[Fuji vs Leica Lens]

If you are not, you're not making a great point in how you express it. If you compare two true 35mm lenses on a fixed sensor size, they are producing the same angle of view. With the examples you give you're just muddling the waters more. If you compare two 35mm on the same camera and sensor that is a totally valid comparison and they should (as long as the 35mm are actuals and not "roughly 35mm" like on many lenses) lead to exactly the same result. 

 

Sure, 35mm lenses built for different "sensor" sizes have different projection circles and therefore different difficulties to deal with, but they are still 35mm lenses and when projecting on the same sensor give the same angle of view. That they aren't meant for "only" this angle of view is a different story, if you compare them on an APS-C sized sensor you're actually generally cutting off the parts where the lenses built for a larger projection circle fall off and therefore they can sometimes deliver better results across the smaller frame than on their native mounts. 

 

I totally understand what you are saying, my opinion is that you're not making your point very clear. As long as you always take the same projection area from each lens, a 35mm is a 35mm is a 35mm lens. There's no difference in angle of view when compared on the same "sensor size". Whether they are meant for that sensor size is a different story.

You are right that I'm not making my point clear. But I stand by the WHY I said it: they were made for a different purpose, and for different system, therefore the only thing they have or should have in common is the angle of view on the third-party system, which, in this case, is the X-T1. Anyway, while I like that I did the test, it was pretty unfair to even the 50 year-old lens to shoot it on such a wobbly adapter. Ditto the Leica. If I did it again, I would have probably used the Fujifilm adapter (which I don't have) or shoot the other two lenses on an A7r or M240, then either crop the images to APS-C, or use 50mm lenses instead. 

 

That adapter is hugely problematic. Still, the 35 Fujifilm 1,4 is a great lens.

[Fuji vs Leica Lens]

I have a feeling you are mixing concepts of focal length and projection circle.

I'm not. I compared three lenses, two meant to cover larger film sensors and therefore cover wider angles of view. The third, the 35mm Fujifilm was not designed to be a wide angle lens. It was meant to be a normal lens on a small sensor. Again, a 35mm Rodenstock LF lens is a super wide angle lens. Comparing it to a 35mm APS-C is only apt because the two are 35mm. But they were designed for completely different systems. 

 

I understand that 35mm is 35mm. I'm not stupid. But if you think that a 35mm lens designed for a small sensor has the same design parameters as a 35mm lens designed for even a FF, not to mention MF or LF, there's nothing more to talk about. I called my original method stupid or silly because it is: as always, lenses designed specifically for a system are better: more rigidly attached to a mount; parallel to the film plane, and optimised for the film or sensor. 

 

Conversely, if there were a way to attach the 35 to a FF camera, as you know, it would only illuminate a small portion in the centre, and after cutting out the severe vignetting, you'd be left with the image projected by a native lens somewhere between 50mm and 55mm. If the adapter were good enough, it may even be sharper. Oftentimes lenses built for small sensors are super sharp. I could be wrong, but the iPhone 6 lens, which is extremely sharp on its tiny sensor, would probably out resolve in lpm any Fujifilm lens, if only it cast a large enough image to illuminate more than a few central pixels. 

[Fuji vs Leica Lens]

Why would this be silly? Comparing a 35 to a 35 is exactly the right thing. The Fuji 35 isn't a "normal 50mm" lens, it's a 35mm lens. That it doesn't render an image circle that fits a FF sensor is a different story but has nothing to do with the physical focal length of the lens.

 

You are actually doing the Leica a favor here as this lens is made to render an image circle filling a larger surface sensor or film with a good image, on APS-C you are just taking "the good parts". You'll have much more drop off in quality towards the corners when you put this lens on a FF sensor.

Simply put, the 35mm lenses for Leica are wide-angle lenses built to project a wider angle. The Fuji may be a 35mm lens, but it projects a narrower image. So, we're comparing lens projections for one lens built for the camera and two that are not. If I put on a 35mm LF lens, it would make the comparison even sillier, because that 35mm lens is made to project an image muuuuuuch wider still, and which, depending on the film size, could be anywhere from 16mm (FF) to 23mm (FF). 

 

That, and the LF lens wouldn't get close enough to the sensor on the X-T1 because of the massive flange distance of the X-T1 and adapter. 

 

It IS fair to compare a 35mm built for a certain film size with another 35mm built for the same film size. That makes total sense. For APS-C, the Fujinon is a 35 that isn't a wide angle. It is a 'normal' because of the size of its projection circle. But you know that already. 

 

I am doing no favours to either the Canon or the Leica. I understand the argument: sharpest in centre... but if the only thing you look for in an image is sharpness... and better yet, I used an adapter. It is a Hawk's Factory, which previously I derided for being off-centre, and in parts, not perfectly parallel to the sensor. It also has internal reflections which I have tried to baffle away. I am doing no favours to any non-X lens. As to drop off in corners in a FF camera... you understand of course that by doing so, the lens would then be a wide angle, equivalent to the 23mm on the Fujifilm, so it would be a completely different comparison anyway. 

 

And, you don't know that. The Canon is a 60 year-old lens. The Leica is 20+ years old. Both are built for film, so it is likely that they have more problems at the corners on digital, but without first testing them on their native mounts, I wouldn't dare call that definitive. Again, which is why it is silly to compare any lens built for a different sized sensor on a smaller sensor. The lens wasn't intended for that use, it may be on a poor adapter, its alignment may be wrong even on high quality bellows. There are so many equations. But I did it anyway because it's what I do. I love doing silly comparisons. And make no mistake, it was silly.

[Fuji vs Leica Lens]

I have only compared the Fujifilm 35/1,4 to the Canon 35/1,4 and Leica 35 Summilux (pre-ASPH). They are compared in this article: Speedy 35s from Fujifilm, Canon, and Leica Part 1: Sharpness and DOF.

 

For images shot wide open, the Fujifilm may be the most contrasty, followed by the Leica, and the Canon is far behind. For image draw, it is all up in the air. The 35/1,5 Canon is the wildest, while the Leica has the most unique OOF draw. The Fujinon's bokeh is smoother. It's all personal. The Fujinon 35's draw is superb, but the Leica's unique OOF rendering is my favourite of all 35mm lenses for FF. Of course, it's silly to compare two wide angle lenses (35mm on 35mm film) to a lens with a normal angle of view on APS-C. But I did it. 

Note: I'm not keen on the 35mm FLE Summilux. 

[landscapes with fuji x]

Geroldsee, Germany

 

Geroldsee-s.jpg

 

Flickr / 500px / fotocommunity

Is there are more beautiful place on earth?