Fuji 18mm vs 35mm

[hippoeater]

Looking for some insight on these two lenses and anyone who has experience with both.

I've been all over the internet reading reviews and looking at images from both...but I don't see many if any comments from people who own and use both.

Taking the focal length differences out of the equation - how does the 18mm perform optically? How is the AF accuracy compared to the 35?

Would love to see some pictures or hear some feedback from anyone who has experience with them!

Thanks!

 

[back alley]

they are both great!
the 35 is a bit more versatile but then that depends on what/how you shoot.
the 18 got a bad rap as not being as good as the 35 but in my shots i cannot see any difference...my flickr stream has sets from all the fuji lenses save for the 14.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/back_alley/sets

 

[gdi]

I agree with Joe - both are great ( as is the 60 macro, but you didn't ask). You don't need to treat one differently from the other, IMO.

 

[semilog]

I had both. Sold the 35 and am now using an adapted Leica 35.

The 35 is a hair sharper, a lot bigger, a bit heavier, a stop faster.

The 18/2 is pretty close, functionally, to a 28/2 Summicron. Great bokeh, almost at its maximum performance right from full aperture, fast, small (almost a pancake), extremely lightweight, and it focuses a bit faster than the 35. It's a very, very attractive price/performance/size tradeoff.

The 35 doesn't have a lot of geometric distortion. The 18 has a lot of barrel distortion; it's corrected automatically by the camera or RAW developer. This is the same design strategy used by Panasonic with their stellar 20/1.7 for the micro 4/3 cameras, and it works well.

If I'm going to have just one lens it's going to be the wider one; that's just the way I see the world.

For me, if I'm shooting portraits or need a bit of standoff distance I'll use the 35. If I'm shooting on the street, the 18.

 

[willie_901]

The 35/1.4 is better in every way. The corner sharpness and lateral CSA are two areas where the 35/1.4 outperforms the 18/2. At the same time the 18/2 has an excellent cost😛erformance ratio. I think the 18/2 is primarily a reportage lens. I would not recommend the 18/2 for high-end architectural or landscape work. Perhaps the greatest problem with the 18/2 is the barrel distortion is corrected in-camera or upon import of raw data into most post-processing software. While the corrections are very good, they do create some artifacts, especially in the corners. The CA is easy to eliminate in Lightroom. But occasionally strange things happen near the edges.

Keep in mind an 18/2 lens with low barrel distortion would be much larger and cost much more. For all practical purposes the 18/2 provides the same outright sensitivity as a 28/2.8 with a 24x36 mm sensor. The compromise of cost and size vs barrel distortion for a reportage lens is worthwhile to me. I use the 18/2 regularly and plan to keep it for the forseeable future.

The 35/1.4 is one of the best lenses I've owned. The price😛erformance ratio is crazy good. I just love the look of the images from this lens. I have not found any issues, even after absurd pixel peeping.

Both lenses are well made.

 

[kbg32]

35mm - http://www.pbase.com/keithbg/image/147951842

18mm - http://www.pbase.com/keithbg/image/148410812

The 35mm is as good as everyone says. The 18mm just gets a bad rap. It is an excellent lens.

 

[semilog]

One other thing about the 18/2. It is very flare-resistant. Again, a terrific attribute for a reportage lens. There is a lot more to lens performance than simple sharpness. Fuji's engineers really knew what they were doing when they designed that lens.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

I had both. Sold the 35 and am now using an adapted Leica 35.

The 35 is a hair sharper, a lot bigger, a bit heavier, a stop faster.

The 18/2 is pretty close, functionally, to a 28/2 Summicron. Great bokeh, almost at its maximum performance right from full aperture, fast, small (almost a pancake), extremely lightweight, and it focuses a bit faster than the 35. It's a very, very attractive price/performance/size tradeoff.

The 35 doesn't have a lot of geometric distortion. The 18 has a lot of barrel distortion; it's corrected automatically by the camera or RAW developer. This is the same design strategy used by Panasonic with their stellar 20/1.7 for the micro 4/3 cameras, and it works well.

If I'm going to have just one lens it's going to be the wider one; that's just the way I see the world.

For me, if I'm shooting portraits or need a bit of standoff distance I'll use the 35. If I'm shooting on the street, the 18.

Same thoughts... both are great, and so is the 60mm. If you use them, you'll love them. If you just read reviews, you'll likely just get more and more confused. 😱

 

[djonesii]

just get all three and be done with it!

just get all three and be done with it!

Face it, if you are hanging out here, you really NEED all three lenses, think like food and oxygen.

I have the 18/35/60, the plan was to live with the 15mm CV until the wide zoom came out, but one popped up at $400, and that is crazy cheap for an effective 28/2.8 this good. Hard to find the MF nikon in new shape for that price, and it's lots smaller.

Dave

 

[Stockman]

I have the 35 and 60, very happy with both. Had the 18 for a couple of weeks and found it to be extremely disappointing. Centre was "ok", edge and corners "appalling" at all apertures!

Plenty of people say it is good for the price though. Personally I expect better.

 

[back alley]

i need to take my 18 out for a spin soon...i just don't see all this badness from it...

 

[nanthor]

In my use, the 35 is fabulous, makes me wonder why my Leica lenses can't be as good. The 18 is also great, not quite as good but close. Both lenses are very sharp with excellent bokeh. I'm looking forward to getting most all the Fuji lenses if they are this good. Bob.