RF 35mm lens on Fuji X body

B

bwidjaja

Warung Photo
Local time
1:07 PM
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
276
I am more of a 50mm guy, so I like the Fuji 35mm f1.4 lens. For my use, the image quality coming from the lens is more than what I am capable of producing.

Having said that, recently I have been having a blast using Zeiss ZM 50mm Planar on manual focus, especially with the short focus throw.

Now the question is, does anyone have experience using just a manual focus 35mm RF lens on Fuji body that is great ergonomics wise. I am not too worried about speed or image quality unless it is just absolutely a bad lens.

I am more concerned with usability and especially losing the AF. Any thoughts you would like to share on suggested lens as well as whether I should just be happy with Fuji 35mm :)

Cheers
 
i use the minolta md 58/1.4 and find it great fun!
i have a 35 and 135 on the way also.
on the xe-1 i find it easy to focus and love the finder magnification!
 
bwidjaja said:
I am more of a 50mm guy, so I like the Fuji 35mm f1.4 lens. For my use, the image quality coming from the lens is more than what I am capable of producing.

Having said that, recently I have been having a blast using Zeiss ZM 50mm Planar on manual focus, especially with the short focus throw.

Now the question is, does anyone have experience using just a manual focus 35mm RF lens on Fuji body that is great ergonomics wise. I am not too worried about speed or image quality unless it is just absolutely a bad lens.

I am more concerned with usability and especially losing the AF. Any thoughts you would like to share on suggested lens as well as whether I should just be happy with Fuji 35mm :)

Cheers
Click to expand...

I don't have an X camera, but I use both the Voigtländer Color Skopar 35mm f/2.5 and Nokton 40mm f/1.4 MC on my Ricoh GXR-M and Olympus E-PL1. Both do awfully well on either body. It's a perfect normal on the GXR-M (same format as your X).

I love the silky smooth manual focus operation; although I have used servo-focus lenses quite a lot, there's something tactile and precise about a quality manual-focus helicoid that is hard to trump. The Color Skopar is also very compact and light weight.

G
 
I feel ripped off when I try to use M lenses on my X-Pro1 (after using its native lenses). The minimum focus is way too long and the manual focus process on this camera isn't up to par IMO.
 
jsrockit said:
I feel ripped off when I try to use M lenses on my X-Pro1 (after using its native lenses). The minimum focus is way too long and the manual focus process on this camera isn't up to par IMO.
Click to expand...

the xe-1 is easier to use...the diopter adjustment helps with this...the evf is better too.
plus, i think it feels more like a bonus with a cheaper lens like the minolta than with a pricey leica lens...
 
back alley said:
the xe-1 is easier to use...the diopter adjustment helps with this...the evf is better too.
plus, i think it feels more like a bonus with a cheaper lens like the minolta than with a pricey leica lens...
Click to expand...

Hmm, I can see how the clearer EVF could help, but the diopter? I hate diopters... to me it sucks to be blind until you look into a VF. The way I photograph is to see first, photograph next. I don't bring the camera to my eye until I see something and know I want to photograph it.

To me, it just feels, as you say, like an add on. The Fuji lenses are so good and I'm not opposed to AF, so I cannot see bothering with third party lenses for my needs.
 
No Rf lens but I do, occasionally, use my Nikon 28mm f2.8 AIS lens which is fun...but not as practical or outstanding as the 35mm 1.4 AF IMO (even though on one of my Nikons is an amazing lens.)
 
jsrockit said:
Hmm, I can see how the clearer EVF could help, but the diopter? I hate diopters... to me it sucks to be blind until you look into a VF. The way I photograph is to see first, photograph next. I don't bring the camera to my eye until I see something and know I want to photograph it.

To me, it just feels, as you say, like an add on. The Fuji lenses are so good and I'm not opposed to AF, so I cannot see bothering with third party lenses for my needs.
Click to expand...

i wear progressive lenses...when i look through the finder i have to have my head perfectly placed to see clearly and it's an uncomfortable position for me...with the diopter adjustment i set it for how my head sits naturally when looking through the finder and the view is always clear.
 
I had the Fuji 18, 35, 60, and 18-55 lenses at one time. I sold them all. I found the look they produced to be too sterile/sharp/modern. I now use the CV 40/1.4 SC and 15/4.5 and like them a lot. I zone focus the 15mm lens and get superb results. When using the 40, I use the EVF. It works great... there's just a touch of 'focus-peaking' that suits my eye and is very accurate. I use the Fuji M-mount adapter; it adds a nice level of convenience for inputing lens info.

I wear glasses and was initially having trouble seeing the focus peaking clearly while using the EVF. Then I added a Nikon +1 diopter to the VF window (its the same thread size as the Fuji). Now the view is sparkling, with my glasses on!
 
Ditto Godfrey on the lil color skopars (though I've traded/sold mine away!) Wonderful on the GXR. One of my best images (IMO) came from the 35/2.5 stopped down on the GXR.

If you like the Planar, why not a Biogon?

I also enjoy my Contax G lenses on the XE1 via Metabones adapter. Smooth barrel focus. Turns the trio into 42 Biogon, 67 PLanar, 135 SOnnar, yum yum.
 
jsrockit said:
I feel ripped off when I try to use M lenses on my X-Pro1 (after using its native lenses). The minimum focus is way too long and the manual focus process on this camera isn't up to par IMO.
Click to expand...

I have no Micro-FourThirds lenses, only adapted lenses. And the native lenses for a Ricoh GXR-M are M-bayonet RF lenses. So I don't feel "ripped off" because my lenses produce the same focusing range on all the cameras I fit them to. Of course, half of my lenses are SLR-original macro lenses that focus a lot closer than RF lenses.

Any lenses designed for TTL viewing cameras, SLR or electronic, tend to focus closer than RF lenses. It's only a problem with RF lenses if you're customarily shooting subject that are close up, at which point you'd be better off with any TTL viewing camera.

G
 
I use the 35 Summilux ASPH and the 35/2.8 C-Biogon on my X-E1. I am happy with the setup and focusing is easy, roughly as easy as with my M6. I sold my XF 35. The corners are not as sharp with the M lenses as with the XF.

Honestly, I'd be happy with either native or adapted lenses on this body. It's a great camera system.
 
Thanks all for the replies so far.

Jamie, you are making me want to make the jump. Too bad the 40 is too close to 50 in my opinion and I have 2 Jupiters and 1 Planar for that. And for some reason I remember not liking the bokeh too much on the CV 40. Still great lens and tiny though.

Anybody got some links to show how Skopar 35 f2.5 and Biogon 35 f2.8 perform? Seems like Biogon may be a tad big/heavy for the X-E1? How does it balance?
 
Godfrey said:
I have no Micro-FourThirds lenses, only adapted lenses. And the native lenses for a Ricoh GXR-M are M-bayonet RF lenses. So I don't feel "ripped off" because my lenses produce the same focusing range on all the cameras I fit them to. Of course, half of my lenses are SLR-original macro lenses that focus a lot closer than RF lenses.

Any lenses designed for TTL viewing cameras, SLR or electronic, tend to focus closer than RF lenses. It's only a problem with RF lenses if you're customarily shooting subject that are close up, at which point you'd be better off with any TTL viewing camera.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you felt the need to explain this like I don't know the reason why rangefinder lenses will not focus close. I was simply giving my opinion as to why I prefer the native lenses.
 
Like your Planar balance? The Biogon will be close enough. It's a bit stubbier than the Planar. On RFF hymns are sung to the 35 2.8, also to the rather tinier Skopar.

I'll also ditto the use of the 15 as my XF 21mm. P l e n t y W I d e.
 
I did try the 15 and it was fun to use. But for now, i decided to go with GRD IV and wide angle conversion for 21/28 FOV.

Looks like it's come down to trying either the Zeiss or the CV. Though the CV is tinier and less than half the price... Any compelling reason for the Biogon?
 
Only if nothing but Zeiss will do! Plus there are a number of nicely priced Skopars in the ads now.
 
jsrockit said:
Hmm, I can see how the clearer EVF could help, but the diopter? I hate diopters... to me it sucks to be blind until you look into a VF. The way I photograph is to see first, photograph next. I don't bring the camera to my eye until I see something and know I want to photograph it.

To me, it just feels, as you say, like an add on. The Fuji lenses are so good and I'm not opposed to AF, so I cannot see bothering with third party lenses for my needs.
Click to expand...

i have a +1 on the m9. i'm not blind without it, but it sure helps me focus wide open. the xe-1 has a great little dial diopter adjustment. and the thumb-click focus assist - while not an RF - is very workable. still, the XE-1 is better with the native AF lenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom