Tone and colors on the 1.4 vs 2.0 WE lenses?

[Hermelin]

I've read several times that the 23 and 35 f/1.4 has a certain tone and color to the images they produced compared to the f/2 versions. Does anyone have both that can compare?

[poster]

.

Edited May 14, 2017 by Picturer

[jlmphotos]

I don't know about tone and color but those F2 lenses are hideously ugly.  That's my 2 cents and I'm sticking to it. 

[Nero]

Glass (and the coatings applied to it) can most certainly affect color, any time you are refracting and bending light using a lens it can cause shifts in the spectrum or in radical cases break it apart (more in the case of prism than a lens though). Most of the time with the camera settings and scene being the same between decent quality lenses what you would see is differences in contrast or saturation more than any significant color shift though. If there is a huge difference in actual color, not just contrast or saturation, then there is probably something off with the lens or an automated function of the camera is reading the scene a little differently on one lens and causing a shift. 

 

I know that the f/2 versions do rely more heavily on digital corrections in camera and in RAW than the optically corrected f/1.4 versions. That's how Fuji was able to reduce the size/weight and add weather sealing. If there is a noticeable difference, it's probably due to that. I own the f/1.4 lenses and have been happy enough with them that I have no need to buy the f/2 at this point, so I can't make a direct comparison with my own photos though.

[poster]

.

Edited May 14, 2017 by Picturer

[adzman808]

I doubt it. There's lots of nonsense talked about lenses imparting colour to an image. It's clear glass, how could it?

Can't wait to see the examples!

As Nero explained already

 

They're not clear glass, they have coatings and also aspherical shapes to rended the image. They also magnify and reduce the image depending on the FL

 

What exactly are you expecting to see when you see examples?

 

That every lens ever made that shares a common FL also shares exactly the same image rendition?

[poster]

.

Edited May 14, 2017 by Picturer

[Sluw]

Would be interesting indeed and would love to see that as well. If somebody has both it'd be interesting to shoot the same subject under the same conditions and settings. I only tried the f/2.0 lens for a day (and own the 1.4) but didn't do a real comparison... stupid. Something like this in uncorrected raw for both close subject and landscape would be nice.

 

- f/1.4 vs f/2.0

- f/2.0 vs f/2.0

- f/8.0 vs f/8.0

 

Edit: there IS a comparison although not focussed on character and colour as I'd like to see . fujivsfuji Conclusion: the f/2.0 is the best choice for most people since it's also a lot cheaper and a great lens. If you want the best quality the f/1.4 is still the best.

Edited May 12, 2017 by Sluw

[adzman808]

Have fun!

 

http://fujifilmxmount.com/comparison/en/test-our-lenses/

 

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!

 

Both the 35s at F2

[Sluw]

Ha smart! Unfortunately not the same shutter speed but it's something.

[poster]

.

Edited May 14, 2017 by Picturer

[adzman808]

Iirc I think that these are computer simulated images, so they're what Fuji expect us to see

 

I own both 35s, I'm sure I'll get round to reviewing them at some point and a comparison will be part of that review

 

Don't ask me when though!

 

Looking at the images from Fuji I posted above, it does seem that one of the 35s isn't really 35mm

[poster]

.

Edited May 14, 2017 by Picturer

[adzman808]

Fujifilm are lending me the 23 and 50 F2 WR lenses "next week"* so just MAYBE I can test this (I already have the two 35s and the 56 and 23/1.4 - bit unfair comparing the 50 to the 56 though, different FLs)

 

*next week can be a little vague when it comes to Fuji, I'm hardly their biggest priority as far as togs go!

 

I'm NOT COMPLAINING though

[elisha.jesudason]

Not sure about the Fuji lenses but the A-Mount Minolta lenses had nicer colours than the Sony or Zeiss A-Mount lenses.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sir_c]

What I understood is that the original holy trinity (18/2, 35/1.4, 60/2.4) have a similar, warmer, colour balance than the newer lenses.

[adzman808]

The two 23s have different colours and contrast.

 

I haven't checked the 35s yet

 

Oh and one of the 23s isn't really 23 (either the 1.4 one is maybe 25 or the f2 one is maybe 21)

[petergabriel]

The new 50mm f2 has a warm rendering, it wouldn't say the 35mm f1.4 is warm, it just has this very beautiful tonality in the gradients.

[Hermelin]

Love the colors of my 35 f/2 anyway. I wonder if I would see any difference with the 1.4.

Took this today. Classic Chrome +1 colors. SOOC.

 

Edited August 26, 2017 by Hermelin

[adzman808]

I've finished writing up my comparison of the two 23s

 

I haven't looked at the two 35s yet - but if you harmonise exposure between the 23s you see a big difference in colour/contrast rendering

 

you can see this in my examples in part three

 

http://adambonn.com/my-love-affair-with-the-fujifilm-x-pro1/xp2-eighty-two/

 

There's also some examples of this in part two

 

http://adambonn.com/my-love-affair-with-the-fujifilm-x-pro1/xp2-eighty-one/

[petergabriel]

I have tried almost all the f2 lenses and at first I find the image quality great (which it is), but then when I go through my photo library, everytime a image pops out with that extra special rendering/character, its one of the f1.4 lenses, and I remember why I fell in love with Fujifilm colors in the first place - starting with the x100s.