Fuji XF 35 1.4 AF speed

[Newsphoto]

The AF speed is slow but the IQ is perfect.

So if you want to spend some time to make a great picture buy it.

[Phil]

I've heard a lot of Fuji X Shooters say that the 35 ƒ1.4 is the absolute must own lens in the Fuji XF lenses.  It will be my next lens, then I'll start saving my pennies for the 56...

 

I think it all depends on your focal length preferences, but if you like ~50mm, then yes, I'd say it's a must own lens. The AF has gotten a lot better with newer bodies and firmware updates. And there's just something about the look it gives - it's warm, but just a little bit muted to my eyes. 

 

OP, if you like the 50mm equivalent focal length, I think you should get it. IMHO the AF is fine to the point where you should be looking at this lens based on its focal length, and not its AF speed.

[Toon]

You buy this lens for its incredible IQ / feel / weight / magic / price, not for the AF.

 

It's more than adequate for everything walking, but not running.

 

I agree with this. I bought the lens, found the AF to be a bit slow but everything else about it is well worth the price point imo. For me, it was a great introductory lens for portraits.

[dengx]

XF35 is a magic lens that produces great photos.

 

It is a lens that was always with me, at least until I replaced it with Zeiss 32 for the same purpose and gave XF35 to my best friend.

Both Zeiss and XF35 are more than adequate for my needs with X-T1 fw 4.0 when it comes to speed.

[jlmphotos]

I think we are all hoping the new FW 4.0 will fix the hunting the 35 1.4 does.  However, even if it does not, that would be the last lens I would ever part with.  I love the look of the lens, the images, the clarity and sharpness!

 

In certain situations, it's my go to lens besides the 18-55

[joshinthecity]

I've been running 4.0 for a while.

It absolutely does help the 35. Not a huge amount. But enough that you'll notice.

Maybe 10-15%.

 

j.

[Ektachrome]

IMO firmware 4.0 doesn't improve the AF speed - the lens still hunts quite a lot before locking, even in good light. When it does lock though, it's dead sharp and accurate.

 

The great thing about the 35 1.4, though, is the image quality. Sharp stopped down, lovely bokeh open.

 

Personally, unless you desperately need the 50mm (equivalent) focal length, I think the 23 1.4 is much faster AF and still draws very attractively. I think 35mm (equivalent) is slightly more versatile and only a very slight crop to equal the 35mm lens' aov. Also, the snap back to MF ring is very nice.

[darknj]

The 35mm is part of the first X lenses that got released, so yes its age is showing nowadays. 

 

As for the AF speed, if you are on spot focus, it doesn't change anything at all, you have to be in the zone focus, I find my compromise in the 3x3 zone. The hunting lowered to a lesser level but still present but compared to what it was before the FW 4.0 update, it is still a much welcomed improvement, let's hope that they will release a new lens FW for it later one.

[mart46]

I bought this lens a couple of weeks ago, and I used it last night on some outdoor portraits. Well wow. I know its old tech but the results are excellent!

[Sluw]

I have this lens since last week and on my X-E1 it's just ok. Not fast, not slow. The results though... awesome!

[milandro]

...but of course all the people who aren’t using this lens on a camera sporting the new firmware cannot appreciate its improved performance!

 

( sorry, the X Pro 1 and the X-E1 can’t have the new firmware and the X-E2 COULD have it but Fuji has not seriously spoken, aside a vague declaration of intents by Fuji France alone, of when there will be one and IF it will be of the same nature of the other cameras which do have it)

[Aswald]

...but of course all the people who aren’t using this lens on a camera sporting the new firmware cannot appreciate its improved performance!

 

( sorry, the X Pro 1 and the X-E1 can’t have the new firmware and the X-E2 COULD have it but Fuji has not seriously spoken, aside a vague declaration of intents by Fuji France alone, of when there will be one and IF it will be of the same nature of the other cameras which do have it)

 

DRATS!

[milandro]

DRATS!

life is not fair

[Aswald]

Hahaha...... yah, I guess. Double drats!

[Snzkgb]

The Fujinon 35mm F/1.4 is the absolute must have lens up to date. Optically it is at least as good as Summilux 50mm F/1.4 if not better. It is an all-round lens if you know why people bought fast 50 mills back in old-school days of film cameras when there were no zooms.

 

But, well, of course, Fuji should make the 35mm F/1.4 Mark II or even 35mm F/1.2 with features of more modern lenses.

 

As for me, this exact lens (Fujinon XF 35mm F/1.4 R) and body (X-Pro 1) were the main reasons to sell my 5D mark II and EF 50mm F/1.2 combo.

 

PS: Seriously, if your concern is AF speed, than mirrorless is not for you - just buy a DSLR.

[gordonrussell76]

Old thread I know but something I have found with the 35mm F1.4 is more than any other Fuji lens it really rewards the mash the shutter button technique, (remember to set to focus priority in sub menu), if you half press it hunts and then by the time you have hit the shutter things have moved, If you just mash shutter in S_AF soon as it acquires focus it fires and I have found accuracy is actually better with this method. Interestingly as well on the X-H1 you get even more keepers with this method as the feather shutter introduces less of the jaring inherent in this technique and also has IBIS to further steady the ship. Oh and the 35mm is faster on the X-h1 anyway thanks to new AF algo's (coming to all the 3rd gen bodies in May.

 

Its good times to be a Fuji user, especially when my first ever lens I bought in the system after the kit (5 Years ago), is still getting better thanks to firmware updates in the bodies.

[Hermelin]

Still tempted to swith my 35 f/2 because of 1.4 and "magic rendering" against this. But my mind says no because of "af speed and WR"

[Mike G]

WR? AF speed is an old problem that is in the past go for it. But the lens does like the light and doesn’t fare quite as well in the dark!

[Hermelin]

WR? AF speed is an old problem that is in the past go for it. But the lens does like the light and doesn’t fare quite as well in the dark!

Weather Resistant

[cug]

WR? AF speed is an old problem that is in the past go for it. But the lens does like the light and doesn’t fare quite as well in the dark!

 

How does this make sense? AF motors are a bit slower than on the f/2 version, but AF speed isn't really a problem with any camera that has the X-Trans III sensor (X-Pro2, X-E3, X-T2, X-H1). 

 

In lower light, the 35/1.4 is actually better here as it lets in a full stop more light and therefore more contrast to the sensor to actual focus properly. 

 

I have owned the 35/2 and did some shoots with it, but sold it again in and kept the 35/1.4 which I had for some years now. The 35/2 is optically the weakest of the f/2 lenses, not well corrected, in real life not much smaller than the 1/4, so the only real life advantage is WR. I prefer having it, but optical performance and creative options are more important, that's why I kept the 23/1.4, 35/1.4, 56/1.2 and sold the 23/35/50 f/2 I also owned.

Edited May 10, 2018 by cug

[Mike G]

It’s because on the odd occasion I found it hunts when the ambient light falls, not much but it happens!

[cug]

Weird, I don't have that issue. Also, "hunting" is a problem of the body not acquiring what it considers critical focus, not the lens really. The lens just acts to what the body tells it to do. 

[Hermelin]

How does this make sense? AF motors are a bit slower than on the f/2 version, but AF speed isn't really a problem with any camera that has the X-Trans III sensor (X-Pro2, X-E3, X-T2, X-H1). 

 

In lower light, the 35/1.4 is actually better here as it lets in a full stop more light and therefore more contrast to the sensor to actual focus properly. 

 

I have owned the 35/2 and did some shoots with it, but sold it again in and kept the 35/1.4 which I had for some years now. The 35/2 is optically the weakest of the f/2 lenses, not well corrected, in real life not much smaller than the 1/4, so the only real life advantage is WR. I prefer having it, but optical performance and creative options are more important, that's why I kept the 23/1.4, 35/1.4, 56/1.2 and sold the 23/35/50 f/2 I also owned.

I always had the impression that the 35 f/2 was better than the 23 f/2 optically. 50, I'm not sure. Eitherway, I would love to have the 1.4 but I probably need that extra af speed when I shot my kids running around like crazy. I fear that the AF on the 1.4 wouldn't be sufficent.

[cug]

I wonder how my father ever got a photo of me ... ;-)

 

Regarding 23/35/50 quality, I think there is general consensus that the quality hierarchy is 50 > 23 > 35. The 50 is really, really good and for me a total alternative to the 56 if you don't need f/1.2 for something, it also has much more consistent performance, meaning it's great wide open, while the 56 is soft and low contrast up to f/2 to f/2.8 and close focus distances. The 23 is really a 21mm lens, the extrem corners can be pretty soft, but it's a great lightweight lens which has a better resolving power than the 1.4 version – and it is much smaller. The 35 isn't properly optically corrected, so the corners never get as good as a good 35/1.4 even though it might be slightly better at f/2.

 

Having owned the f/2 trilogy I compared them quite a bit with the 23/1.4, 35/1.4 and 56/1.2. Personally I consider the 23/2 and 50/2 good alternatives to their faster, larger, heavier siblings, but the 35 just doesn't hold up to the same standard. 

 

Now, let me get this straight out: this is comparing on a very high level, they are all very, very good lenses and are all (except the 35/2) in the same league as the Canon L glass I own (35/1.4, 50/1.2, 85/1.2, some older zooms) and are generally more affordable. The one thing the Canon glass gives is nicer OoF rendering due to the same or higher speed and the larger sensor at the cost of being generally twice the weight or even worse (body + lens).

 

You can't go wrong with either of these lenses, but I really believe people need to stop thinking the 35/1.4 or 18/2 are slow focusing – most of this is because of comparisons drawn to experience with X-Pro1, X-E1 or even X-T1 and X-E2 class cameras with old firmware, which were all absolutely terrible in focusing speed. Make comparisons on the same modern body and you'd be surprised. Might you be able to measure a difference? Sure. Is it relevant in real life? Nope. It's like comparing the 0-60 times and saying a 3.2s run is soooo much faster than a 3.4s run, when in real life it's irrelevant.

[Fursan]

Maybe a little compared to the 18-55 on my XP-2.

But sufficiently fast and exquisite rendering; so much so that I have traveled with just this to many places across the world.

 

Examples...

 

 

 

 

of course, a bit of color does not go astray...