken for comparisons):

Again: both have the same aperture and technical DoF.

But the sharper one (the Nikon) happens to have "superior" bokeh, in part because it is sharper. Your eye gets drawn to the sharp part; and simultaneously, the out of focus areas blend and fade away smoothly and without harsh transitions from blur to nothing. In the second image, everything is sort of muddled together, and it's not even clear what is in focus vs. what is out of focus.  Additionally, there is no smooth transition of blur.

tadhoge New Member • Posts: 16
Re: 35mm battle Nikon Z 35 vs fuji?

Here is a comparison by Xing Liu.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZScDNzgvWA

I own T3 and Z6 but didn't buy Z35/1.8 after all.

lancet
lancet Regular Member • Posts: 206
Re: 35mm battle Nikon Z 35 vs fuji?
1

vegetaleb wrote:

Just out of curiosity, anyone has or had both Fuji XF 23mm f1.4 and Nikon Z 35mm f1.8?

If yes is the bokeh better on the fuji? I mean is it creamier or both can be busy with some background?

I havent tried the Z Nikkor but expanding into the fuji system (I used F mount mostly up till now) I evaluated the 23 1.4 and found the out of focus areas quite busy and overall dissapointing. It was one of the major reasons why I didnt purchase that lens. On the other hand, Fuji 35 1.4 impressed me beyond expectation and I purchased it although I didn’t plan in the beginning.

-- hide signature --

The most pathetic person in the world is someone who has sight, but has no vision. - Helen Keller

vegetaleb
OP vegetaleb Senior Member • Posts: 2,510
Re: 35mm battle Nikon Z 35 vs fuji?
1

tadhoge wrote:

Here is a comparison by Xing Liu.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZScDNzgvWA

I own T3 and Z6 but didn't buy Z35/1.8 after all.

The canon is the best but it's a FF 1.4 so obviously the DOF is better, he should have set all of the 2 FF lenses to f2 and the apsc one to f1.4 to let them be equal.

Also the Nikon one is in some shots equal to the fuji in terms of nervousness in others it's the fuji that is very slightly more nervous.

I did further testing with the Z lens, it all depends on the background itself, a busy one will have a risk of producing a nervous bokeh, but a simple background like a wall with a paint or a fireplace will be smooth as milk.

I have some shots indoors of my nephews and they all had smooth bokeh, add to that a film simulation like Fuji Superia or Kodak Portra  (on Capture One) and you get a superb photo

-- hide signature --

For lenses reviews and tutorials about Fuji Raf editing https://fujiandstuff.wordpress.com/
My shutterstock https://www.shutterstock.com/g/jeffmerheb
My Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/147690104@N02/

 vegetaleb's gear list:vegetaleb's gear list
Fujifilm X-T3 Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 R WR
beatboxa Veteran Member • Posts: 7,530
Side-by-Side wide-open Comparison
13

vegetaleb wrote:

beatboxa wrote:

vegetaleb wrote:

Just out of curiosity, anyone has or had both Fuji XF 23mm f1.4 and Nikon Z 35mm f1.8?

If yes is the bokeh better on the fuji? I mean is it creamier or both can be busy with some background?

I have both of these lenses. The Nikon is better, no question.

From a technical sense, the Nikon has a larger aperture (19mm vs. 16mm) and the same angle of view--so the Nikon already starts with a thinner DoF and less busy background. Don't let the F-number fool you--it's about the absolute aperture = "equivalent f-number" (which would make the Fuji equivalent to a Nikon 35mm F/2.1).

I don't define bokeh as being just about out-of-focus areas--it's the difference between what's in focus and what's out of focus. So sharper lenses tend to have better bokeh. And the Nikon is clearly sharper wide open.

The Nikon is clearly better. If you want, I can post some comparisons later.

Thank you

Yes it would be nice

Here you go.  BTW, I didn't have much time, so this is quick & dirty.  These are both wide open (F/1.4 on the Fuji and F/1.8 on the Nikon).  I did some quick brightness adjustments on the Nikon to come close to matching the Fuji.  I took these from the same spot (roughly 1-2 meters from the tree in the foreground), though afterwards, I noticed there is a slight angle difference.  Shouldn't make a huge difference though.

Fuji

Nikon

Obligatory side-by-side zooms:

(Center of frame).  Fuji = left; Nikon = right

(Top left corner of frame).  Fuji = left; Nikon = right

And even more zoomed in, individually:

Fuji

Nikon

Fuji

Nikon

vegetaleb
OP vegetaleb Senior Member • Posts: 2,510
Re: Side-by-Side wide-open Comparison
1

beatboxa wrote:

vegetaleb wrote:

beatboxa wrote:

vegetaleb wrote:

Just out of curiosity, anyone has or had both Fuji XF 23mm f1.4 and Nikon Z 35mm f1.8?

If yes is the bokeh better on the fuji? I mean is it creamier or both can be busy with some background?

I have both of these lenses. The Nikon is better, no question.

From a technical sense, the Nikon has a larger aperture (19mm vs. 16mm) and the same angle of view--so the Nikon already starts with a thinner DoF and less busy background. Don't let the F-number fool you--it's about the absolute aperture = "equivalent f-number" (which would make the Fuji equivalent to a Nikon 35mm F/2.1).

I don't define bokeh as being just about out-of-focus areas--it's the difference between what's in focus and what's out of focus. So sharper lenses tend to have better bokeh. And the Nikon is clearly sharper wide open.

The Nikon is clearly better. If you want, I can post some comparisons later.

Thank you

Yes it would be nice

Here you go. BTW, I didn't have much time, so this is quick & dirty. These are both wide open (F/1.4 on the Fuji and F/1.8 on the Nikon). I did some quick brightness adjustments on the Nikon to come close to matching the Fuji. I took these from the same spot (roughly 1-2 meters from the tree in the foreground), though afterwards, I noticed there is a slight angle difference. Shouldn't make a huge difference though.

Fuji

Nikon

Obligatory side-by-side zooms:

(Center of frame). Fuji = left; Nikon = right

(Top left corner of frame). Fuji = left; Nikon = right

And even more zoomed in, individually:

Fuji

Nikon

Fuji

Nikon

Thanks

Yeah the Nikon is sharper, you can see more small details on the wood, as for bokeh it's more busy on the 23mm f1.4

-- hide signature --

For lenses reviews and tutorials about Fuji Raf editing https://fujiandstuff.wordpress.com/
My shutterstock https://www.shutterstock.com/g/jeffmerheb
My Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/147690104@N02/

 vegetaleb's gear list:vegetaleb's gear list
Fujifilm X-T3 Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 R WR
Sukuwea Enikkusu Junior Member • Posts: 34
Re: Side-by-Side wide-open Comparison
3

I never liked the 23mm 1.4 Fuji, even though it is highly praised. I used the 56mm 1.2 95% of time.

But on fullframe 35mm lenses really shine, much better bokeh and 3D Transition.

beatboxa Veteran Member • Posts: 7,530
Re: Side-by-Side wide-open Comparison

Sukuwea Enikkusu wrote:

I never liked the 23mm 1.4 Fuji, even though it is highly praised. I used the 56mm 1.2 95% of time.

But on fullframe 35mm lenses really shine, much better bokeh and 3D Transition.

Yeah. The Fuji 23 1.4 vs 1.8 always reminded me of the Nikon 50 1.4 vs 1.8. The faster one is older and slightly worse (but obviously faster). This is just about the range where it starts to become hard to get clear subject separation in practice at most reasonable subject distances anyway.  It's one of those cases of go very fast, or don't worry too much about it.

I'll just add that I personally am looking forward to the Z 40mm that is on the roadmap (which I suspect will be an F/2). It probably won't be as nice as the 35 S, but it will be small. And if it's small but pretty good, I'll probably replace (or maybe supplement) my 35.

vegetaleb
OP vegetaleb Senior Member • Posts: 2,510
Re: Side-by-Side wide-open Comparison

beatboxa wrote:

Sukuwea Enikkusu wrote:

I never liked the 23mm 1.4 Fuji, even though it is highly praised. I used the 56mm 1.2 95% of time.

But on fullframe 35mm lenses really shine, much better bokeh and 3D Transition.

Yeah. The Fuji 23 1.4 vs 1.8 always reminded me of the Nikon 50 1.4 vs 1.8. The faster one is older and slightly worse (but obviously faster). This is just about the range where it starts to become hard to get clear subject separation in practice at most reasonable subject distances anyway. It's one of those cases of go very fast, or don't worry too much about it.

I'll just add that I personally am looking forward to the Z 40mm that is on the roadmap (which I suspect will be an F/2). It probably won't be as nice as the 35 S, but it will be small. And if it's small but pretty good, I'll probably replace (or maybe supplement) my 35.

Same here for the 28mm, hoping it will be f2 instead of 2.8. The 35mm is already light but the lighter the better if it keeps the Z IQ

-- hide signature --

For lenses reviews and tutorials about Fuji Raf editing https://fujiandstuff.wordpress.com/
My shutterstock https://www.shutterstock.com/g/jeffmerheb
My Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/147690104@N02/

 vegetaleb's gear list:vegetaleb's gear list
Fujifilm X-T3 Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 R WR
vegetaleb
OP vegetaleb Senior Member • Posts: 2,510
Re: Side-by-Side wide-open Comparison

I must say the nikon lens is globally better and sharper, the only fault in bokeh is the cats eyes bokeh balls at f1.8 outside the center, I will test at f2 which is the equivalent of the f1.4 apsc in terms of DOF

-- hide signature --

For lenses reviews and tutorials about Fuji Raf editing https://fujiandstuff.wordpress.com/
My shutterstock https://www.shutterstock.com/g/jeffmerheb
My Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/147690104@N02/

 vegetaleb's gear list:vegetaleb's gear list
Fujifilm X-T3 Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 R WR
beatboxa Veteran Member • Posts: 7,530
Re: Side-by-Side wide-open Comparison

vegetaleb wrote:

beatboxa wrote:

Sukuwea Enikkusu wrote:

I never liked the 23mm 1.4 Fuji, even though it is highly praised. I used the 56mm 1.2 95% of time.

But on fullframe 35mm lenses really shine, much better bokeh and 3D Transition.

Yeah. The Fuji 23 1.4 vs 1.8 always reminded me of the Nikon 50 1.4 vs 1.8. The faster one is older and slightly worse (but obviously faster). This is just about the range where it starts to become hard to get clear subject separation in practice at most reasonable subject distances anyway. It's one of those cases of go very fast, or don't worry too much about it.

I'll just add that I personally am looking forward to the Z 40mm that is on the roadmap (which I suspect will be an F/2). It probably won't be as nice as the 35 S, but it will be small. And if it's small but pretty good, I'll probably replace (or maybe supplement) my 35.

Same here for the 28mm, hoping it will be f2 instead of 2.8. The 35mm is already light but the lighter the better if it keeps the Z IQ

My guess on the 28 is that it will be an F/2.8.  But we'll see.

MayaTlab0 Senior Member • Posts: 2,985
Re: Side-by-Side wide-open Comparison
2

vegetaleb wrote:

the only fault in bokeh is the cats eyes bokeh balls at f1.8 outside the center

Less a fault than the lens being better corrected for field dependent aberrations than the Fuji (hence the much less nervous bokeh in the corners) and therefore not being able to use these aberrations to mask the vignetting's effect on the shape of bokeh balls.

tadhoge New Member • Posts: 16
Tributes to Sonnar
1

Thank you for comparison.
But I feel a bit strangeness about straight evaluation,
because the Z35/1.8 is one of the most up-to-date lense,
whereas XF23/1.4 is designed as classical type.

Fuji didn't recreate 23mm, but they chose to modify XF35/1.4
by adding wide conversion elements.
This is explaned in Fuji's official ad site.
https://fujifilm-x.com/en-us/stories/one-lens-one-story-2/

And, XF35/1.4 is basically 35mm version of Zeiss Sonnar 50/1.5,
which is originally invented 90 years ago.
Although Planar got more popularity at that focal range,
some people have been preferring Sonnar. Even today it is still available.
https://www.zeiss.com/consumer-products/int/photography/zm/c-sonnar-1550-zm.html

As well, XF35/1.4 and XF23/1.4 are tributes to classical Sonnar.
I am not able to explan visual effect precisely, but apparently
they are for those who love the air of Sonnar.
(C Sonnar 50/1.5 example shots are shown in site below.
https://papacame.com/cosina-carl-zeiss-c-sonnar-50-zm )

I appreciate todays in-detail comparison, but I think classical
type lense should be evaluated by some whole picture method.
In that point of view, XF23/1.4 is not as bad as some might think.

vegetaleb
OP vegetaleb Senior Member • Posts: 2,510
Re: Tributes to Sonnar
2

tadhoge wrote:

Thank you for comparison.
But I feel a bit strangeness about straight evaluation,
because the Z35/1.8 is one of the most up-to-date lense,
whereas XF23/1.4 is designed as classical type.

Fuji didn't recreate 23mm, but they chose to modify XF35/1.4
by adding wide conversion elements.
This is explaned in Fuji's official ad site.
https://fujifilm-x.com/en-us/stories/one-lens-one-story-2/

And, XF35/1.4 is basically 35mm version of Zeiss Sonnar 50/1.5,
which is originally invented 90 years ago.
Although Planar got more popularity at that focal range,
some people have been preferring Sonnar. Even today it is still available.
https://www.zeiss.com/consumer-products/int/photography/zm/c-sonnar-1550-zm.html

As well, XF35/1.4 and XF23/1.4 are tributes to classical Sonnar.
I am not able to explan visual effect precisely, but apparently
they are for those who love the air of Sonnar.
(C Sonnar 50/1.5 example shots are shown in site below.
https://papacame.com/cosina-carl-zeiss-c-sonnar-50-zm )

I appreciate todays in-detail comparison, but I think classical
type lense should be evaluated by some whole picture method.
In that point of view, XF23/1.4 is not as bad as some might think.

One of the main reasons I left fuji is the lenses choices for prime wide lenses.

The 16 f1.4 was nice but a bit too wide for me, the 18 f2 is  a very sexy pancake lens but it's a purple fringe mess, the 23 f2 is sharp only from f4, you can forget bokeh with it as even bokeh balls are full of onion rings...

-- hide signature --

For lenses reviews and tutorials about Fuji Raf editing https://fujiandstuff.wordpress.com/
My shutterstock https://www.shutterstock.com/g/jeffmerheb
My Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/147690104@N02/

 vegetaleb's gear list:vegetaleb's gear list
Fujifilm X-T3 Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 R WR
holashobby Senior Member • Posts: 1,323
Re: Tributes to Sonnar
1

vegetaleb wrote:

One of the main reasons I left fuji is the lenses choices for prime wide lenses.

The 16 f1.4 was nice but a bit too wide for me, the 18 f2 is a very sexy pancake lens but it's a purple fringe mess, the 23 f2 is sharp only from f4, you can forget bokeh with it as even bokeh balls are full of onion rings...

Not sure where you are going with this, but the 18 f2 exhibits less purple fringing than the 35 f1.4 at large apertures where I use it. As a pancake, it has some weaknesses but chromatic aberration ain't one of them.

18f/2 @f2

 holashobby's gear list:holashobby's gear list
Panasonic LX10 Fujifilm X-T3 Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 +3 more
vegetaleb
OP vegetaleb Senior Member • Posts: 2,510
Re: Tributes to Sonnar

holashobby wrote:

vegetaleb wrote:

One of the main reasons I left fuji is the lenses choices for prime wide lenses.

The 16 f1.4 was nice but a bit too wide for me, the 18 f2 is a very sexy pancake lens but it's a purple fringe mess, the 23 f2 is sharp only from f4, you can forget bokeh with it as even bokeh balls are full of onion rings...

Not sure where you are going with this, but the 18 f2 exhibits less purple fringing than the 35 f1.4 at large apertures where I use it. As a pancake, it has some weaknesses but chromatic aberration ain't one of them.

18f/2 @f2

One of the review showing ithttps://youtu.be/I7MyEK9uKMk

-- hide signature --

For lenses reviews and tutorials about Fuji Raf editing https://fujiandstuff.wordpress.com/
My shutterstock https://www.shutterstock.com/g/jeffmerheb
My Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/147690104@N02/

 vegetaleb's gear list:vegetaleb's gear list
Fujifilm X-T3 Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 R WR
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads