Busy times for Rico at the moment. The X-pert corner will come back in June. In the meantime you can purchase Rico’s useful book here: “Mastering the FUJIFILM X-Pro1” (Kindle Edition) (Apple iBook Store) (German version)
thephoblographer: youtube
thephoblographer posted some comparison pics (from f1.8 to f16) of the new Touit 32mm vs the [shoplink 11712]XF 35mm[/shoplink]. Check it out here.
“While both lenses are quite good, Fujifilm has a major advantage with a more affordable offering while also retaining a better build quality. However, Zeiss has faster focusing and better image quality. This is kind of a tough test to consider but we should all take comfort in knowing that both lenses are excellent. […] I’ll have to give the win to the Zeiss despite owning Fujifilm’s lens.
Zeiss Touit 32mm pre-order: USA: Adorama / BHphoto / Uniquephoto / Pictureline / Europe: AmazonDE / ebayUK / PCHstore Brussel
Zeiss Touit 12mm pre-order: USA: Adorama / BHphoto / Uniquephoto / Pictureline / Europe: AmazonDE / ebayUK / PCHstore Brussel
image courtesy: thephoblographer
19 Responses
They should have redone the test as suggested in the comments, because those pics taken with Fuji from f1.8 are clearly out of focus compared to the Zeiss. At the bottom of the pictures, the DOF areas are definitely on different distances. My Fujinon at f1.4 is much sharper than these shots at f1.8 to f2.8. I use it everyday and eve with auto focus, i guarantee it can resolve details of that steel bars at f1.4 much as good or even better than the zeiss one.
Either the focus is off or the lens sample they had is really a lemon.
I’m curious what is going lately why there have been many instances already to uphype the zeiss. Last time, a reviewer sais zeiss gives more life to the image and now this questionable comparison just for the sharpness factor and concluded the zeiss is better?
Why they are trying to convince us so much to pay 60% more for the blue icon? What is going on?
Remember, we are talking about phoblographer. I’ve not figured out what phoblo are even trying to do: often different framing, different lenses, completely non-benchmarked testing. It’s their schtick, but I don’t get it.
It’s just a simple test but one that still leaves me justified loving my Fuji 35mm. I was expecting an “OMG” moment but it’s not there. Just goes to show how high Fuji set the bar.
What’s interesting that the Zeiss seems to have a lot more bokeh outlining, while bokeh disks may look cool at times, the Fuji’s bokeh seems to be more creamier, less contrasty.. 🙂
That is the difference between so-called japanese bokeh and german bokeh. Nothing else. Different strokes. It’s been this way for a long time.
Perhaps in modern times you are correct, but historically, “German Bokeh” has been quite smooth. The famous Sonnar formula 50’s (for many mounts), or almost any of the Leica Mandler-era lenses have very smooth bokeh. You can still buy a Zeiss ZM Sonnar which is a bit updated but still has gorgeous bokeh.
That’s my disappointment with Zeiss’s choice, BTW. I don’t want a Planar; Fuji’s XF is similar to Planar rendering, IMO (sharp even wide open and bokeh doesn’t always look this smooth!). I would have far preferred had they brought out a Sonnar and focused on rendering instead of sharpness.
The 12 might be more interesting, we shall see.
I can never take this phoblographer person seriously. I guess they are completely wiling to ignore the nasty bokeh caused by severe mechanical vignetting on the Zeiss lens? Notice how the bokeh discs are not round well into the middle area of the frame? That’s caused by too small of a front element, which is actually a common problem with the lens formula used in this and many other Zeiss lenses. Zeiss lens designs are almost never very good wide open. The 12mm will likely be, in normal use cases, a far better lens to consider as an alternative to the Fuji 14mm than the 32 is to the Fuji 35mm.
Anyway, if you want a simple rational explanation for all these blogs promoting the Zeiss lenses without regard for reality, it’s because they want you all to go buy them. That’s how they make money. You click their links and they get referral credit. Simple as that. And sadly that means you can’t trust a single thing they say. Don’t bother with bloggers who post referral links of any kind.
You may call the bokeh a ‘problem’ but i like it. It’s kind of like impressionism versus the technically correct. Perfectly round bokeh, really? So long as it doesn’t have jagged edges why shouldn’t it be oval anywhere but the exact middle. I prefer it because circles are just boring. It is the oval bokeh ‘balls’ that form the rest of the rendering more interestingly as well, but i guess you know that.
If these two were the same price and the Zeiss was as sharp and clear as the Fuji is at F1.4-1.8, i’d get the Zeiss. But it’s not. The zeiss is fuzzy at F1.8, sometimes truly horrible, sometimes great. Which would be a nice characteristic if it was a used manual lens from the 90s, but not this. Haven’t yet seen the Fuji mess up a shot like that.
People do mess up though. As indeed the Fuji F1.8 sample is not even close to in focus. What is he disabled or something. I can imagine a slight miss, but off this bad just couldn’t have been accidental. what the f.
The fact that he posted it i mean.
Unfortunately, the only way to get Zeiss to send you a review sample was to attend their press event. I myself got an invite, but as I live in Miami, FL and the event was in New York, NY, I was unable to attend. I was told that attendees would have dibs on the review samples. Pity, the 12mm truly looks interesting.
The fuji clearly has more appealing bokeh, fuji lenses are really good lenses, and especially for the price too, i’m very sorry but lately iv’e been seeing a lot of this type of bias on many well known photo websites, i rekon the fuji is probably a better lens full stop.
Whoever took those photos should be sacked. Notice there is less highlight blowout in left hand side wall, better or more aspherical elements in fuji lens? Hmmmmm.
I’m expecting a review, with samples of real photos to judge… especially the classic Zeiss micro-contrast that produces the well-known 3D appearance (above all in the 12mm vs 14mm comparison). This and maybe a better AF would justify a higher propensity to purchase for zeiss lenses, especially taking into account the difference in price and size.
hmmmm so got nothing out of that
Just bought the X-Pro 1 with the 35mm and the 60mm, and both lenses are fantastic. The only interesting one of the Zeiss lenses is the 12mm, and that is just because it is wider than the 14mm. I am waiting for the Fuji 10-22mm – if it is optically as good as the 14mm, it will be a great lens. Until then, I will continue to use my EF-S 10-22mm adapted to the X-Pro 1, as it is working very well for me right now.
Yeah, the video did nothing for me at all… other than show that the Ziess was marginally faster at focusing on what looked to be a relatively low contrast object. I’m still going to rent one and test it out myself… eventually. 🙂
Three thoughts…
1) Thanks to the Phoblographers for this clip – Very useful info 🙂
2) I prefer the bokeh of the Fuji, it’s creamier and less defined. Will make for much smoother separation from background.
3) Phoblographer, please stop putting annoying, and distracting, crystal-loving music in background! It competes with, and at times overrides, your message.
And Thanks to you too Patrick, great site I am here daily 🙂
Judging from the pictures, Zeiss has major astigmatism.
I preordered both the 12 and the 32. Their lenses are amazing. But it all is so subjective, great art can be made with the right photographer with either fuji or zeiss lenses. It’s really a matter of preference and budget. I’d rather drive a BMW than a Toyota LE. But that’s just me and not wrong or right. Photography is an art, lets not forget that … and choice of instrument is part of the process …