Fujinon XF 35mm F1.4 R

[CRAusmus]

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. 

Which you can run out and buy right this minute, and you won't be disappointed at all.  I love mine.

 

The point I'm trying to make (in fact everyone) is that the target market for this lens will never approach the 2.0 limit.  It's the same target market as the 16-55 ƒ2.8, a target you are obviously not in since you see no need for this lens.

[Snzkgb]

Which you can run out and buy right this minute, and you won't be disappointed at all.  I love mine.

 

The point I'm trying to make (in fact everyone) is that the target market for this lens will never approach the 2.0 limit.  It's the same target market as the 16-55 ƒ2.8, a target you are obviously not in since you see no need for this lens.

I'm not sure that prime is ever going to be the same target marked as zoom, for obvious reasons. 

And I doubt that ever any lens manufacturer made the pro-grade prime, which is slower than the original. And I still cannot understand why Fuji decided to make this step instead of making 35/1.2 or 35/1.4 II

[Jürgen Heger]

Have a look at the Leica lens line up. They have multiple  lenses with the same focal length but different speed.  The Pro 1 was and the Pro 2 will targeting Leica fans who cannot affort the original. So the 35/2 will be a perfect fit.

[Snzkgb]

Have a look at the Leica lens line up. They have multiple  lenses with the same focal length but different speed.  The Pro 1 was and the Pro 2 will targeting Leica fans who cannot affort the original. So the 35/2 will be a perfect fit.

Yes. Summilux is faster than Summicron, and more expensive. While 35/2 is slower than 35/1.4 and probably more expensive. Do you see any logic? I don't.

[frod]

So many assumptions are making this discussion pointless currently.

[frod]

http://www.fujirumors.com/rumor-xf-35mmf2-wr-will-cost-less-than-the-current-xf35mmf1-4-srp/

[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 !

 

So nobody has photos with an "epic" flare in them with the 35mm??

[milandro]

apparently not

[Reactivestills]

Love my 35 1.4 but may opt for the F/2 for the faster speed of autofocus and better manual focus. The manual focus on the 1.4 drives me mad.

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!

[Sluw]

The manual focus of all Fuji lenses isn't satisfactory for me because of the focus by wire. On some ones it works good enough though.

[Reactivestills]

Yeah it can be a pain but I've tried the 23 and have 14 and find if the new 35 is as good or better than them at manual focus I'll definitely buy it. The examples so far are fantastic optically

[asathor]

Just tried two used 35s . Without a proper target I expect that at least one of them front-focused so I let them be. I will be testing my bodies when I have time and may go back.

 

Of course there is the matter of the expectation that the X-Pro2 probably will be offered with the 35f2 for a couple hundred bucks premium.

 

I took a lot of good pictures in the past with an all metal 50mm1.8 (Canon) because that is what I had (and it was quite good anyway). Now I have the Fuji 27f2.4 which is great and as sharp as the 23/35 but one and a half stop slow, that is a lot in low light but not much in daylight.

 

I am seriously worried that Fuji will continue to succumb to marketing pressures (come on a 56mm - weak) and make lenses that fit a certain traditional mm specification rather than what is best for a certain design to win over Canon and Nicon traditionalists. That is the kind of thing that will make their engineers cringe and think they work for the big 3.

 

How about a 42mmf1.3 - that would be sweet, I might even buy a 72mmf1.6 to go with it. (I do have the 60mm).

 

You know what I mean.......

[asathor]

All 27 mm mostly wide open 'https://boundarylayers.smugmug.com/Music/Lost-Boys-at-The-Narrows-/

[cug]

Just tried two used 35s . Without a proper target I expect that at least one of them front-focused so I let them be. I will be testing my bodies when I have time and may go back.

 

Don't know how it would be possible to have a front-focusing lens if the focus is determined right on the sensor. 

 

Concentrating on the classic focal lengths for certain scenarios makes it easier for users to transition to the Fuji system or between systems. A system that has mostly non-comparable focal lengths won't attract as much attention as it is hard to compare. And without comparison there is no classification in usability for a certain task compared to existing tools. Thinking outside the box is great but that generally works mostly once you established a baseline. 

 

I fully expect Fuji to expand the lens line more and more into areas where they aren't represented yet as well as re-visiting lenses that have been working great when the system launched but needed to be reworked to go along with modern development. For example, the slow AF that was often criticized with the X-Pro1 was not just the camera, it was also the XF35 and XF60 lenses that have such slow focusing engines that they make even a camera with a fast AF system feel slower than necessary. That will hurt the sales of new cameras with improved focusing systems. A hypothetical X-Pro2 that comes out and uses the current XF35 as the "standard lens" will be held back in focusing speed and therefore beaten over the head in reviews. 

[Marc G.]

I'm sorry but there's a lot of nonsense in your post.

Just tried two used 35s . Without a proper target I expect that at least one of them front-focused so I let them be. I will be testing my bodies when I have time and may go back.

I took a lot of good pictures in the past with an all metal 50mm1.8 (Canon) because that is what I had (and it was quite good anyway). Now I have the Fuji 27f2.4 which is great and as sharp as the 23/35 but one and a half stop slow, that is a lot in low light but not much in daylight.

I am seriously worried that Fuji will continue to succumb to marketing pressures (come on a 56mm - weak) and make lenses that fit a certain traditional mm specification rather than what is best for a certain design to win over Canon and Nicon traditionalists. That is the kind of thing that will make their engineers cringe and think they work for the big 3.

How about a 42mmf1.3 - that would be sweet, I might even buy a 72mmf1.6 to go with it. (I do have the 60mm).

You know what I mean.......

It's impossible to have a Fujinon lens front- or backfocusing. This would require a DSLR-style focusing system to "work".

 

The 27mm is f/2.8 and, thus, 2 full stops slower than the 1.4 lenses.

 

No I don't understand why the designers would want to create some weird focal lengths and how this would win over people from DSLRs. That doesn't make any sense.

 

So... whatever you smoked... gimme some or stop it.

[Dis]

No I don't understand why the designers would want to create some weird focal lengths and how this would win over people from DSLRs. That doesn't make any sense.

In theory the most compact lens is the one with the focal length close to the sensor diagonal. APS-C sensor diagonal is ~29mm. 27/2.8 is the most compact lens in XF lineup. Max profit over DSLR size.

[milandro]

true ...

 

 

But the focal length is often a compromise so for the traditional 24mm x 36mm film the “ normal” focal length calculated on the base of the diagonal would have been a 43mm

 

Of course for simplicity the majority of people making lenses made a 50mm (approximated because the true focal lens often deviated slightly from the nominal one).

 

That doesn’t mean that there weren’t 58mm, 55mm, 52mm ........

[Marc G.]

In theory the most compact lens is the one with the focal length close to the sensor diagonal. APS-C sensor diagonal is ~29mm. 27/2.8 is the most compact lens in XF lineup. Max profit over DSLR size.

 

So what? The 27mm is an equivalent to the 40mm pancakes for DSLRs. It's another equivalent to all the other equivalents. The author of the original post was talking about focal lengths that simply don't make sense.

[milandro]

What makes no sense for one person might make great sense for another.

 

When I was young the cheapest and most common triplet of lenses (this was before zooms became the rule) was 28mm, 50mm, 135mm, at the time if you had these lenses you would be classed for sure as an amateur.

 

There were plenty of people whom thought and wrote in magazines that for example the 135mm was neither fish nor flesh nor fowl since, at the time, it was generally considered to be too long for portraits and too short for anything else requiring a longer focal.

 

You can imagine my surprise when, come the 90mm in the Fuji system, a focal equivalent to the 135mm on the 24mm x 36mm, it was welcomed at the best thing after sliced bread! 

 

 

Different strokes for different people.

 

The 56mm was made to be that focal length because it is more or less equivalent to an 85mm which at the same time when the 135mm wasn’t though being much of a muchness, was considered the best portrait focal length.

 

The 60mm came on the market because it is equivalent to a 90mm, a focal length that was very popular in the analog times for macro lenses (also 1:2 most of them back then, without an extra ring).

 

To each his own.

 

We vote with our wallets. In the end things that are popular will survive and other things less popular will disappear.

 

It’s the nature of the beast.

[Marc G.]

And still, the different focal lengths were created because of certain optical properties they inherit.

 

And camera companies still thrive to create these focal lengths.

 

14/15 - 18 - 20/21- 24/25- 28- 35- 40/42/43 - 50/55/58/60 - 85/90 - 100/105 - 135 - 180/200 and so on.

 

When Fuji already created equivalents for most of these (with only 14/15, 100/105 left), it would make NO sense to start creating mixed focal lengths between the already existing ones.

[milandro]

You know, I tend to think that they know what they are doing and, although they might value our opinions but they might have their own better ones. 

 

They are at this game every day of their lives and the company has been doing this for a while, often longer than any of us has used any lens.

 

The marketing department at Fuji ( a sizable one al over the world I understand), I am sure, works in close contact with R&D  and before any lens comes out, its positioning , price and performance, has been worked out years before it sees the daylight.

 

Perhaps nice to read about Fuji (it’s mainly about film, their biggest sales are , still there, not in digital photography, but it says something about their attitude and why they survived while others succumbed)

 

http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2012/01/how-fujifilm-survived

[val]

Some shots from yesterday. I only have the 35mm F1.4. I shot these 3 images at F1.4

 

Good Morning by Will Solis, on Flickr

 

Bike by Will Solis, on Flickr

 

Goodbye by Will Solis, on Flickr

[Tikcus]

I don't understand what you guys mean by slow focusing, My 35/1.4 on the XT-10 doesn't seem slow to focus.

I could not start and stop a stopwatch before it has focused.

The focus speed has been a zeo issue even in low light for me

[jlmphotos]

I have both the 35 1.4 and the 23 1.4  I LOVE my 35.  i use it as my goto portrait lens.  Love the clarity, and the sharpness of it.

[johant]

I had a Canon 50/1.4 on my 5D. I love the X-Pro1 & 35/1.4 combination much more. My Canon lens was really soft wide open, and suffered more from CA.

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk