Fuji X lenses vs Contax (or Nikon/Canon EF) glass?

[addicted2light]

Hi, 

anyone that has both could please chime in commenting about difference in sharpness?

Even people shooting with other brands are welcome (I've been a Nikon shooter for a decade, and a Canon one for another decade).

I have a pretty complete Contax setup, and I'm not sure if buying Fuji glass would make a meaningful difference in sharpness (besides other benefits like AF, OIS etc.).

A few details:

- I shoot landscapes, mostly, my cameras are 90% of the time on a tripod and I need the ability to print on matte and semi-matte paper up to 120cm / 47"
- my Contax setup (for reference): 18, 35, 50/1.7, 60 Makro, 28-85, 100-300
- Fuji setup I plan to buy: 14, 23/1.4, 56/1.2, 18-55 (only for walking around and seascapes, when I can't change lenses without water drops landing on the sensor), 55-200

 

I am already adapting the Contax glass to the Fuji, and yes the results are generally pretty darn good (the partial exception being the 18mm).

 

But I guess I'm just wondering how much more can I "squeeze" from the Fuji with better native lenses (better than the cheap 16-50 xc) considering that even the über-cheap 16-50 is really quite sharp.

 

Thanks in advance!

Edited August 26, 2016 by addicted2light

[johant]

I still have my Pentax Takumar lenses, which were first rate at the time. The Fujinon XF primes blow them out of the water.

[addicted2light]

I forgot to mention Pentax, but this helps me all the same because I had a couple of Takumars during the years: a 100/2.5 (?), the 50/1.4 both 7 and 8 elements, and a 50/4 M Macro, so I know how they rate against my Contax glass.

 

Thanks!

[johant]

Where the Takumar 55/1.8 is great though, is for portraits. The reduced contrast, and the slight softness, gives a beautiful rendering and "glow". The Takumar tele primes (135mm and 200mm) are reasonably sharp, but suffer from CA (green shift mainly). I must admit that I have not tried my 35/3.5 on the Fuji cameras yet. Why would I, having the XF 35/1.4?

Edited August 27, 2016 by johant

[addicted2light]

I kinda know what you mean. I've never used a Tak 55/1.8, but I love for this kind of use the Minolta MC 55/1.7 PF for exactly the same reasons!

[Snodge]

I suppose it depends really on if you like the results that you get with the adapted lenses. If you think you need more sharpness, or that you might need autofocus for the 10% of the time not on the tripod, then perhaps rent a lens, give it a try and see?

 

I've only got a Fuji 14mm X mount lens; it fills a gap that the older adapted lenses can't match (the lenses I have for m42 don't go any wider than a mediocre 28mm), however it depends what I'm shooting, how I feel on a particular day, and what sort of image I think I will get out  at the end of the day.

[addicted2light]

I suppose it depends really on if you like the results that you get with the adapted lenses. If you think you need more sharpness, or that you might need autofocus for the 10% of the time not on the tripod, then perhaps rent a lens, give it a try and see?

 

I've only got a Fuji 14mm X mount lens; it fills a gap that the older adapted lenses can't match (the lenses I have for m42 don't go any wider than a mediocre 28mm), however it depends what I'm shooting, how I feel on a particular day, and what sort of image I think I will get out  at the end of the day.

 

 

Thanks! Unfortunately renting is not really feasible where I live, the only option would end up costing almost as much as just buying a second hand lens (i.e. what I plan to do).

 

But I did buy in the meantime a 55-200 and for now I'm really quite impressed. It's basically keeping up with the Contax 100-300, that is essentially the best Contax has to offer short of exotic pieces like the 85/1.2.

 

For my limited testing, it's slightly softer at infinity, but slightly sharper up close, so optically I'd say it's a draw. Obviously it has AF and OIS, while the Contax has neither, and it's half the weight and size of the 100-300.

 

My only gripe, for now, is the (relative) unsharp rendering of the borders in just some shots, handheld, but I'm quite sure this depends by the OIS.

 

Considering the 55-200 is not the sharpest lens among the ones I plan to buy, while the Contax like I said is a reference point, it's looking pretty good!

Edited September 8, 2016 by addicted2light

[plaidshirts]

I have a Fuji 35/2 and 18-55 remaining for my XT1, along with an X100T.

 

I used to have Fuji 18/2, 27/2.8, 35/1.4, 56/1.2 and 55-200, but sold them and acquired these vintage lenses over the past 2 years:

 

Canon FD: 28/2.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.8

Takumar: 50/4 Macro, 50/1.4, 105/2.8

Olympus OM; 135/3.5, 200/4

Osawa: 650/8 Mirror

Helios 44-2: 58/2

 

I picked up a Rokinon 12/2 somewhere along the way as well.

 

The cost of all the non-Fuji lenses were about 1/3 the original cost of the Fuji lenses I sold.

 

For those instances when I absolutely need autofocus, I'll use Fuji lenses. The 2 I have seem to fill most of my needs.

For travel and street, the X00T has become my go to camera and the 23mm my everyday FOV.

 

For all other occasions, I find that the vintage lenses are simply more interesting in every way. Not better, mind you, but more fun.

 

If getting the best, sharpest picture is your goal, get Fuji lenses.

If price is an issue and/or you want more variety, go for vintage.

If cost is not an object, get BOTH.

[Tom H.]

Only offbrand lens I own that equals my Fujinons in sharpness, is my Zeiss 120mm F4 for my Hasselblad 503cw.

[addicted2light]

I have a Fuji 35/2 and 18-55 remaining for my XT1, along with an X100T.

 

I used to have Fuji 18/2, 27/2.8, 35/1.4, 56/1.2 and 55-200, but sold them and acquired these vintage lenses over the past 2 years:

 

Canon FD: 28/2.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.8

Takumar: 50/4 Macro, 50/1.4, 105/2.8

Olympus OM; 135/3.5, 200/4

Osawa: 650/8 Mirror

Helios 44-2: 58/2

 

I picked up a Rokinon 12/2 somewhere along the way as well.

 

The cost of all the non-Fuji lenses were about 1/3 the original cost of the Fuji lenses I sold.

 

For those instances when I absolutely need autofocus, I'll use Fuji lenses. The 2 I have seem to fill most of my needs.

For travel and street, the X00T has become my go to camera and the 23mm my everyday FOV.

 

For all other occasions, I find that the vintage lenses are simply more interesting in every way. Not better, mind you, but more fun.

 

If getting the best, sharpest picture is your goal, get Fuji lenses.

If price is an issue and/or you want more variety, go for vintage.

If cost is not an object, get BOTH.

 

 

Thanks, yes at least for now ultimate sharpness is my goal, to overcome the relatively low amount of megapixels of Fuji bodies (like I said I'm coming from an A7r and medium and large format before that, and I shoot ultra-detailed wooden landscapes).

 

I'd love to get an X-100T, but swapping cameras on the tripod is IMO more cumbersome than just changing lenses, and for street (for fun) I already have an Oly E-M10 so at least for now the X-100 will have to wait...

 

Only offbrand lens I own that equals my Fujinons in sharpness, is my Zeiss 120mm F4 for my Hasselblad 503cw.

 

I sure miss my Hasselblad kit...I still shoot medium format occasionally but unfortunately not nearly often enough to justify keeping an expensive set of paperweights! Now, if only someone would come out with an affordable 6x6 full format digital back (I know, not gonna happen anytime soon if ever).

 

 

 

Anyway thanks to everyone for your contribution, in the end I've decided to go "all Fuji". Considering the 55-200, one of the just so-so lenses apparently, is keeping up against the Contax 100-300 (the like of the very best Contax) and considering I will be able to save 1 or 2 Kg in the swap (depending on the lenses) a Fuji setup is looking more attractive. This before even taking AF, OIS, EXIF etc. into account.

 

For now I've settled on 14 + 23 (1.4 probably, but I'd like to try the f/2 first) + 35/2 + 56/1.2 + 55-200. And yes, that's a lot of primes but besides the quality I'm not exactly convinced by the images I've seen from the 18-55; in almost all cases I've seen blurred sides even stopped down (due decentering or OIS?) and a "plasticky" appearance of foliage and small details. And anyway even when I have a zoom on the camera I shoot it like it was a prime lens most of the times, so no big deal.

 

Again, thanks everyone for chiming in!