DPReview TV: F1.4 or F2.0? Which are the best Fujifilm primes?

Hey, I don't even own Fuji kit but I watched the whole vid just to see if Chris would make it to Emerg.
I'm waiting to see the healthcare vid... stitches and a tetanus jab.
The lenses were nice too.

Jun 27, 2021permalink

D7000ShooterUK

The 18mm f2 and 23mm F2 are two of Fuji's weakest lenses. The 35mm f2, 50mm f2 & 90mm f2 are superb, however. The 27mm pancake lens is excellent too but it's only a f2.8.

Jun 27, 2021permalink

Rob890

How is the 23mm f2 the a part of the weakest?

Jun 28, 2021permalink

I sold my 23mm f2 - couldn't stomach the color fringing that I kept on getting ever so often. Sharpness was ok.
The 1.4 is not as responsive and larger - I much prefer it's results.

Jun 28, 2021permalink

fujiian

Agree. The 23 f2 is plain awful closer than 6' and under f5.6. Surprised that reviews repeatedly miss this

Jun 28, 2021permalink

D7000ShooterUK

@Rob890 what @Fujiian said

Jun 28, 2021permalink

Frage

The 23mm f2 has indeed CA's and Haze/Sharpnes issues. The lens has also some strong distortions which have to be heavily corrected per software in camera. This impacts edge and corner sharpnes.

Jun 28, 2021permalink

Rob890

must be a few bad copies out there for from my own experience I've never seen any haze, had sharpness issues, or CA.

Jun 29, 2021permalink

Welsh

The best primes are those that take advantage of a ‘full frame’ sensor. Just saying, etc…

Jun 27, 2021permalink

Just sayin’ that with such reductionist reasoning, surely the best primes are those for medium and large format cameras.

Jun 28, 2021permalink

Except that Fujifilm doesn't have any FF sensors in their cameras, so your comment is irrelevant.

Jun 28, 2021permalink

sirhawkeye64

Only really if you want shallow DOF. But if you're doing things like landscape or otherwise are shooting deep DOF or moderate DOF, then the APS-C format, and Fuji's, work just fine.

I know people who shoot Fuji's (APS-C) for a number of genres of photography and they are doing just fine. So sensor size is only a part of it and only matters for some stuff....

Jun 28, 2021*permalink

wats0n

FF sensors are for people with low self esteem.

Jun 28, 2021permalink

sirhawkeye64

FF has it's advantages but with advancements in technology, those differences are becoming less and less of a concern these days. It used to be, 8-10 years ago, you could only get clean images at high(er) ISOs with a FF camera compared to an APS-C camera of similar resolution, but that has changed. Not to mention the build quality of some APS-C cameras now rivals that of the FF cameras too, and same with features.

Jun 29, 2021permalink

BobsYourUncle

Hey, Chris! How's the foot?
Bob

Jun 27, 2021permalink

TWChua

Get well soon Chris, nice comparisons of Fuji prime lenses. I was hoping you could compare 50mm f2 vs 50mm f1 as well.

Jun 27, 2021permalink

Indohydra

With all due respect, are we not running out of things to talk about here?

Jun 27, 2021permalink

John Bean (UK)

Yes. No need for the prefix.

Jun 27, 2021permalink

Ad12

I found it a good watch and interesting. Certainly more interesting to me than what’s on TV now.

Jun 27, 2021permalink

JakeB

You'll have to pry my Fujinon 35mm f1.4 out of my cold, dead hands.

Jun 27, 2021permalink

I had it in a kit with my old xe1 and I still love it on my xt2. Yes, it could focus a little faster and quieter but otherwise the limitation to consistently make good photos has been me, not the lens.

Jun 28, 2021permalink

Jake: Have you tried the F2? Just interested in your opinion on that.

Jun 28, 2021permalink

DarnGoodPhotos

I have both 35s. While I prefer the images from the f1.4 a little more, I appreciate all of the f2s modern features.

Jun 28, 2021*permalink

tangbunna

sigma 16mm f1.4 just 349$. period.

Jun 27, 2021permalink

John Bean (UK)

For Fuji? Not in my universe ;-)

Jun 27, 2021permalink

geopapa

Great lens but just so ridiculously large

Jun 27, 2021permalink

And? Can you adapt it on a Fuji camera?

Jun 28, 2021permalink

tangbunna

nah Fuji is not listed, but why you would pay for camera that its lenses are over priced, get sony and have more variety of choices.

Jun 30, 2021permalink

You can find expensive lens for Sony too, and cheaper lenses for Fuji. But not everything is about price. I've tried the Sony E 10-18mm F4 a few times and it was not good enough compared to the Fuji 10-24mm F4. So it doesn't matter if you have cheaper options if the one lens you need is better for the other brand.

Jun 30, 2021permalink

Platinumkid

When talking for crop sensor cameras, I would say going cheap is the way. Viltrox 23mm 1.4 and the XC version of the 35mm 2.0 are my picks. And for the wide angle Samyang 12mm 2.0, because the manual focusing is easy on Fuji cameras, plus a lens that wide gives you pretty much everything in focus, even wide open. That's like $750 for all three brand new. Throw in a X-T20 in very good condition and there is a whole system for like $1200. And if you know what you are doing, the photos will be indistinguishable from the X-T4 ones, that is $1700 for the camera alone ;)

Jun 26, 2021*permalink

Agree. Cheap and compact in primary criteria in crop system.
When sales, X-E3 + XF 23mm F2 kit lens may be another cheap alternative.

Jun 27, 2021permalink

Sorry. I just cant go with saving when it comes to things that improve quality and last you for years - aka lenses.

Jun 28, 2021*permalink

semorg

Are the last two episodes just program fillers? As they are reviewing the Nikon and canon cameras that are being released next week?

Jun 26, 2021permalink

NathanUCF

Nothing's been announced recently, and the Youtube algorithm will stomp them into the ground if they just don't upload for two weeks.

Jun 27, 2021permalink

Dark Vander

The big advantage of older lenses is that there are a lot of 2nd hand lenses to be found for half the new price or less.

Jun 26, 2021permalink

io_bg

Apart from the 18 1.4, the 'Fujicrons' are not exactly new. Plenty of used options for those as well.

Jun 27, 2021permalink

It's a shame that Sigma's F1.4 APSC primes aren't available for X mount, as the would breathe some fresh air into Fuji's lineup, while saving users money.

Though I guess that's why Fuji doesn't allow the competition...

Jun 26, 2021permalink

Nicolas Det

There are already competition: Tokina, Viltrox and Zeis have AF lenses for Fujifilm X mount. Plus the AF adapters...

Sigma likely need a market for their lenses more than an authorisation.

Jun 27, 2021*permalink

Actually Fuji does allow competitors, but there is a price to pay in terms of a license fee.

But look at it from Sigma's point of view.
For years we have now seen a decline in <35mm lens sales due to the fact that this segment is more eroded than other segments in a market that has considerably slowed down.

Now add to that the fact that the overal revenue per lens of <35mm lenses has also dropped considerably and it all becomes an investment risk rather than an extension to your product line-up.

For Fujifilm Sigma needs to put in a lot of R&D money as it needs a dedicated line of lenses while Fuji's overall marketshare in the total camera market does not exceed 7%.

Sigma already makes lenses for Sony E-mount, and with the same optical formula and adding 1mm to the tube they can easily convert the lenses for E-mount to Z-Mount at relatively low cost. At the same time Canon is guaranteed to be a large market.

Now knowing this, where would you put your money on if you were Sigma?

Jun 27, 2021*permalink

"For Fujifilm Sigma needs to put in a lot of R&D money as it needs a dedicated line of lenses while Fuji's overall marketshare in the total camera market does not exceed 7%."

I agree that Fuji might just to be too small to care, but they should be able to reuse the existing 16mm, 30mm, and 56mm optical formulas. The Viltrox lenses on Fuji X are also available on E and EF-M, for example.

And no one will release Z-DX lenses, as the platform is stillborn.

Jun 27, 2021permalink

Brentschumer - Most likely Sigma don't want to this.
Reason being the fact that to reuse an optical formula it also has to match the flange range.

With reusing an optical formula for DX lenses to X-mount Sigma would need to extend the tube for x-mount lenses with 19mm to make up for the flange range making the lenses considerably larger than needed and also making them considerably larger than the native X-Series lenses or Viltrox offerings.

Flange range difference between E-Mount and Z mount is just 1mm. This would aesthetically make not much difference.

Next to that Sigma would need to compete against Viltrox, 7 artisans, Irix and Meike in a segment that is shrinking. While Sigma would not yet have any competition in RF and Z mount yet.

I think chances of Sigma actually start making lenses for the X-Mount are becoming less. They seem to be just too late, making it difficult to be sustainable on the long run.

I think Sigma are not going to take that risk.

Jun 27, 2021permalink

nonolet

that's the beauty of Canon EOS M system: all 3 Sigma f/1.4 DG DN lenses available. Plus EF-M 22/2.0 and 32/1.4 at way lower prices than Fuji X, with IQ fully on par.

Jun 27, 2021permalink

CeeDave

@nonolet, I’m not sure the M system looks good going forward. What has Canon released for M lately? At leas Fujifilm is still releasing new APS-C products, even at a higher price point.

Jun 27, 2021permalink

EF-M is the sweet spot for inexpensive APSC for sure. Once you go higher in price FF starts to overlap, raising a lot of questions.

Jun 27, 2021permalink

Viltrox is remarkably good as an affordable fuji alternative. Decent AF too. Hope they add some wide angle and a macro at their quality/price.

Jun 28, 2021permalink

I agree with Samuel Lucifer: I think it's too late and not that useful anyway. Lots of people might appreciate cheaper options but others might prefer Fuji lenses. I would not buy the Sigma 16mm f1.4 if I can find a used Fuji version at a decent price. The Sigma looks bigger and uglier...

@nonolet: I usually would agree, but I like the bodies a bit less. The 'lesser' bodies like the M200 or M50 are a bit castrated on the software side (no way to customize auto ISO for instance). They didn't give EFCS to the M6 II, which could have avoid some shutter shock issues I've experienced. Finally, IBIS is useful and coming to smaller bodies with Fuji.

Jun 28, 2021permalink

"The Sigma looks bigger and uglier... "

It's 8% heavier, 40% of the price, and way sharper. That's a reasonable trade-off, to me.

Jun 28, 2021permalink

nonolet

@lakhon - totally agree with you re. Canon EOS M bodies. Of course M6 II should have gotten EFCS. And M50 should have received a real "Mk. II worthy" update. M200 is simply priced too high - almost the same as M50 (I) where I live; Otherwise not much wrong with it for a supercompact, entry level crop ILC.

And of course Canon should already have launched an M5 Mk. II with 32 MP sensor as in M6 II, excellent built-in EVF and IBIS. Maybe they will eventually still do so, as it is clear that EF-S / xxD DSLR lineup has come to an end (90D was the last one).

Jun 28, 2021*permalink

@BrentSchumer:
I haven't tried the Sigma but looking at opticallimits' reviews I don't see the 'way sharper'. One is peaking at 3000 lw/ph on 16mp, the other at 3200 on 24mp. The Sigma is probably a tad sharper wide open. If you have an experience with the lenses that contradicts those reviews, feel free to share. I have no stakes in the debate, sold my Fuji when I bought the Oly 17mm f1.2, but I was very happy with it. The Oly simply allowed for longer shutter speeds with the fantastic IBIS.
Also, the Fuji is 2cm shorter, has a closer focus of 15cm (that seems to be popular), and has WR. I mean you're paying more to get more in return, in my opinion. Unfortunately not enough, I agree.

@nonolet: with all the rumors about APS-C RF cameras, I wonder if they will invest R&D in EF-M anymore, unless it is a quick win (which they should have done with M50 II, as you pointed out).

Jun 28, 2021permalink

fpessolano

I had the 16 and 35 f/2 … too boring and the 16 pretty bad distortions.

Jun 26, 2021permalink

Nikoolix

No it doesn't. The 16mm has extremely minimal distortion. There's a difference between optical distortion (e.g barrel distortion) and perspective "distortion" - which is a natural and unavoidable phenomenon of how perspective works.

Google "draw perspective lines" and what you see is exactly the same phenomenon that wide angle lenses display.

Jun 27, 2021permalink

fpessolano

I love the 24mm use it on many systems and the 16 1.4 is why I bought Fuji. The f.2 is horrible and boring . Try inspecting without the software baking also and see.

Jun 27, 2021*permalink

MDNL35

fp is right, the 16mm F2.8 has a lot of distortion. You're just seeing it automatically corrected in software. (while the F1.4 version is fully corrected optically.) Capture One allows you to disable the automatic lens corrections.

Jun 27, 2021permalink

MDNL35

Proof of the pudding: https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/2403032327/photos/4188800/dscf4430

Jun 27, 2021permalink

Richard Butler

The phrase is: the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

You've intentionally removed some of the ingredients there, so of course it tastes bad. Most lens look bad if you remove some of their elements.

Include all the ingredients from the recipe and how does it taste?

Jun 28, 2021permalink

MDNL35

Usually a little too sweet for my taste. Or is the extra sugar just covering up a bad recipe?

Silliness aside, i never said one should do that, or that it necessarily makes it a bad product, or whatever you're suggesting.. thanks for putting that on me.

I see you guys complaint about the toxic commentary on here sometimes, but clearly you don't mind fueling the fire.

Jun 28, 2021permalink

The 16mm F2.8 proved to be good value and very dependable to me.
It clearly isn't a flagship lens - but that's why they give you options.

Jun 28, 2021permalink

Richard Butler

M Jesper - My comment wasn't particularly aimed at you, I just picked up the phrase you'd invoked and ran with it. It was more generally aimed at the idea that the 16mm lens has 'pretty bad distortions,' which is only true if you mess up the processing.

Of course if the final images look bad after the processing, fair enough, people should criticise that. My point was that digital corrections are just as much a part of modern lens design as complex aspherical lens elements (and there can be benefits to doing some correction digitally, in that it means you don't add optical elements to correct distortion than then introduce other aberrations or undermine your efforts to make other corrections).

I do accept that I should have said 'If one were to intentionally remove...' so that it didn't point it back at you so specifically. I apologise for that.

Jun 28, 2021*permalink

Adding those corrections outside the lens ( thus digitally) make desirable attributes for some lenses like smaller form factors and lower pricing possible.

It of course isn't all roses. Nothing ever is. But some are interesting products.

Jun 28, 2021*permalink

ZilverHaylide

So, Chris, in Canada, was undoubtedly able to get his injury treated at minimal cost. Whereas in the U.S., for a visit to an emergency room or one of the under-utilized "urgent care" locations that suddenly seem to be sprouting like weeds on nearly every major street corner (and have to recoup their costs), a photographer might have to sell several lenses to pay for the visit, and be reduced to shooting pinhole images afterwards. That's if he didn't have to sell the camera too.

Jun 26, 2021permalink

tvgc

Zero cost!

Jun 26, 2021permalink

There would’ve been no upfront, billable to patient fee. He “pays” every year through his income tax and means-tested premium (usually < $1,000 per year).

Jun 27, 2021permalink

There is no “means-tested premium” in Canada for most provinces with the exception of British Columbia and Ontario, who both essentially charge a little more provincial income tax with that name attached to it in the hopes it would make the tax increase more palatable.

Chris, in Alberta, would pay no premium.

Jun 27, 2021permalink

JasonTheBirder

@CTMRIGuy...on the flipside, those two provinces you mentioned contain about half of Canada's population.

Jun 27, 2021permalink

Ontario here... Haven't been means tested in 50 years. Back then I had to fill out a form as a starving student. It's better than the USA but Canadian healthcare is far below European standards. It is a provincial jurisdiction and services, sad to say, are not uniform across the country.

Jun 27, 2021permalink

@RolliPoli It is absolutely means-tested in Ontario.

Jun 27, 2021permalink

unhappymeal ...And how?
To repeat, I have not paid a premium directly or filled out a request for exemption form since about 1971
Unless you are my age or older, you have never made a direct payment to the Goverment of Ontario for healthcare or been granted an exemption from said payment. It is part of everyone's income tax contribution.

Jun 28, 2021*permalink

The amount of the tax is means-tested. It’s right on the government’s website.

Jun 28, 2021permalink

unhappymeal That's Tory cant! Your entire incom tax assessment is based on 'means'. Your income is more... You pay more!
Tell me whether you have or have not *ever* had to fill out a form to request an exemption from paying a healthcare premium as I, at my age, have.

Jun 28, 2021*permalink

It's a means-tested (i.e., not regressive) tax that is earmarked for health care. I don't know how you can interpret that as Tory cant.

Jun 28, 2021permalink

I repeat and for the last time... When have you ever filled out a form to be exempted from a payment to or remitted a direct payment to the Ontario Ministry of Health for your healthcare coverage?
Unless you were of voting age in the 1960s you have not. Spin it how you will, healthcare is paid for from general, provincial tax revenue and a massive transfer of federal tax revenue to the provinces.

Jun 28, 2021permalink

Whether or not you fill out a form has nothing to do with whether or not the health care levy is means-tested. It is a fact that it is.

At the same time, RolliPolli, you are also correct that it really is just an increase to the provincial income tax with a name stuck on it to make it more palatable to some.

Also, someone above compared the health care in Canada to Europe and as someone who has lived in Europe I can tell you that Canada's system is far better as a patient than most countries in the EU as well as the NHS in Britain. No system is perfect though, including Canada's, and there is variability from province to province without a doubt.

Jun 28, 2021*permalink

CTMRIGguy I pay no more for healthcare than a minimum wage worker beyond the fact that my income tax levy is higher. That's not a "means test". Nobody now has to request on exemption from healthcare premiums as occured in the past. I have, in years past, been required to fill out a form stating income to get excused from paying a premium. You are required to 'beg' for your coverage! That's what "means tested" involves. A citizen is made to beg for charity from the state.
I don't get what some people fail to understand about that. Maybe it is because they have always been of a class that has never had to write an actual 'means test' themselves.

Jun 29, 2021*permalink

https://www.ontario.ca/page/health-premium

I think you are misunderstanding what means testing is. Whether or not you fill out a form is not part of the definition, and it has nothing to do with “begging” for coverage. The amount you pay is automatically calculated from your income, and below a certain level there is no levy at all.

I leave this here as evidence that what unhappymeal and I are telling you is fact. I will not belabour this any more as we have veered far off topic from Chris’s foot, so perhaps we just agree to disagree as gentlemen. Have a good evening and good shooting.

Jun 29, 2021permalink

CTMRIGuy
Thanks for the link. However, it is a statement, not a 'means test'. Do check the O.E.D. for the meaning of the word "test". Further, many if not most European systems cover drugs, spectacles, even dental. The life-sized replica of a developed country's healthcare system that is Ontario's (and Canada's) covers none of these. We in deed disagree. Trusting that Chris is patched, medicated and again fully bipedal and wishing you good light and good night

Jun 29, 2021permalink

Cheers!

Jun 29, 2021permalink

Fuji should take out lens from X100V and make it XF 23mm F2 pancakes kit lens for X-E4.

Jun 26, 2021permalink

Andyyy

Im pretty sure the 23mm lens on the X100V is only pancake because it's fixed and part of the lens can be inside the body / no mount needed.

Jun 26, 2021*permalink

@Andyyy
Since 23mm F2 in X100V is pancake lens, just take it out, put in a WR body (a case similar to XF 27mm F2.8), then make it affordable compact kit lens for X-E4.

IMO it just need little R&D for WR lens body.

Jun 27, 2021*permalink

Andyyy

What I'm saying is that making that 23mm lens with X mount would not make it much smaller than the existing 23mm F2 WR.

Jun 27, 2021permalink

Txoni

@forest dream, I believe he means the lens is actually not a pancake, but it's shorter because part of the lens body is hidden inside the camera.

If you try using the same lens on an interchangeable lens camera, you'd need to add a bayonet mount that would make the lens larger and possibly push the inner lenses out to fit inside that mount.

Jun 27, 2021permalink

Tumancho

sensor is the same, so no bayonet is needed, probably proper back cap will be enough, there is marketing problem, who will buy X100 system only for hybrid viewfinder, but I still wish something like 21(22 or 23)mm F2 pancake :)

Jun 27, 2021permalink

gameshoes3003

Don't forget that the lens on the X100 series are leaf shutters. Don't have to worry about making room for the focal plane shutter.

Jun 28, 2021permalink

@gameshoes3003
Leaf/focal plane shutter belong to parts of camera body instead of lens.

If Fuji extract 23mm F2 lens from X100V, it should not include leaf shutter parts because X-E4 built-in focal plane shutter.

23mm F2 lens from X100V will be very small.

Jun 28, 2021*permalink

Justin-Case

I would have liked you to include the 50/2 vs 50/1.0 vs the 56/1.2. OK, that last one's not exactly like for like, but near enough to be worth the comparison.

Oh and universal health care? An indispensable asset of any modern developed nation that believes in, and cares for, ALL of its people. May your foot be with you.

Jun 26, 2021*permalink

Maoby

A suite can be!

Jun 26, 2021permalink

Nikoolix

I think the short DOF of the 1.2 compared to the 2.0 will be the deciding factor for most people. I think someone who specifically wants the bokeh of 1.2 wouldn't switch to the 2.0 even if it happened to be e.g a bit sharper (the 1.2 is amazing though) and faster focusing which is the case. But for anyone who wants something more casual the 2.0 makes sense.

I'd love an updated 56 1.2 with faster AF, but even in the current state I wouldn't switch my 1.2 even to an F2 lens that had 10x faster focus and the world's best weather sealing.

Jun 27, 2021*permalink

craigwell47

My Fuji 16mm f1,4 as my most used and preferred wide-angle lens.

On universal healthcare; every country facing the demands of older population. Pandemic as virtual body-blow. In Britain partial privatisation with US companies buying hospitals serving more private patients. NHS will not survive in its present form with long waiting-lists (rationing) . NHS by not charging user-patients is a prescription for abuse.

In France high medical charges with private consultants on referral. Refunds by State computerised system paying share plus mandatory mutual insurance also reimbursing share of cost. In effect personal medical costs split (three ways) for any major operation. Considered one of the best serving health services in Europe.

US national hospital system profit-driven by corporations?

Jun 27, 2021permalink

The 56mm 1.2 is a wonderful lens.. is a bit on the heady side and slow to focus.
It sadly wound up being my least used lens. Well amongst those I keep anyway.

I took one look at the color fringing of the 50mm 1.0 and it died right then and there there. For me at least.
Sales here in Europe are low, dealers don't tend to even keep it in stock. I heard sales differs per market.

Jun 28, 2021*permalink

(unknown member)

@Chris- on the XF35 F2.0 vs F1.4- in general I think the F1.4 wins hands down in the image. I find the XF35 F2.0 is sharp indeed but a bit "clinical"- the XF35 F1.4 is just magical.

Jun 26, 2021permalink

lumberjack63

"Magical" is only the hype around the 35/1.4.
A dream for every markering manager and controler: selling such an old lens for such a high price. No investmenst for about 9 years, just cashing in...

Jun 26, 2021permalink

Have you ever used it?

I was also skeptical until I tried it. No longer.

Jun 26, 2021permalink

I tend not to subscribe to the notion of “magic”, but the falloff and field curvature make for very pleasant rendering.

Jun 27, 2021permalink

(unknown member)

@lumberjack63 - "magical' is the adjective I use for the output and the quality. Given I have done paid work with it that has more than paid for itself, I am not sure what exactly is so "pricey" about the XF35 F1.4. Good optics/primes cost some money. I wouldn't say the XF35 is *that* expensive at all for the quality it's giving you.

Jun 27, 2021permalink

(unknown member)

But in case everyone else wonders- this lens has a certain micro contrast that is very nice. It does very well with portraits. It renders with a certain "bite" of "chromic-metallic" light. And it's of course F1.4 which Is nice for low light shooting.

Jun 27, 2021permalink

JakeB

There's just something about the output I get from the Fujinon 35 mm f1.4. that I find extremely pleasing.

If a Mark II which was quieter and had faster focus but those exact same optical qualities were released I'd buy it, but I'm happy with the current version and would still purchase it today.

I shoot it at f1.4 in low-light situation and would not swap for an f2 that would force me to push ISO further.

Jun 27, 2021permalink

I have the 35 1.4 since I bought it in a kit with an xe1. Switching from a Nikon d200. Still love its images. Together with fuji’s colour profiles, it makes people look good.
I do also have the 50/2. Splendid really.

Jun 28, 2021permalink

Tom: Would you recommend switching to the 1.4?

Jun 28, 2021permalink

Nikoolix

For anyone who doesn't need the faster focus of the 2.0, the 1.4 is simply stunning. It has amazing "3D render" depth to it. And it's not too slow at focusing either. Make sure you update the firmware of the lens too, not just the camera.

Jun 28, 2021permalink

lumberjack63

I own the 35/1.4. It was quite a waste of money in the relation to the price and performance.
The (AF / AF motor) design is 9-10 years old, the AF is loud and quite slow, not really useable for faster moving objects/models at AF C / face / eye AF (while the AF/ tracking performance of the X T3 and X T4 is far from class leading, but this lens makes it even worse).
Fujifilm didn't invest a penny in this lens for almost 9 years, so it's still quite and nowadays too expensive. Sigma, Tamron or Sony couldn't survive with a Methuselah lens lineup like this.

Jul 15, 2021permalink

@Capi, I don't know the 35/2, Ii can only say that I like the images even on my XT2. I often use it wide open, nice for people. It is true that the AF while pretty ok is not the quickest so if that is crucial then the 35/2 would be your choice.

Jul 15, 2021permalink

Thank you, Tom.

I did not go with Fuji for the AF ;-)

I do really enjoy using the gear and like the colors.

Using a Nikon FF for paid engagements I wonder if the faster aperture is more fun.

Jul 15, 2021permalink

The autofocus is not the fastest but the rendering is unparalleled and far superior to the F/2 in my opinion. I purchased this lens for the first time in 2021 and it has become one of my favourite 50mm equivalents. For comparison, I also recently received the Sony GM 50mm f/1.2 and while that lens on a technical level is unsurpassed, the rendering of the Fujifilm 35mm f/1.4 is superior.

Jul 15, 2021permalink

Indeed, it makes such nice real life images, even wide open.
Very happy with it and used much more often than I expected (previously I was not a big fan of 50mm).
I also like the 23/1.4 - again a not that quick focusing lens with gorgeous images
And the 50/2 is great too even open, but I sometimes prefer the bulkier viltrox 85/1.8 for its bokeh.

Jul 16, 2021permalink

(unknown member)

@Chris- dude! You are crazy to soldier on after stepping on that, you need to get an anti-tetanus injection asap. Hope you are well!

Jun 26, 2021*permalink

left eye

Currently 23 F2.0 II, leaf shutter - X100V

- there has always been something about leaf-shutters that adds to the quality of rendering, almost a variable 'aperture' for a moment during exposure magically massaging OOF areas.

Seeing it with this lens (it's even superior to the 1.4) and also the medium-format Hasselblad leaf-shutter lenses vs the GFX Fuji.

Ok the X100V lens is a fixed lens, but it's a great Fuji prime.

Jun 26, 2021*permalink

Tomasz_Wk

The 35 F1.4 was one of my first Fujifilm lenses. It still remains one of my favorite for the look it gives.

Jun 26, 2021*permalink

lumberjack63

It's a shame for Fujifilm, that they still don't have a high performance 35/14. The AF is quite slow, not great for AF C, the motor quite loud,
Hoping the new 33mm is coming soon.

Jun 26, 2021permalink

Leicalika

the price of the 35 1.4 will not fare well
at all when the 33 arrives

Jun 26, 2021*permalink

Lets wait how a 33mm will turn out to be. The recently released 50mm 1.0 is showing color fringing to a degree I wouldn't consider buying.

Jun 28, 2021*permalink

Gringostarr

18/1.4 > 18/2
23/2 > 23/1.4
35/1.4 > 35/2

Jun 26, 2021permalink

mcshan

I really enjoyed this. Well done and I agree with the conclusions.

About the foot...check out scenes from Laurel and Hardy in Blockheads. Oliver Hardy carrying Stan Laurel is always good.

Jun 26, 2021permalink

All this shows is that Fujifilm desperately needs to update its older lenses. They have the charm and the character. But they lack the autofocus speed and weather sealing.

Personally I find the whole f2.0 line pretty boring. They offer such dull images compared to the f1.4 and f1.2 versions.

Moved away from Fujifilm late last year (after 8 years of using x-series cameras) and went back 'home', because of its poor support of the X-H1 and X-T4. I feel they scr3wed me twice. And so I voted with my wallet.

Jun 26, 2021*permalink

attomole

Or drop the price a little across the board. maybe some mix and match 2 lens deals.

Jun 26, 2021permalink

Btw. Don't get me wrong. They are on itself nice cameras. If you are not too demanding. However the X-T4 has several flaws for video that yet have to be fixed. They have updated the X-T3 with a gazilion updates up to the point that it is an X-T4 without IBIS. That's fine for those owning one.

But really no love, zero updates so far that allocate the AF problems with the X-T4. Nothing of Kaizen yet, and this now has been the second time for me.

Jun 26, 2021permalink

What did you move to, if you don’t mind me asking, and how does it compare now to the Fujifilm kit you used?

Jun 26, 2021permalink

CTMRIGuy - Back to now Nikon Z7II. But will still be using the X-T4 for video up to the moment I find something else. Z7II for me is everything I liked about the X-H1 but the ergonomics of the Z7II is really excellent plus its image quality is outstanding. Its video is good, but has less options to tweak.

I also must say that I always have found X-H1 is Fujifilms best camera in terms of ergonomics and operation. So I am not the typical 'classic style' camera user that so many find attractive in Fujifilm cameras.

Next to that I have never had complaints about overall image quality of the X-Series camera. But I do have to say that I always found something missing in the look of the images itself that is hard to put a finger on. So I was content with Fuji, but never raved over them.

So after my first discontent over the X-H1 update policy and now the same with X-T4 I found it was time to move on, and in the meantime Z7II ticked all the boxed of what I want in a camera and system.

Jun 27, 2021permalink

Nice. Way back I had a Z7 but it did not last long because the autofocus was so abysmal at launch. I know that people say it has come a long way since then, both due to firmware updates and now the dual processors in the Z7II. I think Nikon has always made great glass and that is why I thought it would be a good first mirrorless camera. Since then I have dabbled with almost everything but never went back to Nikon. I picked up a Fujifilm X earlier this year mainly for a fun and light camera that I could take on trips, and while the AF is better than the old Z7 I would not say it comes remotely close to L-mount cameras (yes, I am one of those who feels the DFD system is actually pretty good) or Sony (TOTL but the cameras are not what I would call fun).

How do you find the Z7II AF compared to the H1? I suspect it is much more advanced?

Jun 27, 2021*permalink

CTMRIGuy - I actually find the keeper rate of the Z7II exceed that of the X-T4.
Many more infocus images with moving objects with the Z than I have with the T4. This is one of the complaints I have had all along with Fujifilm cameras. Also backit images have always been troublesome with the X-Series. Up to now (nearly 7 month of use) I have had none of these problems with my Z7II.

I do not want to diss Fujifilm in any way as there have also be things I've liked, but in general terms I am happy with my move away and move back to Nikon.

This of course is my personal experience and based upon my personal reasonings. Everybody has to make his own decisions when it comes down to buying cameras and lenses.

Jun 27, 2021permalink

clickandclack

I upgraded my X-H1 to an A7RIII, and while the IQ is now way better (no debate, it just is), the X-H1 was just such a nice camera to hold and to listen to... that smooth shutter sound, damn. That nice solid 'chunk of camera' feeling. Focus stacking; automated. Even the focus peaking is way more accurate. That body and my current sensor would be my dream camera!

Jun 27, 2021permalink

Appreciate that, Samuel. Those are all fair comments and agree they are weaknesses of the Fuji system right now. Nice to hear the Z7II has really stepped things up from the Z7. Thanks for taking the time to write about your experience.

Jun 27, 2021permalink

WT21

“Older vs newer” is a big impact here.

Jun 26, 2021permalink

attomole

Get the foot out of here.

Jun 26, 2021permalink

steelhead3

If this was the USA, the foot injury would a $2500 visit to the emergency room with a lawyer following you in claiming your injury was worth a million dollars.

Jun 26, 2021permalink

KjellRS

And that's where the money disappears in the US system - it's not that delivering universal healthcare is free, it's the whole insurance / claims / overcharging / kickbacks / liability side that costs *extra* money. Particularly trying to drop coverage on people that show signs of budding health problems.

Here in Norway the specialist healthcare (not including nursing homes etc.) cost $4000/person/year and our average pre-tax income is $70000/year so yeah that's a solid chunk of the national budget.

But the last decade of his life my dad also got major surgery with a long stay in the hospital, several minor procedures, an ambulance ride, 6 years of cancer meds and probably over a hundred doctor's appointments for chump change in copay.

That no doubt cost a ton of money, even if you could get it at cost. But he got he healthcare that he needed, based on medical needs. Nobody got rich. Nobody went bankrupt. Nobody would make money on not giving him the care he needed. Unlike the US.

Jun 27, 2021permalink

NoSasaeng

Considering I have to pay 10k a year for the mandatory health insurance, 2500$ sounds like a steal

Jun 27, 2021permalink

Ed Ingold

If that is the piece of rebar which caused Chris' injury, it does not look like an accident. It's possible some vandal pounded it into the ground to cause injury. That is unfortunately common in the US, including various rails-to-trails projects, even the Appalachian trail. Our local (Chicago) bike trails had boards with spikes facing upwards buried in the gravel. Canadians seem to be more accommodating to public use as a whole, but perhaps not all are so inclined. Have a speedy recovery, Chris, and get a tetanus booster.

Jun 27, 2021*permalink

Vit Adamek

The best Fuji prime, or any prime for that matter, is that attached to your camera you enjoy using and have on you when the light is golden.

Jun 26, 2021permalink

How about Viltrox AF 23mm f/1.4 which cheaper, F1.4 with fast AF?
How about Venus Optics Laowa 9mm f/2.8 Zero-D Lens for Fujifilm X?

Jun 26, 2021*permalink

Beshkno

Which are the best Fujifilm primes? When used by most, neither. It's like asking a novice artist which brush is better. Sorry, but this is nonsensical.

Jun 26, 2021*permalink

FTOG

This is a gear review website after all. (Even if there is merit to your POV,) If you skip all gear related discussions, you'll find little to read/view here.

Jun 27, 2021permalink

Kirnbichler

All the best for the foot, hopefully Chris'll be up and running soon again.

Jun 26, 2021permalink

Maoby

Very interesting comparison, once again.
Personally I love this little Fujifilm XF 35mm F2 R WR
And I did a "somewhat extreme" comparison
between my Fujifilm X-Pro1 with this small 35mm
et mon Pentax 645D et le Pentax-D FA 645 55mm f/2.8

If it can interest anyone
https://www.flickr.com/photos/maoby/albums/72157719178290415
the results are quite surprising!

Good weekend

Jun 26, 2021permalink

2manylenses

The second best take-away of this video is: there is no one, right answer. This is why I haves GAS.

Free, universal medical care is the #1 take-away.

Jun 26, 2021permalink

Universal medical care is awesome, but do keep in mind it's not free :). There's an annual premium and 2/3 of every tax dollar (~12% of our GDP) is spent on health care, making us one of the least efficient countries in the OECD. Our system also does not cover prescription medicines unless you are a Senior Citizen, patient with cancer or low income individual. We are due for an overhaul to our system. Having said that, I'd take Canada's system any day over the US system.

Jun 26, 2021permalink

2manylenses

Thank you for the correction and the observation that, with its drawbacks, is still superior to our back-asswards US health System.

Jun 26, 2021permalink

Just need to step in and correct that. Health care accounts for 1/3 of the budget in most Canadian provinces, not 2/3 (lest people get the wrong idea). That also does not equate to 1/3 of every tax dollar, but much less when you consider federal taxes and relatively meagre health transfers to the provinces.

Still, it is not free. Just not as costly as you suggest.

Jun 26, 2021permalink

Sorry, you're correct in that it's 2/3 of every *personal income tax* dollar and not every tax dollar.

Jun 27, 2021permalink