Jump to content

XF 35mm 1.4 vs XF 35mm f/2 is low light that much more noticeable?


enthawizeguy

Recommended Posts

First of all, how dark are we speaking ? Full city dark or full natural darkness ? Or just getting lower light than inside a house after the sunset ? 

 

The really low light art requires a few more pieces and it is completely different than handheld shots.

 

On a more general term, I would take the deal. The 23 is F1.4 and will replace that 35 F1.4 you planned originally, just a bit wider. Plus you get get the new 35 F2 which is a lot easier to work with when compared to the old one which is slower to focus and could have some issues against low contrast scene.

 

If you really plan on doing a lot of low light, please do consider a tripod, something of quality, you will need something sturdy and will not fall down at the slightest bump. Once you have your gear, take it to a camera shop and ask to test those tripods. Put your camera on the tripod and nudge it, see if it easily falls off. If the store guy know his stuff, he will quickly get rid of the flimsy tripod and motion you toward the better ones, sadly, also the more expensive one.

 

You can use monopods if you feel stable enough with your hands but do consider the option. The X-T1 is a really good camera but don't expect it to be able to get you ISO 200 in the dark handheld even with an F1.4 lens. 

 

If you don't have the budget for a decent tripod, maybe a Grillapod, it has articulate legs and can wrap itself around a lot of things. Don't be crazy tho, it's no spider legs there, but will get you the job done provided you can find some place to put it.

 

Low light photography is most often set on a tripod and you control the shoot either from a ranged trigger or another way wireless, the Fuji app is decent for that purpose. But on the mean time, you have your expensive gear set on top of some three legged thingy, if the wind blows hard enough, it can and certainly will tip over and you will find your precious gear on the ground. Cries and/or frustrations can follow that kind of event.

 

Considering you are relatively new in the craft, take some time to look at how it is usually done, there are plenty of youtube video that explains the process and what points to take into consideration.

Link to post
Share on other sites

is 1000 good for both the 35 and the 23 and another 250 for the 18?

Not used lenses no.  I don't think so anyway.  You could probably snag a 23 used for right around 550, and you can buy the 35 ƒ2 brand spanking new for 399.  That sounds decent for the 18 though to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the 18 sounds okay if you like that focal length. It's one of the more "under-rated" lenses in the Fuji line up, meaning it is "only very good", not excellent or outstanding like some of the others. I like the combination of 18 + 35 as a pairing of compact primes, although I actually prefer 14 + 35. Never really liked the 23 view all too much, I think it's a "jack of all trades, master of none" with less mastery in anything for me than the 35. But that's just me.

 

In general regarding focal length recommendation: this is even more personal than cameras. I'd say start with one lens for a while. Be that 23 (excellent optics) or any of the 35s and add where you think it makes most sense. I went for a wide spread with my first three lenses (14 + 35 + a manual 90mm Leica mount lens). That was a great combination and I filled gaps a year later, but 14 + 35 is still one of my mostly used carry kits, simply because it's versatile up to environmental portrait (35) and wide fun (14). 

 

Buying two lenses right away might get you more choice in the beginning, but if you are still figuring out what you really like, I'd just get one and see whether you are missing a lens wider or one longer than the one you own. Just more money efficient that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hard to say. I've done what you've mentioned with each of these lenses alone (no other lenses with me): 14, 23, 35, 50 (manual Rokkor-X lens on adapter). Most versatile single lens would be the 23 although I find that one to be a bit on the large side. If size is something that might be important for you, compare the lenses:

 

http://camerasize.com/compact/#520.498,520.408,520.422,ha,t

 

They don't have the 18 to attach, try the 27 and just think about it having an additional aperture ring. Remember that the pictures are without lens hood. 35 f/2 has the smallest lens hood, the 35 1.4 the crushed coke can hood and the XF23 a huge petal shaped hood. I use the XF23 with a vented aftermarket hood. 

 

Again, it's really up to you. Dark can mean that even one stop faster can make a difference for you. None of the lenses will be perfect, all of them will get the job done as soon as you adapt to the focal length. That's why I suggest getting a single one: get used to a focal length, get really comfortable with it. Then add another when you KNOW what you miss. That means you don't have to rely on people guessing here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it were me in this situation, I'd buy the 18 and get the 35 ƒ2.  Both of these will be great and you'll have a wide option for doing some landscape stuff (although not wide enough for my tastes), and the 35 for street work.  Remember a lot of the early photographers were shooting film at night, with 50mm lenses.  You have way more latitude with the XT-1.  You'll need to be at 5.6 minimum for street anyway and landscape is going to need to be stopped down even more so you don't need a real fast 1.4 lens in my opinion.

 

When the Pro1 first came out, the 18 and 35 were real popular to buy with the body (I think the 18, 35 and 60 were all there was to choose from).  It's a group many still use and love 3 years later.

 

In my opinion it's a great kit for you to start with.  That's just me though...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 35 ƒ2 is faster to focus, sharper, smaller, lighter and newer.  I have not heard that about the ƒ2.  The ƒ2 will serve you well.  In street photography, you don't need that extra stop of light.

 

Personally I will eventually have both in my collection, but I have other focal lengths I need first...

Link to post
Share on other sites

They have different sharpness behavior, that's for certain. On the two I have here, the XF35/2 is sharper up to f/2.8, at f/4 they are roughly equal, from f/5.6 on the older f/1.4 lens is better across most of the frame up to f/11 (I don't go higher, so I didn't check). 

 

I have seen tests swaying both ways, but what I've seen in example photos from real people goes along with my own observations. I don't really prefer one over the other for optical reasons (except when I really want f/1.4), but more for the mechanical differences. I just like the quieter AF, more solid feeling, of the newer lens slightly better while still thinking that the old one is just ever so slightly better optically. But the differences in real life are small and don't matter much, therefore I mostly use the new one on the X-T1 for the WR qualities to not suck dust onto my sensor.

 

There are crazy rumors that Fuji might, one day, maybe in 2017 build a super high end f/1.0 33 or 35mm lens – if it ever comes out, that'll be MY LENS. Until then I use whatever 35 is on the camera at that point in time without giving too much thought about the differences.

 

That should tell you enough. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is I want to buy the best 35 mm not the best one to start out with. I don't want to have to make the purchase twice.  So for what I want to shoot is the 1.4 or the 2 better. I heard the 2 has distortion and is software corrected and over all the 1.4 is a better one?

 

Sadly, with the current line up there are no best lenses, only a better choice in a given situation.

 

The F1.4 will be better at low light, due to the extra stop, meaning instead of shooting at 3200 ISO at 1/30, you can now shoot at 3200 ISO at 1/60, which makes things a lot easier. 

The draw back of that lens is its age, it's slower to focus than the F2, is NOT weather resistant compared to the F2, is rather noisy when you use it and the front element moves when focusing.

 

Despite all that, I personally prefers the F1.4 due to the way it contrast, but that is really a personal preferences and at one point I will have to buy the F2 version since I travel to humid countries on semi regular basis and I could use a smaller WR lens than my current 18-135.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

One stop could be the difference between a good picture and only a decent picture. It's not very much but the difference between iso 3200 and 6400 (1 stop) is definitely noticeable. But take in mind the 35mm f/2 focusses faster (in low light) which also makes a difference. So if you're shooting fast moving subjects the f/2 might be better. A smaller difference is the character of the lens, I really like the 35mm f1.4 rendering and bokeh.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...