FR-reader STJN (thanks a lot!) dropped me a link to some samples taken with the upcoming XF35mmF2 at PCHstore – here in French (translation)! NOTE: also the already rumored price of €399 seems to be correct 🙂 .
UPDATE: enjoy the cached version here.
And I have to say: I really like the bokeh I see in these samples. And you?
stay tuned…
Fuji X Forum, Facebook, Google+, RSS-feed and Twitter
81 Responses
Honest question, what’s the point of this lens again? It doesn’t look much smaller than the 35mm f/1.4, are the AF or other features of this lens better?
WR i think
I don’t get it either, barely cheaper than 35mm f1.4, turned out quite big and ugly.
Maybe it’s the WR, and maybe its purely a visual thing? Are there pics side-by-side of the two lenses mounted on the same model body?
I doesn’t look small indeed. Compared to pictures of the 35/1.4 mounted to a X-T10 it looks like it is of about the same diameter “at the base” but significantly longer. It however has got a smaller diameter at the front element. But if you consider the 35/1.4’s lens hood as well (which you cannot mount reversed for storage), the 2.0 should take up less space in a bag.
It is for the XPro1 and 2 mostly, Doesn’t block the viewfinder thats what it’s for.
@felipey:disqus What we know for sure is weather sealing and size a tad bit shorter. Judging by the article, it may well be lighter and have a more comfortable aperture ring (less loose) and focus ring as well. We can also assume that autofocus will be on par with the latest XF lenses, aka faster and less noisy than the 35mm f/1.4.
LOL, show me a Fuji lens with non-creamy bokeh please. OK, 55-200 maybe, but all others “so sharp and so creamy”. 🙂
The 18-55 is also far from being a cream machine… Nice lens but you better stay away from OOF highlights.
Like Jano said, I think the 18-55 is a lesser “cream machine”. The 55-200 hold its ground pretty nicely and it punches well above its weight. Check Damien Lovegrove’s test here:
http://www.prophotonut.com/2015/01/05/fuji-x-series-portrait-lenses-compared-inc-56-apd-50-140-zoom/
50-140 is not creamy. It’s quite neutral. Otherwise “wow such sharp many creamy”))))
We have to see more pics from 35/2 but seeing only these ones I am not impressed with its “creamy bokeh”, I found it just boring compared to 35/1.4, and especially to wonderful rendering of 18/2 prime and 60/2.4.
What’s not “creamy” about that Bokeh?
Doesn’t look very sharp…
Frankly, i think you mix up low DoF with being unsharp
I do not find this lens to provide detailed images:
http://blog.pch.be/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/XF35F2-2.jpg
http://blog.pch.be/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/XF35F2.jpg
When you look at those pictures in full size you can’t see details neither in the rust nor in the wood. It is even hard to say where the focus was in the rusted bird picture: and this has nothing to do with shallow DoF…
There are several images with lousy sharpness/focus. This one is nowhere in focus. It’s either a lens or a photographer problem. All in all not a recommendation for a buy.
It is sharp! And bokeh looks like “swirly/bubble bokeh”
Better than 35 f/1.4
Looks like a strange oval Bokeh in the bird image.
Seriously… You should look at this:
http://www.photozone.de/active/magic/get.jsp?id=1896985175_F5GftQd
Sadly, the 35 f1.4 is not great either…
I don’t care too much about sharpness when I shoot f/1.4… especially with a 50mm equivalent!
But the new lens bokeh looks greater to me. Bokeh with 35 f/1.4 was a bit bland and anonymous.
maybe this lense has been designed with fullframe sensor in mind. thats why the image looks thin on the apsc.
The photo of the stone at 5.6 looks soft as well. But these photo’s have been made smaller. When you look at them in your browser they aren’t anywhere near their original size. Probably that explains why the images look a bit soft. I don’t think it’s the lens.
Maybe they have been reduced *and* reprocessed by some blog/website content management system. Resizing alone shouldn’t degrade sharpness that much if done in a serious program (looking at the EXIF, it’s Cature One 8).
I’d say bokeh is not perfect but quite good. It doesn’t look significantly better than 35/1.4.
Why should a 2.0 lens have “better Bokeh” than a 1.4?
Why not? Bokeh has nothing to do with maximum aperture. DOF does.
True, but you still would have to compare them at f2
I would compare them at all wide and medium apertures))). And f/2 vs f/1.4 to compare at maximum blur one can get. And also sunstars at small apertures. There’s a load details to compare)))
Why should an f/2.0 lens that costs have as much have better bokeh is better question.
The optics design is a small fraction of the lens price. You can make great optics design for a cheap lens. This lens is cheaper because it’s an f/2. If it was about the same as f/1.4, no one would buy it.
You cannot say whether Bokeh is good, bad or mediocre as it is an effect which depends on the individuals eye and own perception of Bokeh, some prefer it soft others like pure halos or swirls, it is all down to the individuals taste.
So? You should always imagine “IMO” between the lines everywhere in comments. Nevertheless smooth bokeh is usually a default good bokeh unless you’re on helios-philes forum.
I wholly agree with you on ‘smooth’ but some of the images we see online where the Bokeh has been praised up so much are so ugly that it simply destroys what could have been a wonderful image. We’ve all seen this kind of photograph, unfortunately so many people now seem to think the Bokeh is more important than the image.
Agree. One should not overrate this lens spec. But he should not ignore it too. Bad bokeh can really worsen great picture. Thus I prefer to choose lenses with great bokeh at most apertures so I could care about the image, not the bokeh during shooting.
Indeed, its bokeh is very nice.
Edit: to my eyes.
Looks quite big. Any size comparison with 35 f/1.4 ?
In lenght it is almost the same size! WR is the benefit and it’s conical shape for the optical viewfinder X-Serie cameras …
Yeah, I think it’s rather big too. And it doesn’t seem to be sharper than the f/1.4 version either. At first glance it doesn’t look like a very interesting lens.
Ha-ha, google translate is just so painfully worthless.
Seeing as the 1.4 can be obtained for as little as 366 Euros it’s not even cheaper.
http://www.camerainthepost.com/Lens/FujiFilm/Fujifilm+XF+35mm+F1.4+R+Fujinon+Lens.html
If this puppy is sharper at f/2.0 than the 35mm f/1.4 at the same aperture, doesn’t have clattering aperture blades and focusses faster, I want one!
Phallic design… well done
Really have to do a consideration.
While this is a good lens, the other interesing lens should be the rumoured 33 F1.0.
I am considering should go for this lens or wait for the dreamy 33 F1.0 LOL but I suspect that is going to be a HUGH lens and crazy price tag.
Currently, I am strongly considering the 50-140 hehe.
There are rumours that 300mm F2.8 will pops as well. HOLY 2016!
Some call 16/1.4 huge. Blah it’s reasonable size. Hope 33/1 will be the same.
Shall wait and see.
You shouldn’t forget that the asking price for the all metal (!) XF 35/1.4 is really low. With the nice exception of the (still more expensive) Sigma 35/1.4 ART, all the 35/1.4s of the other major brands are costing way more than 1000 USD….
It’s quite large, isn’t it? I’d expect it to be tiny in comparison with 1.4 one
Has to be beffy at the base for the apature ring. Need something to grip and twist.
Here is what the X-T10 and xf35f2 looks like beside the xf35f1.4 after some photoshop work.
This comparison makes me wonder if an f/3.5 design wouldn’t have been better, alongside a complete refresh of the existing f/1.4 lens.
Thank for your efforts. It’s not small, but Fujifilm can’t perform miracles. Weather Resistens, metal body, great optical performance, internal focus, affordable price and smaller than every other 35mm lens out there… thats a bit to much.
The problem with the size is, that the 35mm 1.4 is already a very small lens. It’s as small and light as the 35mm 1.8 lenses from Canon/Nikon/Sony and much smaller than the 1.4 ones.
The new 35/2 is somewhat ugly.
I’m thinking the same thing. I’m sure its design will have many fans but I’m not one of them.
Is a bit like the Leica old lenses.
Hardly: it is bulbous is all the wrong places. Leica’s oder lenses were never this incongruous. That said, some of their newer ones are.
I prefer it to the old 35/1,4, which looks to me like a wannabe coffee mug. But I agree: the new one isn’t _that_ much prettier. Fujifilm really could do with good branding and design.
Might be worth trying to remove that after market lens hood from the 35mm f2 as it makes it look bigger than it is.
The hood is removal, is the screw-on type, meaning, you can add in your protection filter and then screw the hood on top of it.
The 35/1.4 also extends to focus.
Hm, some of the pictures are not well focused…
This could be a great lens if AF is much faster than 35/1.4
I’ll admit it’s bigger than I’d hoped. . . and, I know this is a very subjective statement, but to me it’s not at all an attractive lens. Maybe my 27mm isn’t going anywhere after all.
I agree. I did not think it would be this big. I’m really disappointed. Maybe more old manual lass after all.
This lens was obviously large from press photos from before, and anyone that attended CP+ 2015 would have seen it. The combination of WR, modern focus motors, and APS-C mirrorless have few to no size advantages other than the camera body.
Be excited by a lens’s output, or be excited not at all.
Same same, seems like my 27mm pancake is meant to stay LOL.
Sorry, I just don’t understand the excitement over this lens. One can’t judge much from these, lets say, less than mediocre pictures. Newer and slower is not always better.
Ever tried 28 Elmarit?
That is a small lens. But smaller (by way of comparison) still is the 35 Summicron. Even the modern one (which is large by Leica standards) is small.
The good news is that no modern AF SLR camera lens comes in a compact 50/2,8 size. So, this lens has some traction. It’s just not quite as tiny as many had hoped. It was obvious from earlier press photos that it wasn’t that much smaller than the earlier 35mm.
Since when does a 28mm Elmarit have internal focus motors? Apples vs oranges.
“Need something to grip and twist.” – so I replied with the question regarding Elmarit
I tried to match the size and outlined both lenses in this image.
To me, this thing looks like a fail. All the hassle of developing a new lens that is a) slower, b) not much cheaper, and c) only a little bit smaller. Will hardly be a revolution by freeing up a tiny corner of that OVF on the X-Pro2.
The XF35 f1.4 is already one of the smaller and cheaper lenses in the lineup. What really is needed are 23 f2 and 56 f2 because those are the (relatively) large and expensive models. This one looks redundant. I’ll reserve my judgement until reviews are out but I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t sacrifice one whole stop for this tiny size benefit. And I also prefer the looks of the “old” 35, though some will disagree on that.
I assume that’s with the 35mm fully retracted?
Yep.
Well, the shape is not so attractive, I hope AF performance to be really good. I thought it was smaller. And yes, the rumored F1.0 lens, close to this FL, could be worth the wait.
Also cheaper price is benefit too.
I just thought it was going to be smaller.
They should just redo the 35 1.4
Those pictures look kind of meh to me…
The article says “the lens is sharp right from full aperture” but the images don’t show it at all. Especially image #3 with the wooden fence where nothing seems to be in focus. Maybe something with the light ? The author says he had big problems with it that day, and the wood looks overexposed indeed.
Same thing in #5 where the photographer’s skill may be to blame. Focusing on the cobweb to the right instead of some random cluttered area on the stone post would have told us a lot more in terms of crispness.
Bokeh seems good though. And I don’t really care about the design as long as image quality is on par with the older f/1.4, autofocus is better and it is lighter and weather sealed.
Those images are just not in the same class as 90% of the images I’ve seen come from a Fuji x100, XE-2, X Pro-1 or X-T1 camera/lens combo. Just not the eye-popping images I’ve come to expect from a Fuji camera/lens. Very mediocre.
its the lens problem. bokeh is very nice. lens is definitely not sharp on apsc.