BobYIL
Well-known
It was obvious thru some initial reviews that this lens is an impressive one.
I am yet to see the detailed MTF curves other than the simple ones in the Fujifilm site however the 100% corner crops at various apertures by some owners have led me to believe that this lens is a real gem; reflecting the extensive optical engineering expertise of Fuji from the tiny lenses for the P&S cameras up to the current Hasselblad array to Large Format series to zooms for pro Studio TV cameras. Fuji decades long have been regarded as somewhat Japan's equivalent for what Zeiss is to Germany.
Yesterday Ken Rockwell has issued his review about this lens. For me, he is not a reliable source to be taken with much seriousity like some established lens test sites deserve, however some comments and especially the photos in his review are quite remarkable.
http://kenrockwell.com/fuji/x-mount-lenses/35mm-f14.htm
"This Fuji 35mm f/1.4 is an aspherical 50mm-equivalant lens with performance better than LEICA's equivalent LEICA SUMMILUX-M 50mm f/1.4 ASPH."
I would like to listen to what some our forum's members who own the X-Pro1 as well as the Summilux 50mm Asph. with the M9s would comment on the subject. Perhaps just for the sake of this lens alone the X-Pro1 is worth to buy.
Regards,
Bob
I am yet to see the detailed MTF curves other than the simple ones in the Fujifilm site however the 100% corner crops at various apertures by some owners have led me to believe that this lens is a real gem; reflecting the extensive optical engineering expertise of Fuji from the tiny lenses for the P&S cameras up to the current Hasselblad array to Large Format series to zooms for pro Studio TV cameras. Fuji decades long have been regarded as somewhat Japan's equivalent for what Zeiss is to Germany.
Yesterday Ken Rockwell has issued his review about this lens. For me, he is not a reliable source to be taken with much seriousity like some established lens test sites deserve, however some comments and especially the photos in his review are quite remarkable.
http://kenrockwell.com/fuji/x-mount-lenses/35mm-f14.htm
"This Fuji 35mm f/1.4 is an aspherical 50mm-equivalant lens with performance better than LEICA's equivalent LEICA SUMMILUX-M 50mm f/1.4 ASPH."
I would like to listen to what some our forum's members who own the X-Pro1 as well as the Summilux 50mm Asph. with the M9s would comment on the subject. Perhaps just for the sake of this lens alone the X-Pro1 is worth to buy.
Regards,
Bob
smile
why so serious?
simply marketing
furcafe
Veteran
In his initial review, RFF's own Dante Stella also refers to the X-Pro1's "closed loop" focusing as making a major contribution to the system's performance w/all lenses, not just the 35mm, e.g., focus shift can be addressed without fancy floating lens elements.
"The 35mm Fujinon - which is easy to initially dismiss as a kit lens or skip because you "don't need a 50mm-style lens" - actually has stunning performance. Part of this, no doubt, is the camera's ability to focus in a closed-loop system. So when an aperture change makes the focus point shift, the camera can compensate. Many traditional rangefinder lenses simply can't do this."
http://www.dantestella.com/technical/xpro1.html
"The 35mm Fujinon - which is easy to initially dismiss as a kit lens or skip because you "don't need a 50mm-style lens" - actually has stunning performance. Part of this, no doubt, is the camera's ability to focus in a closed-loop system. So when an aperture change makes the focus point shift, the camera can compensate. Many traditional rangefinder lenses simply can't do this."
http://www.dantestella.com/technical/xpro1.html
Spyro
Well-known
it's a very nice lens
I've never had a summi though so no idea how it compares
I've never had a summi though so no idea how it compares
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
Hmm.. I've never owned the ASPH but I own the 50 pre-ASPH. That said, it's a nice lens yes... is it equal to Leica's 50 ASPH? Don't know. I recognize who is providing that comparison. I bet Erwin Puts would say something completely different.
Or not.
It's a really nice lens
Cheers,
Dave
Or not.
It's a really nice lens
Cheers,
Dave
Mackinaw
Think Different
Not sure you can compare a lens designed to fit a 24mm X 16mm sensor with one designed to cover a 36mm X 24mm sensor. Seems to me that different design criteria would be used.
But I'm not surprised that Rockwell would make such a statement.
Jim B.
But I'm not surprised that Rockwell would make such a statement.
Jim B.
Archlich
Well-known
I deleted all the words I typed after I saw Mr. Rockwell's name.
Why so serious?
Why so serious?
willie_901
Veteran
In my experience the Fujinon 35/1.4 lens will not limit anybody's ability to produce outstanding photographs. The Fujinon 35/1.4 is optimized for the XP-1 body. I really don't care how it compares technically to other lenses. The lens and sensor work together to produce excellent results. I think people tend to discount the importance of microlense-sensor compatibility. It's tempting to think of sensors as digital film. Don't do that.
The longitudinal CA artifacts that plagues the current fast Nikkors seems low on the Fujinon.
It seems to me Fuji worked hard to achieve pleasant OOF rendering.
I would not expect to see first-class macro results until f 4.
The longitudinal CA artifacts that plagues the current fast Nikkors seems low on the Fujinon.
It seems to me Fuji worked hard to achieve pleasant OOF rendering.
I would not expect to see first-class macro results until f 4.
Ken loves to generate controversy, of course, but there is no doubt the 35/1.4 is a gem of a lens.
majid
Fazal Majid
Erwin Puts is actually quite positive on this lens:
http://www.imx.nl/photo/page152/files/archive-11-march-2012.html
Given his critical take in the past on non-Leica lenses, this is high praise indeed.
As for Ken Rockwell, he certainly has entertainment value, but he makes (a lot of) money from affiliate referral commissions by Adorama et al, so he has a direct financial incentive to stoke GAS and equipment churn. Take everything he says with a metric ton of salt. This is a guy who has no problem reviewing lenses he admits he has never even used, after all. Rockwell claims the 50mm Summicron is superior in sharpness to the 50mm Summilux ASPH. I have owned both (and still own the ASPH), and that claim is sheer nonsense. The 50mm cron does have nicer bokeh, but the 50mm lux is sharper yet.
What would be a good comparison test of the lenses? If I get the time this weekend, I may take some comparative shots.
http://www.imx.nl/photo/page152/files/archive-11-march-2012.html
Given his critical take in the past on non-Leica lenses, this is high praise indeed.
As for Ken Rockwell, he certainly has entertainment value, but he makes (a lot of) money from affiliate referral commissions by Adorama et al, so he has a direct financial incentive to stoke GAS and equipment churn. Take everything he says with a metric ton of salt. This is a guy who has no problem reviewing lenses he admits he has never even used, after all. Rockwell claims the 50mm Summicron is superior in sharpness to the 50mm Summilux ASPH. I have owned both (and still own the ASPH), and that claim is sheer nonsense. The 50mm cron does have nicer bokeh, but the 50mm lux is sharper yet.
What would be a good comparison test of the lenses? If I get the time this weekend, I may take some comparative shots.
Yes, Ken makes his money when people buy the gear. But to be fair, he has posted probably 100s of times that the equipment doesn't matter, and he also reviews and posts photos from ancient film cameras that don't make him a dime if someone buys one...
I am not sure he stokes GAS...or if the reader is already pre-disposed to GAS and he just obliges them with the reviews and commentary.
In reference to Put's comments about the 35mm in comparison to the Summilux, I guess that somewhat vindicates Ken.
I am not sure he stokes GAS...or if the reader is already pre-disposed to GAS and he just obliges them with the reviews and commentary.
In reference to Put's comments about the 35mm in comparison to the Summilux, I guess that somewhat vindicates Ken.
intheviewfinder
Street
As much as I dislike Ken's tactics in order to generate revenue from his site I tend to somewhat agree with him. Though I've only had the XP1 and the 35mm a short while, it definitely compares quite favorably to an M9 with the Summilux 50mm. At a fraction of the cost (90% of the Leica for just 15% the cost) I can see a lot of folks skipping the M route. I'm afraid in fact it may be that as these sorts of cameras take off we will see the relegating of Leica to boutiques and as a status symbol, unless of course they have something revolutionary up their sleeves.
--Rich
--Rich
lam
Well-known
I've owned my XP1/35 1.4 for approx. 3 days, every shot i've taken with the combo has just amazed me.
More so than when I owned an M8 with a 35 ASPH, or Biogon..
I agree with comments above about being optimized for smaller sensor etc, but I can honestly say I don't care because the combo has just blown me away.. and like Rich has just mentioned, this literally has curbed my appetite for an M9..!
-Dave
More so than when I owned an M8 with a 35 ASPH, or Biogon..
I agree with comments above about being optimized for smaller sensor etc, but I can honestly say I don't care because the combo has just blown me away.. and like Rich has just mentioned, this literally has curbed my appetite for an M9..!
-Dave
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
Regarding the curbing of ones appetite for an M9 - I would concur with that statement.
Cheers,
Dave
Cheers,
Dave
ZlatkoBatistich
Established
Easy to say, but where is the side-by-side comparison of the lenses? Is it actually "better"? If so, it should be easy to show. The problem with KR is that unreliability is his modus operandi.
The Leica 50/1.4 ASPH is acknowledged to be the best 50. Being better than that would be pretty amazing, especially at the Fuji's price.
chris00nj
Young Luddite
There is a Flickr group with over a 1,000 images. Look at results instead of MTF charts.
BobYIL
Well-known
Would you take a look at here? All the Leica lenses there are Aspherical versions (check through corners too):
http://picabroad.com/2012/03/24/fuji-x-pro-1-grand-test-with-leica-m-mount-lenses/
(By clicking on each picture the full-size versions 4896x3264 can be achieved.)
Penceler
Established
Would agree as well and certainly curbs any interest I may have had in an M8. Also ditto comments on how good that lens/sensor combo is - best surprise I've had in some time.
John
ZlatkoBatistich
Established
Thanks for the link. Both lenses look truly fantastic but the Leica looks a bit better, as it should for the price. I'm honestly not seeing KR's claim that the Fuji is better in these examples.
The Leica is showing a bit more detail for things that are in focus, but then it should as the magnification of a 50 is greater than that of a 35mm when mounted on the same camera. At f/1.4 the Leica is also showing shallower depth of field than the Fuji, so its out of focus areas look less sharp than those of the Fuji 35. It's still a good comparison, showing that the Fuji 35 offers superb quality.