XF35mmF2
USA: AmazonUS / BHphoto / Adorama / EU: AmazonDE / PCHstore / AmazonUK / AmazonITA /
FIRST LOOK: XF 35mmF2 WR at the X-Pert Corner
ePhotozine tested the XF35mmF2 WR, and they are impressed by its “outstanding central sharpness“, low CA and more. Here are the Pro’s and Con’s of ePhotozine. Full review here.
PROS
High-quality manufacture
Superb image quality throughout
Fast and silent operation
Convenient aperture ring choice
Weather resistance
CONS
Fujifilm XF 35mm f/2 R WR Cons
Only in Fujifilm fitting
Lens hood provided is screw fit
The same lens gets 4.5 out of 5 stars at photographyblog’s review here.
15 Responses
Only in Fujifilm fittin?! Can someone explain me how is that a CON? That’s hilarious
From the ephotozine review:
“Distortion is well held and measures -0.506% of barrelling.”
“The Fujifilm nano-GI coating clearly works extremely well…”
From the photographyblog review:
“The Fujifilm XF 35mm F2 R WR doesn’t exhibit any barrel distortion…”
I’m sure the lens is mostly a great lens, but I would take those two reviews with a grain of salt. Others have already confirmed, with pictures as evidence, that the lens distorts like the bottom of a coke bottle.
All I can think of is that the reviewers have been looking at the ooc jpegs or the output from a raw converter with automatic distortion correction. If so, that bit of the review says nothing about the lens. Even the snow globe lenses for Leica T has no distortion after lens correction is applied.
In addition the mentioning of the Nano-GI coating in the ephotozine review makes wonder what else they have just made up in those reviews.
Yeah, that’s what i was think. However, the IQ is stellar, and the tests show this aspect correctly. So, i don’t mind the digitally corrected barrel.
Yeah, the 35mm f/2 has some distortion, which is electronically corrected. Guess they used Lightroom, which autocorrects this.
I don’t like this trend, but it seems it is here to stay (just look at µFT lenses)
PS: what’s the problem with mentioning Nano-GI coating?
It doesn’t have Nano-GI coating. Only the 16mm f/1.4, 16-55mm f/2.8 and 50-140mm f/2.8 has that coating. The 35mm f/2 has the standard Super EBC coating, as you can see by the Super EBC label on the lens.
I see many places around the web saying the 35mm f/2 lens has Nano-GI coating, but the Fuji web site doesn’t mention Nano-GI coating:
http://www.fujifilm.com/news/n151021_01.html
http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujinon_lens_xf35mmf2_r_wr/features/index.html
While the lenses that have Nano-GI has it printed on the front of lens and Fujifilm makes sure to mention it on their web site:
http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujinon_lens_xf16mmf14_r_wr/features/index.html
http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujinon_lens_xf16_55mmf28_r_lm_wr/features/index.html
http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujinon_lens_xf50_140mmf28_r_lm_ois_wr/features/index.html
So even though many sites say the lens has Nano-GI coating, I think it is safe to conclude that it does not. If it did, why wouldn’t Fujfilm print it on the lens or mention it on their web site?
oh yeah, I missed that. Funny to see, how all those sites make the same mistake
I know, right? I mean, you can’t take seriously a phototech reviewer, which takes overexposed product shots of a black camera over and over again.
Images looking real good!
Thes images were taken with the X-A1
Wouldn’t these images look a bit softer/ less detailed when taken with i.e. X-T1 or X-T10 ? I mean the X-A1 has a Bayer sensor, this perhaps contributes more to the sharpness/crispyness of the images than a Fuji CFA sensor. Isn’t it a general finding of Bayer sensors ?
The MFT chart from ePhotozine is now numbered instead of labeled with names like fair/good/excellent. This makes comparison with other Fujinon lenses (i.e. 35f/1.4) difficult,
The flat curve of MFT values througout the whole aperture range for both centre and corners is very remarkable and very welcome.
Referring to ePhotozine site here.
It’s the other way round. X-T1/X-T10 and all the other X cameras with X-Trans sensor are sharper (at low ISO) due to the missing low pass filter.
if the X-A series delivers great results, the others cameras will even be better
I have an Xt10 and Xa2 (sold due to performance and i missed the view finder) the bayer is crisper. I thought the Xa2 had better image quality though. They should do one last Fuji 16mp camera, bayer in an XT1 body like that we would have decent video too.
I don’t want to start another X-Trans vs. Bayer discussion, but everything I have seen is, that the missing low pass filter makes X-Trans sharper, and the X-Trans CFA has lower color noise.
And, if I remember right, there was a vote on this here on Fujirumors. X-Trans won clearly.
Bought this lens on saturday. This is truly what all fuji lenses should be like. Small, compact, sharp, WR and fast. The only CON I can find is that its F2. It is very dark in the norther hemisphere now, so we need all the light we can get.
This lens is small. Much smaller than the reviewers are given impression of. Paired with my X-T1 makes this an amazing walk-around combo. Damn its small.
f2 is not a con. If it was faster it would be bigger and maybe not as good. I have one too and just love it. I’m hoping Fuji does a 23mm f2.
Barrel distortion is terrible without software correction that diminishes the corner sharpness. I think this is a big flaw for a lens like this.