Which of those 35mm lenses would you recommend?

[MrAndreas]

- F/1.4 lenses will always be larger than f/2 lenses.

+1

- The two fuji lenses at f/1.4: one has a less clinical character (35), the other a more clinical one (33). One has faster AF (33). Both will serve you well.

+1

- WR will not save your lens if the weather conditions are really bad. If they are not, even with some rain and/or dust, WR will not make a difference.

+1

 

[MJ_Photo38]

- WR will not save your lens if the weather conditions are really bad. If they are not, even with some rain and/or dust, WR will not make a difference.

How come?

Isn't the weather sealing supposed to keep water and dust out? (or at least part of it?)

What do you define as "really bad conditions"?

Because I have taken my X-Pro2 and my 35mm f/2 as well as my 18-135mm lenses in pouring rain and snowstorms and they both always came out good, even though they had been drenched.

If those are not "really bad condition" I don't know what qualifies.

I wish we had some sort of IP rating to those lenses and camera bodies so that we could have a better estimate of what they can endure.

 

[Jeff Biscuits]

- WR will not save your lens if the weather conditions are really bad. If they are not, even with some rain and/or dust, WR will not make a difference.

That statement needs some evidence. (As would the contrary statement.)

Fundamentally no-one is really sure how much protection is afforded by Fujifilm’s WR seals. It’s somewhere between “it makes no difference” and “you can safely submerge the camera” but none of us can make any confident statement about where it is in that range unless we’ve at the very least gone out with a WR setup in one hand and a non-WR in the other and stayed in the rain until the latter has developed a fault—and even then you’ve only got one data point to answer a question that has myriad confounding factors, so it’s worlds away from statistical significance.

 

[MJ_Photo38]

- WR will not save your lens if the weather conditions are really bad. If they are not, even with some rain and/or dust, WR will not make a difference.

That statement needs some evidence. (As would the contrary statement.)

Fundamentally no-one is really sure how much protection is afforded by Fujifilm’s WR seals. It’s somewhere between “it makes no difference” and “you can safely submerge the camera” but none of us can make any confident statement about where it is in that range unless we’ve at the very least gone out with a WR setup in one hand and a non-WR in the other and stayed in the rain until the latter has developed a fault—and even then you’ve only got one data point to answer a question that has myriad confounding factors, so it’s worlds away from statistical significance.

That's why IP ratings exists, but most camera manufacturers persist in not using them.

As far as cameras are concerned, you have already voided the warranty if you use them outside and they end up getting water damage.

 

[MrAndreas]

- WR will not save your lens if the weather conditions are really bad. If they are not, even with some rain and/or dust, WR will not make a difference.

That statement needs some evidence. (As would the contrary statement.)

Fundamentally no-one is really sure how much protection is afforded by Fujifilm’s WR seals. It’s somewhere between “it makes no difference” and “you can safely submerge the camera” but none of us can make any confident statement about where it is in that range unless we’ve at the very least gone out with a WR setup in one hand and a non-WR in the other and stayed in the rain until the latter has developed a fault—and even then you’ve only got one data point to answer a question that has myriad confounding factors, so it’s worlds away from statistical significance.

That's why IP ratings exists, but most camera manufacturers persist in not using them.

IP ratings imply some warranty that the manufacturer offers and stands behind, as well as some responsibility on the manufacturer's part. Manufacturer can (and often will) accept these obligations for certain kinds of devices that have their exterior built comparatively simply: watches, smartphones, certain P&S cameras. So, IP rating implies some certainty.

ILC has a much more complex exterior with too many openings and moving parts (knobs, buttons, dials, doors, etc.) Who knows which of these many may fail, what way, and when, and under which circumstances? Having a variety of lenses multiplies the degree of uncertainty by a factor.

So the WR claim — unlike the certainty of the IP rating — is a probabilistic concept. Having WR definitely increases your equipment's chances of surviving bad weather, but not to a degree of 100% certainty; nothing is guaranteed, and confidence is impossible.

Built like a tank? But even tanks fail occasionally.

As far as cameras are concerned, you have already voided the warranty if you use them outside and they end up getting water damage.

I'd rather be very cautious about relying on the manufacturer's "WR" claims for the amateur-grade equipment. Increased chances do not equal guaranteed survival.

--
https://www.viewbug.com/member/stesinou

 

[KariP]

Hi,

I want to get a 35mm lens for my XT5 (and maybe later for a XE5).

My priorities is subject separation, light weight, aperture ring and ideally WR.

The Fujicron 35mm/f2 would be my obvious choice, but am also attracted by the faster new Viltrox Air 35/f1.7 or the older and even faster Viltrox 33/f1.4.

The Fuji 33/f1.4 is probably the best but had it and found it too heavy and big for my taste. I also had the 35/f2 and my only "complaint" was that is wasn't that fast, not much of a subject separation in portraits and this is why I am looking for the other two Viltrox alternatives.

I can find the Fuji 35/f2 and Viltrox 33/f1.4 in good prices in the used market and the Air f1.7 is not that expensive new, even cheaper than the others. Which would you suggest?

Use case would be street and portraits.

I would buy a longer lens for portraits - like 50 - 55mm or even 90mm. Easier to get shallow DOF. And better for portraits anyway.

 

[biza43]

- WR will not save your lens if the weather conditions are really bad. If they are not, even with some rain and/or dust, WR will not make a difference.

How come?

Isn't the weather sealing supposed to keep water and dust out? (or at least part of it?)

W(eather) R(esistance) is not weather sealing.

What do you define as "really bad conditions"?

Heavy rain, dust storms in the desert. I have been in both situations, and even a pro level EOS1V had a shutter button failure.

Because I have taken my X-Pro2 and my 35mm f/2 as well as my 18-135mm lenses in pouring rain and snowstorms and they both always came out good, even though they had been drenched.

You may get lucky doing it once or twice but do it regularly and they will fail.

If those are not "really bad condition" I don't know what qualifies.

I wish we had some sort of IP rating to those lenses and camera bodies so that we could have a better estimate of what they can endure.

As per the instruction manuals, WR will grant you some protection in light rain/drizzle. It does not qualify to be granted any IP rating.

 

[MJ_Photo38]

- WR will not save your lens if the weather conditions are really bad. If they are not, even with some rain and/or dust, WR will not make a difference.

That statement needs some evidence. (As would the contrary statement.)

Fundamentally no-one is really sure how much protection is afforded by Fujifilm’s WR seals. It’s somewhere between “it makes no difference” and “you can safely submerge the camera” but none of us can make any confident statement about where it is in that range unless we’ve at the very least gone out with a WR setup in one hand and a non-WR in the other and stayed in the rain until the latter has developed a fault—and even then you’ve only got one data point to answer a question that has myriad confounding factors, so it’s worlds away from statistical significance.

That's why IP ratings exists, but most camera manufacturers persist in not using them.

IP ratings imply some warranty that the manufacturer offers and stands behind, as well as some responsibility on the manufacturer's part. Manufacturer can (and often will) accept these obligations for certain kinds of devices that have their exterior built comparatively simply: watches, smartphones, certain P&S cameras. So, IP rating implies some certainty.

Not true. Every device can be rated with an IP rating, even cameras and lenses.

Even cameras that do *not* have weather sealing can have an IP rating (which could be I don't know, IPX1 or something like that).

Fact of the matter is, camera manufacturers don't bother doing it because it saves them headaches with customer support. "You camera has water damage? Well it means you didn't use it in conditions specified in the warranty card, your warranty claim is dismissed. Next." And as a customer, we have no means of fighting that, simply because they give you absolutely no baseline of what the equipment is able to withstand.

Yes, it's "weather resistant" but it could mean it's resistant to the wind and not rain.

Companies that use proper IP certification trust their IP ratings enough to know that if there is water damage, it means you used the camera in an environment for which the camera was not meant to be in (example : OM System does that).

ILC has a much more complex exterior with too many openings and moving parts (knobs, buttons, dials, doors, etc.) Who knows which of these many may fail, what way, and when, and under which circumstances? Having a variety of lenses multiplies the degree of uncertainty by a factor.

That's why all the IP ratings done to cameras specify the model of the lens that was used for the test.

So the WR claim — unlike the certainty of the IP rating — is a probabilistic concept. Having WR definitely increases your equipment's chances of surviving bad weather, but not to a degree of 100% certainty; nothing is guaranteed, and confidence is impossible.

Built like a tank? But even tanks fail occasionally.

Well if that's so hard to do, why does OM System bother to certify all of their cameras and lenses to the IP 53 standard? They're a relatively small company compared to Canon, Sony, Nikon, even Fujifilm.

Why does Leica certifies their cameras to be IP 54?

As far as cameras are concerned, you have already voided the warranty if you use them outside and they end up getting water damage.

I'd rather be very cautious about relying on the manufacturer's "WR" claims for the amateur-grade equipment. Increased chances do not equal guaranteed survival.

Yes but that's mostly because manufacturers don't bother giving IP ratings to their products.

"Weather resistant" doesn't mean anything if you don't specify what they are supposed to resist, that's why IP ratings exist in the first place.

 

[MJ_Photo38]

- WR will not save your lens if the weather conditions are really bad. If they are not, even with some rain and/or dust, WR will not make a difference.

How come?

Isn't the weather sealing supposed to keep water and dust out? (or at least part of it?)

W(eather) R(esistance) is not weather sealing.

Define the difference between them. Because neither means that the camera is weather proof.

What do you define as "really bad conditions"?

Heavy rain, dust storms in the desert. I have been in both situations, and even a pro level EOS1V had a shutter button failure.

Because I have taken my X-Pro2 and my 35mm f/2 as well as my 18-135mm lenses in pouring rain and snowstorms and they both always came out good, even though they had been drenched.

You may get lucky doing it once or twice but do it regularly and they will fail.

The 35mm I use has been through it for the last year and a half.

The X-Pro2 for about 1 year.

Both have been drenched dozens of times.

That's not luck.

If those are not "really bad condition" I don't know what qualifies.

I wish we had some sort of IP rating to those lenses and camera bodies so that we could have a better estimate of what they can endure.

As per the instruction manuals, WR will grant you some protection in light rain/drizzle. It does not qualify to be granted any IP rating.

No, that's not it.

The manufacturer doesn't bother to put it through IP testing, because IP testing is expensive. That's about it.

 

[biza43]

- WR will not save your lens if the weather conditions are really bad. If they are not, even with some rain and/or dust, WR will not make a difference.

That statement needs some evidence. (As would the contrary statement.)

Under heavy rain, or with dust storms, or prolonged exposure to salt water, you need more than the protection provided by WR. You may get lucky once or twice, with or without WR, but that is it,

In case of light rain, or small amount of dust, a non-WR camera/lens will survive fine, you do not need WR under such conditions.

I can only provide my experience of 30 years, most of the time using non-WR stuff under light rain for example. I do not place too much emphasis on whether a camera or lens has WR or not, never had a failure with non-WR gear. And I shoot a lot in deserts and beaches, and some rain.

Fundamentally no-one is really sure how much protection is afforded by Fujifilm’s WR seals. It’s somewhere between “it makes no difference” and “you can safely submerge the camera” but none of us can make any confident statement about where it is in that range unless we’ve at the very least gone out with a WR setup in one hand and a non-WR in the other and stayed in the rain until the latter has developed a fault—and even then you’ve only got one data point to answer a question that has myriad confounding factors, so it’s worlds away from statistical significance.

Sure. But in 30 years I only had one failure when in a desert, with a EOS1V. That is a tough camera, pro level, but even those ones do not carry an IP rating, right?

 

[biza43]

- WR will not save your lens if the weather conditions are really bad. If they are not, even with some rain and/or dust, WR will not make a difference.

How come?

Isn't the weather sealing supposed to keep water and dust out? (or at least part of it?)

W(eather) R(esistance) is not weather sealing.

Define the difference between them. Because neither means that the camera is weather proof.

You mentioned weather sealing. What Fuji specifies is WR, which is different. They mention in their manuals what they mean by WR. Now you bring another one, weather proof... Fuji does not mention that either.

What do you define as "really bad conditions"?

Heavy rain, dust storms in the desert. I have been in both situations, and even a pro level EOS1V had a shutter button failure.

Because I have taken my X-Pro2 and my 35mm f/2 as well as my 18-135mm lenses in pouring rain and snowstorms and they both always came out good, even though they had been drenched.

You may get lucky doing it once or twice but do it regularly and they will fail.

The 35mm I use has been through it for the last year and a half.

The X-Pro2 for about 1 year.

Both have been drenched dozens of times.

That's not luck.

We do not know, might be luck. Somewhere there might be an Xpro2 or 35mm lens that has failed perhaps under less severe conditions.

If those are not "really bad condition" I don't know what qualifies.

I wish we had some sort of IP rating to those lenses and camera bodies so that we could have a better estimate of what they can endure.

As per the instruction manuals, WR will grant you some protection in light rain/drizzle. It does not qualify to be granted any IP rating.

No, that's not it.

The manufacturer doesn't bother to put it through IP testing, because IP testing is expensive. That's about it.

And because the rating would be really low. Or do you expect a rating that would allow you to submerge the camera down to 2m depth for 30 minutes? That is the IP rating of some flagship phones.

 

[MJ_Photo38]

- WR will not save your lens if the weather conditions are really bad. If they are not, even with some rain and/or dust, WR will not make a difference.

How come?

Isn't the weather sealing supposed to keep water and dust out? (or at least part of it?)

W(eather) R(esistance) is not weather sealing.

Define the difference between them. Because neither means that the camera is weather proof.

You mentioned weather sealing. What Fuji specifies is WR, which is different. They mention in their manuals what they mean by WR. Now you bring another one, weather proof... Fuji does not mention that either.

What do you define as "really bad conditions"?

Heavy rain, dust storms in the desert. I have been in both situations, and even a pro level EOS1V had a shutter button failure.

Because I have taken my X-Pro2 and my 35mm f/2 as well as my 18-135mm lenses in pouring rain and snowstorms and they both always came out good, even though they had been drenched.

You may get lucky doing it once or twice but do it regularly and they will fail.

The 35mm I use has been through it for the last year and a half.

The X-Pro2 for about 1 year.

Both have been drenched dozens of times.

That's not luck.

We do not know, might be luck. Somewhere there might be an Xpro2 or 35mm lens that has failed perhaps under less severe conditions.

Yes, that's called statistics.

And statistics also say that an X-Pro2 + XF 35mm f/2 surviving being drenched once or twice can be the result of luck. However being drenched dozens of times?

The part of luck or part-to-part variance in its construction is starting to wear thin. Also I'm not the only person to carry Fujifilm camera gear into rainy conditions.

I remember a video from Roman Fox that explained he did the same thing on his X-T3, then his two X-T4s for more than a year and that didn't result in any problem for the cameras.

If those are not "really bad condition" I don't know what qualifies.

I wish we had some sort of IP rating to those lenses and camera bodies so that we could have a better estimate of what they can endure.

As per the instruction manuals, WR will grant you some protection in light rain/drizzle. It does not qualify to be granted any IP rating.

No, that's not it.

The manufacturer doesn't bother to put it through IP testing, because IP testing is expensive. That's about it.

And because the rating would be really low.

No, it would simply be adequate.

Or do you expect a rating that would allow you to submerge the camera down to 2m depth for 30 minutes?

Nobody expects that from a camera.

That is the IP rating of some flagship phones.

Well, I work in an IP testing lab, so bringing up the IPX7 and IPX8 rating of phones is irrelevant.

OM System does rate their camera IP53, Leica rate their cameras IP54 (at least the ones that are sealed). IPx3 means it only accept splashes in all direction except from beneath. IPx4 means the same thing but in all directions. This is not a serious IP rating, yet it's enough.

Nobody asked for cameras to be IP67 or IP68.

But since I'm a camera nerd, and I have a full IP testing lab at my disposal, and I can stay after hours, I can tell you : My Olympus E-M1 mark II is rated for IPX2, but it survived testing for IP55.

I put my X-H1 through the same thing and it shrugged it off no problem.

I didn't test IPx6 and IPx7 because I already know they wouldn't survive it. But point being the X-H1 doesn't have any IP rating associated to it, yet has the capacity to have a pretty serious rating attached to it. The only reason it doesn't is because it saves Fujifilm money. Same for every other brand that doesn't use IP ratings.

 

[eliehbk]

Now shooting Sony, considering returning to Fuji. I have the Viltrox 25/1.7 and 40/2.5. You get what you pay for, contrast and color rendering are weak vs any Fuji lenses I’ve ever owned other than an XC I returned. They sell because they're sharp and that’s all that matters these days. I was always torn between my 35/1.4 and 35/2. Different strengths: af, compatibility with OVF, WR, my f2 felt better built than my f1.4 vs a gorgeous render. Get them both.

Intersting. I have used the Sony 40mm f2.5 and found it super sharp with great micro contrast and bokeh. You think it's inferior to Fuji lenses?

 

[JC_123]

- WR will not save your lens if the weather conditions are really bad. If they are not, even with some rain and/or dust, WR will not make a difference.

That statement needs some evidence. (As would the contrary statement.)

Fundamentally no-one is really sure how much protection is afforded by Fujifilm’s WR seals. It’s somewhere between “it makes no difference” and “you can safely submerge the camera” but none of us can make any confident statement about where it is in that range unless we’ve at the very least gone out with a WR setup in one hand and a non-WR in the other and stayed in the rain until the latter has developed a fault—and even then you’ve only got one data point to answer a question that has myriad confounding factors, so it’s worlds away from statistical significance.

That's why IP ratings exists, but most camera manufacturers persist in not using them.

As far as cameras are concerned, you have already voided the warranty if you use them outside and they end up getting water damage.

your typical weather sealed camera equipment is sealed such that the surface tension of water drops cannot squeeze through. Water with any significant pressure can though... EX: very heavy rain, running water, or submerging the camera.

 

[Yannis1976]

Now shooting Sony, considering returning to Fuji. I have the Viltrox 25/1.7 and 40/2.5. You get what you pay for, contrast and color rendering are weak vs any Fuji lenses I’ve ever owned other than an XC I returned. They sell because they're sharp and that’s all that matters these days. I was always torn between my 35/1.4 and 35/2. Different strengths: af, compatibility with OVF, WR, my f2 felt better built than my f1.4 vs a gorgeous render. Get them both.

Intersting. I have used the Sony 40mm f2.5 and found it super sharp with great micro contrast and bokeh. You think it's inferior to Fuji lenses?

I am also using this lens and have no complaints at all.

 

[MJ_Photo38]

- WR will not save your lens if the weather conditions are really bad. If they are not, even with some rain and/or dust, WR will not make a difference.

That statement needs some evidence. (As would the contrary statement.)

Fundamentally no-one is really sure how much protection is afforded by Fujifilm’s WR seals. It’s somewhere between “it makes no difference” and “you can safely submerge the camera” but none of us can make any confident statement about where it is in that range unless we’ve at the very least gone out with a WR setup in one hand and a non-WR in the other and stayed in the rain until the latter has developed a fault—and even then you’ve only got one data point to answer a question that has myriad confounding factors, so it’s worlds away from statistical significance.

That's why IP ratings exists, but most camera manufacturers persist in not using them.

As far as cameras are concerned, you have already voided the warranty if you use them outside and they end up getting water damage.

your typical weather sealed camera equipment is sealed such that the surface tension of water drops cannot squeeze through. Water with any significant pressure can though... EX: very heavy rain, running water, or submerging the camera.

Please provide documentation that attests to that.

Submberging the camera is a no-go for sure. But heavy rain is generally okay with most weather sealed camera. Most camera manufacturers test their cameras with water jets.

So please, if you have any documentation or source, feel free to share them.

 

[JC_123]

- WR will not save your lens if the weather conditions are really bad. If they are not, even with some rain and/or dust, WR will not make a difference.

That statement needs some evidence. (As would the contrary statement.)

Fundamentally no-one is really sure how much protection is afforded by Fujifilm’s WR seals. It’s somewhere between “it makes no difference” and “you can safely submerge the camera” but none of us can make any confident statement about where it is in that range unless we’ve at the very least gone out with a WR setup in one hand and a non-WR in the other and stayed in the rain until the latter has developed a fault—and even then you’ve only got one data point to answer a question that has myriad confounding factors, so it’s worlds away from statistical significance.

That's why IP ratings exists, but most camera manufacturers persist in not using them.

As far as cameras are concerned, you have already voided the warranty if you use them outside and they end up getting water damage.

your typical weather sealed camera equipment is sealed such that the surface tension of water drops cannot squeeze through. Water with any significant pressure can though... EX: very heavy rain, running water, or submerging the camera.

Please provide documentation that attests to that.

Submberging the camera is a no-go for sure. But heavy rain is generally okay with most weather sealed camera. Most camera manufacturers test their cameras with water jets.

So please, if you have any documentation or source, feel free to share them.

Sorry I don't know if that documentation exists. Yes, the best weather sealed high-end models will withstand heavy rain simulations for an adequate amount of time. Most can be overwhelmed by heavy rain though depending on basically random chance.

You can check out some old testing result write ups from Imaging Resource if you want: https://www.imaging-resource.com/cameras/canon-eos-r-review/weathertesting/ ... I don't know if they still do these though.

 

[MrAndreas]

...

IP ratings imply some warranty that the manufacturer offers and stands behind, as well as some responsibility on the manufacturer's part. Manufacturer can (and often will) accept these obligations for certain kinds of devices that have their exterior built comparatively simply: watches, smartphones, certain P&S cameras. So, IP rating implies some certainty.

Not true.

Really?

Every device can be rated with an IP rating, even cameras and lenses.

But if it was rated, then the manufacturer takes some obligations. This is a legal matter, not a technical.

Even cameras that do *not* have weather sealing can have an IP rating (which could be I don't know, IPX1 or something like that).

You are correct, they "can", but the decision on "may they?" is up to the manufacturer.

Fact of the matter is, camera manufacturers don't bother doing it because it saves them headaches with customer support.

True.

"You camera has water damage? Well it means you didn't use it in conditions specified in the warranty card, your warranty claim is dismissed. Next." And as a customer, we have no means of fighting that, simply because they give you absolutely no baseline of what the equipment is able to withstand.

With IP-rated devices, we can, if no IP rating is stated, yes, we can't. True. You are correct.

Yes, it's "weather resistant" but it could mean it's resistant to the wind and not rain.

Companies that use proper IP certification trust their IP ratings enough to know that if there is water damage, it means you used the camera in an environment for which the camera was not meant to be in (example : OM System does that).

Ok, correct. But we are in the Fuji X system forum, not the OM forum.

ILC has a much more complex exterior with too many openings and moving parts (knobs, buttons, dials, doors, etc.) Who knows which of these many may fail, what way, and when, and under which circumstances? Having a variety of lenses multiplies the degree of uncertainty by a factor.

That's why all the IP ratings done to cameras specify the model of the lens that was used for the test.

True.

So the WR claim — unlike the certainty of the IP rating — is a probabilistic concept. Having WR definitely increases your equipment's chances of surviving bad weather, but not to a degree of 100% certainty; nothing is guaranteed, and confidence is impossible.

Built like a tank? But even tanks fail occasionally.

Well if that's so hard to do, why does OM System bother to certify all of their cameras and lenses to the IP 53 standard? They're a relatively small company compared to Canon, Sony, Nikon, even Fujifilm.

M43's story is over, want you or not. OM tries to remain competitive, that's why.

Why does Leica certifies their cameras to be IP 54?

Because this is Leica, check their prices, if you didn't mind earlier.

As far as cameras are concerned, you have already voided the warranty if you use them outside and they end up getting water damage.

I'd rather be very cautious about relying on the manufacturer's "WR" claims for the amateur-grade equipment. Increased chances do not equal guaranteed survival.

Yes but that's mostly because manufacturers don't bother giving IP ratings to their products.

True. This is too risky and too much of a support and legal headache (read: losses).

"Weather resistant" doesn't mean anything if you don't specify what they are supposed to resist, that's why IP ratings exist in the first place.

True. You are correct. I agree completely.

 

[MrAndreas]

Sure. But in 30 years I only had one failure when in a desert, with a EOS1V. That is a tough camera, pro level, but even those ones do not carry an IP rating, right?

Yes, this is precisely the evidence that the "WR" badge is not equal to the official "IP rating". Even tanks fail. The whole "IP rating" vs "WR badge" is a legal story, not a technical.

 

[MrAndreas]

You may get lucky doing it once or twice but do it regularly and they will fail.

The 35mm I use has been through it for the last year and a half.

The X-Pro2 for about 1 year.

Both have been drenched dozens of times.

That's not luck.

Not luck but maybe the coincidence or your personal, esoteric luckiness.

As per the instruction manuals, WR will grant you some protection in light rain/drizzle. It does not qualify to be granted any IP rating.

No, that's not it.

The manufacturer doesn't bother to put it through IP testing, because IP testing is expensive. That's about it.

Not only "expensive", but a) brings legal obligations, b) for ILC, it can't have a reproducible result due to the variety of lenses available.