35mm f2.0 or f1.4 - never mind the noise or speed!

[petergabriel]

So, if we ignore the noise, AF speed and one stop difference of the two lenses, which one is then optically best?

 

I have read numerous tests, blogs and reviews that say the two are both sharp, contrasty and colorful (with the f2.0 being slightly warmer) however I have also encountered quite a few tests that have tried both lenses in Capture One where you can remove the distortion and vignetting correction done by software. And in those reviews it seems like the f2.0 lose, by a large margin, as the f1.4 is optically better corrected. As it is well known, software correction slightly degrades image quality. But will it be an issue?

 

Now, I don't have any of the lenses, so what are your thoughts if you have or have had both lenses.

 

And remember! Disregard noise, AF speed and one stop difference. I am only after the optically best lens :-)

[Aswald]

If money isn't a problem, currently it's still the xf35 F1.4........until the mk2 comes out.

[petergabriel]

If money isn't a problem, currently it's still the xf35 F1.4........until the mk2 comes out.

 

 

Yeah, it would be really nice with a mkII with a linear motor :-)

[mdm]

And why do you bother about the linear motor?

[petergabriel]

And why do you bother about the linear motor?

 

It was a joke :-)

[petergabriel]

Here is one of the reviews noticing the f2.0 distortion:

 

http://www.bokeh-monster.com/blog/fujifilm-35mm-f2-a-modest-lens

[aceflibble]

The f/1.4 is optically stronger, if we're talking about purely objective resolving power and contrast. Some people may prefer the look the f/2 gives, but as far as 'lab' testing goes, the f/1.4 wins. Both peak at f/4 (arguably f/4.5 for the f/2 version), and of course the f/1.4 stopped down to f/2 beats the f/2 wide-open. There's a fraction less distortion with the f/1.4, and there's a little less vignetting and aberration between f/2-f/2.8, too; both are pretty much aberration-free and vignetting-free by f/4. (Of course the f/1.4 does suffer from more vignetting and aberration wide-open, but that's not an aperture the f/2 can match, anyway; stop down to f/2 and the f/1.4 beats the wide-open f/2, again.)

[petergabriel]

The f/1.4 is optically stronger, if we're talking about purely objective resolving power and contrast. Some people may prefer the look the f/2 gives, but as far as 'lab' testing goes, the f/1.4 wins. Both peak at f/4 (arguably f/4.5 for the f/2 version), and of course the f/1.4 stopped down to f/2 beats the f/2 wide-open. There's a fraction less distortion with the f/1.4, and there's a little less vignetting and aberration between f/2-f/2.8, too; both are pretty much aberration-free and vignetting-free by f/4. (Of course the f/1.4 does suffer from more vignetting and aberration wide-open, but that's not an aperture the f/2 can match, anyway; stop down to f/2 and the f/1.4 beats the wide-open f/2, again.)

 

Thanks. I really like the f1.4 option, but think I will try both lenses on my x-pro 1 before I decide. I really don't like the distortion the f2.0 produces when it has not been corrected with software.

[arty]

So, if we ignore the noise, AF speed and one stop difference of the two lenses, which one is then optically best?

 

I have read numerous tests, blogs and reviews that say the two are both sharp, contrasty and colorful (with the f2.0 being slightly warmer) however I have also encountered quite a few tests that have tried both lenses in Capture One where you can remove the distortion and vignetting correction done by software. And in those reviews it seems like the f2.0 lose, by a large margin, as the f1.4 is optically better corrected. As it is well known, software correction slightly degrades image quality. But will it be an issue?

 

Now, I don't have any of the lenses, so what are your thoughts if you have or have had both lenses.

 

And remember! Disregard noise, AF speed and one stop difference. I am only after the optically best lens :-)

 

35/2, because of better bokeh, smaller size, better vintage look and WR

[Aswald]

Yeah, it would be really nice with a mkII with a linear motor :-)

 

That would only mean same size but bigger glass.

[mdm]

It was a joke :-)

No, it was not. Linear motor gives you silent operations and faster AF, and both are not of your concern... so why bother about it... If you didn't see this old comparison have a look - http://admiringlight.com/blog/fuji-35mm-f1-4-vs-fuji-35mm-f2/

[Therapeuo63]

Would be interesting see a side by side comparison of both lenses at f2 showing the distortion with the newer lens.

[Sluw]

35/2, because of better bokeh, smaller size, better vintage look and WR

There are some things the f/2.0 does better over the 1.4 but I don't think that's better bokeh. The 1.4 bokeh looks much smoother, even at same aperture.

Edited August 30, 2016 by Sluw

[jeffryscott]

Had both and kept the 35 1.4. Both are lovely, but the 1.4 just has an extra something in its rendering that is hard to put into words. Had I not had previous experience with the 1.4, I would have been very pleased with the 2. You won't go wrong with either.

[Viramati]

I have both. When I bought the X-Pro2 I got it with the f2 lens as it was smaller, cheaper and got good reviews. After a while though I discovered that the fact the the extreme corners never get sharp even when stopped down to be a pain in certain situations (confirmed by Sean Reid's review) and I missed the look of the f1.4 lens (used to have it a couple of years ago when I had the X-Pro1). I have now bought a used 1.4 lens and find it to be better optically and though a little soft towards the edges wide open is better across the frame when stopped down than the f2 lens and I prefer the lower contrast for PP. I will keep the f2 lens for real bad weather and if I want something a lot quieter

Edited September 2, 2016 by Viramati

[Warwick]

Is extreme corner softness an actual issue in the real world? In my experience, there's rarely anything of interest in the corners, and if people are giving them more than a cursory glance, your subject isn't strong enough - which is why a lot of people use subtle vignetting in Lightroom to draw the viewer's attention to the main subject.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Viramati]

Is extreme corner softness an actual issue in the real world? In my experience, there's rarely anything of interest in the corners, and if people are giving them more than a cursory glance, your subject isn't strong enough - which is why a lot of people use subtle vignetting in Lightroom to draw the viewer's attention to the main subject.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Well of course this case a lot of the time but I often have photos of buildings in my photography where I need sharpness across the whole frame. Don't get me wrong the XF35/2 is a small marvel especially at it's price point but this can be a serious issue for some that they should be aware of

[Vedox]

If you read the interview with the ceo of fujifilm about the new f2 small lenses.

The reporter asked how did they set the price for the 35 f2

He expeains that the 35 1.4 is opticaly better so the price for it has to be higer also he explaines that the 35 1.4 has the focus sistem which has 100g the new 35mm 2.0 is about 30g-ish and the new motor so its af is faster also f2 has more apature blades they are more circular when stoped down for nicer bokeh

[adzman808]

Not mentioning the extra stop

 

But the 1.4 with it's 52mm filter size and front element that has nearly the same diameter is a far better low-light gatherer than the 43mm front filter sized F2

 

People love to mention the extra aperture blades of the F2 (and it's a very true and valid comment)

 

But no one ever seems to say "screw the 56, it has only 7 aperture blades, I'll take the 60 because it has 9 blades" :D

 

The build quality of the f2 is a lot nicer than the f1.4 - especially the 'clickiness' of the aperture ring

 

The focus f2 ring is nicer, but it's a lot smaller than the F1.4

 

The focus speed (sorry I know, I know) is better on the f2, but only nano seconds better in 'ISO200' light

 

The focus accuracy of the F2 is the real score IMO

 

At the edges of the frame, the f2 is LITTLE BIT like the XF18

 

The metal hood on the F1.4 is included in the price, it's pretty functional at blocking flare (it's quite deep and tapered) - but it rattles (put a strip of black tape on the inside of it, over the bayonet mount)

 

The hood on the F2 is plastic and shallow

 

The metal hood on the F2 is an expensive extra, and protrudes more into the OVF than the standard one, and is also shallow

 

In the UK, the F2 price just went up £60

 

In the current Euro cash back deals, iirc - the F2 is not included in the offer

 

The edges are softer (than the centre) on the f1.4 because Fuji designed it that way to produce a "look to your images" and that makes for a shot with 3d pop (IMHO - YMMV)

 

The edges are softer (than the centre) on the F2 because it's a budget lens, built to a lower spec.

 

This debate usually gets emotive...

 

not very scientific, but here ya go !!

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

 

 

 

These files are from RAW with zero lens profiles applied

 

Guess which is the 1.4 lens

 

 

 

[mdm]

Yep, I've already seen the list that long proving that x-pro1 is the best camera in our universe.

[Vedox]

I have read that 1.4 focuses faster in lowlight

I dont know i dont have the f2 version

 

All i know that i love the rendering of my 1.4 sometimes i prefer it over my 56 1.2 APD

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!