Will you buy the 35mm f2?

[Warwick]

What's the benefit here? I have the 35mm 1.4. And it's smaller and lighter than all my other Fuji lenses except for the 18. Image-wise I imagine the 1.4 would be better. Size and weight not massively different. So I imagine the selling point of the f2 is the WR?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Aswald]

I'd buy it for the looks. And shoot wide open.

[olli]

I won't buy it myself since I have the existing 35/1.4, but having said that I hope lots of other Fuji users do. If it's a huge success then Fuji might be minded to fill, for me, the biggest gap in the current line up - a compact and affordable 50, 1.8 or 2 equally acceptable. As good as the 56 appears to be it's not an adequate replacement for the 50/1.8 I've had with every other camera system I've used.

[jlmphotos]

Nope.  Already own the 35 1.4 so I don't have a need for the F2 version.

J

[jlmphotos]

Everyone is all excited about the WR of this and other Fuji lens.  Quite frankly, I don't know if it is that critical.  I've used my 18-55 in rain and sleet; I've had it out in the elements since I purchased in back in February 2013.   I just returned from a 10 day trip where I was in Rain, sun, thunder, saltwater and sand. I used the 18-55, 55-200, and the Zeiss12mm.  My second most used lens was the 16 1.4 but that is WR.  The 18-55 was responsible for over 3,000 images alone and it survived.  The "ONLY" thing the WR designation would have done for me is to make me feel more at ease.  That's it.  

You know, back "in the day" we didn't have WR lenses.  We used our gear to make images, not to be coddled or displayed on  a shelf at  home or to post gear selfies online.  I lived in Alaska for four years and shot in rain, sleet and snow with all my Minolta gear.  Never had a problem.   If the lens did not survive so be it;  I would not go back to that brand again. Period.  My 18-55 was used to shoot for fun a water pistol fight.  My grandson literally pointed this water canon at me and sprayed me and the lens with a full load of water.  The 18-55 still works.  just fine.  Though I did see where water seeped in between the lens and the bod flange.  I had to physically dry it with a towel.  That's all that happened.  And I'm talking a water canon that held probably more water than you will see short of a monsoon.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.  

In a couple of days I'm headed out to shoot up on the Maine coast.  Wet, cold, drizzly weather.  I'm looking forward to it.  

[alba63]

For someone who is new to Fuji X this lens can make sense, for someone who is an existing user not so much. The 35/1,4 is light, can be bought cheap used and is maybe the most universal x lens with gorgeous quality and rendering. The shown samples are OK, but in the near field any lens will expose soft bokeh. F1,4 is 1 stop faster than f2, on crop that makes quite a difference.

[Gerlesion]

90% of my shots with this lens were taken at F/1.4. So absolutely no

[KeenanRIVALS]

I was going to get it for improved auto focus, but the XF 35, though beloved, is no longer my go to focal length for street photography since acquiring the XF 27. For my portraiture work fast autofocus isn't a priority, and depth of field is. When you factor in the price and the rebates I think it'll be a lens thats better to purchase down the road...

 

I don't know I'll probably pre-order lol.

[El Lawrence]

It's great to see Fuji opting to go with weather-resistant lenses.  I live and shoot in Hawaii where I'm never far from the beach or the rainforest, so WR makes this lens a must, for my type of photography.  I only wish my 56mm f1.2 had it too.

[milandro]

oh don’t worry they will give you that too so that you can spend  a lot of money in replacing all your lenses, anything for a buck.

 

However think that there was photography in these places even before there ever were WR cameras or lenses.

[cug]

That was a lot easier when lenses had gaps you could finger through to get dust out and you replaced the sensor with every photo. Modern technology is much more fragile. 

[val]

I shoot at f1.4 so nope.

[chris7384bu]

I don't understand all the hype about it! Can someone explain? Price, size and weight are not too far off of the 1.4 which is an awesome lens! So why that f2? WR okay, but then what? The 1.4 outperforms it. Fujifilm's starting to make weird decisions in their product line.

[cug]

You already know that the f/1.4 outperforms it? How do you know? You have a copy already? If not, why are you saying the current one outperforms it? 

 

The current XF35, even while being my favorite ever lens, has some very clear shortcomings, mainly corner and edge performance at pretty much any aperture. The corners all the way up to f/5.6 are actually pretty crappy in terms of resolution, not reaching more than 60% of the center performance. That's not great for some street or landscape photography. Doesn't matter if you use it for portraits only though. 

 

When you look at the performance of more recent XF lenses you probably see where Fuji is going: much more consistency across the whole frame and at a wider aperture range. 

 

Until the lens is out, measured and compared, saying one outperforms the other is just plain ridiculous (to use the politest phrase I could find for this).

[xuser101]

Sorry if it has already been discussed, but does anyone know the logic behind this new lens?  I mean, from what I can see it's slightly smaller, weather sealed and has f/2 instead of f/1.4.  Presumably, it will focus faster too.  So...I wonder why they didn't just update the existing f1/4 lens to have weather sealing and better AF and not come out with what would seem to give you some benefits of weather sealing and faster AF, but then take away the wider aperture.  I'm a little confused by this lens and how it's supposed to fit with the existing lens.  Sometimes I really WANT f/1.4 for that shallow DoF...but now I'd have to pick from more shallow DoF or weather sealing/better AF (?) and deeper DoF.

[Dis]

xuser101

Most likely the point was to make the special lens shape that won't interfere with X-Pro2 OVF.

[xuser101]

xuser101

Most likely the point was to make the special lens shape that won't interfere with X-Pro2 OVF.

 

Ah....ok.  Possibly.  I had the X-Pro1 in the past and I know what you mean about the lens being in the view when using the OVF.  I almost always used the EVF though ;-)

[cug]

Okay. Pre-ordered. Will see how I like it in comparison to the current XF35. Unfortunately, it shows a release date of 12/31. Darn, could have used it for the vacation trip to Mexico over New Years ...  

[Warren]

Yep! to go with my X-Pro2...  ...We have a trip to Williamsburg planned...Great testing grounds...

 

[CRAusmus]

I think this will definitely be on my purchase list.  After I get either the 14 or 16 of course.  As much as I love the ƒ1.4, I can't see any reason I wouldn't positively love this lens just as much or more.

[drb]

Okay. Pre-ordered. Will see how I like it in comparison to the current XF35. Unfortunately, it shows a release date of 12/31. Darn, could have used it for the vacation trip to Mexico over New Years ...

This date has now changed to November.

[cug]

We'll see. 

[andrewv8]

To be honest... I think the 35/2 is pretty ugly.  I also think most people really like the 35/1.4 although it could definitely be cheaper.  The 23/1.4 on the other hand is a freakin grapefruit.  The 35mm FOV is pretty core to many in this community and it would seem like an important focal length to have in a smaller package.  I also hate the petal hoods.  I actually really liked the smashed coke can hoods.