Fuji XF 35 1.4 AF speed

[FearTheXNoob]

Hi all,

 

I'm interested in the 35 1.4 to complement my current lenses (8, 10-24, 18-55, 56, 50-140). Many people seem to love the lens, but I've also heard not so great things about the AF speed. So my question to you: How bad is the AF speed, say compared to the 18-55?

 

Thanks in advance!

 

[russw]

The 18-55 is fast compared to the 35. How about getting the 23? It's sharper than the 35 and one of the faster focusing lenses. The 35 is the only lens I've sold so far. Really didn't like that lens.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Watcher24]

The XF35 was one of the first XF lens, so, yes, it has not the fastest AF motor. However ... i wouldn't say it is slow, its AF speed is sufficient (at least for me).

The AF speed of the XF35 (and other XF lenses) also depends on what body it is used. It is much more faster on a  X-T1 compared to using it on a X-Pro1.

[Sluw]

Hah, here's another opinion. The AF speed is just a little bit slower than the 18-55. Not very much. It is noisier but it's super sharp in the centre and amazing image quality. Still an amazing lens. AF is faster on the x-t1 and x-e2 than on the pro1. If you like the field of view i'd recommend it.

[Marc G.]

The problem with the 35 1.4's AF speed is the construction of the lens. To focus, the motor has to move EVERY single lens element present in the 35. I think Fuji calls this ALG (All Lens Group) focusing. A lot of glass has to be moved, slowing down the AF speed.

[CRAusmus]

I've heard a lot of Fuji X Shooters say that the 35 ƒ1.4 is the absolute must own lens in the Fuji XF lenses.  It will be my next lens, then I'll start saving my pennies for the 56...

[JLing]

You could wait for the 35mm f2 WR. And then make the choice. It's gonna be smaller, faster focusing and weather resistant. You already own the 56 for shallow df anyways... So I recommend waiting for the f2 version. That said...as long as I shoot Fuji il never sell my 35mm f1.4 its a absolute gem!

[FearTheXNoob]

You could wait for the 35mm f2 WR. And then make the choice. It's gonna be smaller, faster focusing and weather resistant. You already own the 56 for shallow df anyways... So I recommend waiting for the f2 version. That said...as long as I shoot Fuji il never sell my 35mm f1.4 its a absolute gem!

Well, I'm currently deciding wether to buy the 16-55 or a couple of primes (35, 16?). I want fast AF for the occasional action shoot and and shallow depth of field/light gathering capabilites. The 35 f/2 sounds like it will offer better AF speed, BUT it would also only be F/2 - which is very close to 2.8 from the zoom, so the advantage is kind of negated for me.

 

Btw, I'm a flexible shooter. I enjoy shooting primes but also the flexibility of zooms. Just in case you're wondering.

[joshinthecity]

The 35mm IS a gem, as above.

 

In my opinion, on the X-Pro1 I would rate it as "adequate" totally usable. No problem.

On the X-T1 I would rate it as "fast enough".

 

You'll forgive the slight lag when you see the images you create. It has the magic. Take our word for it.

I just walked-up and fired the shutter at this yesterday.

 

Oak Flats by Josh, on Flickr

[joshinthecity]

EDIT: Firmware 4.0 takes the 35mm another step forward in speed.

I doubt many will complain about it on the X-T1 any more..

It's plenty fast enough, even in my very dark loungeroom.

j.

[FearTheXNoob]

Thanks for the update, that sounds great!

[drb]

The 35mm IS a gem, as above.

 

In my opinion, on the X-Pro1 I would rate it as "adequate" totally usable. No problem.

 

 

Nice one. Was this taken with the xpro1?

On the X-T1 I would rate it as "fast enough".

 

You'll forgive the slight lag when you see the images you create. It has the magic. Take our word for it.

I just walked-up and fired the shutter at this yesterday.

 

Oak Flats by Josh, on Flickr

[joshinthecity]

No,  I had the X-T1 / 35mm + X100T with me at the time.

The Pro-1 would have done just as well in the same circumstance though..

j.

[CRAusmus]

Since hearing what folks are experiencing with the 4.0 FW, I'm even more excited about getting the 35.  Just need a few more dollars..

[jeremyclarke]

I kind of love the effects of the heavy motors in the 35mm, I can feel it working out the focus and I can feel when it's done even without looking at the screen (though I of course must look at the screen because all too often it has stopped on a failed focus state). 

 

That said it is a bit slow. Hopefully the new firmware will fix it. 

 

For me the true value of the 35mm is when I want only one lens total. It works in low light, offers nice shallow DoF for head shots and the FL lets me have capture most subjects in most situations in a pleasant way. 23mm would be better for tight spaces but I like the 35mm because I don't have to get RIGHT in people's faces for candids etc. 

 

Ultimately I'd rather have the 56mm and 23mm (or 16mm) together, but I like being able to have a single lens and not have to change it. I'm torn now because I feel like I need to buy both the 56 and the 23 before I'll ever choose one of them over the 35mm. Strongly considering getting the 16mm and working with that and the 35mm as an "everything" combo (with my 50-230mm for nature work).

[JLing]

Well, I'm currently deciding wether to buy the 16-55 or a couple of primes (35, 16?). I want fast AF for the occasional action shoot and and shallow depth of field/light gathering capabilites. The 35 f/2 sounds like it will offer better AF speed, BUT it would also only be F/2 - which is very close to 2.8 from the zoom, so the advantage is kind of negated for me.

 

Btw, I'm a flexible shooter. I enjoy shooting primes but also the flexibility of zooms. Just in case you're wondering.

one important thing , you didn't mention, to consider is the size and weight. The f2.8 zoom lenses are huge compared to the primes. The 35mm f2 WR is going to be even smaller then the classic 35mm f1.4.

 

If its only about light gathering f2 is still a full stop faster then f2.8. If it's about dof the 35mm f1.4 stopped down to f2 will still give you nice bokeh. Don't underestimate an f2 lens. It's plenty fast and still has nice thin dof. Remember that the x100 series is "only" f2.

 

Personally I don't think the 16-55mm f2.8 isn't worth it because:

- no ois

- no internal zoom

- large and heavy

- get the cheaper and smaller 18-55 with ois

http://admiringlight.com/blog/fuji-16-55mm-f2-8-vs-18-55mm-f2-8-4/

And if you want fast and thin dof get the 56mm f1.2 instead.

[Marc G.]

one important thing , you didn't mention, to consider is the size and weight. The f2.8 zoom lenses are huge compared to the primes. The 35mm f2 WR is going to be even smaller then the classic 35mm f1.4.

 

If its only about light gathering f2 is still a full stop faster then f2.8. If it's about dof the 35mm f1.4 stopped down to f2 will still give you nice bokeh. Don't underestimate an f2 lens. It's plenty fast and still has nice thin dof. Remember that the x100 series is "only" f2.

 

Personally I don't think the 16-55mm f2.8 isn't worth it because:

- no ois

- no internal zoom

- large and heavy

- get the cheaper and smaller 18-55 with ois

http://admiringlight.com/blog/fuji-16-55mm-f2-8-vs-18-55mm-f2-8-4/

And if you want fast and thin dof get the 56mm f1.2 instead.

You miss a few points about the 16-55.

 

The 16-55 is optically superior to the 18-55, no standard lens with a fast aperture has internal zoom and the AF of the 16-55 2.8 is MUCH better than any other Fuji lens with only the 50-140 being on par regarding speed and reliability.

[citral]

You buy this lens for its incredible IQ / feel / weight / magic / price, not for the AF.

 

It's more than adequate for everything walking, but not running.

[Sluw]

If you have the X-T1 or X-T10 then this seems to work super fast with the upcoming firmware udpate. I didn't see that coming. Link to the thread.

[marcelo_valente]

The 35mm is a great lens.  I never feel the focus is slow to be honest.  I guess I might have gotten used to it by now.  The shots below are straight out of the camera with the 35mm.

 

Zeca Pagodinho by Marcelo Valente, on Flickr

 

Zeca Pagodinho by Marcelo Valente, on Flickr

 

Zeca Pagodinho band by Marcelo Valente, on Flickr

[joshinthecity]

That's some epic metering right there if that's SOOC. !

[marcelo_valente]

That's some epic metering right there if that's SOOC. !

I was also impressed. Check my flick, there are others images there.

 

Sent from my SM-N910C using Tapatalk

[JLing]

You miss a few points about the 16-55.

 

The 16-55 is optically superior to the 18-55, no standard lens with a fast aperture has internal zoom and the AF of the 16-55 2.8 is MUCH better than any other Fuji lens with only the 50-140 being on par regarding speed and reliability.

you're probably right about the IQ and AF speed, but for me the 18-55 already the limit in size and weight for a mirrorless camera for me. The large weight and size of the 16-55 really puts me off and that's why I prefer the 18-55 to it.

 

But to get back on topic. There is a video on fujirumors with a test of the f1.4 with fw 4. Looks snappy enough for me!

[CRAusmus]

Bought the 35mm ƒ1.4 from B&H last night.. Should be here on Friday.

 

Sadly it's supposed to really storm this weekend, but I wanted to grab it before the deals ran out on the 27th and I had the funds, so...

 

I'm really looking forward to this lens.  It'll be my first prime of the X-Mount.  Trying to decide what is next...10-24, 12mm Sam, 27mm Fuji, or hold out for the 56 ƒ1.2...Decisions, decisions...

[FearTheXNoob]

I didn't buy a Fuji because I want something small, so size is not a criteria for me. The question is whether IQ and AF speed differences are big enough to justify the 16-55 over the 18-55 for me.

 

Anyway, after watching the videos with FW 4.0 and reading some of the enamored owner's opinions I've now ordered the 35 1.4. Looking forward to try it out soon.