So how big is the upcoming XF 35mmF2 compared to the XF 35mmF1.4? Fujirumors reader Jano & Lilla Lalla made their own comparisons and shared them with the FR-community (thanks!). And here are their results:
*Please also check your spam folder if you don't get the confirmation mail. And mark the mail as "non-spam" to see the future newsletter.
45 Responses
Honestly, I don’t get it. You lose precious light sensitivity for a really minor gain in lens length and price. WR is nice though, but they really should have made a 1.4 II with WR and faster AF.
Therefore I would have been more interested in an f/2 version of the current 23mm f/1.4. More to gain there I suppose.
Yes but this would make the x100 series obsolete!
Not so sure about that. There are always people appreciating the one-camera solution, the OVF, the leaf shutter, or the mere looks of the X100 series.
Made mostly to not block the OVF on the X Pro 2 & 1 And I think it maybe sharper slower primes tend to be sharper with more contrast. Less is more, More often then not.
Seriously? After all the ‘minor DOF is nothing’, and bla bla bla about how speedy lenses on small sensors are all that matters, we should all be over the moon to have an f/2 which is even slightly smaller. After all, we’re all in it for size bragging rights, and the maths that allow us to piddle on the FF parade.
Am I imagining things or does it look like the f/2 lens has internal focus? I can’t see an inner barrel which would move back and forth to focus like on the f/1.4 lens.
Internal focus yeah.
Size does matter as they say… Sorry, but at F1.4 I already own the best 35mm available from fujifilm. I do appreciate fujifilm giving is options and this lens will appeal to many people, which is a great thing.
Go on fujifilm, keep pumping out news glass…we all benifit even if we don’t all buy them.
If the AF is fast, and quiet, I might see “upgrading” from my 1.4. But honestly, given the size difference, which is basically nonexistent, I wish they had just modernized the 1.4, even if it meant a slight size increase.
don’t bother… this is probably the most useless lens release so far.
That’s really a matter of opinion.
yeah, don’t buy it, it stinks:-).
A little out of context, but are there any chances the 35mm F2 announcement will be enriched with a new lens roadmap? What was the roadmap rework schedule so far? Once a year or maybe twice – I can’t remember…
If Fuji really announces both the new 35mm and the TC, we’re left ‘only’ with the 120mm macro and 100-400mm to dream about 😉 I would hope for some commitment assurance in regards to slower/smaller primes!
I think they are focusing on getting the next gen of X-Pro and XT bodies ready. If the market treats them well they will turn their attention to the expense of adding to the roadmap.
I want FW 5.0 with faster focussing 35 f1.4.
Wrong choice from Fuji, this 35f2. Fuji is about Quality, isn’t it ?
If this 35f2 is made with the X-Pro2 in mind than the X-Pro2 will disappoint you !
How can you judge “Quality” in this article ?
PCH images tell me.
It doesn’t look that small…disappointing.
What the heck are you talking about? Go get some pancakes then.
whoa , someone woke up on the wrong side of bed.
I just merely expressed my disappointment after reports of how this lens was to be smaller, and it turned out to be not true. and its not just me who’s disappointed as evidenced by the other comments. So be an adult and accept that there are people who feel differently about it then you.
My bad if I came off as rude. It was more shock, than anything else. The 35mm 1.4 is tiny as-is and this new lens is smaller (though barely). How much smaller would you all need it to be?
I was hoping that it’d be at least as small as my 35mm f2 v4 summicron, which covers full frame.
yeah, fuji is going to push leica out of the game,lol.
The only way this lens’s existence makes sense is if that rumored 30mm f/1.0 lens is real and coming to take the place of the 35/1.4.
Otherwise, this is a total dog in the line-up.
Personally I like better the in-between solution that represents the 35mm f/1.4. Smaller than f/1.0, faster than f/2.
A bit like the 14mm f/2.8, which is smaller than the Rokinon 12mm f/2 and faster/wider than the Pentax 15mm f/4.
Or the 18-55mm f/2.8-4.
I’d like to see more lenses like this. There are far too many big lenses in the lineup for my taste. What about smaller 56mm, 23mm, 90mm, 55-200mm ? And an updated 35mm f/1.4 ?
Just like Leica’s line with the Summarit, Summicron and Summilux?
Oh yes, I’d kill real people for a 35/f1,0 lens. Together with the next- generation sensor this would be a killer (!!) setup. Did I say I would kill for it? (At least a Mosquito, maybe up to three).
And yes: having that 35/1,4 I feel exactly zero inclination to buy the new (not very beautiful) one.
not even when it retains all the greatness of the 1.4 AND some perks?
I’ve put off buying the 35mm f1.4 since this lens was announced strictly for its Weather sealing and I’m glad I did. For any of my purposes f2 is fine and even better with WR. Now i just want to know what the min focus distance and max magnification are and how sharp it is. If it is better than the current 35mm in any of those areas it will just be icing on the cake.
far sharper in the center at least, great bokeh, fast AF, unobtrusive…whats not to like.
It’t not that small, it just get smaller filter size. Terrible decision for two reasons
– yet another custom thread size…
– it’s fugly… Just don’t taper it. Keep it simple.
Yeah make it a beercan. Or a fish bowl…
its shape makes sense on a RF body.
Personally, I prefer beercan vs a Leica wannabe…
43mm filter thread… BIG facepalm! Why so many sizes? Why not go with the same 52mm? Now some of us will need to buy an entire set of filters just for this.
I know, you can just get an adapter… OR just ask fuji – is there a real strong reason to go with 43 vs 52?
Isn’t it obvious from the design of the lens that they tried to imitate some Leica lens design? They reduced the front diameter in order not to show up in XPro viewfinder so they had to reduce the filter thread diameter too …
Here, a link for style comparison http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/images/50mm-f2-m/D3S_8143-1200.jpg
Because filter size is one more contraint added to the mix (aperture, aperture ring, focus ring, weather sealing, af motor, size, weight, cost…).
Once they figured out all constraints you mentioned, what stops them to put a 52mm thread vs 43? You tell me a good reason and I owe you a drink
Goal of this lens is to not obstruct X-Pro2 OVF. Bigger filter thread, bigger hood, more obstruction. But I’m not a Fuji engineer then…
Good point, but reason dismissed IMO.
Fujifilm primes already come with 52, 62, 67mm…
Any other good reason for using 39 or 43 instead of consolidating into 52mm, typycal? — just for the sake of consistency and ease of interchangeability with filters and caps.
Personally, I can’t think of a good reason. Please advise.
I’m sure my thoughts on this will piss-off those with GAS, but people saying this lens isn’t very small are crazy. No, really. How small does your lens need to be? Do you only want pancake lenses? The 35mm f/1.4 is dang small already! No, really, it is. Go hold it without the hood or any lens caps on it.
I agree. I’m also tall with big hands. I like my XT-1 with the grip though. It feels nice. Great camera to me but the 35 1.4 I have is great. Fits the camera awesome. How small do you need. People should invest in a point and shoot if they need it that small. I’ve held my friends 5d mk3 with the 70-200 2.8 and that feels small to me compared to my Nikon F5.
Shape is odd, but as someone commented probably to avoid seeing the lens in the ovf.
I don’t like silver color for lenses. Black body + black lenses is nice, silver body + black lenses is nice. Every combination with silver lenses… look cheap for me…
Disappointed it doesn’t seem to be notably smaller. Not sure why bother over the XF35 1.4 though I would imagine it would focus faster.