the fuji 35/2...have you looked at the images?

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Hey, this lens is discounted to $299 today. I'm very annoyed, as I just bought it for $399. Asked amazon for a partial refund, which I suspect won't work. But if you're on the fence, this is a great time to get one.

 

[grouchos_tash]

Just playing the around the house today with the 35mm that I don't use enough...

 

[grouchos_tash]

 

[35photo]

_DSF0978.jpg by Marko Mihailovich, on Flickr

 

[grouchos_tash]

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Shot some music with it the other night...I like it!

 

[coelacanth]

Vanilla Sky by Suguru Nishioka, on Flickr

Just came back from a quick motorcycle ride in Woodside/Skyline. X-Pro2 and 35/2.

P.S. I noticed Flickr image posting quality got really worse recently. Not sure if I'm doing something wrong...

 

[intheviewfinder]

A beauty Sug.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

How do you think IQ of 35/2 compares to 35/1.4?

How do you think IQ of 35/2 compares to 35/1.4?

There are SO many beautiful images in this thread! Thank you all for posting them.

I'm wondering if any of you have a sense of how the image quality of the 35/2 lens compares with the older 35/1.4. Aside from the extra stop and the focusing speed. Do you notice any sharpness/color/bokeh differences? Over-all character difference? Thanks for any thoughts.

 

[jsrockit]

Jaime, I'm not the type to compare lenses too much with tests or anything. I think both are great lenses and that's enough for me. Of course the 1.4 has a nicer bokeh due to its speed. But both are great lenses that you cannot go wrong with.

 

[Scapevision]

Pretty cool regardless.


Breaking Pointe by Scapevision, on Flickr

 

[j.scooter]

Fuji XT1 35 f2

 

[gavinlg]

There are SO many beautiful images in this thread! Thank you all for posting them.

I'm wondering if any of you have a sense of how the image quality of the 35/2 lens compares with the older 35/1.4. Aside from the extra stop and the focusing speed. Do you notice any sharpness/color/bokeh differences? Over-all character difference? Thanks for any thoughts.

The 35mm f2 is a good lens in a lovely body, the 35mm f1.4 is a lovely lens in a good body. Personally I sold my 35mm f2 - the extra stop of the f1.4 is just too valuable on a crop body. If you never shoot wide open, the f2 is 95% as good optically with a little faster focussing and a jewel like body.

 

[f16sunshine]

Well said Gavin.
I also prefer the f1.4/35 images but still keep the f2/35 for it's WR and small size.


The f1.4 has a real air to it wide open. Just special. Summilux like. It's a Fujilux .

 

[shawn]

The F2 has more distortion than the 1.4. Compare raw turning on/off correction in something not Adobe (you can not disable geometric distortion correction) and you can easily see how much more distortion the 2.0 has. If is also not as sharp. Very nice lens but the 1.4 is magic.

Shawn

 

[gavinlg]

The f1.4 has a real air to it wide open. Just special. Summilux like. It's a Fujilux .

Yes, exactly. There's something special about the way it does things that elevates it above the f2. The f2 is solid optically, but not special.

 

[Dogman]

I have to agree with gavinlg and f16sunshine concerning the "specialness" of photos done with the 35/1.4 compared to the 35/2. Both are good lenses but there is definitely a quality to photos done with the 35/1.4 that is missing from photos done with the 34/2.

One caveat--I don't test lenses, I just take pictures with them. Therefore, I cannot comment on the clinical sharpness or other qualities of one lens vs the other.

 

[f16sunshine]

Mono👍 for this one @ f2
Jasper at home in Oakland by Adnan, on Flickr

 

[jsrockit]

Santiago, Chile

 

[jsrockit]

Santiago, Chile