35mm: trade in 1,4 for 2,0?

[adamjbonn]

Adam... no brainer? That's a little much. 🙂

Hey, YMMV

But for me, faster glass that's optically superior Vs the opposite!!

It's not even a massive cost difference (unlike the cron vs the rit !!)

 

[mdwsta4]

Yes. Had both, and kept the 2.0. While the 1.4 does delivery amazing results and is optically corrected, it is noisy and 'slower' to focus than the 2.0. In comparisons that extra 1 stop doesn't get you a ton and you can easily bump up the ISO a tad if need be. The 2.0 is faster to focus, silent, smaller, and weather resistant. The old 35 f1.4 used to be glued to my Fuji bodies. Now the 35 f2.0 is. Don't regret the change at all and cannot wait until the 23 f2 lens is released!

 

[mdwsta4]

Oh please. There have been countless comparisons between the f1.4 and f2 lenses and the difference between subject isolation/pop/whatever you want to call it is impossible to decipher.

I will give you the software correction point, but that's such a minor thing with digital cameras since everyone edits and corrects their images anyway (and software will correct distortion automatically) that I feel this is a moot point to any argument.

Your argument with Leica lenses should be Summilux vs Summicron, not Summarit. And in those cases, I actually prefer the crons over the luxes even at the loss of 1 stop.

That extra stop isn't just for ISO and SS, it also gives you more subject isolation, which people often gush about using words like 'pop' and '3D'

The software correction on modern lenses is great, but the 35 F1.4 doesn't need it at all (source: Fujifilm facebook page)

 

[Jamie Pillers]

Maybe someone here, who has both lenses, could take a picture using the 35/1.4 at f/2 and then the same picture using the 35/2 at f/2. At web resolution, my guess is there's no image quality difference. (Or maybe we'll find out there really is 'magic' in one of them?)

In my opinion, the whole argument comes down to whether one wants to spend the extra $ for one stop difference. Otherwise, save your money and get a lens that focuses faster, is smaller, and is weather & dust sealed.

 

[texchappy]

I may end up buying the f2 sometime but for now I'm sticking with the f1,4. I've got a few holes to fill. Darn you Adam - reading your blog I almost miss having my original 60 f2,4. But I'm also lusting after the 90,55-200, 56, ad infititum.

 

[back alley]

at 299.usd (399 cdn) keep them both if you like or really do whatever you feel...
i was going to sell mine as i hardly ever think in terms of a 50 fov...but after paying full cdn price for it selling is just dumb.
who knows what the future brings...perhaps i'll like the focal length again!

 

[kuvvy]

xpro1? you need to update your sig!

Well spotted Joe. Updated now🙂

 

[adamjbonn]

Oh please. There have been countless comparisons between the f1.4 and f2 lenses and the difference between subject isolation/pop/whatever you want to call it is impossible to decipher.

I will give you the software correction point, but that's such a minor thing with digital cameras since everyone edits and corrects their images anyway (and software will correct distortion automatically) that I feel this is a moot point to any argument.

Your argument with Leica lenses should be Summilux vs Summicron, not Summarit. And in those cases, I actually prefer the crons over the luxes even at the loss of 1 stop.

Oh please what? I'm not allowed my opinion?!!

In Terms of FF equivalence it's not lux vs cron is it?

Cron vs lux is a very different debate, shed loads more cash, shed loads more weight, and quite possibly that on RF focusing the average user might get more in focus shots with the F2...

With the XF35s (in FF) it's f2 vs f2.8

You'd need (approx) 33 f1.0 to get a lux 'look' from APSC

Things like this all come down to what people personally want.

If the increased af is more important to someone, then for them it's a no brainer. For me IQ and speed is... Hence my opinion

X-Trans is, in my opinion, unlikely to ever have the best AF in class, so its easy to make a case for the f2 but equally Fuji ISO when compared to SOS is about 1/3 stop under what it says on the tin, so any help that the lens can give there is welcome too...

You pays ya money etc, you states ya opinion, you get snark off the internet

 

[adamjbonn]

I may end up buying the f2 sometime but for now I'm sticking with the f1,4. I've got a few holes to fill. Darn you Adam - reading your blog I almost miss having my original 60 f2,4. But I'm also lusting after the 90,55-200, 56, ad infititum.

Thanks! 🙂

I do lust after the 56... But I like the 60....

Like everything 1st gen Fuji X, if you make your peace with the fact it's slow to operate then it performs well

 

[adamjbonn]

Maybe someone here, who has both lenses, could take a picture using the 35/1.4 at f/2 and then the same picture using the 35/2 at f/2. At web resolution, my guess is there's no image quality difference. (Or maybe we'll find out there really is 'magic' in one of them?)

In my opinion, the whole argument comes down to whether one wants to spend the extra $ for one stop difference. Otherwise, save your money and get a lens that focuses faster, is smaller, and is weather & dust sealed.

Someone should post pictures of each, one at 1.4 the other at 2

Because that's what the difference will boil down to

The 1.4 is ""magical"" at 1.4 you either want that, and buy it fully aware of the other limitations

Or you don't care about that and want the newer tech of the f2

 

[TKH]

Maybe someone here, who has both lenses, could take a picture using the 35/1.4 at f/2 and then the same picture using the 35/2 at f/2. At web resolution, my guess is there's no image quality difference. (Or maybe we'll find out there really is 'magic' in one of them?)

Had both. Did a test in november. Used tripod.
Have a look to the original pics:

https://flic.kr/s/aHskBVv3Lq

Still at f2 the old 1.4 eats the new 35mm lens (see the bokeh at the top of the fence and the writing on the wall in the background).

Even both lenses at f4 the old lens is the clear winner. The corners of the new lens are nothing to tell at home...

Rainer

 

[jsrockit]

Still at f2 the old 1.4 eats the new 35mm lens (see the bokeh at the top of the fence and the writing on the wall in the background).

Minutiae when it comes down to most practical photography though...

 

[TKH]

Thats right, but YMMV.

I think the 35 f2 is a very good lens. I personally only don't saw the need to fire my 35 f1.4 for it. Fuji photographers with still no 35mm lens can buy the f2 and be a happy camper.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

Had both. Did a test in november. Used tripod.
Have a look to the original pics:

https://flic.kr/s/aHskBVv3Lq

Still at f2 the old 1.4 eats the new 35mm lens (see the bokeh at the top of the fence and the writing on the wall in the background).

Even both lenses at f4 the old lens is the clear winner. The corners of the new lens are nothing to tell at home...

Rainer

Rainer,
Thanks for posting these. Much appreciated. I must say that there doesn't appear to be any image quality difference to my eye. Yes there's a tiny bit more background stuff out-of-focus with the 35/1.4. But as far as anything showing up as 'magical'? Not as far as I can see.

 

[TKH]

Jamie,
Your welcome. 🙂

I just downsize from X-T1 to X-E2. If my 35mm 1.4 would broke or get stolen, I would check first a 35mm f2.