35mm f2 vs f1.4

[claude]

Just got my 35mm f 1.4. I find the AF not that slow and not that noisy either. i guess with all the talk about those issues, my expectation was different.

Sure is a magical lens. The IQ and the color are fantastic in the same league  of the 90 mm

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!

[BobJ]

I believe that in single focus mode the camera focuses at full aperture but in continuous mode it focuses stoped down.

[Sluw]

Still love the rendering best (together with the 14mm and 56mm)

 

Bunches of yellow prunes by Licht Sluw, on Flickr

 

Sea Buckthorn by Licht Sluw, on Flickr

 

Halfway there by Licht Sluw, on Flickr

[frankinfuji]

Tried the f/2 of a friend, and decided to keep my f/1.4. It's magic.

Now that's the key point of difference. The f2 employs the laws of physics to produce a compact, high quality lens, whereas the f1.4 uses magic. A friend at Fuji Japan told me in confidence that Fuji use glass from the Eye of Sauron for the front element of the 1.4. I'm certainly not parting with my precious f1.4.

[Mervyn]

I've had both the 35f1.4 and f2.

 

The f1.4 certainly has character, but it's noisy and relatively slow to focus, like a grumpy old man that you need to poke before he gets out of his comfy chair to make you a photo. When he does however, the old man turns out to be a grandmaster and the results can be quite wonderful.

 

The f2 is like a smooth businessman, always in a hurry and quick to close deals. It's sharp and silent, has fast auto-focus and has creamy bokeh. But he lacks the character of the 1.4.

 

All joking aside, in real life use the difference between a 1.4 and 2.0 aperture is pretty much negligible. Yes, 1.4 is one stop faster but who cares, they're both fast. And 1.4 might have a tad more bokeh, but not much more. Where I do see a real difference is when I compare 1.4 to 2.8.

 

Personally I traded my f1.4 for the f2 because I preferred a silent lens with faster autofocus. Later I got rid of the 35mm focal length completely; I prefer 23 for a walk-around lens and 56 for portraiture. If I could have just one lens I'd keep the 23f1.4. (And I'm not interested in the 23f2.)

Edited July 25, 2017 by Mervyn

[Michael McKee]

Tried them both. The 1.4 is a bit smoother, almost dreamy. The 2 has a bit more bite, kinda Zeiss like. Since it got the 2, it has pretty much lived on my X-T2. The 1.4 went to a new home.

[sir_c]

The AF motors in the newer lenses are faster, and they're moving less glass too

 

I just tested my camera in single AF mode

 

X-Pro2 / xf56 APD

 

 

The APD version of this lens forces the camera into using CDAF always.

[adzman808]

The APD version of this lens forces the camera into using CDAF always.

The APD isn't a newer lens.

 

It's just what i had on the camera at the time

[fordfanjpn]

I have both and I'll keep both. The IQ of the 1.4 is special, especially on the X-Pro1, but it is a bit slow and quite noisy when focusing. The 2 is faster, the IQ is quite good, though maybe not magical, and it's the lens I use on the street when I need the faster response. Decide your main use and then pick the lens that works for you. Or better yet, buy them both!