56mm1.2 Vs 35mm1.4 Vs 35mmf2 - FujiX-Forum

• Home
• What's new Unread posts New media New media comments Latest activity
• Forums Latest posts Forum list Search forums
• Media New media New comments Search media
• Buy/Sell

Log in Register Back What's new Search

Search

Everywhere Threads This forum This thread Search titles only By: Search Advanced search…

• Latest posts
• Forum list
• Search forums

Menu Log in Register Install the app Install

• Forums
• X Camera Gear & Lens discussions
• Native X-Mount Lens Forum

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.You should upgrade or use an alternative browser. 56mm1.2 vs 35mm1.4 vs 35mmf2

• Thread starter leevanf
• Start date Apr 11, 2017

L

leevanf

New Member

Hi guys, I currently have an 18-135 for travel, and a 56mm for street/portraits. Just realized the 56 is a bit too big, heavy, and too close for some family/friend moments but great for candid portraits. So in short, I cannot justify the value of having spent that much money on a lens I cant maximize since I am not an earning portrait pro. I find myself using 27-35mm usually on the 18-135 if i use it within the city. I am deciding to sell my 56 1.2 and replace with a more versatile 35mm but unsure if I should get f1.4 or f2. It just bugs me that the 35 1.4 isnt WR for my XT1 and that its an "older" lens than the f2 despite being considerably still more expensive. But the 1.4 is so tempting still because I presume i could retain the quality of my 56 1.2? What would you pick?

Narsuitus

Well-Known Member

leevanf said: What would you pick? Click to expand...

I picked the 56mm f/1.2 because I needed a fast slightly telephoto lens. Yes, I can use it for portraits but I did not get it for a portrait lens. If I need a 35mm prime lens, I have a 35mm f/1.4 and a 35mm f/2 Nikon that I can adapt. If I ever decided that I needed to own a Fuji 35mm, I would get the f/1.4 version because I do a lot of shooting in dim light and need the faster lens speed.

YogiMik

Well-Known Member

IQ from 35/1.4 is similar to 56/1.2R. The 35/2 is not even close to those above lenses in IQ, overall look of image, and rendering. I have got all those. 35/F2 I do not use at all, as I do not like images from it. Mostly, I shoot with 35/1.4. I take it everywhere. In all kind of weather conditions. I just love images from it even more than from 56/1.2R. For me, it is the best Fuji lens, and I have it on my cam 95% of time. If I get time, I'll sell my 35/2, and buy a backup copy of 35/1.4, and take it to the grave with me

Tilphot

Well-Known Member

I wouldn't be too concerned about WR unless you're planning on shooting in the pouring rain. What YogiMik said about f/1.4 vs. f/2 seems to be the consensus among those who know both lenses. I only have the f/1.4 and can confirm that it's a fantastic lens. The 1.4 is a real life saver in dim light, and if you're a 3D-pop and/or bokeh lover, you won't be disappointed. Last edited: Apr 11, 2017

Alanbill99

Well-Known Member

Plus, if you like Bokeh, go for the 1.4. The XF90 and XF35 1.4 are my only lenses now.

MontyBigglesworth

Well-Known Member

As Fuji won't specify what the term "WR" actually means as I wouldn't get to concerned over whether the lens has "WR" stamped on it or not. I have used the 23mm 1.4 in rain and had no issues, on the other hand I got a tiny spatter of beer on my supposedly "WR" XT-1 and the speed dial seized up! If your WR lens failed due to water ingress do you think Fuji would exchange it? What would you tell them you were doing at the time? There's no real way to prove what you were doing with it anyway. My personal take is any Lens should adhere to at least 3 and a WR lens should adhere to at least 5 from the table below, that's just my take! Second Digit (moisture protection)

1. No protection.
2. Protection against condensation
3. Protection against water droplets deflected up to 15° from vertical
4. Protected against spray up to 60° from vertical.
5. Protected against water spray from all directions.
6. Protection against low pressure water jets (all directions)
7. Protection against strong water jets and waves.
8. Protected against temporary immersion.
9. Protected against prolonged effects of immersion under pressure.

pandoraefretum

Well-Known Member

I also think the original XF35 f/1.4 blows the newer XF35 f/2 out the water. I think the f/2 is strictly for size convenience... it has some distortion that bothers me every so often (that is to say in real life only it only negatively impacts a small percentage of pics)

F2Bthere

Well-Known Member

leevanf said: But the 1.4 is so tempting still because I presume i could retain the quality of my 56 1.2? Click to expand...

The 35/1.4 is a step up in quality from the regular 56/1.2. The 35/2 is a step down in quality compared to the regular 56. That isn't to say the 35/2 is a "bad" lens. We get reports of corner softness and there is more software correction needed with the 35/2. And the 35/1.4 is a very special lens. So the 35/2 suffers in comparison. The 35/2 also has faster AF in good light and quieter AF. The 35/1.4 is reported to do better in poor light (I haven't personally compared). The 35/1.4 gets my vote as the most versatile prime lens Fuji makes. Last edited: Apr 12, 2017

ebruder

Well-Known Member

Sell the 56??? Your zoom covers both 35mm and 56mm, so you are technically covered in focal length for both of those lenses you are contemplating. I own and use both the 35 f/1.4 and the 56 f/1.2, and the 56 is just too good for portraits as well as other general photography that it would be the last lens that I would ever sell. EB

Dirk Offringa

Well-Known Member

I have the 35mm f1.4 and it's an outstanding lens I will never sell. It's my reference lens. I have been contemplating the 56mm f1.2 for a long while. Until I started looking into adapted lenses. Here's my advice based on my experience: if you really can't afford to keep such an amount of money invested in a lens you not use at it's full potential, which I can clearly understand, then get that superlative 35mm f1.4 AND try to find a good 50-ish legacy lens. I have harvested about 10 (or more...) different 50-ish legacy lenses over the past months, and did extensive testing, always comparing against the 35mm f1.4 in pixel-peep mode. I selected a couple, each having specific qualities and charm. But one is absolutely undistinguishable from the 35mm f1.4 in terms of IQ. Many here say that the 56mm f1.2 is similar in IQ to the 35mm f1.4. If that's the case, well, get yourself a Olympus Zuiko 50mm f1.8. Seriously, I can't tell them apart. I got mine for free but that was sheer luck of course. If you can do with manual focus, then you'll never miss your 56mm. And the Olympus is super lightweight and small: the adapter is almost heavier than the lens itself. Maybe I got an exceptional copy, but I just can't deny the evidence. I'm now a happy 50mm shooter, and saving up for the unique 16mm f1.4. Of all lenses, that's the one I really didn't find a adapted equivalent for. Problem solved... Last edited: Apr 11, 2017

Frankie

Well-Known Member

Using an adapted FF lens means you'd only use the center 2/3 of the image circle...usually much higher IQ than near the fringe. Of course the DoF is not changed...so live with it or not. I only use adapted LTM/M glass on the X-E1...essentially as a sensor holder box. The adapter is the thinnest [10mm]...not to mention lenses more compact and have high IQ. My lone FX 27/2.8 rarely seen action and I doubt if I'd buy another FX lens.

ebruder

Well-Known Member

I'll be a contrarian to the above two posts recommending legacy or adapted lenses in place of the 56mm f/1.2. This Fuji lens is simply outstanding, with the huge advantage of autofocus particularly when doing portrait and environmental portraits. The ability to automatically focus on an eye in a relative stationary subject gives extraordinarily sharp focused images even when shot wide open. With a moving subject, if not moving too much, the eye focus defaults to face focus, again producing sharply focused images. On faster moving subjects, just the normal autofocus outshines manual focus significantly. I have adapted lenses for stationary subjects, but my fairly good manual focus abilities are no match for Fuji's autofocus on a moving subject, and for portraits, even a couple of inches of movement can be a significant amount. EB

Frankie

Well-Known Member

I came from a time when auto-focus was dubbed "out'a-focus" [ca. 1982...Nikkor]. There are enough complaints and criticisms for AF in the forum even to date... There is some 6" of DoF with such a lens wide open at 10'...how big is an eyeball, prey tell?

ebruder

Well-Known Member

I came from that time as well, yet I find the 56mm on my XPro-2 to be quick and exact in autofocus. EB

Frankie

Well-Known Member

YMMV...of course.

Alternis

Well-Known Member

My original Fuji setup was the X-Pro1 and the 35 1.4, and it was the best photographic combination I've had since I started this crazy hobby. I eventually sold both the lens and body to move-up to the X-Pro2 and 16-55/23 1.4/18 f2/ 35 f2/ several other vintage lenses, but never got the results that made me smile like I did with my original set. I found a used one, in like new condition, from a member here and am in love again with not only the XP2 but with the 35 1.4. I do occasional shoots (paid and not), and the results portrait shooters are looking for can definitely come out of the 35 1.4. Never used the 56 1.2, so I can't say much on it other than Damien Lovegrove has taken great photos with it.

HartPonder

Well-Known Member

All things considered, I went with the 35 f2. Hear are my current viewpoints: The Aperture ring and the focus ring on the 1.4 is not dampened enough for me, the f2 ring is well dampened and feels solid and is a vast improvement from the 1.4. The autofocus on the 1.4 is much slower in lowlight, hunts way too much for what I do. The f2 blows away the 1.4 in focus speed in low light. The irony. The bokeh on the 1.4 is amazing, yet if you stop down to f2 and compare both lenses, the 35 f2 is just as good or even slightly better. Diffraction is about the same for each. The 1.4 is very flare prone, the f2 handles flare much better. The 1.4 is sharper and is amazing, but in the real world, the f2 more than meets the sharpness requirement for large print needs and computer screen viewing. Regarding WR , hold the 1.4 and the f2 together and compare side by side the rear of each lens. The weatherization is very apparent. Spilling other liquids which contains sugars and other eliments is an apple and oranges argument. Other liquids can gum up the hardware when drying. Last edited: Apr 11, 2017

Dirk Offringa

Well-Known Member

ebruder said: I'll be a contrarian to the above two posts recommending legacy or adapted lenses in place of the 56mm f/1.2 Click to expand...

The OP had good reasons to sell his 56mm and get a 35mm instead. The point I made was that there's an alternative to get the best of both worlds spending not much more. For 50 additional bucks adapter included he can still enjoy a very good prime 50mm, be it manual focus, whilst liberating the funds to aquire that 35mm which suit his needs better. It was not meant to trigger a "manual vs AF" debate.

ebruder

Well-Known Member

Agreed that no debate was intended. Sorry if it came off that way. EB

Angus

Well-Known Member

The XF 35 f1.4 is on my X-T 1 all the time. The quality of the XF 56 is brilliant, but I hardly need that focal length. I look at the Fuji sponsored photographers and it seems to be the xf35 f1.4 lens that they nearly all prefer.

jknights

Moderator

Admin/Moderation Team Well I would try and keep the 56mm and get the 35mm f2. I have the 35mm f1.4 and it is slower to focus than my other newer Fuji lenses but does make fine images.

starlights

Absconded

ebruder said: I'll be a contrarian to the above two posts recommending legacy or adapted lenses in place of the 56mm f/1.2. This Fuji lens is simply outstanding, with the huge advantage of autofocus particularly when doing portrait and environmental portraits. The ability to automatically focus on an eye in a relative stationary subject gives extraordinarily sharp focused images even when shot wide open. EB Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. None of the manual lenses come close to it - well mostly. A couple in my collection do come close but they are not the same FL (FD 300 f4L, FD 80-400L and Tamron 90mm f2.5). Fuji 56 is in a league of its own for portraits. However, in this situation a 35mm 1.4 would be the next logical choice - its magical. Post reply Insert quotes… Share: Facebook Twitter Email Share Link

• Forums
• X Camera Gear & Lens discussions
• Native X-Mount Lens Forum

Top Bottom