I had both lenses and just sold the 1.4. It's a tough call. Honestly I could tell very little difference in the depth of field between the two for portraits and the f2 simply does an amazing job...its hard to believe it performs that well at f2. It's also extremely fast and accurate compared to the 1.4 and it's a sharper lens. Does the 1.4 have a "magical rendering?" I dunno, I didn't really notice that but a lot of my work is strobist and I think you would have to shoot in natural light to determine that. Physics is physics though and if you need the 1.4 for the extra light then your decision becomes pretty easy. However, for portraits where one is really looking at shallow depth of field I don't prefer this focal length because you really have to get into the subjects personal space way up close. The 56mm f1.2 is my "go to" portrait lens for that reason. For environmental stuff where you're wanting to show some context the 35mm length is great but then you're not as concerned with shallowness. Another idea is buy both and declare yourself a collector of Fuji glass :)
the f/2 is a great lens apart from some distortion that may effect the odd portrait here and there. It's more of an all-round general use fast focus option. However the f/1.4 (better on static subjects) is the 2nd best X-series lens after the XF16 in my opinion ; the images from it have 3d pop. The 23 f/2 is also a great general purpose lens.
I was on the fence about which one to get for more than a week. Made my decision at the camera store after taking pictures of my son in the actual store with both of them. After just looking at the photos on the camera lcd I was more attracted to the 1.4 without even beeing able to explain it. The rendering was a bit more "DREAMY". I just love the 35/f1.4, the photos with the 35/f2 were "PERFECT" but the 1.4 had more soul. It's like a lens can get too technically and clinically perfect. Last time I experienced this was with the legendary Nikon 24-70/f2,8, so good but one of the most BORING lens I've had.
I have the 1.4, and though it's slower to focus and doesn't have that WR, it is tack sharp even at 1.4 in the centre, and many say it is sharper than the F2 when stopped down. It does have that full stop advantage. Both are great lenses, either one is going to produce nice images. Also, personal preference, but I prefer how the 1.4 looks on the camera too.
Thanks for this. I have the 35mm f2 but haven't had it out shooting yet. Glad to see further evidence of how great I can expect it to perform. Well done!
Very very good reason to buy 34mm/1,4 would be that model of a lens is over 5 yrs old, and there's a ton of them on the used market. Some people praise that lens particularly for portraits. However It's not so well suited for street photography course of loud AF motor and aperture chatter. That said, I would never buy that lens new.
You should try the 1.4. I had the 1.4 on my first X-Pro 1 before I first switched. Now I have the 2.0 with my X-T2 and it is the better choice if you use the 35mm as an "always on" lens. The weight, the speed, the sealing etc. make it the superior lens. Sure, Image Quality is great too. But there is a big "BUT". The 1.4 is still the better lens in terms of image quality without being able to explain why. I shot people always at 1.4 and had always beautiful and sharp images with creamy backgrounds. Most of the time you won't notice the 7 blades. I really recommend to give it a try by renting a 1.4. I think you gonna love it for your work.
The f/2 is actually sharper, so your perception probably all comes down to more creamy bokeh. That said, for portraits, you generally want a longer focal length.
I agree Harry. The f2 is fractonally sharper in the corners! Look at photozone.de. Not in the center were it matters. It is better choice for portrets. On a X-pro 1 it is a dream combo. Due to the better sensor. Old skool quality lens en better bokeh and micro contrast for B&W!
F2.0 has faster focus speed - and is just about noiseless and weather sealed - but is not as good in shallow DOF - The F1.4 has way way to soft of an Aperture ring - is noisy and slow to focus - but I still use it more due to rendering - Just wish Fuji came up with an update of the F1.4 - the F2.0 is ideal for street shooting
Well how about the eyes are sharp but the hair to the front and back isn't. That makes for a dreamy image. Not just isolation from the background but a more dreamy whole.
This. Fuji need to update their older, and optically better, 1.4/1.2 primes with AF and WR. Then everyone's good. Also, these were shot very close to the model for a 50mm equivalent, which gives the most subject isolation; if you use at a slightly further distance for an upper body shot (probably more normal for a 50mm equiv) then that's when the 1.4 aperture comes into its own. Not saying f/2 is bad, but on a lot of shots I've had a great result at 1.4 depending on subject distance and distance of the background...
if you need AF & WR then the 35mm f/2 is the better choice BUT if you do not mine the slow AF of the 35mm f/1.4 then it is the better lens in terms of IQ.
Nothing about the 1.4... I dunno, to me when you need 1.4, you need it. I shoot a LOT of street and vacation photos at dusk and night and that 1.4 comes in handy. DOF is already about F2 wide open on APS-C anyway... the 35mm f2 is like shooting with a 24-70 2.8 on full frame, not QUITE the separation I'd want on a full to 3/4 body shot. I'd never shoot a headshot with this...want 85/135 equiv.
The 1.4 version at f2 has amazing transaction from in-focus to out-focus areas, the feel is just gold and cannot be replaced by the newer version. Sharpness... Is not really a issue with most of modern optics especially with fujinon
I have both lens and they both have their purposes for me. The f/2 is the lens for bad weather and/or the need for fast AF. Otherwise, I will pick the f/1.4 over the f/2 because I love the way the f/1.4 renders the image. If Fuji should make a Mark II version of this lens then I hope the rendering stays the same but is weather resistant and super fast AF.
Martin, Fuji’s lens road maps shows a 33mm f1.0 weather resistant lens due out in 2020. That should be a cracking good lens, expensive no doubt but what will probably become a legacy lens one day. Start saving now!!
Elaborate. Because, to me, a fixed focal and a zoom are not even the same piece of equipment. But I would assume you are saying that the motivation would be there to get a wider opening.... hmm. Well the only motivation there is low light. So many people do not realize the sacrifice you get in shallow depth of field when shooting. At 1.4 it is so easy to get a nose tip in focus and not the eye it isn't even funny. To me, the f2 is plenty. Also, if the f/2 lens is sharper, it makes the decision that much easier.
The IQ of the F1.4 is stunning. The bokeh is better the background is creamy smooth on the F1.4. The F2 is weatherproof slightly faster to focus but that was not the deal breaker.
The title of the video is misleading. You only compare the two lenses only (!) based on specs, not on image results. I do not have the f2, but the 35/1,4 has been my first lens for the X system, and my most used "normal lens" ever, full frame included. It has a magic look that goes far beyond "sharp". I mean who cares lines per millimeter. All primes are sharp these days. Get beyond it.
Merci pour la vidéo et entièrement d'accord avec toi! People don't realize how good this lens is cause they only check bits and parts. It's not about figures its about a whole system and how it feels and it's as good as it gets! I fell in love with them cameras and lenses and what they do. They're amazing really!
35mm f/1,4 came with the FRIST Fuji X camera, the X-Pro-1 back in 2012. I think, together with18mm/2 and 60mm/2,4 macro, loaded with some ancient technologies, so it's quite ooooooold - hence all these disadvantages. However, there's a rumor that 35mm f/1,4 will be renewed, as well as 18/2, so I would wait for it. Unless you want to try a used one... By the way, I'm still waiting for your reviews of vintage lenses on XT2...
Is it really that old? I don't think so... esp when I and others often shooting with Nikon/Leica lenses from like the 60s-90s that are awesome. lol @ ancient tech...
A 6 year old lens is ancient? I regularly meet people using 20-30 year old Canon and Nikkor lenses producing stunning images by any standard. A good lens ages extremely slowly.
I got this one this week and am impressed by the images. Unfortunately so far the 23mm isn't the same, pretty soft wide open or even down a stop, or close up. The 23mm is probably going back. Not sure why Fuji put two ED elements in this lens, but none in the 23mm. Wide angles usually need more correction, not less. Unless they were trying to hit that $400 price point. This 35mm is better IMO.
Love this, finally a comparison between these lenses from a portrait perspective. Even though it's not really an image comparison. Love the expertise. Thanks man. Love the fact that you're out in the real world working with people and not just a dude shooting coffee mugs and bridges.
Jacques I could not agree more with you on many of these ultra fast lenses, It seems to me people speed right past how a lens renders overall (contrast, color and IQ) in search of how the background looks. The secret to anything is always balance and in many cases the f2, 2.8's are better!
Agree with you totally but I find that the added burden of crazy shallow depth of field and hard to obtain focus creeps in real quick. In street that loss of focus can be the death of a great picture caught on the fly. But I understand where you are coming from. What I find now though is that with the XT3's ISO tolerance I am missing IBIS and a low F less and less. It gets fantastic usable shots at even 3200. I have a feeling that you might have a photography style that plays a bit with the bokeh idea as well.
The Fuji XF 35 f/2 and the XF 23 F/2 will probably be my next lenses. I bought, for Christmas, the 50 mm F/2 to go with my XT-20. This one is kicking ass ! Fast and accurate focus, beautiful bokeh, gorgeous colors... Before, I had a Canon EOS 600D (Rebel T3i) with the EF 50mm f/1.8 and definitly, the fuji is way better ! Can't wait to test the two other prime lenses..
You are going to love the 35 f/2 People are telling me that one should stay away from the 23mm f/2. My advice is to check a couple of reviews on that one but the you cannot go wrong with the 35mm f/2. It is a steal.
Hi. Can you tell me what auto focus settings do you have? I just bought the fuji 35 mm f1.4 because thats what you recommended me. But the face seems to be soft. Can you help me? . A big thanks!
Hmm that is weird because usually it is crazy tack sharp. I use face/eye auto detect with it on single focus and not continuous. But there is no way that this lens should be soft. Make sure that your copy is not a dudd.
Not necessarily, depends on the invariance of the camera, which I believe the newer generation now is mostly invariant in regards to ISO and with the post processing and sensor tech, pushing ISO has been taken further, before we would be scared to push beyond 1600, with careful post processing 6400 has been nothing to worry about, but I agree with the lower iso is sharp and saves time on post.
I had been trying to decide whether or not to get this lens, and this video convinced me to. I do a lot of head shots, and it's not ideal for that, but it otherwise stays on my camera. It's possibly my favorite lens that I've ever used. Thanks for such a thorough review!
Man I got conned I ended up with 35mm f1.4 I wish somehow that had bought f2, but somehow the picture quality 1.4 does have that unique look which f2 doesn’t have.
I'm a wedding photographer, I will soon buy FUJI XT2, What are the first two prime lenses you think I should buy for fuji, I mention that I have for my Canon 5ds cameras all lenses from 14mm to 200mm range, primes, zooms, everything, In a month or two I will completely move to Fuji. Thank you.
Constantin, please listen to the other listeners as they might have lived with Fuji longer. As of yet, I have been with the system for about one and a half months now
In addition to the other suggestions you'll need something wide like the fabulous 16mm f/1.4, normal wide like the 23mm f/2, and either the 18-55 f/2.8-4 or the bigger, heavier, more expensive 16-55 f/2.8 constant aperture zoom. Personally, I am very pleased with the 18-55. As for which 35mm lens to choose, I don't have the F2 version, but it's true what people say about the "pixie dust" magic quality of the 35 f1.4 if you don't mind the slower focusing.
You mostly shot headshots with 35mm in this video. First of - I use 35mm (50mm when I use FF) for portraiture only for babies or half body/full body portraits. I would use 56mm/50mm on APS-C (85mm on FF) for headshots. I'm using Canon gear, but recently got X-T20 just for fun of shooting, and I'm planning on getting 1.4 - a bit more light, and a bit better bokeh is more important for me than having weather resistance (I won't shoot in those conditions, would probably use Canon for those harsh conditions), or having a bit faster AF... Also the number of blades does not seem like an issue - I saw 1.4 shot on F2, 2.8 and bokeh was nice. I wouldn't go down far beyond that, and if I do, there's no bokeh to speak of anyway, so yeah, 1.4 all the way...
in 2012, i tried the 35mm f/1.4 (on the XPro1), and if i have to buy now, would still go with it over the 35/2WR have also used the 23mm f/2WR, again, i would get the 23/1.4 instead, even though the new f/2WR lenses are weather sealed, having faster AF, or perhaps sharper etc.
I appreciate your reply. I like the 90mm f/2, but not the other three : 23, 35, 50mm, having a plasticky feel / build. I immensely like their Leica-like tapered design and small size, and they go very well with smaller bodies like X-T20 etc. but i would strictly stick to f/1.4 for X-T2 , not only because of additional stop of light, but they are sharper straight from f/2 or f/2.8, whereas the f/2WR lenses need to be stopped down to f/4. I know some might disagree on this, but that's just me. Had there been a f/0.95 AF lens, i would go for it ahead of the f/1.4, provided it is an all-round performer.
@@JacquesGaines Oke wow, the sharpness and contrast (and micro contrast) is indeed great then! Quick question: is continuous af-s with this lens with the x-t1 any good for candid and portraits?
Wow. You pointed out a flaw and then shot in the "just saying" thing to try to attenuate the fact that your comment is useless and pointless. Yes you are right. But aren't there better ways for you to pass your time than to throw out that shitty comment? JUST SAYING!
The name of the video is misleading, I would have expected a real comparison between both lenses.
Robin Nickel I agree I love the f. 1.4 and even hear the sharpness is better. Really misleading title and biased opinions
Yup. Thumbs down from me.
Pause at 3:25. (Really go do it though) I’m pretty sure that’s a real comparison of the two lenses. Confused about what you guys are hating on.
Phu photography, if you already love the 35 1.4 then it’s your opinion that actually biased.
@@phuphotography749 yup.. i dont trust this review.
This is a review of 35 f2. There is nothing about the "VS".
I had both lenses and just sold the 1.4. It's a tough call. Honestly I could tell very little difference in the depth of field between the two for portraits and the f2 simply does an amazing job...its hard to believe it performs that well at f2. It's also extremely fast and accurate compared to the 1.4 and it's a sharper lens. Does the 1.4 have a "magical rendering?" I dunno, I didn't really notice that but a lot of my work is strobist and I think you would have to shoot in natural light to determine that. Physics is physics though and if you need the 1.4 for the extra light then your decision becomes pretty easy. However, for portraits where one is really looking at shallow depth of field I don't prefer this focal length because you really have to get into the subjects personal space way up close. The 56mm f1.2 is my "go to" portrait lens for that reason. For environmental stuff where you're wanting to show some context the 35mm length is great but then you're not as concerned with shallowness. Another idea is buy both and declare yourself a collector of Fuji glass :)
Hmm. Looks like I got to declare myself a collector...hehe. Love the 56mm f/1.2
the f/2 is a great lens apart from some distortion that may effect the odd portrait here and there. It's more of an all-round general use fast focus option. However the f/1.4 (better on static subjects) is the 2nd best X-series lens after the XF16 in my opinion ; the images from it have 3d pop. The 23 f/2 is also a great general purpose lens.
I own the 35mm f/2 as well. It is a delightful lens. I have the 23 and 50mm f/2 lenses and find them all to be incredible.
I was on the fence about which one to get for more than a week. Made my decision at the camera store after taking pictures of my son in the actual store with both of them. After just looking at the photos on the camera lcd I was more attracted to the 1.4 without even beeing able to explain it. The rendering was a bit more "DREAMY". I just love the 35/f1.4, the photos with the 35/f2 were "PERFECT" but the 1.4 had more soul. It's like a lens can get too technically and clinically perfect. Last time I experienced this was with the legendary Nikon 24-70/f2,8, so good but one of the most BORING lens I've had.
You made me buy the 1.4 version with your comment dude hahaha
exactly!
Does it have ois?
Perfectly put. I’m on the fence at the moment with my brain saying F2 but heart saying F1.4
I have the 1.4, and though it's slower to focus and doesn't have that WR, it is tack sharp even at 1.4 in the centre, and many say it is sharper than the F2 when stopped down. It does have that full stop advantage. Both are great lenses, either one is going to produce nice images. Also, personal preference, but I prefer how the 1.4 looks on the camera too.
It definitely looks better
Thanks for this. I have the 35mm f2 but haven't had it out shooting yet. Glad to see further evidence of how great I can expect it to perform. Well done!
Thanx. It is a cool lens
Very very good reason to buy 34mm/1,4 would be that model of a lens is over 5 yrs old, and there's a ton of them on the used market. Some people praise that lens particularly for portraits. However It's not so well suited for street photography course of loud AF motor and aperture chatter. That said, I would never buy that lens new.
You should try the 1.4. I had the 1.4 on my first X-Pro 1 before I first switched. Now I have the 2.0 with my X-T2 and it is the better choice if you use the 35mm as an "always on" lens. The weight, the speed, the sealing etc. make it the superior lens. Sure, Image Quality is great too. But there is a big "BUT". The 1.4 is still the better lens in terms of image quality without being able to explain why. I shot people always at 1.4 and had always beautiful and sharp images with creamy backgrounds. Most of the time you won't notice the 7 blades. I really recommend to give it a try by renting a 1.4. I think you gonna love it for your work.
Thanks
The f/2 is actually sharper, so your perception probably all comes down to more creamy bokeh. That said, for portraits, you generally want a longer focal length.
I agree Harry. The f2 is fractonally sharper in the corners! Look at photozone.de. Not in the center were it matters. It is better choice for portrets. On a X-pro 1 it is a dream combo. Due to the better sensor. Old skool quality lens en better bokeh and micro contrast for B&W!
Subscribed to you a couple days ago. Loving the quality content dude.👍🏼
Thanx a gazzilion. You do not know how much that encourages!
love the work & effort by J.G., his is an under-rated channel. He is a cool, super-nice guy, who deserves at least 30-40 Subs.
F2.0 has faster focus speed - and is just about noiseless and weather sealed - but is not as good in shallow DOF -
The F1.4 has way way to soft of an Aperture ring - is noisy and slow to focus - but I still use it more due to rendering -
Just wish Fuji came up with an update of the F1.4 - the F2.0 is ideal for street shooting
I am just perplexed as to when someone will use super low depth of field where an eye is in focus and not the other eye. Maybe I am missing something
Well how about the eyes are sharp but the hair to the front and back isn't. That makes for a dreamy image. Not just isolation from the background but a more dreamy whole.
This. Fuji need to update their older, and optically better, 1.4/1.2 primes with AF and WR. Then everyone's good. Also, these were shot very close to the model for a 50mm equivalent, which gives the most subject isolation; if you use at a slightly further distance for an upper body shot (probably more normal for a 50mm equiv) then that's when the 1.4 aperture comes into its own. Not saying f/2 is bad, but on a lot of shots I've had a great result at 1.4 depending on subject distance and distance of the background...
if you need AF & WR then the 35mm f/2 is the better choice BUT if you do not mine the slow AF of the 35mm f/1.4 then it is the better lens in terms of IQ.
Nothing about the 1.4... I dunno, to me when you need 1.4, you need it. I shoot a LOT of street and vacation photos at dusk and night and that 1.4 comes in handy. DOF is already about F2 wide open on APS-C anyway... the 35mm f2 is like shooting with a 24-70 2.8 on full frame, not QUITE the separation I'd want on a full to 3/4 body shot. I'd never shoot a headshot with this...want 85/135 equiv.
The 1.4 version at f2 has amazing transaction from in-focus to out-focus areas, the feel is just gold and cannot be replaced by the newer version. Sharpness... Is not really a issue with most of modern optics especially with fujinon
I have both lens and they both have their purposes for me. The f/2 is the lens for bad weather and/or the need for fast AF. Otherwise, I will pick the f/1.4 over the f/2 because I love the way the f/1.4 renders the image. If Fuji should make a Mark II version of this lens then I hope the rendering stays the same but is weather resistant and super fast AF.
+1
I already have the f1.4. Would you consider getting the f2 as well?
@@Princeton_James i looking for this answer also
@@ryanlee6508 ended up getting it. What a beauty. Go for it!
Martin, Fuji’s lens road maps shows a 33mm f1.0 weather resistant lens due out in 2020. That should be a cracking good lens, expensive no doubt but what will probably become a legacy lens one day. Start saving now!!
If you have the Fujinon 16 55 f2.8, there is little motivation to buy the f2 over the f1.4
Elaborate. Because, to me, a fixed focal and a zoom are not even the same piece of equipment. But I would assume you are saying that the motivation would be there to get a wider opening.... hmm. Well the only motivation there is low light. So many people do not realize the sacrifice you get in shallow depth of field when shooting. At 1.4 it is so easy to get a nose tip in focus and not the eye it isn't even funny. To me, the f2 is plenty. Also, if the f/2 lens is sharper, it makes the decision that much easier.
The IQ of the F1.4 is stunning. The bokeh is better the background is creamy smooth on the F1.4. The F2 is weatherproof slightly faster to focus but that was not the deal breaker.
The title of the video is misleading. You only compare the two lenses only (!) based on specs, not on image results. I do not have the f2, but the 35/1,4 has been my first lens for the X system, and my most used "normal lens" ever, full frame included. It has a magic look that goes far beyond "sharp". I mean who cares lines per millimeter. All primes are sharp these days. Get beyond it.
Merci pour la vidéo et entièrement d'accord avec toi! People don't realize how good this lens is cause they only check bits and parts. It's not about figures its about a whole system and how it feels and it's as good as it gets! I fell in love with them cameras and lenses and what they do. They're amazing really!
Etièrement d'accord avec vous.
HEY...WHAT ABOUT fuji 35mm f 2 clicking sounds? Some say the blades, some say it's a fuji thing....
I do not get that. Are you talking about the aperture ring sounds?
35mm f/1,4 came with the FRIST Fuji X camera, the X-Pro-1 back in 2012. I think, together with18mm/2 and 60mm/2,4 macro, loaded with some ancient technologies, so it's quite ooooooold - hence all these disadvantages. However, there's a rumor that 35mm f/1,4 will be renewed, as well as 18/2, so I would wait for it. Unless you want to try a used one...
By the way, I'm still waiting for your reviews of vintage lenses on XT2...
I will for sure. I am going full time on UA-cam soon
Tomislav Miletić did they ever update it?
Is it really that old? I don't think so... esp when I and others often shooting with Nikon/Leica lenses from like the 60s-90s that are awesome. lol @ ancient tech...
A 6 year old lens is ancient? I regularly meet people using 20-30 year old Canon and Nikkor lenses producing stunning images by any standard. A good lens ages extremely slowly.
I got this one this week and am impressed by the images. Unfortunately so far the 23mm isn't the same, pretty soft wide open or even down a stop, or close up. The 23mm is probably going back. Not sure why Fuji put two ED elements in this lens, but none in the 23mm. Wide angles usually need more correction, not less. Unless they were trying to hit that $400 price point. This 35mm is better IMO.
Great to know. But what do you think of it on a price versus quality ration standpoint?
You should try the Mitakon 35mm f0.95 for x-mount. Color rendition and bokeh is even better. Although it is a manual only lens
I will check it out
Love this, finally a comparison between these lenses from a portrait perspective. Even though it's not really an image comparison. Love the expertise. Thanks man. Love the fact that you're out in the real world working with people and not just a dude shooting coffee mugs and bridges.
+Barrrrrt Coffe mugs and bridges. Who on earth are you referring to? hehe
Jacques I could not agree more with you on many of these ultra fast lenses, It seems to me people speed right past how a lens renders overall (contrast, color and IQ) in search of how the background looks. The secret to anything is always balance and in many cases the f2, 2.8's are better!
F2 all the way. Smaller and lighter always wins in my book.
After all these years it is still my favorite
Great stuff !!!! Thanks for your hard work:)
Have the 1.4 and love it. F2 for a prime is just to slow for my taste.
What type of photography do you do
@@JacquesGaines Landscape and street mostly. And when I have the time night photography. City lights and stuff. But it's all hobby.
Knowing that I am surprised you woyld find an f/2 too slow
@@JacquesGaines ok f2 is not super slow but in dim conditions and handheld I am glad I have the 1.4.
Agree with you totally but I find that the added burden of crazy shallow depth of field and hard to obtain focus creeps in real quick. In street that loss of focus can be the death of a great picture caught on the fly. But I understand where you are coming from. What I find now though is that with the XT3's ISO tolerance I am missing IBIS and a low F less and less. It gets fantastic usable shots at even 3200. I have a feeling that you might have a photography style that plays a bit with the bokeh idea as well.
Misleading title.
Straightforward comment
I had the F2 years ago. Currently I had the 1.4 which I sent to mpb to trade for the F2. So I did a full circle 😂
The 23, 35, and 50 are truly a steal. Used they are a great buy. New they are still very affordable
Isn't review...
Isn't a comment
A lot of people ignore the fact that the 35mm f2 has 9 blades which gives rounder bokeh. Kudos to you for pointing that out
Glad you like!
Hello. I hope you will reply to my comment. I bought a xe1 body I don't have a lens yet. which one should I buy? I want to buy prime first.
35mm f2. It is amazing , not too expensive and a great focal
The Fuji XF 35 f/2 and the XF 23 F/2 will probably be my next lenses. I bought, for Christmas, the 50 mm F/2 to go with my XT-20. This one is kicking ass ! Fast and accurate focus, beautiful bokeh, gorgeous colors... Before, I had a Canon EOS 600D (Rebel T3i) with the EF 50mm f/1.8 and definitly, the fuji is way better ! Can't wait to test the two other prime lenses..
You are going to love the 35 f/2 People are telling me that one should stay away from the 23mm f/2. My advice is to check a couple of reviews on that one but the you cannot go wrong with the 35mm f/2. It is a steal.
@@JacquesGaines thanks for the advice.
Hi. Can you tell me what auto focus settings do you have?
I just bought the fuji 35 mm f1.4 because thats what you recommended me. But the face seems to be soft. Can you help me? . A big thanks!
Hmm that is weird because usually it is crazy tack sharp. I use face/eye auto detect with it on single focus and not continuous. But there is no way that this lens should be soft. Make sure that your copy is not a dudd.
I have the F1.4 for its look and but agree on sharpness and DOF, I shoot it mostly at F2 or F2.8.
I have heard from some people that the 1.4 has a sort of unexplainable extra. Like the 23 1.4 vs the 2
Can u do a review of the 23mm f/2 next ?
I
In Low light still, i would go with 1.4 anytime
But why? Does the extra stop give you that much more exposure?
Jacques Gaines Photography lower iso means sharper images 📸
Not necessarily, depends on the invariance of the camera, which I believe the newer generation now is mostly invariant in regards to ISO and with the post processing and sensor tech, pushing ISO has been taken further, before we would be scared to push beyond 1600, with careful post processing 6400 has been nothing to worry about, but I agree with the lower iso is sharp and saves time on post.
I had been trying to decide whether or not to get this lens, and this video convinced me to. I do a lot of head shots, and it's not ideal for that, but it otherwise stays on my camera. It's possibly my favorite lens that I've ever used. Thanks for such a thorough review!
Man I got conned I ended up with 35mm f1.4 I wish somehow that had bought f2, but somehow the picture quality 1.4 does have that unique look which f2 doesn’t have.
Both are tremendous lenses.
@@JacquesGaines Simply for low light capabilities I will hang onto f/1.4
Why'd you wish you had bought the f/2?
@@pugsley9618 f/2 is much more sharper then f/1.4
35mm 1.4 is way better in micro contrast.
Jacques. Love lens, 35mm f2. Got for $300. Sharp. Q: how u focus ? Do u use face recognition ? Focus recompose or place focus point on face ? Thx.
+Art Lopez
As I learn the xt2, I am leaning toward joystick focus points now. I used to focus recompose though.
this Bert Stephani when you show how to subscribe, is he a Belgian guy from Antwerp?
I think so. His channel is not too bad
I love 35 on crop. One lived on my Nikon. Can’t wait to get this lens for my new X-T20. The sharpness in the makeup above the eye & lashes is amazing.
That 35mm f/2 is quite spectacular
Really nice work!
I'm a wedding photographer, I will soon buy FUJI XT2, What are the first two prime lenses you think I should buy for fuji, I mention that I have for my Canon 5ds cameras all lenses from 14mm to 200mm range, primes, zooms, everything, In a month or two I will completely move to Fuji. Thank you.
Wow! OK. The 56mm 1.2 and the 35mm f2 here in this review. Also you need the 50-140 f2.8 but that is not a zoom right?
I would definitely suggest the 56f1.2 be one of them. Maybe the 23 after that. The f2 or f1.4 version will do well.
Constantin, please listen to the other listeners as they might have lived with Fuji longer. As of yet, I have been with the system for about one and a half months now
In addition to the other suggestions you'll need something wide like the fabulous 16mm f/1.4, normal wide like the 23mm f/2, and either the 18-55 f/2.8-4 or the bigger, heavier, more expensive 16-55 f/2.8 constant aperture zoom. Personally, I am very pleased with the 18-55. As for which 35mm lens to choose, I don't have the F2 version, but it's true what people say about the "pixie dust" magic quality of the 35 f1.4 if you don't mind the slower focusing.
What camera are you using for the photos?
In this I used the Fuji XT2
You mostly shot headshots with 35mm in this video. First of - I use 35mm (50mm when I use FF) for portraiture only for babies or half body/full body portraits. I would use 56mm/50mm on APS-C (85mm on FF) for headshots. I'm using Canon gear, but recently got X-T20 just for fun of shooting, and I'm planning on getting 1.4 - a bit more light, and a bit better bokeh is more important for me than having weather resistance (I won't shoot in those conditions, would probably use Canon for those harsh conditions), or having a bit faster AF... Also the number of blades does not seem like an issue - I saw 1.4 shot on F2, 2.8 and bokeh was nice. I wouldn't go down far beyond that, and if I do, there's no bokeh to speak of anyway, so yeah, 1.4 all the way...
nitrowad xt20 user thoughts😂 bcause i knw you won’t shoot in those conditions and also our xt20 body isn’t WS thoo ahaha but just in case 😂
in 2012, i tried the 35mm f/1.4 (on the XPro1), and if i have to buy now, would still go with it over the 35/2WR
have also used the 23mm f/2WR, again, i would get the 23/1.4 instead, even though the new f/2WR lenses are weather sealed, having faster AF, or perhaps sharper etc.
+Chirag Parikh
What more do you get from the f/1.4?
I appreciate your reply. I like the 90mm f/2, but not the other three : 23, 35, 50mm, having a plasticky feel / build. I immensely like their Leica-like tapered design and small size, and they go very well with smaller bodies like X-T20 etc. but i would strictly stick to f/1.4 for X-T2 , not only because of additional stop of light, but they are sharper straight from f/2 or f/2.8, whereas the f/2WR lenses need to be stopped down to f/4. I know some might disagree on this, but that's just me. Had there been a f/0.95 AF lens, i would go for it ahead of the f/1.4, provided it is an all-round performer.
Are these fotos sooc jpeg's? also, are these photos taken with a flash?
No. They are RAW files and they are taken outside under a tree
@@JacquesGaines Oke wow, the sharpness and contrast (and micro contrast) is indeed great then! Quick question: is continuous af-s with this lens with the x-t1 any good for candid and portraits?
I never used it with the XT1
Lol 😂 4:54 it's not a necklace it's a bracelet.. just saying..
Wow. You pointed out a flaw and then shot in the "just saying" thing to try to attenuate the fact that your comment is useless and pointless. Yes you are right. But aren't there better ways for you to pass your time than to throw out that shitty comment? JUST SAYING!
1.4 is magic
So I have heard
Of course you will notice more difference in bokeh when your subject is further away.
Why the 1.4 is $600 on amazon and the wr is $400 I want the better picture qauilty
In theory the 1.4 has better low light performance and a more copacetic depth of field
Misleading.
Buy 1.4 version and use 1.8/2.0 so you get much sharper image.
Agreed. But for how much more?
Great review. Not so great portrait. Overlit background. Anyway thanks for the review
Prick
@@jimmythegent9190 Wtf?
Don't forget to remove those hair ties....the curse of every photographer out there -_-
+finallyanime I like them
Thanks for being honest about being a Fuji Fanboy. :)
There’s nothing wrong with liking the best. 👍🏻
The f/2.0 bokeh is not nearly as dreamy as the f/2.0 :-)
+Benjamin Kanarek
As dreamy as the f/1.4
Dusty.
Why just the word "Dusty" What is that supposed to mean?
Profanity alert! . . . What made you forget your anti-profanity pledge, Jacques?
It is what it is
🤦♂️ get a life!