cug

Who made you Fujifilm's CEO? Absolutes are mostly absolute BS.

Fujifilm makes good cameras, but they make terrible websites. It's a problem of the site.

I think the recommendation is crystal clear: get the 90mm if you want the 90mm field of view, get a 35mm if you want the 35mm field of view. Pick one of the Fuji 35mm based on how they look like and what you read about them. Be happy afterwards.

Absolutely no issue at all in bright sunshine as long as I use contacts. I use the "long eyecup" though.

Okay, let's take a look at this. Which of course isn't true. People get bashed when they come in and criticize Fuji based on made up arguments. I'm trying to be polite here and call it arguments even though my personal opinion is "slightly" harsher. So, to put it very bluntly, the 35/1.4 is optically superior in every way I have tested the two lenses from f/4 and up. It is optically equal from f/2.8 and up. It is comparable in the center at f/2 and it beats the crap out of the new one at f/1.4 because you're not getting a photo from the new one at all. I have seen examples now from various photographers taking photos from a tripod from the same place and they all show the same: the old one is optically better. Plus it is optically corrected which immediately makes it larger. If you want optically inferior, software corrected, slower lenses that are smaller - that's fairly easy of course. Quality is normally measurable and obvious differences are fairly easy to show. It's raining cats and dogs here today so I might go and build a quick sharpness comparison setup for the two lenses I have here if nothing else comes up that I can waste my time with. The size and weight are definitely a factor. But size and weight and certain optical traits are related to each other. You'll have to live with physics involved. So, I don't know what your goal is right now, but obviously wrong arguments (unfortunately, you can't really question physics here) isn't helping the discussion. Let's put it this way: Yes, I want a smaller XF23. I am willing to take the downsides of a physically smaller design, which means the lens will be slower, it will be less optically corrected, it might have some sharpness traits in the center, but will not beat the bigger lens. That's okay. I want it smaller, so I'm willing to accept the optical downsides of making a lens smaller. Is that what you're getting at? If yes, then why trying to bring up the weird discussion again that you can make a lens optically better AND smaller? We already know that this doesn't work that easy.

I really like the results I'm getting from my XF35/2: https://www.flickr.com/photos/cug/albums/72157660921546609

While I do agree with your point about macro in general, I have also read a lot about the 60mm not working too well with the close focus adaptors. I personally own the Zeiss 50mm Touit Macro and it is an absolutely tremendous lens. The only thing I wish it had is a longer focal length. But as I rarely ever need 1:1 or even 1:2 it's okay. I'm selling it right now, but that's not because of the capabilities, more because I don't use it enough.

I've seen people squeeze a Nikon D800 into a Billingham Hadley Pro. Not that I wanted to do that but if you insist on leaving the battery grip on ... My Hadley Pro works fine with the X-T1 and the ArcaSwiss plate I have permanently attached. Don't own a battery grip so I can't try.

Anything that fits standard body DSLR like 6D, 7D, 5D, D7x0, D7x00 should be okay for an X-T1 with grip. I don't use a grip (wouldn't know why) with the X-T1, so I don't know for certain, my bags probably wouldn't fit anyways as they are designed for compact gear.

There are use cases, of course. Cropping is also one of mine, mainly because I use shorter focal lengths most of the time (longest I own for the Fuji system is 90mm).

I don't think there is a way to make a better quality 23 at a much lower price and size. You are asking to get physics out-smarted. You can have optical correction or smaller size, you can have optical correction or lower price. You just can't get all the stuff you want in a single package. The 35/2 is optically the inferior lens to the 35/14. I own both and have done extensive comparisons now, as nice as the new XF35 is, the old one is optically the better lens. The 90 is much more expensive.

Respect and "being nice" are two different things. I don't need the typical American shit sandwich to convey a message. I'd rather get the facts, straight and blunt. That means neutral packaging, facts only. Many people might consider that as not being nice. Sorry, but if they need everything packaged nicely they shouldn't have left the bed in the morning.

The little bit of speed you gain with the Zeiss is more than likely not going to matter much. Sensors will get better and better over time, making high ISO even more possible than today, so the main reason would be decreased depth of field which, given the small difference, is likely more a matter of taste how out of focus areas are rendered than how deep the depth of field is. My personal opinion is that the new XF35 f/2 has wonderful out of focus rendering. I have never used the Zeiss, but in the examples I have seen, I did not particularly like the OOF rendering. And as it is a matter of taste: you need to decide for yourself. Flickr gets more and more photos for these lenses, so take a look and get an initial impression: https://www.flickr.com/groups/fujinon35mmf2/ https://www.flickr.com/groups/touit_32mm/

I have much less problems with actual facts in a rude tone than total fiction in a nice package.

The D800 has roughly the same pixel density as a 16MP APS-C camera, so this has absolutely nothing to do with the high MP count - that only comes into play when you again go to 1:1 magnification, which is kind of ridiculous because if you do this on a typical large screen nowadays, it would mean you also look at a 2m wide print from a 50cm viewing distance, which of course is completely ridiculous. In the real world pixel peeping and 1:1 magnification has only one real use case: gauging the sharpening/masking/de-noise settings in your raw converter. Just think about the campaign Apple has going on where iPhone photos are printed on huge billboards and look absolutely stunning there: http://time.com/3726913/apple-iphone-photo-campaign/ I am fully relaxed. It's always a matter of how something comes across, but your post might have been considered offensive to people here, that's what I wanted to make really clear. Regarding the rules for shutter speeds: all of these are basically estimates. Rule of thumb type helpers. If I recall correctly, the typical resolution of a very high res film is considered in the 16 to 20MP range (for 35mm film), therefore, today's sensors already surpass this by quite a margin (42MP on the A7R II, 50MP on a 5DS). The thing is, my monitor has a pixel pitch of roughly 100 pixel/inch. That means that a 1:1 magnification view of a photo from 16MP Fuji sensor would be 49 inches on the long end when printed to show the same 1:1 magnification and 100dpi. I have a faded memory that the typical viewing distance of photos is normally never less than the diagonal, so the typical viewing distance of 70cm to my cinema display is less than half of the typical viewing distance of the said print. And people are obsessing whether a 16MP photo can be printed on 8x12" (20x30cm) size. I find this quite amusing. Coming back to lens quality, I am the first to admit that I'm a sucker for sharpness. I love lenses that produce crisp results on the sensor at hand. I love lenses that basically out-resolve a 16MP sensor like the 23 (center) and 90mm (most of the frame) XF lenses. But in all reality, I can produce shots with an iPhone 4 that can be printed in 20x30 inches with satisfying quality for most people. Because most of people aren't pixel peeping. Hell, I add grain to many of my photos, reducing the resolution and sharpness significantly.

I think you are again mixing facts and fiction - something that didn't get you much love here in the first place. The "bigger than it needs to be" is your, probably very amateurish, assumption of a complex optical design. I would like to have a smaller 23 f/2 WR XF lens as well, but that doesn't mean that the XF23 f/1.4 is bigger than it needs to be or has optical characteristics it doesn't need and that there could be a lot of weight/size savings on this particular lens given the design decisions that were made for this particular lens: near perfect optical correction and very wide aperture. That comes with concessions in other areas, mainly size and cost. Something being bigger or different from what you like it to be doesn't mean that it can be engineered differently while still satisfying the original requirements where the design team dared not to ask your opinion.

Sorry to be very blunt, Jürgen, but I think your post is full of sh** regarding the reaction here. I apologize for the language right here, but that's the only adequate description I have. People generally get agitated when someone stomps in the door, proclaims something as bad that has proven itself over and over as not bad in every single real life comparison that I have ever seen (and I saw a lot of them and can make my own here at home as well). There are so many comparisons around between XF23 and X100 series it's hard to count them and the result ALWAYS was "the XF23 is optically far superior, faster and better overall quality but it is just so frigging HUGE and it doesn't come with the other qualities of the X100 series". And just a quick disclaimer: I dislike the X100 series as well as the XF23 - but for much different reasons. I'd also like a 23 f/2 in smaller and digitally corrected, just like the XF35 f/2 - for my personal taste in small camera gear. The uproar has nothing to do with someone questioning the decisions made by the people here. It has everything to do with statements that are proven over and over to be false. Regarding your non-sharp photos, here's an interesting read for you (German): http://gwegner.de/know-how/schaerfe-unschaerfe/ Your "math" seems kind of personal to me as I don't need speeds this high to get 1:1 pixel sharpness, but that might be because I (luckily) have a very stable posture and no shake at all even after a coffee or two. Most people need to adjust their shutter speeds by something like "2x FL x Crop x Cups of Coffee" to get to sharp results. My personal opinion is that if you can't get a critically sharp shot of a typical slow or non-moving subject with an X-Pro1 + 18mm in decent light it's a problem of the photographer, not the camera/lens combination. As soon as things moves, either the photographer, trying to quickly grab a moment or the subject or the light is very low - all bets are off with ANY system in the world. The more pixel density you have the worse it will look at 1:1 magnification. Fact of life. 1:1 magnification is the bane of any reasonable discussion because it is mainly unnecessary.

No argument from me. The original argument was that the 35mm view is much more useful than the 50mm view.

I use a very simplified approach to this whole comparison question: For focal length comparison, find the crop multiplier and find the lenses that have the same field of view after applying that multiplier. For example, 50mm on a Canon 5D MkIII, 35mm on a Fuji X-T1, 25mm on an M4/3 camera. For light gathering, take the f-stop and be done with it. Exposure setting should be the same when using f/1.4 on M4/3, APS-C or FF. For depth of field, add one stop for each sensor size doubling, that would mean f/1.4 on M4/3 is similar to f/2 on APS-C which is similar to f/2.8 on FF. This isn't exact though, but it's close enough to be workable. So, it's true that for DoF and rendering comparison the 56 f/1.2 should be compared to an 85 f/1.8 on a FF body, but that doesn't apply to light gathering. But because a lot of FF sensors have better ISO performance than a lot of APS-C sensors, you could argue that you can just use one stop higher ISO on the FF camera and still get equivalent results.

Not if it doesn't fit your use case. Stating that a 35mm FL is more useful than a 50mm FL is just BS. Nothing else. Stating that a 35mm lens is more useful when you're trying to get a wildlife shot hundreds of meters away is also BS. It's all a matter of what a user prefers or needs for the shots he's trying to make.

Arguing with the usefulness of a focal length for a lens is like arguing with a shoe size for shoes. Either it fits you or it doesn't. There is no "more useful" or "better".

All of the above is very true, the two lenses are really different. The 23 is sharp, optically corrected, has the focus clutch. The XF35/2 is mostly sharp, digitally corrected, no focus clutch, has very fast AF and is a WR lens. Apart from that, handling the two is a world of difference. When I put the XF23 on my X-T1 I don't want to use it without the ArcaSwiss RRS place to I get more camera height to hold on to with my right hand. The combination feels like a small DSLR, not like a compact mirrorless setup anymore. Compared to the new 35, the 23 is just huge: http://camerasize.com/compact/#520.422,520.498,ha,t The weight difference is very significant as well even though it doesn't look like it on paper. When I put the 35 on, I also really WANT to remove the ArcaSwiss plate, because the package is so nice and light and compact. If I could have only one, there is no question, I'd have the 35. If budget allows for more than one lens, the two could complement each other depending on the shooting you do. But I'd rather have the 16 and the new 35 instead of 23 and 35.

I don't disagree with that. I was just giving my opinion that all Fuji lenses, except the ones with the focus clutch, are NOT really usable for manual focus. They are okay for back button focus and manual correction possibly, but not for manual focus. Just not workable. And I tried ... The only thing the MF setting is good for is to set to MF, use back button to set a zone focus distance and leave it alone from there. I wish there was more consistency in the whole Fuji range - lenses as well as bodies. Random lenses have WR, other have focus clutch, some have really whacky manual focus (way too much throw to be useful), others work different again. And don't get me started on the bodies. It shouldn't be so damn hard to get them to be more consistent in buttons, features and behavior.

But it probably already starts out with half or a quarter of the full power, so you might just get the same results ...

The point is that every Fuji lens that doesn't have the manual focus clutch completely sucks when using in manual focus. The new XF35 f/2 feels like it takes about 37 full turns to get from near to far and some other lenses are similar. There is no lens motor today that gives the precise feeling for mechanical movement when focusing. And Samyang/Rokinon lenses aren't really a good comparison for Fuji glass.