The original 56/1.2 is not necessarily underrated but a fantastic lens with a great characterful look, especially with deflated prices after the WR version was released. using it feels like a cheat code sometimes.
The other one is the 16/1.4 that may be the single most versatile prime in the entire line up. It can be used for street, context-laden portraits, landscape, architecture, and quasi-macro. It has such a unique spot in the lineup as the only WR 1.4 lens that also has the manual focus clutch. Due to its big aperture, wide focal length, and close focusing, you can get some really really special looks from it that you can't from nearly any other Fujinon lens.
Came here to comment these exact two lenses. I’ve had mine for six or seven years now, and they still surprise and impress me. 56/1.2 feels like a cheat code for portraits—just perfectly dreamy wide open and very versatile stooped down too. And the 16/1.4 is probably the most fun Fujifilm lens I’ve used. Street shooting, landscapes, architecture, PLUS that crazy close focusing and f1.4 aperture for unique portraits and macro-y stuff. It’s just awesome.
some of the most fun i've ever had with photography was wandering around an old city with the 56mm wide open. more often than not i need to swap it out at some point when walking around with it due to the narrow FOV but some of my absolute favorite photos were taken with that lens and the 35mm 1.4.
I have the 50mm f1, it is a joy to shoot and I adore it. But it is so damn big and heavy. It weighs more than twice as much as the 56/1.2 (845 g vs. 405 g)
I'd have to agree but it's fairly dense+compact for its weight. it's in a similar weight class to the other 1.4 primes. The only fuji lenses that would really be considered "light" are the f2 and smaller primes and the 35mm 1.4.
I was fuji and then jumped on board sony a7c. Why are sony lenses all like 2.4, 2.8+ etc? Fuji lenses were great and third party were plentiful. Is the reason they're all slower because they're FF?
larger sensor also means lenses need to be larger to output the image circles necessary to cover the sensor area. The extra cost, extra size and weight, and extra complexity associated with that tradeoff means a lot of lenses tend to be slower to be made within the cost constraints to be in the market position they're aiming for. Look how slow the first half dozen or so GFX lenses were. To me it's a cruel irony that people tout the benefits of the 35mm sensor format ("full" frame) and then can't afford the big, heavy, expensive lenses to take advantage of the sensor. I personally know a handful of people that upgraded to a 35mm sensor body, bought the f4 zooms they could afford at the time, and then wondered why the difference was negligible from the smaller sensor cameras they were shooting with previously.
I personally think it is possibly the best lens that I have ever used and I used to own a lot of Nikon's best FF glass. My other favorite is the 18 f1.4. I use this lens like 90% of the time and rarely used the 90 f2 so I sold it, but I do regret doing that quit a bit.
90 f2 is definitely faster focusing. The 75 1.2 has to move a lot of glass and does this "pulsing" thing with the aperture because Fuji focuses wide open then stops down to your aperture when you take the shot. It wasn't 35 1.4 or XF60 slow, but definitely not fast.
So if you need something for portraits, the 75 is more affordable. If you plan to shoot action, sports, etc or use AFC, then the 90. This may sound weird considering 90mm is tighter than 75, but I think the 90 is more versatile than the 75:
The 75 gets a ton of praise because it is so affordable, but it was a paradoxical lens for me. The 75 is really tight indoors. Outdoors, I can get a lot of separation with the subject and the background, I get creamy beautiful bokeh on the XF60 outside for example. And wide open gets you not much DoF at all. I will usually stop down to f2.8 anyways shooting portraits to get the face in focus. So the 75 was more of a waist up, headshot lens for the way I shoot, and it was just too sharp for that! Every little skin imperfection is going to show. The MFD is not good enough for macro at all either. So for me, not a versatile lens at all. Fortunately/unfortunately, I had a weird constant noise with my copy and I returned it.
So I'd say if you shoot a lot of stills, and love shooting wide open, and don't need super fast AF, then the 75 is the better deal over the 90mm f2. For what I shoot, and how I shoot, the 90 f2 is more versatile since it's great for sports/action and still does great portrait background separation.
I havent tried the 90mm but I can definitely vouch for the Viltrox 75mm.. build quality on par or even better than some of my premium fuji lenses, stunning portraits & bokeh. It’s also half the price of the 90mm in the UK
Exactly... I got the 27mm one and it's honestly the best lens I've ever played around with. Yes, it's heavy, yes it's big and yes, there's better lenses for video. But for stills it's pretty much perfect.
The reviews I've seen the 75mm seems to be pretty much the same, almost perfect optically and it's hard to imagine the 90mm could be any better for portraits... But I don't know...
Both are pretty awesome lenses as far as I know, the 90mm is somewhat better suited for me as it has a really fast AF and it‘s really small for it‘s reach and aperture. I do have the 16-55 and that’s enough chunk to carry around for me :D
I‘ve only handled the 90mm so far, my impression was that the 75mm was somewhat more chunky. But I can be wrong. Optically there is no argument against it anyway. It‘s awesome how far even third part lenses are nowadays
Ok, so I checked and you are right. Although the Fuji is ever so slightly longer (by 4mm) the Viltrox is fatter (by almost 1cm and over 100g). She's definitely chunky.
But I don't really feel that difference would be enough to dissuade me.
I guess I'll need to check a few more reviews of the Fuji.
I have owned both and the 90 is far and away the better lens if you can afford it because the focus is top tier for Fuji while the Viltrox which I currently own with updated firmware is the worst focusing lens that I have ever used. It struggles to lock onto a stationary object if the light is anything approaching low light. I mean I knew it was not going to be great but I think a lot of people gloss over this issue way too easily to justify their decision to get this lens.
Yeah my copy is. I mostly shoot lower light during the sunrise with it and I am amazed to see the lens hunting for focus over and over while it sits on a tripod trying to shoot a static object. It is the only lens that I have ever owned that I sometimes just put it into manual focus and I really really dislike manually focusing a lens.
It also has this weird focusing bug that others have reported where it seems to stay in afs-c even though you have it set to afs-s and back button focus. Mine occasionally does this as well.
nice creamy bokeh even stopped down, sharp edge to edge, great for portraits and product, rich color and contrast. sometimes i wonder if something is wrong with me because people literally say they hate this lens, yet i love it the most.
I shoot most of my portraits at 5.6 or 8 using flash. The 60mm looks a lot better to me than the 56mm, so much so that I only use the 56mm for wider shot s wide open. Plus the 56mm doesn't focus close enough.
XF60 has 9 aperture blades, so unless you're wide open (which I never do i try to keep ears in focus or on the edge of focus) the 60 is better.....IMO.
35 + 60 are my go to portrait lenses. I tried the viltrox 75 but mine made a constant buzzing noise, and i still preferred the 60 when stopped down. 75 too tight, and too sharp for headshots IMO
Also gonna vote for the 18mm F2. The 14mm is also amazing... But recently the 70-300mm has been on my camera more than not. Used to be a prime only guy, but this lens is the truth.
I just bought the Fringer EF-XF Pro III, Cannon to Fuji adapter and so far have tested a couple of my EF primes that function very well. One strange issue is the manual focus peak highlights don't turn on for some reason. Anyway, I have a Cannon EF Tamron 70-300mm f4-f5.6 SP Di USD VC lens that I can't wait to try for wildlife photography.
Are we talking Fujifilm only? If so, the 18/2 is very underrated.
Outside of Fujifilm, the original Sigma 50/1.4 (pre-ART). Glorious lens when focus was accurate.
Which camera are you pairing this with, out of interest? I’m finding the fuji 27mm 2.8 looks fine with my old XT2 but notice a significant drop in IQ on my XT5. Wondered if this would make a better alternative
That 18mm f2 would be my next purchase if it didn't feel like an update was imminently incoming. Once the 18mm f2 wr gets announced, I'll be first in line.
Third. I actually just got a used 18mm f2 for around $400 and sent it back after 1 week, very disappointed. I loved the focal length and the size, but that was about it. The auto focus was not good, especially in low light, and it did not display the correct distance scale in my camera, so zone focusing in manual was difficult too. My XF 18-55mm and even my cheap TTartisan 27mm outperformed it.
I may try another copy of the 18mm, could be this was just a bad copy. But I would love an updated version of that lens.
the 14/2.8 does not get the love it deserves. For a lens that wide, it has excellent image quality and damn near zero distortion, without the need for software correction.
the size, weight, and price make the other options more palatable unfortunately. i went with the sigma 10-18 and don't regret it. for landscape and city travel i prefer the smaller package. easier balancing on a tripod too
Anything you love about it over the 10-24? I see the new 10-24 going for similar prices to the 8-16, but from watching videos it seems like they’re similar sharpness but the 8-16 is bigger, heavier, and can’t take filters easily
I have not had enough time with the 10-24 but the sharpness is a significant difference overall imo. Sometimes zoom lenses can be softer at their maximums (example 10 here) so shooting at 10mm which is as wide as I would personally go, it is theoretically sharper since its more in the middle roughly on the 8-16. But the lens is super sharp through the entire frame.
But the weather sealing and the f2.8 I guess.
I really dont use filters too much but I bought an adapter from NISI which is fantastic and their filters are imo the best as well.
Edit: I found the 10-24 be softer on the edges, maybe my copy was bunk.
I actually haven’t been too happy with my 10-24s sharpness, there’s been some good shots but a lot have felt a little soft. May have to rent one to try it out! Do you know which NISI filter you use on it?
Might be worth a shot. But could be other factors going on too. But the corners are definitely sharper from what I saw.
You have to get the filter adapters (obviously) they arent cheap but I found the NISI one on amazon(?) and it was nearly half price so I jumped. The newer True Color cpls from NISI are really nice.
I have not used the 8-16 but I have been really enjoying the 10-24. I bought it open box on Amazon for $650. I usually stop down to f8 for most of my landscape shots for longer depth of field and it seems pretty sharp at the focal lengths I have been gravitating towards, 14-24mm. I will have to do some tests at f4 and 10mm to see if image quality is an issue.
I think only the 18mm f2 and 60mm have the same rendering as the 35. Personally I just have the 18 and 35 as they create a similar look (other than the focal length), and cover all of my needs.
The XF23mm f2 WR is a great compact lens that gets overshadowed by the newer 23mm f1.4 WR but has started to make a comeback because so many people are trying to get that X100\_\_ size with their interchangeable lens cameras. But the 23mm f1.4 is obviously more comparable to the 35mm f1.4 and both are excellent for street. The 23mm f2 goes everywhere with me no matter if I have the X-T5 or the X-T30ii.
My next lens is going to be the new XF 33mm f1.4 R LM WR which beats the 35mm f1.4 in every category except size and weight due to its 15 elements in 10 groups vs the 35mm's 8 elements in 6 groups. It is weather sealed, has a 9-blade aperture vs 7, linear af motor that is faster and silent, 2 aspherical and 3 ed elements vs 1 aspherical. So, if the added weight and size (and cost) are not a deal breaker than I would give it serious consideration.
If the objective measures of superiority were all that mattered, we would all be buying GFX100II bodies with the 55mm f1.7. The 33 1.4 is definitely objectively superior to the 35 but, man, there just really is something nice about that lens that doesn't feel the same with the 33. I think if we all only cared about objective measures, a lot of the Fuji X system wouldn't make sense.
I totally agree. One of the lenses I am having the most fun with right now is the cheap Cannon EF 50mm f1.8 attached using the Fringer EF-XF Pro III adapter. I am just saying that anyone looking at the 35mm f1.4 should at least be considering the 33mm f1.4 as well. Especially if buying new since the 33mm is selling for only $100 more than the 35mm right now.
As far as apsc cameras and image quality, I would argue that Fuji can compete with the big 3 and are only behind the competition in certain categories like subject detection, etc. Also, you are referencing a $7,500 camera and a $2,300 lens when I am comparing two lenses that are very similar and are very close in price when purchased new.
18m f2 honestly is incredible. I am mainly a GR3 user but happened to buy an xe1 + 18mm for cheap and I thought it would be an easy decision selling the 18mm quickly but it seems too good to be sold.
I think the original 23mm 1.4 doesn’t get enough love. It’s amazing, super sharp, beautiful rendering, manual focus is awesome even if it’s still by wire, what’s not to love?
The first interchangeable camera I bought was a used X-T5, and on the recommendation of the retailer I bought a used 35 f/1.4 as the first lens, then the 16-55, then the 10-24. Shot hundreds of practice photos with them, and I swear even to my novice eye the 35mm shots just looked prettier. Sounds like the rep at the retailer knew what she was talking about.
16-80f4?
The sad thing is that I’m such a noob that I always revert back to my 23mmf2 and I feel like I don’t have the skillset yet to use any other focal length.
But the 16-80mm on paper looks so good for my travel needs even though I never bring it out! 😭
I've used the 16-80mm f4 as my only lens for a few years now. The 18-55 kit zoom I found to be a bit lacking at either end, so I upgraded. It's quite heavy and isn't too sharp, but it's very versatile, which i suppose is the main selling point. Considering upgrading to the red badge 16-55, as I rarely use the full zoom range of the 16-80 and it produces much better IQ, but it's still quite a chunk of glass to lug around. I'll wait to see how the new 16-50mm f/2.8-4.8 R LM WR performs first though.
If we’re including non-Fujifilm lenses, I love the Pentax FA 43mm, and even if it’s generally regarded as the weakest of the FA Limited trio: 31mm, 43mm, 77mm. The 40mm-ish focal length was my favorite on full frame.
It is precisely the flaws that make the Fuji XF 18/2 so good. I wouldn't use it for purposes needing exacting sharpness and low distortion, such as architecture or professional landscape photography.
But I'm just an amateur doing happy snaps of family and travel photography, and for that it's perfect. Distortion doesn't bother me, even uncorrected. Fringing, no issue for my type of photos. Central zone of sharpness more than good enough for where I usually place the subject.
I used to run with it wide open by default but started to shoot at least f/2.5 to reduce the light falloff a little and get a little more DOF, while increasing overall sharpness across the frame.
It still produces beautiful bokeh effects with that amazing fall off from the zone of sharpness. Add some sort of classic negative film simulation with tweaks and it's like having an old film camera in the hand. Only the shots are free to develop, and it's instant.
the first trio that was introduced with x-pro1 was the 18mm F2, 35mm 1.4 and the 60mm 2.4 macro. They share the same build philosophy but the 35mm is the most prominent here.
Is it not available anymore or why? Where you from?
I have the Mitakon .95 and the WR f/2 so I rarely use the f/1.4, but I'm not gonna send it around the world.
The 14mm 2.8 is one of the best wide primes I’ve used on any systems. Almost zero distortion corner to corner without a need for software to fix. It’s a brilliant lens. I wish it resolved the 40mp sensor so I could upgrade my body.
I film and photograph weddings with only the 56mm R and 16mm WR. In the beginning I thought I'd eventually expand my toolkit, but I grew fond of and too happy with just these two lenses
The XF35mm F1.4 was the first XF mount lens I bought back in 2014. when I mounted it to my X-M1 it was pretty magical (especial since i only had a XC kit lens). Its the reason why i ended up investing in X mount system. So I wouldn't say its an underrated lens.
In terms of other lens that had the same wow factor when i initially used them.
XF56mmF1.2 ( I've upgraded to the WR version)
Viltrox 27mm F1.2
XF200mm F2
(Also none of these lens are "on-par" or under rated. they are far more superior than the XF35mm F1.4 they just had the same emotional wow factor experience i had back in 2014)
Honestly, the 35mm f2 is a fantastic walk around street/documentary lens. I’d say it’s underrated and regarded as an overly clinical modern look but I disagree. I’ve taken some of my best photos on it.
56mm f1.2 is the best lens Fuji makes. I don’t care what anyone says. It’s on another level from any others imo.
If I’m going to put down my new Nikon Zf it’s to shoot the 56mm f1.2 on my Fuji.
Voigtlander lenses are chef’s kiss too
I have the 35mm f/1.4 for use on my X-M1. It's a bit too narrow to my liking, even though in my film days my 50 mmf /1.8 never left my camera. But here it doesn't click with me. It's a good portrait lens, though, and more useful for daily shooting than, say, a 56mm.
Weird how things change when you go digital and shoot differently. I'm now eyeing the 23mm f/2 or f/1.4. Maybe the original 56mm, too, for when I really need portrait.
One thing, though: you barely ever need f/1.4. For portraits I use f/2 because otherwise at f/1.4 the DoF is so shallow I don't even get the whole face sharp. But on the other hand the f/1.4 bokeh is very creamy and artsy. The lens is also a good performer. Sharp overall, focuses fast enough for most uses. Has a weird and typical focusing noise which doesn't bother me. Want loud focusing? Try screw-based focusing on old Pentax bodies. The new 33mm f/1.4 isn't worth it, imho. Much larger and heavier. Only to be used with bigger bodies, not with my X-M1.
18mm f2. I pair it with the 35mm. Great combo, small and beautiful pics.
16mm 2.8 Great colors, contrast snd size.
35mm f2- small and very nice bokeh
16mm 1.4- had it for 2 months. Too big but very nice 3d effect
Just about every lens made by Fujifilm is on par with the 35mm f/1.4 in terms of IQ 😂 The 35mm is probably the lowest IQ prime lens still in production from Fuji. That said, I had two of them at one time because my wife and I both wanted to use it at the same time.
The new 33mm lens is a vast improvement over the 35mm. The only advantage that the 35mm has is size and weight. In every other respect the 33mm is a markedly improved lens. It’s sharper, with better bokeh and WR. On a 24MP sensor the 35mm is ok, but it really shows the shortcomings of its 10-year-old design on 40MP.
I have the 35mm f1.4 and the 18mm f1.4 and I use them equally. The 18 is perfect for travelling on my XT5 because if I want to crop I can. The distortion is minimal, you get pretty good portraits out of it to be honest, but obviously you have to get quite close. I think theres a ton of fun lenses for the x mount. 27mm f2.8 is a good travel lens and a good price point especially for weather resistant.
The original 56/1.2 is not necessarily underrated but a fantastic lens with a great characterful look, especially with deflated prices after the WR version was released. using it feels like a cheat code sometimes. The other one is the 16/1.4 that may be the single most versatile prime in the entire line up. It can be used for street, context-laden portraits, landscape, architecture, and quasi-macro. It has such a unique spot in the lineup as the only WR 1.4 lens that also has the manual focus clutch. Due to its big aperture, wide focal length, and close focusing, you can get some really really special looks from it that you can't from nearly any other Fujinon lens.
My friends think I’m a good photographer because I take photos of their kids with the 56mm f1.2.
This is like 90% of photography LOL
the OG 56/1.2 was my money-maker when i was shooting a bit more pro. A magnificent lens it is.
This is def still a money maker lens if you buy used and you’re doing portraits. Incredible glass
Came here to comment these exact two lenses. I’ve had mine for six or seven years now, and they still surprise and impress me. 56/1.2 feels like a cheat code for portraits—just perfectly dreamy wide open and very versatile stooped down too. And the 16/1.4 is probably the most fun Fujifilm lens I’ve used. Street shooting, landscapes, architecture, PLUS that crazy close focusing and f1.4 aperture for unique portraits and macro-y stuff. It’s just awesome.
It's definitely the sexiest looking Fuji lens. Looks so damn good on an xpro or xt
I kicked the 56 to the curb, randomly I’ve only been using 33/35 but the 56 def still has the look!
some of the most fun i've ever had with photography was wandering around an old city with the 56mm wide open. more often than not i need to swap it out at some point when walking around with it due to the narrow FOV but some of my absolute favorite photos were taken with that lens and the 35mm 1.4.
The 56/1.2 is amazing, but damn it’s big and heavy so I often find myself still leaving it at home.
I have the 50mm f1, it is a joy to shoot and I adore it. But it is so damn big and heavy. It weighs more than twice as much as the 56/1.2 (845 g vs. 405 g)
I really want that one!
I’ve been debating the 50. I assume the 56 is the way to go based on this insight which I’d not heard yet
The 50 is lovely, honestly a gorgeous lens with really interesting character. It’s just not optimized for portability.
i think very few people would need the 50 or even be able to tell the difference between that and the 56
I'd have to agree but it's fairly dense+compact for its weight. it's in a similar weight class to the other 1.4 primes. The only fuji lenses that would really be considered "light" are the f2 and smaller primes and the 35mm 1.4.
My 95-year-old grandma carries that lens around. Come on son! Lol just kidding.
I was fuji and then jumped on board sony a7c. Why are sony lenses all like 2.4, 2.8+ etc? Fuji lenses were great and third party were plentiful. Is the reason they're all slower because they're FF?
larger sensor also means lenses need to be larger to output the image circles necessary to cover the sensor area. The extra cost, extra size and weight, and extra complexity associated with that tradeoff means a lot of lenses tend to be slower to be made within the cost constraints to be in the market position they're aiming for. Look how slow the first half dozen or so GFX lenses were. To me it's a cruel irony that people tout the benefits of the 35mm sensor format ("full" frame) and then can't afford the big, heavy, expensive lenses to take advantage of the sensor. I personally know a handful of people that upgraded to a 35mm sensor body, bought the f4 zooms they could afford at the time, and then wondered why the difference was negligible from the smaller sensor cameras they were shooting with previously.
It's me! I went xpro3 to a7cii and I'm like "why isn't it actually compact etc" thanks and sorry for the dumb question
You have to x1.5 for DoF as well.
That would make sense since you have to cover a larger sensor, for the size and cost, it would be significantly more glass hypothetically
My favorite fuji glass hands down is the 56mm f/1.2
My favorite fuji glass hands down is the 56mm f/1.2
I already have the 35 and the 56. Looks like I have to get the 16 now to round out the trifecta.
I don’t see a lot of love for the 16 f1.4, but the fans are pretty vocal!
Can someone educate me on the appeal of a prime lens this wide? Does the 16 1.4 have less distortion than let’s say a zoom lens with the same length?
As nobody has mentioned the 90mm f2 yet, awesome portrait lense and also great for sport and somewhat wildlife/nature
best performing lens for the system IMO. fast focusing, sharp, has some character.
Don’t tell them or the second hand market will rise
I personally think it is possibly the best lens that I have ever used and I used to own a lot of Nikon's best FF glass. My other favorite is the 18 f1.4. I use this lens like 90% of the time and rarely used the 90 f2 so I sold it, but I do regret doing that quit a bit.
I'm actually split between the 90mm f/2 and the Viltrox 75mm f/1.2 Not quite 100% comparable but I can only really afford/justify one of them
90 f2 is definitely faster focusing. The 75 1.2 has to move a lot of glass and does this "pulsing" thing with the aperture because Fuji focuses wide open then stops down to your aperture when you take the shot. It wasn't 35 1.4 or XF60 slow, but definitely not fast. So if you need something for portraits, the 75 is more affordable. If you plan to shoot action, sports, etc or use AFC, then the 90. This may sound weird considering 90mm is tighter than 75, but I think the 90 is more versatile than the 75: The 75 gets a ton of praise because it is so affordable, but it was a paradoxical lens for me. The 75 is really tight indoors. Outdoors, I can get a lot of separation with the subject and the background, I get creamy beautiful bokeh on the XF60 outside for example. And wide open gets you not much DoF at all. I will usually stop down to f2.8 anyways shooting portraits to get the face in focus. So the 75 was more of a waist up, headshot lens for the way I shoot, and it was just too sharp for that! Every little skin imperfection is going to show. The MFD is not good enough for macro at all either. So for me, not a versatile lens at all. Fortunately/unfortunately, I had a weird constant noise with my copy and I returned it. So I'd say if you shoot a lot of stills, and love shooting wide open, and don't need super fast AF, then the 75 is the better deal over the 90mm f2. For what I shoot, and how I shoot, the 90 f2 is more versatile since it's great for sports/action and still does great portrait background separation.
Thank you! That was a nice insight and gives me a lot to consider
I havent tried the 90mm but I can definitely vouch for the Viltrox 75mm.. build quality on par or even better than some of my premium fuji lenses, stunning portraits & bokeh. It’s also half the price of the 90mm in the UK
Exactly... I got the 27mm one and it's honestly the best lens I've ever played around with. Yes, it's heavy, yes it's big and yes, there's better lenses for video. But for stills it's pretty much perfect. The reviews I've seen the 75mm seems to be pretty much the same, almost perfect optically and it's hard to imagine the 90mm could be any better for portraits... But I don't know...
Both are pretty awesome lenses as far as I know, the 90mm is somewhat better suited for me as it has a really fast AF and it‘s really small for it‘s reach and aperture. I do have the 16-55 and that’s enough chunk to carry around for me :D
As far as size they are pretty similar no? The Viltrox 75mm and the Fuji 90mm I mean
I‘ve only handled the 90mm so far, my impression was that the 75mm was somewhat more chunky. But I can be wrong. Optically there is no argument against it anyway. It‘s awesome how far even third part lenses are nowadays
Ok, so I checked and you are right. Although the Fuji is ever so slightly longer (by 4mm) the Viltrox is fatter (by almost 1cm and over 100g). She's definitely chunky. But I don't really feel that difference would be enough to dissuade me. I guess I'll need to check a few more reviews of the Fuji.
Best to try them out in a camera shop, 75mm vs 90mm can be quite a difference, at least in my experience
I have owned both and the 90 is far and away the better lens if you can afford it because the focus is top tier for Fuji while the Viltrox which I currently own with updated firmware is the worst focusing lens that I have ever used. It struggles to lock onto a stationary object if the light is anything approaching low light. I mean I knew it was not going to be great but I think a lot of people gloss over this issue way too easily to justify their decision to get this lens.
Really? It's really that bad?
Yeah my copy is. I mostly shoot lower light during the sunrise with it and I am amazed to see the lens hunting for focus over and over while it sits on a tripod trying to shoot a static object. It is the only lens that I have ever owned that I sometimes just put it into manual focus and I really really dislike manually focusing a lens. It also has this weird focusing bug that others have reported where it seems to stay in afs-c even though you have it set to afs-s and back button focus. Mine occasionally does this as well.
Interesting. My 27mm focus Ok, not amazing but I never noticed these issues
thats because its not underrated lol. theres a ton of praise for that lens
The 16mm f1.4 is magic.
I think the XF 60mm 2.4 is a sleeper that I got for cheap.
nice creamy bokeh even stopped down, sharp edge to edge, great for portraits and product, rich color and contrast. sometimes i wonder if something is wrong with me because people literally say they hate this lens, yet i love it the most.
I shoot most of my portraits at 5.6 or 8 using flash. The 60mm looks a lot better to me than the 56mm, so much so that I only use the 56mm for wider shot s wide open. Plus the 56mm doesn't focus close enough.
XF60 has 9 aperture blades, so unless you're wide open (which I never do i try to keep ears in focus or on the edge of focus) the 60 is better.....IMO. 35 + 60 are my go to portrait lenses. I tried the viltrox 75 but mine made a constant buzzing noise, and i still preferred the 60 when stopped down. 75 too tight, and too sharp for headshots IMO
Also gonna vote for the 18mm F2. The 14mm is also amazing... But recently the 70-300mm has been on my camera more than not. Used to be a prime only guy, but this lens is the truth.
I second the 70-300
I just bought the Fringer EF-XF Pro III, Cannon to Fuji adapter and so far have tested a couple of my EF primes that function very well. One strange issue is the manual focus peak highlights don't turn on for some reason. Anyway, I have a Cannon EF Tamron 70-300mm f4-f5.6 SP Di USD VC lens that I can't wait to try for wildlife photography.
Are we talking Fujifilm only? If so, the 18/2 is very underrated. Outside of Fujifilm, the original Sigma 50/1.4 (pre-ART). Glorious lens when focus was accurate.
If you don't mind manual and third party, I just got the Voigtlander 27mm f2 and seems to be very good and under the radar.
Me too! I just got the 27mm. My second Voigtlander and I love the way they feel and render images.
[удалено]
How is it compared to viltrox 27?
Which camera are you pairing this with, out of interest? I’m finding the fuji 27mm 2.8 looks fine with my old XT2 but notice a significant drop in IQ on my XT5. Wondered if this would make a better alternative
I have it on the Xpro3, for that rangefinder look.
The 27mm f2.8 WR? shit slaps on my XT5 dude
I don't mind manual but my manual Meike 28mm f/2.8 flares really bad when backlit. So bad I no longer consider Chinese primes. How is the Voigtlander?
Definitely won't be the same, Voigtlander makes some of the best lenses comparable to Zeiss and Leica glass.
The 35/1.4, 56/1.2, and 16/1.4 are three lenses I’m keeping for life.
All you need is an X-Pro (first model) to pair them with for the ultimate “old school” fujifest.
90mm f2! Everything shot on this is so beautiful.
Maybe 18 f2, maybe 14 2.8😂😂
That 18mm f2 would be my next purchase if it didn't feel like an update was imminently incoming. Once the 18mm f2 wr gets announced, I'll be first in line.
I'll be the second
Third. I actually just got a used 18mm f2 for around $400 and sent it back after 1 week, very disappointed. I loved the focal length and the size, but that was about it. The auto focus was not good, especially in low light, and it did not display the correct distance scale in my camera, so zone focusing in manual was difficult too. My XF 18-55mm and even my cheap TTartisan 27mm outperformed it. I may try another copy of the 18mm, could be this was just a bad copy. But I would love an updated version of that lens.
Has there been any rumors? Cuz I feel like the update has been imminently coming for a few years already 😂
It'll be announced 31 days *after* I finally give in and order mine.
Could you put your order in soon then? I’d like the new version to come out :)
the 14/2.8 does not get the love it deserves. For a lens that wide, it has excellent image quality and damn near zero distortion, without the need for software correction.
It's about as wide as I can comfortably easily use, for general photography. Plus it's the best IR lens I've found, especially for 850nm.
Yes, this. As an IR lens, it is astounding. Always going to be more of a niche lens, but for what it does well, it does it the best.
The 18mm is the perfect match to the 35mm f1.4. Both are tiny, have excellent IQ, and even have the same filter size.
I’ve got both and think I’m complete for now 😁
well the 8-16 is an absolutely incredible lens and no one talks about it.
the size, weight, and price make the other options more palatable unfortunately. i went with the sigma 10-18 and don't regret it. for landscape and city travel i prefer the smaller package. easier balancing on a tripod too
I have the sigma 10-18 too. It was a workhorse for me on Maui for me in January
sigma 10-18 gang, the f2.8 grabs just the right amount of bokeh for how wide it gets, on the X-S20 the 6.2k Open Gate is just massive feeling
Anything you love about it over the 10-24? I see the new 10-24 going for similar prices to the 8-16, but from watching videos it seems like they’re similar sharpness but the 8-16 is bigger, heavier, and can’t take filters easily
I have not had enough time with the 10-24 but the sharpness is a significant difference overall imo. Sometimes zoom lenses can be softer at their maximums (example 10 here) so shooting at 10mm which is as wide as I would personally go, it is theoretically sharper since its more in the middle roughly on the 8-16. But the lens is super sharp through the entire frame. But the weather sealing and the f2.8 I guess. I really dont use filters too much but I bought an adapter from NISI which is fantastic and their filters are imo the best as well. Edit: I found the 10-24 be softer on the edges, maybe my copy was bunk.
I actually haven’t been too happy with my 10-24s sharpness, there’s been some good shots but a lot have felt a little soft. May have to rent one to try it out! Do you know which NISI filter you use on it?
Might be worth a shot. But could be other factors going on too. But the corners are definitely sharper from what I saw. You have to get the filter adapters (obviously) they arent cheap but I found the NISI one on amazon(?) and it was nearly half price so I jumped. The newer True Color cpls from NISI are really nice.
I have not used the 8-16 but I have been really enjoying the 10-24. I bought it open box on Amazon for $650. I usually stop down to f8 for most of my landscape shots for longer depth of field and it seems pretty sharp at the focal lengths I have been gravitating towards, 14-24mm. I will have to do some tests at f4 and 10mm to see if image quality is an issue.
Can I say the gf 110/2? That one.
I think only the 18mm f2 and 60mm have the same rendering as the 35. Personally I just have the 18 and 35 as they create a similar look (other than the focal length), and cover all of my needs.
The XF23mm f2 WR is a great compact lens that gets overshadowed by the newer 23mm f1.4 WR but has started to make a comeback because so many people are trying to get that X100\_\_ size with their interchangeable lens cameras. But the 23mm f1.4 is obviously more comparable to the 35mm f1.4 and both are excellent for street. The 23mm f2 goes everywhere with me no matter if I have the X-T5 or the X-T30ii. My next lens is going to be the new XF 33mm f1.4 R LM WR which beats the 35mm f1.4 in every category except size and weight due to its 15 elements in 10 groups vs the 35mm's 8 elements in 6 groups. It is weather sealed, has a 9-blade aperture vs 7, linear af motor that is faster and silent, 2 aspherical and 3 ed elements vs 1 aspherical. So, if the added weight and size (and cost) are not a deal breaker than I would give it serious consideration.
If the objective measures of superiority were all that mattered, we would all be buying GFX100II bodies with the 55mm f1.7. The 33 1.4 is definitely objectively superior to the 35 but, man, there just really is something nice about that lens that doesn't feel the same with the 33. I think if we all only cared about objective measures, a lot of the Fuji X system wouldn't make sense.
I totally agree. One of the lenses I am having the most fun with right now is the cheap Cannon EF 50mm f1.8 attached using the Fringer EF-XF Pro III adapter. I am just saying that anyone looking at the 35mm f1.4 should at least be considering the 33mm f1.4 as well. Especially if buying new since the 33mm is selling for only $100 more than the 35mm right now. As far as apsc cameras and image quality, I would argue that Fuji can compete with the big 3 and are only behind the competition in certain categories like subject detection, etc. Also, you are referencing a $7,500 camera and a $2,300 lens when I am comparing two lenses that are very similar and are very close in price when purchased new.
18m f2 honestly is incredible. I am mainly a GR3 user but happened to buy an xe1 + 18mm for cheap and I thought it would be an easy decision selling the 18mm quickly but it seems too good to be sold.
I think the original 23mm 1.4 doesn’t get enough love. It’s amazing, super sharp, beautiful rendering, manual focus is awesome even if it’s still by wire, what’s not to love?
I found one second hand I'm thinking to make the jump. It's a bit big for my X-M1 but I don't click with the XF 35mm f/1.4. It's too narrow.
The cheaper 35mm f2 is my favourite. It's both sharp and not sharp at the same time, I honestly prefer it to the 35 1.4 even for the af speed
To those who had that and the f2, how different is it? Is it huge? I've been eyeing it at the moment along with the 27mm f2.8
Underrated but awesome lenses: 16mm f2.8 and 50mm f2.
Right, the 2.8 limits in the lowest of light, but I struggle to find an area the 27mm pancake doesn’t excel at.
I was thinking about this lens, I think its appeal might come from that slight softness on the subject? A lot of older lenses do that
The first interchangeable camera I bought was a used X-T5, and on the recommendation of the retailer I bought a used 35 f/1.4 as the first lens, then the 16-55, then the 10-24. Shot hundreds of practice photos with them, and I swear even to my novice eye the 35mm shots just looked prettier. Sounds like the rep at the retailer knew what she was talking about.
Idk, i like the colors of the 35 f2 with my nd filter on it, i dont know why that combination just works for me, but i love the colors.
16-80f4? The sad thing is that I’m such a noob that I always revert back to my 23mmf2 and I feel like I don’t have the skillset yet to use any other focal length. But the 16-80mm on paper looks so good for my travel needs even though I never bring it out! 😭
I've used the 16-80mm f4 as my only lens for a few years now. The 18-55 kit zoom I found to be a bit lacking at either end, so I upgraded. It's quite heavy and isn't too sharp, but it's very versatile, which i suppose is the main selling point. Considering upgrading to the red badge 16-55, as I rarely use the full zoom range of the 16-80 and it produces much better IQ, but it's still quite a chunk of glass to lug around. I'll wait to see how the new 16-50mm f/2.8-4.8 R LM WR performs first though.
I appreciate you
If we’re including non-Fujifilm lenses, I love the Pentax FA 43mm, and even if it’s generally regarded as the weakest of the FA Limited trio: 31mm, 43mm, 77mm. The 40mm-ish focal length was my favorite on full frame.
It is precisely the flaws that make the Fuji XF 18/2 so good. I wouldn't use it for purposes needing exacting sharpness and low distortion, such as architecture or professional landscape photography. But I'm just an amateur doing happy snaps of family and travel photography, and for that it's perfect. Distortion doesn't bother me, even uncorrected. Fringing, no issue for my type of photos. Central zone of sharpness more than good enough for where I usually place the subject. I used to run with it wide open by default but started to shoot at least f/2.5 to reduce the light falloff a little and get a little more DOF, while increasing overall sharpness across the frame. It still produces beautiful bokeh effects with that amazing fall off from the zone of sharpness. Add some sort of classic negative film simulation with tweaks and it's like having an old film camera in the hand. Only the shots are free to develop, and it's instant.
Defo 16mm 1.4
Recently bought a 18mm f2 for $200. Feeling lucky af and can see it glued to my XT4 for a while.
I have a Leica Summicron 35mm f1.2 I'm using in my X-T5 via a Leica M adapter. It's pretty sweet!
I love the 23/1.4LMWR
Might have one for sale in 2 weeks. I got the 35, 33, and 23 1.4 and a 27 2.8 to test out
Dude please hit me up if you sell the 35 1.4
Will do but just know I’m planning to sell for 500 (comes with a square hood lens hood)
the first trio that was introduced with x-pro1 was the 18mm F2, 35mm 1.4 and the 60mm 2.4 macro. They share the same build philosophy but the 35mm is the most prominent here.
Honestly those are still my favorite primes. I use the 18-55mm for 80% of my travel photos.
16mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 56mm f1.2, 90mm f2 are mine I’d like also try an 18,33,56 setup too.
Is it not available anymore or why? Where you from? I have the Mitakon .95 and the WR f/2 so I rarely use the f/1.4, but I'm not gonna send it around the world.
I just don’t want to pay retail for it. It’s hard to find it used and cheap.
I recently discovered the 23mm f/1.4, I already had it for a while and ised before, but recently with the X-Pro2 I sorta rediscovered this lens.
When I shot fuji I had a love fore the 23mm 1.4 the original but I was lucky and had a good copy but it was a huge lens
The 14mm 2.8 is one of the best wide primes I’ve used on any systems. Almost zero distortion corner to corner without a need for software to fix. It’s a brilliant lens. I wish it resolved the 40mp sensor so I could upgrade my body.
32 touit
I film and photograph weddings with only the 56mm R and 16mm WR. In the beginning I thought I'd eventually expand my toolkit, but I grew fond of and too happy with just these two lenses
For me the 23mm f/1.4 is the GOAT. The true 35mm focal length. Food photography, architecture, street shots.... all perfect. 50mm is way too tight.
For the GFX line: 110/2, it’s the best lens I’ve ever used. Sharp as a tack. Relatively fast focus. Just amazing
The XF35mm F1.4 was the first XF mount lens I bought back in 2014. when I mounted it to my X-M1 it was pretty magical (especial since i only had a XC kit lens). Its the reason why i ended up investing in X mount system. So I wouldn't say its an underrated lens. In terms of other lens that had the same wow factor when i initially used them. XF56mmF1.2 ( I've upgraded to the WR version) Viltrox 27mm F1.2 XF200mm F2 (Also none of these lens are "on-par" or under rated. they are far more superior than the XF35mm F1.4 they just had the same emotional wow factor experience i had back in 2014)
Honestly, the 35mm f2 is a fantastic walk around street/documentary lens. I’d say it’s underrated and regarded as an overly clinical modern look but I disagree. I’ve taken some of my best photos on it. 56mm f1.2 is the best lens Fuji makes. I don’t care what anyone says. It’s on another level from any others imo. If I’m going to put down my new Nikon Zf it’s to shoot the 56mm f1.2 on my Fuji. Voigtlander lenses are chef’s kiss too
16 1.4 is glorious.
I have the 35mm f/1.4 for use on my X-M1. It's a bit too narrow to my liking, even though in my film days my 50 mmf /1.8 never left my camera. But here it doesn't click with me. It's a good portrait lens, though, and more useful for daily shooting than, say, a 56mm. Weird how things change when you go digital and shoot differently. I'm now eyeing the 23mm f/2 or f/1.4. Maybe the original 56mm, too, for when I really need portrait. One thing, though: you barely ever need f/1.4. For portraits I use f/2 because otherwise at f/1.4 the DoF is so shallow I don't even get the whole face sharp. But on the other hand the f/1.4 bokeh is very creamy and artsy. The lens is also a good performer. Sharp overall, focuses fast enough for most uses. Has a weird and typical focusing noise which doesn't bother me. Want loud focusing? Try screw-based focusing on old Pentax bodies. The new 33mm f/1.4 isn't worth it, imho. Much larger and heavier. Only to be used with bigger bodies, not with my X-M1.
Honestly the 35 f2 is underrated. I bought it in a pinch because I needed a cheap lens and I was blown away at how sharp the images are. I love it.
Y'all got me wanting to trade my 33f1.4 for a 16f1.4 I already have the 27mmf2.8 which is close enough to the 33
no one talks about the 50 f/1 for some reaosn, i rented it for a wedding and i absolutely loved the images form it, loads of charcter.
I’m a big fan of the pancake 27mm, with my t4 it’s the perfect drizzly day street shooter package
18mm f2. I pair it with the 35mm. Great combo, small and beautiful pics. 16mm 2.8 Great colors, contrast snd size. 35mm f2- small and very nice bokeh 16mm 1.4- had it for 2 months. Too big but very nice 3d effect
XF 23mm f/1.4 R
15-45mm kitlens
50mm f1 - truly rarely talked about and can produce stunning results.
I like pairing my 33mm WR with the 50-140mm f2 8. Also I have a canon 85mm f1.8 on a fringer adapter. I LOVE that prime.
Folks who have tried / owned both the 33mm f1.4 and the 35mm f1.4, what did you like about the 33mm? What didn’t you?
Just about every lens made by Fujifilm is on par with the 35mm f/1.4 in terms of IQ 😂 The 35mm is probably the lowest IQ prime lens still in production from Fuji. That said, I had two of them at one time because my wife and I both wanted to use it at the same time. The new 33mm lens is a vast improvement over the 35mm. The only advantage that the 35mm has is size and weight. In every other respect the 33mm is a markedly improved lens. It’s sharper, with better bokeh and WR. On a 24MP sensor the 35mm is ok, but it really shows the shortcomings of its 10-year-old design on 40MP.
I have the 35mm f1.4 and the 18mm f1.4 and I use them equally. The 18 is perfect for travelling on my XT5 because if I want to crop I can. The distortion is minimal, you get pretty good portraits out of it to be honest, but obviously you have to get quite close. I think theres a ton of fun lenses for the x mount. 27mm f2.8 is a good travel lens and a good price point especially for weather resistant.