Clicky

Jump to content


Photo

Fuji XF 35 1.4 AF speed


  • Please log in to reply
48 replies to this topic

#41 gordonrussell76

gordonrussell76

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 215 posts

Posted 24 April 2018 - 10:23 PM

Advertisement (Gone after free registration)

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.


  • dfaye and Mike G like this

https://www.flickr.c...s/10596811@N04/

 

Fuji X-T2 : XF 10-24mm : XF 35mm : XF 56mm : XF90mm : XF 50-140mm+TC2x


#42 Hermelin

Hermelin

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 397 posts

Posted 26 April 2018 - 12:05 PM

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"



#43 Mike G

Mike G

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 584 posts
  • LocationLondon

Posted 26 April 2018 - 01:59 PM

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!
X-H1, 16 1.4, 23 1.4, 35 1.4, 56 1.2, 80 2.8 + 10-24, 18-55, 18-135, 55-200, 50-140

#44 Hermelin

Hermelin

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 397 posts

Posted 27 April 2018 - 10:43 AM

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


  • Mike G likes this

#45 cug

cug

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 231 posts

Posted 10 May 2018 - 06:31 PM

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 by cug, 10 May 2018 - 06:55 PM.


#46 Mike G

Mike G

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 584 posts
  • LocationLondon

Posted 10 May 2018 - 08:33 PM

It’s because on the odd occasion I found it hunts when the ambient light falls, not much but it happens!
X-H1, 16 1.4, 23 1.4, 35 1.4, 56 1.2, 80 2.8 + 10-24, 18-55, 18-135, 55-200, 50-140

#47 cug

cug

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 231 posts

Posted 13 May 2018 - 07:45 PM

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. 



#48 Hermelin

Hermelin

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 397 posts

Posted 14 May 2018 - 11:13 AM

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.



#49 cug

cug

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 231 posts

Posted 14 May 2018 - 07:22 PM

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.




 
x

Registration is free

Not registered? Really?

Discover the full potential of the Fuji X Forum... register now!
Registration is free and done in a few minutes!

As registered member you can discuss, post your questions and present your images.
And get in contact with Fuji X photographers worldwide!

We are looking forward to you!

The Fuji X Forum Team

Register Close