Have 16-55. Need 35 f2 or 35 f1.4

[kartoon]

I'm really struggling to make up my mind and hoping for some qualified help

I'm trying to build up a small kit with not to many lenses to choose between ( trying to avoid GAS)

I've recently sold 14mm and 23 and bought the 16-55. I also have the 55-200. I'm really happy with both lenses. And the 16-55 is absolutely amazing. I chose this for the constant 2.8 trough the zoom range. WR was important and the reputation for being a zoom with prime quality.

But coming from the 23 f1.4 the two stops slower 2.8 lens sometimes make me miss the 1.4. And I also want a smaller lens for the days I just want a small almost pocket size kit. The camera is X-T1. Normally with the battery grip. But I'm thinking of getting a smaller lens that makes the X-T1 a small kit without the grip.

Since I bought the 16-55 WR is not that important when choosing the smaller lens.

My question is , is the 35 f2 so much better than the 35 f1.4 ? Trying to decide between the two. I really want the 1.4. But everywhere online and in this forum I feel the f2 is getting som much praise that it makes me wondering if the f1.4 is a bad choice?

[Sluw]

The 1.4 is definitely not a bad choice, it's a great choice. But the f/2.0 gets so much praise because it has almost the same image quality, is smaller, faster and weather resistant. The f/1.4 is faster though (faster in aperture) and the image quality is beautiful. Since you already have a WR kit (with the 16-55) you could decide it's not that important and go for the extra stop. The only really pocketable lens is the 27mm f/2.8 though, but that's not as fast.

[kartoon]

Getting feedback elsewhere saying that the 1.4 is useless up to F/4. I've seen great pictures taken at f/4 with this lens. So not share what to believe.

[Phil]

Getting feedback elsewhere saying that the 1.4 is useless up to F/4. I've seen great pictures taken at f/4 with this lens. So not share what to believe.

 

 

As in useless from f/4-16, or 1.4-4?

 

Either way, that seems strange - I've never heard that before. I mostly shoot people so I rarely shoot slower than f/4, but I've done some product photography with the 35mm at f/5.6-11 and it seemed just as sharp as any other aperture. If you're talking about it being useless from f/1.4-4 then that makes zero sense. I haven't pixel peeped it and compared it to the 56mm, but other than that it's probably the sharpest lens I've ever used, with great bokeh and contrast, too.

[kartoon]

As in useless from f/4-16, or 1.4-4?

 

Either way, that seems strange - I've never heard that before. I mostly shoot people so I rarely shoot slower than f/4, but I've done some product photography with the 35mm at f/5.6-11 and it seemed just as sharp as any other aperture. If you're talking about it being useless from f/1.4-4 then that makes zero sense. I haven't pixel peeped it and compared it to the 56mm, but other than that it's probably the sharpest lens I've ever used, with great bokeh and contrast, too.

Useless at 1.4, useless at f/2 and not really usable before f/4. That's what I'm told. But I really can't see this ...

[Jürgen Heger]

Hm, I never read anywhere that the image quality of the f/1.4 was bad. May be just a little bit behind the f/2.0.

http://admiringlight.com/blog/fuji-35mm-f1-4-vs-fuji-35mm-f2

 

For me the faster AF speed of the newer f/2.0 would compensate the slower aperture. Especially when I had plans to upgrade to a T2 or E3 in the future. The f/1.4 cannot take full advantage of the better AF speed of the newer cameras.

http://fujifilm-x.com/de/x-stories/is-the-x-pro2-af-faster/

[jlmphotos]

I don't understand why some are sayng the 35 1.4 is soft, etc.  I've owned the 1.4 since February 2013 and use it all the time.  Is it a bit soft in the corners, yeah, up to F4-5.6.  But who cares when it's wide open?  That's what I'm lookinng for.  sharp center...

I'm very happy with my 35 1.4  

[yukosteel]

I think it's always personal opinion, and often depends on image type you are taking. Just spend 30 days with single lens only to understand it's potential.

 

I was taking portraits and general pictures with Voigtlander 40mm 1.4 on X-T1 for about month. Then I made few shots with XF 35mm 1.4 on F1.4. Comparing to Voigtlander results this lens is just ridiculously sharp wide open - it catches every skin pore. It took few days for me to get used again to that sharpness level : )

 

BTW, just make sure your NR is set to -2 to judge real sharpness of the lens. Fuji NR is a bit aggressive there.

 

I'd recommend to choose 35mm f2 if you need faster focus, smaller size, and probably extra weather/dust protection.

But if you like DOF of 1.4, take 35mm 1.4 then, it's one of the best Fuji lens, a real jem, and it's perfectly usable on that F1.4.

[thedwp]

Just this weekend I traded my 1.4 for the new 35. I really struggled with the decision but in the end, the newer tech won. I was able to get some great pics with the 1.4, but I also missed some great pics waiting on it to find focus. I thought I'd miss the extra stop but so far I have no regrets with the choice I made. The new 35 looks like a toy but when you actually handle it, it really feels like a solid piece of glass (relatively speaking).

[matteo]

have you seen already seen this? 35F2 VS 35F1.4

 

I would go for the WR 35F2. 

[Nero]

I'd probably go with the 35 f/1.4 simply because the extra stop differentiates it from your 16-55 a bit more than the f/2 version. Also, you've got a versatile, high image quality WR lens with the zoom, so that feature is less of an issue with the prime. I have kept the f/1.4 for this reason and have never had problems with the image quality or sharpness. Does it hold up versus the 16 or 23? Not quite, but to steal a line from past reviewers, "it just has magic in it." You will be happy either way, but personally I think the f/2 and the 16-55 are a bit too close to one another.

[kim]

The 35/1.4 is a great, magical lens. Very sharp wide open although not fast to focus, not terribly slow but not quick. I also have the 16-55/2.8 but sometimes you need that f1.4.  Nice small two lens kit is an 18/2 and 35/1.4 [or 35/2 even smaller]

[kartoon]

have you seen already seen this? 35F2 VS 35F1.4

 

I would go for the WR 35F2. 

Yes. But thanks

[deva]

I don't have either 35... but I shoot a fair bit of night time street photography and there is no way I would want to be without a 1.4. I have the 16, 23 and 56 with the 23 being my most used of the 3 and the other 2 close behind. OIS is amazing for still subjects, but for moving situations, there is nothing like the fast lens!

 

Whether you need the 1.4 depends on what you shoot. I'll likely end up getting the 35/f2 because I have the other fast primes and the 35/f2 is small and WR. But then I may hold out for an updated 35/f1.4 that is WR

[cug]

As said in other places: 

 

The lenses are close in end results, but they are different enough that it should be fairly easy to pick one over the other depending on your needs/wants. 

 

If your goal is optical performance, creative options, and purity of optical lens design, there is no question, it has to be the 1.4. It offers one stop bigger max aperture, which means better low light, more creative options, better blur, it also recovers better in sharpness across the frame from f/2.8 on up which means you get better balanced sharpness and contrast across the frame from it.

 

The new f/2 lens is mechanically the clear winner, although I find the aperture ring actually a bit too tight, maybe that will losen over time though. The WR is welcome to keep dust out of lens and body, the AF performance is marginally better, hunting is more of a body than a lens problem anyways (the body tells the lens where to go) and people often compare old firmware experience with current firmware experience instead of comparing actual apples to apples. 

 

A lot of the reviewers make money when people use their "Buy now" links. Therefore, they often don't offer a clear opinion, but try to make those who don't own either lens buy at least one, and get those who own one already to buy the other as well. It's not that they are paid for the reviews or for a specific opinion, it's that they get money if any of the reviewed products are bought. 

 

I own both lenses because we go out as a pair (my wife and I) and we both like the XF35 field of view. Therefore having two of them makes sense for us and therefore we have the opportunity to compare the lenses themselves as well as the results later on. 

 

My personal recommendation: the XF35 f/1.4 is the better allrounder due to the qualities mentioned above, the XF35 f/2 is a very worthy contender if you have a tighter budget and benefit from WR. The new XF35 f/2 is great lens for everything where consistent across the frame contrast/sharpness/look from f/4 to f/11 isn't as critical.

 

The tiny problem I have with the f/2 is that even without pixel-peeping, the print results in the extreme corners I get from it, are sometimes (very rarely) not satisfactory from f/4 to f/8 – a range I use a lot for my photography. It doesn't affect many photos in a way that I notice it but it happened a few time to me now so that my first choice between the two is the f/1.4 if that isn't already taken by my wife (she has first pick of course).

Edited March 8, 2016 by cug

[kartoon]

As said in other places: 

 

The lenses are close in end results, but they are different enough that it should be fairly easy to pick one over the other depending on your needs/wants. 

 

If your goal is optical performance, creative options, and purity of optical lens design, there is no question, it has to be the 1.4. It offers one stop bigger max aperture, which means better low light, more creative options, better blur, it also recovers better in sharpness across the frame from f/2.8 on up which means you get better balanced sharpness and contrast across the frame from it.

 

The new f/2 lens is mechanically the clear winner, although I find the aperture ring actually a bit too tight, maybe that will losen over time though. The WR is welcome to keep dust out of lens and body, the AF performance is marginally better, hunting is more of a body than a lens problem anyways (the body tells the lens where to go) and people often compare old firmware experience with current firmware experience instead of comparing actual apples to apples. 

 

A lot of the reviewers make money when people use their "Buy now" links. Therefore, they often don't offer a clear opinion, but try to make those who don't own either lens buy at least one, and get those who own one already to buy the other as well. It's not that they are paid for the reviews or for a specific opinion, it's that they get money if any of the reviewed products are bought. 

 

I own both lenses because we go out as a pair (my wife and I) and we both like the XF35 field of view. Therefore having two of them makes sense for us and therefore we have the opportunity to compare the lenses themselves as well as the results later on. 

 

My personal recommendation: the XF35 f/1.4 is the better allrounder due to the qualities mentioned above, the XF35 f/2 is a very worthy contender if you have a tighter budget and benefit from WR. The new XF35 f/2 is great lens for everything where consistent across the frame contrast/sharpness/look from f/4 to f/11 isn't as critical.

 

The tiny problem I have with the f/2 is that even without pixel-peeping, the print results in the extreme corners I get from it, are sometimes (very rarely) not satisfactory from f/4 to f/8 – a range I use a lot for my photography. It doesn't affect many photos in a way that I notice it but it happened a few time to me now so that my first choice between the two is the f/1.4 if that isn't already taken by my wife (she has first pick of course).

Thanks a lot when it comes to the f2 being cheaper, I can get both lenses for about the same if buying used. So price is no criteria. I think I´ll go for the 1.4. The ekstra stop is important because I will miss this with my other lens being the 16-55 2.8. WR is not important for the same reason. I can remember "the magic" mentioned several times from the short time I had this lens. It had something special ...

Thanks a lot for all good advice and sharing of experience with both lenses!

[fujiXphotog]

Ive tested ALL the Fuji lenses, and own both 35mm lenses,

 

 

you want the 35mm F2 for several reasons

[cug]

Yeah, sure. 

[fujiXphotog]

Yeah, sure. 

 

other than DOF, the F2 35mm is sharper, faster AF, smaller, cheaper............

 

 

"sure" doesnt seem like a logical reasoning

[kartoon]

other than DOF, the F2 35mm is sharper, faster AF, smaller, cheaper............

 

 

"sure" doesnt seem like a logical reasoning

I've read a bunch of reviews and watched a lot of videos on YouTube now. And faster yes, no doubt. But I really can't remember having any issues with focus speed and missing focus when I had the lens for a short while. Think firmware updates has made this less of a problem.

When it comes to sharper it seems to me like the jury is still out on this. Many reviews I've seen shows that the 1.4 is sharper in many instances. Or at least they're pretty close. I am willing to sacrifice some speed and corner sharpness for the extra stop. I have a really fast lens in the 16-55. So I think I made up my mind. But thanks for the input

[Sluw]

I've read a bunch of reviews and watched a lot of videos on YouTube now. And faster yes, no doubt. But I really can't remember having any issues with focus speed and missing focus when I had the lens for a short while. Think firmware updates has made this less of a problem.

When it comes to sharper it seems to me like the jury is still out on this. Many reviews I've seen shows that the 1.4 is sharper in many instances. Or at least they're pretty close. I am willing to sacrifice some speed and corner sharpness for the extra stop. I have a really fast lens in the 16-55. So I think I made up my mind. But thanks for the input

 

Yea the word around is that the f/1.4 is optically better and has a larger aperture. The other points are won by the f/2.0 (price, size, weight, AF speed). 

Edited March 10, 2016 by Sluw

[bradsarno]

I'm interested in hearing more people chime in about the "magic" factor. I'm in the same boat, trying to decide between the 1.4 and the 2. 

 

After reading comments everywhere, cruising endless pages of flickr, I find myself pretty enamored by both. I try to shift my mind and my gaze into a sort of zen state when viewing the shots, relaxing and just seeing which images come to life and take on a magical 3D quality. I often get a kick out of this realism and dimension that some famous Leica lenses offer. Some say it's about micro-contrast. Some say it's the way the in-focus plane transitions into the out of focus and the bokeh. I'm not that technical and a surely don't care about corner sharpness issues. We're WAY WAY past being sharp enough these days. 

 

I also understand that the 1.4 isn't as fast at focusing and that its motor is noisy, that the f2 is mechanically better. 

But I'm interested in the magic. What I think I may be finding from viewing hundreds and hundreds of photos is that the XF35 f1.4 seems to more often demonstrate this special factor I seek where the subject feels real and 3-dimensional and sort of jumps out and has shape and depth. I've also seen plenty of that with certain XF35 f2 shots, but the f1.4 seems to be more consistent with this magic pixie dust factor. And I'm not talking about the 1.4 advantage. This is observed with shots at f2.8 on up. 

 

Is it just me? Anyone?

 

B

Edited March 28, 2016 by bradsarno

[Nero]

I think that part of that "magic" is the fact that the f/1.4 is optically a better lens. Mechanically and in some other ways such as weather sealing, the f/2 has an advantage. However, to get the price point and size down while only giving up one stop of light and improving other things, they did make some sacrifices in the optics. The f/2 is not optically corrected, it relies on digital correction, but the f/1.4 is optically corrected. That doesn't mean you can't have a great lens that relies on digital correction. The 10-24mm is wonderful and that relies heavily on digital correction at the wide end. However, you don't expect a wide angle f/4 landscape lens to have that "magic" in the same sense that a fast "normal" lens might. Fuji hit a home run on the f/2 given the price, features, focus speed, etc, but optically they hit a grand slam with the f/1.4 version. That is where the consistency comes from in producing those "magic" images.

[kartoon]

Just for the record, I ended up with the 1.4, and I really don't regret it. What a wonderful lens this is. And I really love shooting this wide open. For me the extra stop was the most important reason. But I also like the fact that it's optically corrected and don't rely on heavy digitally correction. I don't doubt for one second that the f2 is a amazing lens as well. But for me the so called magic of the 1.4 won me over

[darknj]

I have both lenses for different reasons.

 

First of all, the F1.4 is a much loved lens, it really produce nice image and the bokeh is just so creamy with it, but it serves mainly as my low light lens, if I need to go somewhere where light is rather uncertain, I will take it with me.

 

The F2 lens, is for the WR, as I travel and live in a wet/humid country, having WR on a lens is a deciding factor for me at times.

 

In overall, I do prefer the F1.4 over the F2, I find it more contrasty than the F2 version.