Fujinon XF 35mm F1.4 R

[dziurek1008]

Hi guys.

 

 

Can U tell how good in fact is this lens? Is it worth the money? If it not depends on focal lenght, the xf23 is really this better, with the price almost twice as high?

[jkspepper]

I love this lens, ever since I got it its been the only thing attached to my X-T1 (that and Classic Chrome = win).

 

http://jkspepper.tumblr.com/tagged/xf35mmf14r

[dziurek1008]

I love this lens, ever since I got it its been the only thing attached to my X-T1 (that and Classic Chrome = win).

 

http://jkspepper.tumblr.com/tagged/xf35mmf14r

Nice website mate . What about the sharpness and  bokeh on 1,4? I'm little crazy with this two parameters

[photog]

I have both the Fuji 35 and the Zeiss 32 and they are both great. I have had a hard time picking one over the other as a "favorite."

[Trenton Talbot]

I have both XFs you mentioned, 35 and 23. For me, the 35s FOV is rather boring; 23, on the other hand, renders incredibly beautiful photographs.

 

But it's all just a matter of personal preference: I know a lot of photographers who absolutely adore that 35mm Fujinon.

[Aswald]

If I can have only one lens, the XF35 F1.4 would be it. Color, sharpness and bokeh is just brilliantly balanced.

[photog]

Oops... I thought you were looking for a comparison between the Fuji 35 and the Zeiss 32... I misread your original post... sorry.  The 23 is a great lens, too. I tend to shoot with the 35 much more than the 23... but like Trenton said, it really comes down to how you see and which focal length fits better with how you like to shoot. 

 

You really can't go wrong either way.

[Nero]

I have both the 35mm and 23mm and love them both. I tend to prefer a wider FOV, so the 23mm or my 10-24mm are by far my most frequently used lenses, but every time I put the 35mm on my camera, I end up telling myself I need to find reasons and situations to use it more often. In terms of sharpness, I'd say it's a tossup. Some people claim that the 35mm is sharper, but on a good day with good subject matter, I can't tell the difference. I get great color from both, too. I'd give the 35mm an edge on the bokeh, but in the end it all comes down to personal preference on the FOV. 

[milandro]

Two different animals! With regards to which one you should go for, much depends on the type of photography that you do.

 

I agree if I could only have one lens and one lens alone it would be the 35 1.4 , in fact for a while it was the only lens that I had ( the first lens that I have bought when I just got myself the first fujifilm x camera , an X-E1, that I’ve used for a while until it needed being repaired ... long story) , but I am not really a street photographer! 

 

If I were, then probably the 23 ( which didn’t exist at the time) would have been the lens that I would have gone for. 

[dziurek1008]

I had that 23 for a while on my camera and truly it was fabulous. But I'm just starting the street photo adventure, and the fact is that 23 is more universal for street and any other occasion. But you have to be really close to your subject and it is stressful for me. xD But maybe it is a good oportunity to overcome that fear and that's why I considering this lens. But i just wonted to know how good is the 35 because of its price which is slightly lower than 23.

 

[Marc G.]

If you go by optical perfection, the 56 and 16 reign supreme. The 23 is a tiny bit behind (it's basically the same) and the 35 lags a little behind (more so if you focus very close). That said, I love the 35 so much I bought it again after selling it. Zack Arias is actually right when he states that the 35 1.4 R is a magical lens.

[jlmphotos]

This lens is FREAKIN' amazing!  I love it.  I own the 18-55, the Zeiss 12mm, the 55-200, and the 35mm.  IT is a super tack sharp lens with what I consider beautiful bokeh.  I've owned it since Feb 2013 and have used it on both my X-T1, and my old X-E1.

 

And, at the current price it's bargain (IMHO)as I paid "much" more than that back in 2013.  

[Aswald]

I had that 23 for a while on my camera and truly it was fabulous. But I'm just starting the street photo adventure, and the fact is that 23 is more universal for street and any other occasion. But you have to be really close to your subject and it is stressful for me. xD But maybe it is a good oportunity to overcome that fear and that's why I considering this lens. But i just wonted to know how good is the 35 because of its price which is slightly lower than 23.

 

 

I think the up and coming 16mm F1.4R would be a stellar street photography lens. If you can wait and don't mind spending that $$$ on it. It will be hard to beat on any level and it'll be a lens you'll want to keep for life.

[stretcharmstr0ng]

I absolutely love my 35mm. I own the 10-24 f/4 and the 56 f/1.2. The 35 is on my camera a solid 75% of the time. It is incredibly light and very capable. I haven't had an issue with sharpness at all. I agree with the 16 f1.4 poster above, but you can't beat the 35 for that price.

[David Wagner]

In picking between these two lenses, pick the one that suits your photography more. Both are excellent in terms of image quality. The 23 definitely feels better built, but it's also heavier and larger. I use the 23 mainly because the 35 is, for me, a 'meh' focal length, not wide enough, not long enough.

[andreapmathis]

The xf35mm is a great lens. I am happy with sharpness, build quality, size, bokeh. For me it's a very good allround lens, due to the fact that you can shoot landscapes, street photography, portraits and even macros (to a certain extent).

[Watcher24]

The XF35 is fast, sharp and small and producing nice bokeh. If speed, optical quality and seize (and weight) all matter - the XF35 is the best compromise among all Fujinons. Actually it is not a compromise ... it is a very good lens. Was my favourite XF prime for a long time.

Whether this focal lenghth (@APS-C) is interesting or not is another question - the lens is good.

 

[sababa123]

I have and shoot both lenses regularly. They are both great lenses.

 

I grew up with a Nikon F2 and a 50MM lens and that was it. I knew that lens inside and out and have a number of shots that stand the test of time (some 40 years). The 35mm is a good substitute for that lens on a 1.5 crop Fuji and has been a wonderful lens to use. Having said that, I probably shoot the 23mm three times more than the 35 for the reasons noted by others - the 23mm (35mm full frame equivalent) is a more interesting field for view for me. YMMV.

[redisred]

I have both the 23 and the 35, as well as the 56 and I personally use the 35 the least. The bokeh is noticeably worse to my eyes. It's busier and it's less shallow as it approaches the edge of the frame. You only notice it at father distances though, like a nearly full body portrait at 1.4. I know everyone falls over themselves over this lens and it is great, especially for the price, but to me the 23 is in another league. However, it's more expensive and heavier, so you can't have it all I guess!

[milandro]

I had that 23 for a while on my camera and truly it was fabulous. But I'm just starting the street photo adventure, and the fact is that 23 is more universal for street and any other occasion. But you have to be really close to your subject and it is stressful for me. xD But maybe it is a good oportunity to overcome that fear and that's why I considering this lens. But i just wonted to know how good is the 35 because of its price which is slightly lower than 23.

 

 

 

Well you know they say that Robert Capa is credited to have said that: “ If your photographs aren’t good enough, you aren’t close enough” 

 

There are many street photographers which worked before WWII or just after that happily shot with their “ normal” and often standard only lens ( although many shot with the square, 6 x 6 cm, format of the Rollei)). The one who more than any other one made this choice famous was Henri Cartier-Bresson who, as we all know or should know, worked especially in his early years with a Leica and a 50mm .

 

Now the 35mm Leica film format is larger than the APS-C sensor and the “ normal” focal length applies to the format of the film (in our case the APS-Csensor).

 

The 35mm Fuji would be equivalent, on the 35mm format, to the 50mm, which is considered the “ normal lens” although, purely from a geometrical point of view this should be a focal length equivalent to the diagonal of the format which is more in the region of the 42mm.

 

So, If that kind of aesthetic used by Cartier-Bresson was reachable with the normal focal length ( for him 50mm) on the 35mm film format, we, on the APS-C, should be able to do the same with the 35mm lens.

 

However in the meantime a different aesthetic developed, one which calls for a “ wider approach”. But if Cartier-Bresson did it, so can we!

 

 

[wildcart]

I would love to buy a 35mm but I wonder how the new 35mm f2 will perform 

[Gfl]

I would love to buy the 35mm too, but I think I'll wait for the f/2 coming later this year. At least to be sure I'm making the right choice. Any idea how it will be priced ? Iirc it will have less elements than the 35 1.4, might it be cheaper ?

[Trenton Talbot]

I would love to buy the 35mm too, but I think I'll wait for the f/2 coming later this year. At least to be sure I'm making the right choice. Any idea how it will be priced ? Iirc it will have less elements than the 35 1.4, might it be cheaper ?

 

It will have WR, that alone will add some to the price. Plus the usual "early adopter" penalty… I don't think it will be cheaper, at least not at first.

[milandro]

the introduction of a new lens ( although it is a different lens) in the same focal length normally has a positive influence ( or is it a negative one   ? ) on the price of the older one. So, although some people will go for the new lens, some will still buy the older one but at a cheaper price. I don’t think that I would be selling mine. When it rains I seek a shelter or don’t go out taking pictures at all. I am not of the adventurous persuasion, so the chances of me visiting the rain forest are slim, at best.

[olli]

I also have both of these lenses and for practical use I can't tell them apart in terms of image quality. Since I'm not really interested in bokeh I can't speak to that. I personally have a slight preference for the 23 for my kind of urban documentary photography. Before I switched to Fuji I was using a 30mm lens almost exclusively and I find it is easier to get used to being a little wider (23) than a little narrower (35). I think knowing what I know now, if I could have only one it would be the 23, but I prefer to have both.