Fujinon XF 35mm F1.4 R

[milandro]

the lens hood shouldn’t wobble 

[jeromekwok]

The only problem I have is slow focus when wide open.

It is based on old design that it has to move all the elements to focus. 

The 35mm F2 pancake to be released in fall will improve in that area.

[milandro]

Pancake? Hardly!

[citral]

Not a pancake at all. Can be less intimidating / more discrete than the f/1.4 tho because the diameter of the glass makes it look less like a SLR lens (that's a concern I have with the 18-55 and 35, if you're in front of people they don't ignore it like they would a harmless 27mm)

[Wabisabiphotography]

But someone knows already the price?

[milandro]

if they have a crystal ball they might

[Wabisabiphotography]

       

[JLing]

I love my 35mm f1.4! But I will be getting the 35mm f2 wr as well. It's going to be my go to lens in bad weather or locations where I might have the risk of getting sand or water on my camera. Also loving the small form factor! It's going to look good on my x-t1! Just look at it:

https://fujifilmblog.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/x1000024.jpg?w=768&h=512

[Wabisabiphotography]

Looks nice JLing! What about bokeh? Do you he some sample?

[PatrickB]

I don't usually bring up an old topic but in this case I'd like to ask you: Can you post photos taken with the 35mm f1.4 that show an "epic flare" ? I heard the 35mm flares a bit easier than the newer siblings and I'd love to see some examples !

[Snzkgb]

Pancake? Hardly!

Oh well...this lens looks disgusting. And why the hell is this lens F/2.0? Why not F/1.4? Damn...

[frod]

What would be the point of that

[CRAusmus]

Oh well...this lens looks disgusting. And why the hell is this lens F/2.0? Why not F/1.4? Damn...

 

Because the 35 they have out now is 1.4???

[Snzkgb]

Because the 35 they have out now is 1.4???

Well, they've already made 2nd version for the cheap zooms. They made new WR zooms with better F stops. Why making WR prime with worse F stops?

[quincy]

FYI: This lens is intended for rangefinder cameras with optical viewfinder. It is designed in a way that it does not stick into your field of view when looking through the viewfinder. Thus, the strange looking tapering to the front and the slower maximum aperture.

Don't see it as a version II, rather a new and different lens to expand the existing lineup.

[Snzkgb]

FYI: This lens is intended for rangefinder cameras with optical viewfinder. It is designed in a way that it does not stick into your field of view when looking through the viewfinder. Thus, the strange looking tapering to the front and the slower maximum aperture.

Don't see it as a version II, rather a new and different lens to expand the existing lineup.

I know that this lens is designed not to block the OVF. Which doesn't make sence to me, because there will be only one body with OVF in the market - the X-Pro version 2. And I can't see the logic in making special purpose lens for a single body. I think it is more logical to make a WR version of 35/1.4.

[CRAusmus]

Well, they've already made 2nd version for the cheap zooms. They made new WR zooms with better F stops. Why making WR prime with worse F stops?

If they make WR version, they should make it at 33, which I believe they are working on already.

 

What cheap zooms have they remade?  Other than the 56, I know of no other lenses that are the same focal lengths.

[Snzkgb]

If they make WR version, they should make it at 33, which I believe they are working on already.

 

What cheap zooms have they remade?  Other than the 56, I know of no other lenses that are the same focal lengths.

When I said cheap zooms I meant the XC16-50 and XC50-230, which currently both have the version II in the market.

[frod]

I guess it would be nice if they did a WR version of everything, but I'd imagine getting the imminent new flagship rangefinder x-pro2 a normal prime at launch is a higher priority for obvious reasons.

[Snzkgb]

I guess it would be nice if they did a WR version of everything, but I'd imagine getting the imminent new flagship rangefinder x-pro2 a normal prime at launch is a higher priority for obvious reasons.

Really, the worse lens (and F/2 is worse than F/1.4 for me) for a better and new body...doesn't make sence.

[Marc G.]

Only looking at the numbers sounds a little narrow-minded to me. f/2 is never necessarily worse than f/1.4.

 

The f/2 offers some things, the f/1.4 does not offer. The f/2 has weather sealing, is said to be optically superior and focuses faster. All in a smaller and lighter package. The f/1.4 offers that faster stop, albeit with downsides.

[Snzkgb]

Only looking at the numbers sounds a little narrow-minded to me. f/2 is never necessarily worse than f/1.4.

 

The f/2 offers some things, the f/1.4 does not offer. The f/2 has weather sealing, is said to be optically superior and focuses faster. All in a smaller and lighter package. The f/1.4 offers that faster stop, albeit with downsides.

Of course you can make an optically superior lens at F/2, no doubt. For example, the 60/2.4 is optically better than 35/1.4.

But primes are supposed to be fast in any system (with exception for Sony A7). As for smaller and lighter - there are lenses like 18/2 and 27/2.8. They are light and small already.

[Marc G.]

Primes are supposed to be primes. That's about it when it comes to things that they HAVE to be. There are primes offering a f/5.6 aperture (e.g. 12mm Voigtlander). So what?

 

The 35 f/2 will undoubtedly have its place in the lens system of Fuji. Personally, I see no real reason to update the 35 1.4, after the firmware 4.0 of X-T1 or X-T10. It's fast, accurate and has a tiny bit of magic in it.

[CRAusmus]

Of course you can make an optically superior lens at F/2, no doubt. For example, the 60/2.4 is optically better than 35/1.4.

But primes are supposed to be fast in any system (with exception for Sony A7). As for smaller and lighter - there are lenses like 18/2 and 27/2.8. They are light and small already.

None of which offer the 50mm focal length.  The target market for this lens is perfect.  It will sell.  I'll be getting one for sure as my 35 ƒ1.4 rarely if ever leaves my camera body, and when it does I always miss it.

[Snzkgb]

None of which offer the 50mm focal length.  The target market for this lens is perfect.  It will sell.  I'll be getting one for sure as my 35 ƒ1.4 rarely if ever leaves my camera body, and when it does I always miss it.

And this is the point I'm trying to tell. 

Making the lens small and light and WR means it won't be cheap, while offering less low-light and DOF capabilities. Of course 35/2 will be selling well, there is no doubt in that. 

But I'll get 35/1.4 anytime over the 35/2.