Fuji 35/2 LTM and Canon 35/1.8 LTM

Great report, thanks for doing this. The Canon holds up well against the Fuji 35/2, which is a much more expensive lens on the second hand market and not particularly common.
 
Nothing definitive here, but a couple shots from the Fujinon 35/2 a couple yrs ago on Fuji Superior 400, out of date film. Mounted on a Tanack V3 I had just gotten before a trip to Maine. probably not optically any better than most mid 50's RF wides, but just love the "solid" feel of this lens. This is a second example of this lens I have owned, and you are right, "they ain't cheap!231027000199060017.jpg231027000199060018.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
hilltime said:
Nothing definitive here, but a couple shots from the Fujinon 35/2 a couple yrs ago on Fuji Superior 400, out of date film. Mounted on a Tanack V3 I had just gotten before a trip to Maine. probably not optically any better than most mid 50's RF wides, but just love the "solid" feel of this lens. This is a second example of this lens I have owned, and you are right, "they ain't cheap!
Click to expand...
The Fujinon is built like a tank. The Canon is a lot lighter. Both are very smooth in operation and have nice positive click stops on aperture ring. Weighed without filter or lens caps

 
Went to Manassas Battlefield about 7AM, got 10 shots before the Z6 died, the camera, not the battery. Swapped in a fresh battery, nothing.
He's dead, Jim. Did not get a chance to do some flare testing, will follow up with the Sony today or tomorrow. Histograms on these two images very similar, although exposure looks different.
Fuji f4, about 30 meters from the cannon on left

Canon f1.8 at f4
 
Last edited:
I'm no expert, but quite similar from what I see. The Canon F2 definitely has a bit more contrast.... but of course is much newer in production.
Great comparison series. Sorry for the Z6. Is it terminal?
 
I am curious what others think about why the Fuji looks like it is about 2/3 of a stop less exposed than either of the Canons.
 
hilltime said:
Sorry for the Z6. Is it terminal?
Click to expand...
Once I returned home, I charged up a brand new battery, attached the camera to my computer with USB cable and turned on the camera. My computer recognized the Nikon, and I was able to use camera-based menu system to re-install the latest version of the firmware. Camera appears to work OK. I have no idea what happened, but something glitched. So far, so good, but do not trust the camera yet. I hope that this is a one-time issue, I really like the images from the Z6, even if the controls, lens mount and other stuff is "Nikon backwards"😀
 
dexdog said:
I am curious what others think about why the Fuji looks like it is about 2/3 of a stop less exposed than either of the Canons.
Click to expand...
How recessed are each of the rear groups into the camera? I'm thinking that would create a difference.
 
Very odd, my Z6 hasn't ever done that. I find it a great platform for adapted lenses. I do not, in fact, have any native Z mount lenses. 🙂
 
I used the depth function on my calipers to *gently* touch the center of the front element from a straight-edge placed across the front of the lens. The Fuji was about 9.8mm, the Canon 35/1.8 was about 8.7mm
 
splitimageview said:
Very odd, my Z6 hasn't ever done that. I find it a great platform for adapted lenses. I do not, in fact, have any native Z mount lenses. 🙂
Click to expand...
Yeah, me neither! I bought it to use on 70+ year old lenses, especially on 35mm and wider, where the Nikon does better with lenses that protrude deep into the body of the camera. I think that the Sony is comparable on lenses like the ones in this thread. The Nikon does much better on the 21 and 35mm Biogons, Biometar and other lenses
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom