35/2 WR and XPro 2

[kuau]

I just received my XPro 2 and 35/2 WR.

I have been doing some test landscape images mostly shot at infinity and F5.6-F8

What I have experienced so far is the central 2/3 of the image is razor sharp yet I have notice some sharpness falloff on the corners. Not sure if A.a bad copy of the lens, B. Field curvature.

 

I am also renting the 23/1.4 which is performing better across the entire frame them the 35/2

 

I really want the best 50mm equivalent lens, Not sure how the Fuji 35/1.4 compares or maybe even the Zeiss 32mm Touit.

 

Suggestions?

[cug]

This has been discussed to death on this forum, other forums, the general internet and pretty much every bar in the world that has seen a Fuji camera. 

 

There is some variation between XF35/2 copies, but it also plain isn't as good across the frame as some other Fuji lenses. The two I tested here aren't nearly as good across the frame as some excitement from other people seems to indicate.

 

All available 50mm equivalents have their respective downsides.

 

I tested two XF35 f/1.4 and three XF35 f/2 and the 1.4s were optically better from f/4 on. Better sharpness and micro-contrast across the whole frame, the corner recovered much better from initially stronger softness. The Zeiss 32 seems better in sharpness but has sometimes weirdly busy bokeh, depending on focus and background distance. 

 

Generally, I tend to grab the XF35 f/1.4 here if my shooting needs consistency across the frame and aperture will stay from f/4 to f/11 or needs f/1.4. After using both lenses for about 4 months now, I like the old lens actually better. 

 

I don't own the Zeiss right now, but have had a chance to shoot with it once. It's a great lens and if I come across a used one at a good price, I'll get that one as well. 

Edited March 10, 2016 by cug

[mdm]

I hope they will fix 35F2 somehow with a software update.

[Marc G.]

If you want to use the standard for landscapes, just go get the 35 1.4 and use it at 5.6 for a very even and extreme sharpness. Forget the Touit, not worth even its current price. The 35 f/2 is not really made for landscape. The digital distortion correction takes its toll for images where you need even sharpness out to the corners.

[kuau]

Thanks for the responses I had figured the 35/1.4 would be better I was taking advantage of the small discount you get when you purchase the XPro2 with the 35/2 WR.

[Sluw]

I am guessing you're shooting in raw? The 35mm f/2.0 is digitally corrected so you'll get some distortion/sharpness falloff in raw files. the f/1.4 is optically corrected so less distortion in raws. 

[Nero]

I am guessing you're shooting in raw? The 35mm f/2.0 is digitally corrected so you'll get some distortion/sharpness falloff in raw files. the f/1.4 is optically corrected so less distortion in raws. 

 

Yes, the f/2 is digitally corrected. In Adobe, you can't switch off the digital correction to compare corrected vs uncorrected, but in some other applications you can, such as Iridient Developer. That might be a worthwhile test if you have access to it. Turn off the correction and check the edges and corners. I've noticed that there is some softness in the corners of some shots with my 10-24mm, which has a lot more correction happening than the 35mm f/2. It doesn't bother me all that much, but if I'm shooting something where I know I want it to be absolutely as clean as possible across the frame, I use the 16mm, which is optically corrected. This is also why I won't part with my 35mm f/1.4, although I may add the f/2 in the future given the price and WR feature.

[kuau]

If you want to use the standard for landscapes, just go get the 35 1.4 and use it at 5.6 for a very even and extreme sharpness. Forget the Touit, not worth even its current price. The 35 f/2 is not really made for landscape. The digital distortion correction takes its toll for images where you need even sharpness out to the corners.

 

Marc, So even with the Touit at the same price as the 35/1.4 at B&H $499 at F5.6 infinity focus, the 35/1.4 is still the better performer?

I do a lot of vertical stitching at a 50mm fov and just want the best results

Thanks

[Nero]

Marc, So even with the Touit at the same price as the 35/1.4 at B&H $499 at F5.6 infinity focus, the 35/1.4 is still the better performer?

I do a lot of vertical stitching at a 50mm fov and just want the best results

Thanks

 

Most people I have spoken to have said that the Zeiss is purely a big-name attraction, but falls well short of the Fuji in quality.

[kuau]

Thanks Nero,

I am going to go for the Fuji 35/1.4 then,

Can anyone recommend a good 3rd party lens hood. I am not a big fan of the hood that comes with the Fuji 35

[cug]

The lenshood of the 35mm is actually excellent. Small, doesn't intrude OVF view, is unobtrusive and highly effective. 

[Marc G.]

Marc, So even with the Touit at the same price as the 35/1.4 at B&H $499 at F5.6 infinity focus, the 35/1.4 is still the better performer?

I do a lot of vertical stitching at a 50mm fov and just want the best results

Thanks

The Zeiss Touit line, to me, is a big fraud. The 12 and 32 aren't optically corrected, as the XF14 and XF35 1.4 are, originally cost WAY more, are not built as good as the Fujinons and are not as good optically. The blue Zeiss logo on the side just triples the price tag, unrightfully so. Besides, the Touits are assembled by Fuji btw... The XF 35 1.4 is better at 5.6 than the Touit.

 

Most people I have spoken to have said that the Zeiss is purely a big-name attraction, but falls well short of the Fuji in quality.

 

Yep, good summary. I would never buy a Touit.

 

Thanks Nero,

I am going to go for the Fuji 35/1.4 then,

Can anyone recommend a good 3rd party lens hood. I am not a big fan of the hood that comes with the Fuji 35

Good decision. I'd use the original lens hood. It is of excellent quality and serves the purpose very well!