Jump to content
petergabriel

That 35mm f1.4 magic in other Fujinon lenses?

Recommended Posts

Does any of the other Fujinon lenses have that magic rendering the 35mm f1.4 is so loved fore?

I like my 23mm f1.4 a lot, but it has a more clinical way of seeing things. I do like sharpness, which most Fujinons offer in spades, but rendering is the most important parameter for as I do as little post as possible. I am a sucker for sooc images.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My 35 1.4 goes back to my initial purchase of my X-E1 bundled with the 18-55 in February 2013.  I still love my 35mm!  You are correct that it just renders images just so.  

 

I still prefer to use it when I can instead of my other lenses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are only three Fuji lenses that touched my heart with their rendering and "magical" character - 18/2, 35/1.4 and 60/2.4. I agree about 23/1.4 it has clinical rendering, that's why I did not buy it.

 

Unfortunately I am not touched by other Fuji lenses.

Next two I found interesting regarding the image rendering is 55-200mm f/4.8 and 27/2.8.

Edited by renes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with renes but the 56 f/1.2 and 90mm f/2.0 have the same smooth warm and nice rendering as well. So in my opinion you can add those as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a speculation.

18/2, 35/1.4 and 60/2.4 should to share the same rendering, or to be similar enough.

Reasons:
- These lenses were designed at the same time, probably by the same team, from same materials (glass, coating, etc.), and produced on same machinery. Even packing boxes are too similar.
- These lenses shares the same focusing technology, Fuji call it ALG - All Lens Groups /are moving on focusing/.
Quote from official web pages:

 

As all of the lens groups are shifted simultaneously for focusing, coma aberration is minimized, providing supreme lens performance throughout the entire focus range.

The spacing of lens groups does not alter by focusing distance; thus, the “Bokeh” effects are created uniformly in the out-of-focus areas while the sharpness on the in-focus plane is maintained.

Apart from marketing, it is also a kind of info of rendering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the original trio - something special about them. But I also found the 23 1.4 to be absolutely sublime. Have not used the 14 enough to have a "feel" for it, other than it is lovely, and have never laid eyes or hands on the 16, 56 or 90.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does any of the other Fujinon lenses have that magic rendering the 35mm f1.4 is so loved fore?

I like my 23mm f1.4 a lot, but it has a more clinical way of seeing things. I do like sharpness, which most Fujinons offer in spades, but rendering is the most important parameter for as I do as little post as possible. I am a sucker for sooc images.

 

The 35mm f1.4 was my first Fuji lens - I agree with you about its special character. I'd add to it the 18mm f2, the 90mm f2 and the 55-200 zoom. Each of them is special and each is a keeper for me.

 

At the other end of the spectrum, I couldn't get on with the 60mm, or the 27mm pancake. Both sold on. I still have the 18-55 zoom because it is versatile, but I can't get attached to it like the others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting topic.

 

Has the 35mm 2.0 also the magic rendering?

I've shot both, and have yet to see why so many think the 1.4 is magic... It's not that special in the classic 50 range... Perhaps it's the first lens or first prime people bought when they moved to fuji...

 

I have the 35 f2 and I find it renders better than the 1.4... And it retains better bokeh when stopping down, so you don't need to shoot everything wide open, which believe it or not, is an option :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the 35 and 23 f1.4, both of which are terrific lenses. However, my favorite in rendering, contrast, color, sharpness is still the 16 f1.4. I can see how the variances in the lenses may make one person prefer one over the other. It's all good. But I am really enamored by what the 16mm produces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've shot both, and have yet to see why so many think the 1.4 is magic... It's not that special in the classic 50 range... Perhaps it's the first lens or first prime people bought when they moved to fuji...

 

I have the 35 f2 and I find it renders better than the 1.4... And it retains better bokeh when stopping down, so you don't need to shoot everything wide open, which believe it or not, is an option :-)

 

It's not true that we all use our 35mm f1.4 wide open all the time.  I distinctly remember shooting at f2.8 in 2014.

/uploads/emoticons/default_biggrin.png">

 

And my 35mm was my third prime with Fuji - so it wasn't a case of 'prime virginity' distorting my views.

 

I think you may be applying too much objective science to your comparison.  The 35 f1.4 uses magic, not physics.

 

But my plea in mitigation for my f1.4-phillia, is that whenever I scan through all my shots on Flickr and think 'that's a nice looking image' and check the EXIF data - it's almost always a shot taken with the 35mm ........ wide open.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is definitely much much harder to compose the shot with closed aperture. When everyting is sharp you should be very carefull and do your best to fit the object into the context of the scene avoiding the mess. But it might be the only way to tell your story. Bluring everything in bokeh can make your shot rootless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is definitely much much harder to compose the shot with closed aperture. When everyting is sharp you should be very carefull and do your best to fit the object into the context of the scene avoiding the mess. But it might be the only way to tell your story. Bluring everything in bokeh can make your shot rootless.

 

I agree about too much background blur removing any context from an image.  That's one of the reasons I like the 35mm lenses - even fully open there's generally just enough background blur to make the subject stand out, but not so much that we lose the context.  Longer focal lengths, such as the 90mm, can completely blur the background into a smudge (although of course we can stop it down a bit).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes,

 

The XF60 is wonderful with portraiture, and even a bit sharper than the XF35, while the bokeh is actually better...

Only problem is that it's autofocus performance is somewhat unreliable, so manual assistance is advised...

 

The other one I really like is the XF55-200. I only got it recently, and am already considering doing most of my Portrait work with it, rather than the XF35, as it has lower distortion and can really give you amazing compression and bokeh even at those smaller apertures. All this coupled with a a very efficient IS...

The 35, of course, is much lighter and smaller and more useful in tighter spaces or really dark environments, but when the light is right, the XF55-200 can really shine...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other one I really like is the XF55-200. I only got it recently, and am already considering doing most of my Portrait work with it, rather than the XF35, as it has lower distortion [...]

 

It doesn't have lower distortion.

 

I get what you're trying to say, but the 'lower distortion' is purely a result of you standing further away with the 55–200 than with the 35.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, that is indeed partially what I meant - but I have to say that the XF35F1.4 DOES suffer from some distortion in my experience... Could be a problem with my particular copy (which is otherwise fine and very sharp), but it is there.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I Love my 35 f/1.4.  I picked up the 35 F/2 for $299 the other day to compare it to the 1.4.  The jury is still not out.  I will take my time with it.  So far the size, build and focus trump that of the 35 1.4.  I have yet to determine if it has the same magic IQ rendering as the 35 1.4, which is very special!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am very fond of all my Fuji system primes, but for me the Touit 35mm has that special Zeiss look - microcontrast or whatever you want to call it.  The other one I find myself reaching for is the 14mm, even though I also have the Touit 12mm and Fuji 16mm and Fuji 35mm f/2.  The 12mm is a technical triumph, very low distortion.  The 16mm f/1.4, as we all know, is another technical triumph, and is a hoot to use for close-ups with shallow depth of field.  But, like I said, the 14mm perspective and image quality both are a lot of fun for me.

 

I don't have the Fuji 35mm f/1.4 since I got the Touit instead, so no comment on that.  But the 14mm is of that first generation, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 35mm F1.4 is the lens is my yardstick, its just magical and on the X-T2 with Acros the love affair has just been getting deeper for me.

 

In terms of other lens in the system that have a similar rendering, for me the only one that comes close is the 90mm, the 56mm is more in the same camp as the 23mm a bit more clinical, its a lovely lens, but the 90 and 35 are nicer. I have not used the APD, my suspicion is that the APD might get closer to the 35mm magic. 

 

At the wide end the 18mm is probably the closest match rendering wize, possibly the 16mm as well I have not had hands on experience of that lens.

 

Fuji seems to have camps of lenses

 

18/35/90 - Have that look, kind of creamy dreamy but with nice contrast and they do wonderful things with light and fall off, I think of this lot as the vintage crew.

 

14/23/56 - All very sharp, contrasty, bit more clinical, a more modern look.

 

10-24/18-55/16/55/55-200/50-140/100-400mm - The Zoom crew, all very similar in rendering, also quite clinical, bokeh can be a bit more harsh, although interestingly the 55-200 at around the 90mm -135mm mark is just delicious bokeh wize, harder to get but when you do nicer and more attractive than the 50-140.

 

The odds and sods

 

16mm (sort of between the vintage and modern primes, not enough hands on experience to decide which camp its in.

60mm this has its very own rendering in my opinion, can be very crunchy contrast wize. Nice lens

27mm again has its own rendering, probably closer to the 60mm than anythings else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I like a lot of the shots that I get with my 35/1.4, I find that the bokeh can sometimes be a little more nervous than I like.

I think the 56/1.2 APD is pure magic.  The 90/2 approaches it, but due to the lack of OIS, I get some blur on the 3rd & 4th shots when I try to shoot in succession with it.  This combined with a somewhat confined portrait area in my studio cause me to leave it in my bag a lot.

I've never tried the 55-200.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm enjoying the thread. It's an affirmation of my own experience that lens quality can only be partially measured by sharpness, coma and bokeh. I had read a lot about how excellent the 35 f/2 was so I bought it for a trip. It is nicely sharp across the frame, and it leaves me pretty cold. I found the same with the 56 and the 14. By measurable standards they are excellent. And, they look very digital. If you like that look, great. If you prefer the 23 f/1.4 then you'll probably like the newer lenses a lot. Since the newer Fujis handle manual focusing so well, I'm using old film lenses as I prefer their rendering.

Edited by Michael McKee

Share this post


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.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...