Fuji X-Pro 1 & XE-1 by Fujifilm

Reply to 35mm 1.4 worth its price? Ho does it perform?

nobody@flickr.com (HamburgCam) — Thu, 23 May 2013 04:39:32 -0700

HamburgCam posted a reply:

Hey ergoforce,

I don't know why you're getting all worked up about this? I had already replied to your comments on my blog, but after reading all this, it looks like you are on some kind of mission...

Maybe you did not read my review thoroughly, so let me quote a few sentences. This should clearify that you are trying to prove something that I was not trying to say:

"Please note that this blog is not about endless test chart comparisons and pixel peeping into sub atomic levels. There are other websites who do these kind of tests. I want to see how things work out in real life the way I would use my gear."

"My resume:
The Canon EF 35mm f1.4 is a fantastic lens on my Canon FF DSLR camera. It has a fast Ultrasonic AF motor and the weight and size match the bigger camera body well. The Fujinon XF 35mm f1.4 R is a fantastic AF lens for the Fuji X-Pro 1 / X-E1 cameras. This comparison has solved the question for me if I could improve the image quality by using the Canon EF 35mm f1.4 instead of the XF 35mm f1.4 for special occasions. The answer for me is “No!” and I can now comfortably leave the bigger Canon 35mm lens attached to my Canon camera."

So the XF 35mm lens is the better choice on the X-Pro 1 than the EF 35mm L. This might have been an idiotic test for you, but for me, who ownes these lenses, I would have gone through the trouble of attaching the Canon lens for special purposes, if the IQ would have been better. But from my personal conclusion, besides the smoother bokeh, it does not make sense to go through the trouble.

And you were speculating that the adapter to attach the Canon lens to the Fuji XF mount might be the reason the Canon lens did not perform that well - that can hardly be the reason. The adapter is simply an extension tube with no optical parts in it...

And thank you Arkku for your excellent, calm and elaborate arguments. You brought all the relevant points out in your discussion - like an experienced photographer.

Reply to 35mm 1.4 worth its price? Ho does it perform?

nobody@flickr.com (Arkku) — Thu, 23 May 2013 04:26:50 -0700

Arkku posted a reply:

ergoforce:

Ok, we're now obviously talking about even more uncomparable things; we're in the X-Pro1 group and talking about 35mm lenses for that system, and suddenly you want to compare it to a Canon full frame with a 50mm to get the result you want (i.e., Canon being better, which it most likely would be since the full frame has an advantage, and the 50mm is easier to design for FF, and it could even use a slower aperture if you want to match DoF).

So, yes, that would be a comparison that could show which system (body + lens) is better for taking certain types of pictures. But since we were talking about lenses, and in context of the Fuji mirrorless system, and the system can use the Canon lens with a simple mechanical adapter (i.e., no optical elements in the adapter), surely it makes sense that X-Pro1 users are interested in the direct comparison of the lens only.

For example, I have some 60-100 full frame lenses (I honestly don't remember how many) and I do have a 24.6MPix full frame system and various film cameras for using them. However, I also have the X-Pro1 and a bunch of adapters so I can use all of the lenses on that camera as well. Yes, the size and fully manual control may make some of them less convenient than native lenses, but in many situations I'm fine with that. And when I do use them on the X-Pro1, of course I compare them to how other lenses, native or adapted, perform on the X-Pro1—it doesn't matter in that context if they'd perform better or worse on my full frame camera, because that's for different situations…

This is also the point in the blog post that originally sparked this comparison: the blogger had the X-Pro1 body, XF 35mm f/1.4 and Canon 35mm f/1.4. So, to take a picture at 35mm f/1.4, he had the choice of two lenses. It's only natural to be interested in seeing how they perform in that scenario. That's why the comparison was made, and that's why it's interesting, and indeed more interesting to an X-Pro1 user than someone comparing two different systems with different focal lengths.

Reply to 35mm 1.4 worth its price? Ho does it perform?

nobody@flickr.com (ergoforce) — Wed, 22 May 2013 22:51:13 -0700

ergoforce posted a reply:

There is no better 35mm lens for X-Pro1 than XF 35mm f/1.4. No question about it.

The point is the sharpness depends on the entire system and comparing it to 35L by putting it on X-Pro1 and saying XF35 is better in general terms is too blunt.

I've posted links to reviews where EF 35L shows same degree of pixel-by-pixel sharpness on Canon cameras where it is supposed to be attached to. And no matter what, the sharpness across the entire frame will be more even with EF 35L than with XF35mm. That will be more pronounced as the lens is stopped down. If this eveness would be the one aspect you are interested in, than EF 35L would be the better lens than XF 35mm.

The EF35L is also a full frame lens and as such there are other aspects that are important than just sheer optical resolution. The pixel density is much lower in full frame senors compared to APS-C so it is not needed as much. The pixel-by-pixel sharpness will be enough.

The MTF results are also showing the sharpness that can be achieved within a camera system as the picture height is kept the same. That is the camera is positioned so the MTF test chart fills out the entire frame or to the same degree. This is also the reason why a same lens will show much higher results with a full frame camera than with a APS-C. The camera is simly placed closer to the MTF test chart.

You can attach Canon EF lenses to X-Pro1/X-E1 with an adapter but I don't see any practical use of it as you end up getting seriously impaired functionality. The AF doesn't work and what's worse, you cannot change the aperture. Not to mention the disproportional size and weight of it and of course that it is a lens for a full frame camera.

The comparison is done in a system where EF 35L was not intended to be used and saying XF 35mm is better is rather useless. Of course XF 35mm is better. Much better for X-Pro1 and X-E1. It was designed for APS-C with that pixel density in mind. EF 35L was designed with focus on a full frame sensor. Take shots with X-Pro1/XF35 and 5DIII/35L and project the same image on the resp. camera and I'll guarantee you will see much sharper image from the 35L. Simply because you have to move the camera closer to the subject.

The DOF won't be the same though. Better would be of course to use 5DIII with 50L to match the focal length. Do that and match the DOF as well. That would be XF 35mm at f/1.4 compared to EF 50L at f/2.0. Again, the Canon camera system will result in better sharpness. Not to mention the finer color gradations.

A more useful comparison would be to compare XF 35mm with the Zeiss Tout lenses that was intented for Fuji X-system.

Or to compare with EF 50L attached to a full frame camera with X-Pro1/XF 35mm as sharpness/MTF results are as I mentioned is for the entire camera system.

Reply to 35mm 1.4 worth its price? Ho does it perform?

nobody@flickr.com (KimberlE Spins) — Tue, 21 May 2013 21:45:47 -0700

KimberlE Spins posted a reply:

I am a portrait photographer and it's the lens I use 90% of the time. It rarely misses focus, and the image quality is fantastic. If I had to chose one lens out of the three I own (the 35, 60, and 18-55) I'd go with the 35mm.

Reply to 35mm 1.4 worth its price? Ho does it perform?

nobody@flickr.com (EyeCandy Photo) — Tue, 21 May 2013 20:32:08 -0700

EyeCandy Photo posted a reply:

neeeeeeeeeeeerrrrd alert...

go out and takes some photos.

I love my Fuji 35mm lens, it's my favorite next to my 14mm. It's worth it if you want autofocus.

Reply to 35mm 1.4 worth its price? Ho does it perform?

nobody@flickr.com (TSOriginaux) — Tue, 21 May 2013 16:15:01 -0700

TSOriginaux posted a reply:

I do not know how compare these two lenses. But for 35mm1.4, it is design for X series cameras. Therefore it should be better to use it with them.

Reply to 35mm 1.4 worth its price? Ho does it perform?

nobody@flickr.com (Arkku) — Tue, 21 May 2013 13:30:49 -0700

Arkku posted a reply:

ergoforce:

Well, first you say let's stop and then continue yourself… =)

Anyhow, if you have both lenses, why don't you take the same picture with each lens on the same camera and then we can see for ourselves rather than trying to speculate based on numbers.

(Also, 24MP FF corresponds to around 11MP when cropped to APS-C, and the X-Pro1/X-E1 sensor has no antialiasing filter so it's a more capable of retaining pixel-level detail than your usual sensor. Based on the tests neither lens comes close to outresolving that wide open, especially off-center. But again, this just goes to show that the tests are not comparable; let's look at the photos if we can. So far the blog post is the only source for those, but it'd be genuinely interesting if you could provide better ones.)

Reply to 35mm 1.4 worth its price? Ho does it perform?

nobody@flickr.com (ergoforce) — Tue, 21 May 2013 11:49:04 -0700

ergoforce posted a reply:

Arkku :

No matter how much we discuss, your stand point of view nor mine will change, so lets stop.

If you would agree the 35L is not outresolved by 16 MPixels or lower APS-C sensor as all the other Canon L-graded lenses, then you would see the point I am trying to make.

It's both the reviews and my own experience having BOTH lenses used on their targeted camera bodies that tells me otherwise.

This is the results from Photozone on 35L used on 5DII. 24 MPixels of the full frame 5DII's pixel density should correspond to the 16 MPixels of X-Pro1.

www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/516-canon35f14ff?start=1

And the X-Pro1: www.photozone.de/fuji_x/746-fuji35f14?start=1

.

Reply to 35mm 1.4 worth its price? Ho does it perform?

nobody@flickr.com (Arkku) — Tue, 21 May 2013 11:25:02 -0700

Arkku posted a reply:

ergoforce: I didn't say that sharpness decreases by increasing sensor resolution (of course it doesn't, and indeed the opposite). However, neither does it increase linearly with the number of pixels, so the professional tests you refer to are not comparable between the two lenses, i.e., we cannot see for ourselves by looking at those tests. It doesn't matter how professional they may be, the relevant data is simply not available.

(We could do a fairly pointless direct comparison of the figures but then the result would be that the Fujinon is better, which is also why I thought it odd that you'd expect everyone to accept that they show the opposite.)

In any case, I think the claim that we should disregard what we see in the photos in the blog post because they do not “correspond to the reviews” is quite absurd. You're basically saying “disregard any evidence that does not match my preconceptions and look at these uncomparable tests and pretend they somehow prove it despite pointing slightly to the contrary”.

As for the blog post itself, I didn't bother to read the text but I just looked at the photos and based on those photos my subjective feeling is that the Fujinon is better. However, since it's only one scene shot with only one copy of each lens and we don't know how what steps were taken to ensure equal focus, the test is not fully conclusive.

Meanwhile most full frame 35mm f/1.4's from any manufacturer seem to be quite bad on the absolute scale, and I haven't seen any evidence that would make me believe the 35L is an exception, and since the Fujinon has an unfair advantage in being APS-C only, I don't think it particularly surprising that it would be better than the 35L, no matter how much more expensive or what letter it has in the name.

Reply to 35mm 1.4 worth its price? Ho does it perform?

nobody@flickr.com (ergoforce) — Tue, 21 May 2013 11:03:31 -0700

ergoforce posted a reply:

Arkku:

The important thing is that the initial link sent by HamburgCam doesn't correspond to the reviews in the links I sent from professional review sites. That is the overall frame sharpness where 35L is much better. Regarding the absolute sharpness, well I know by comparing the result from 60D, 5DII and 5DIII that sharpness doesn't decrease with higher resolution. The resolving power usually gets higher with more megapixel sensors if the same lens is used.

I haven't seen any APS-C sensor below or equal to16 MPixels outresolving Canon L-grade lens yet and 35L is not different.

With that in mind, the results from 8MPixels can be compared to 16 MPixels. The important aspects are again the relation between the max scale value and the resulting values and the relation between the results for the center and the borders.

The only thing that can be said in the link sent from HamburgCam is that 35L performs worse than the XF35mm when attached to the X-Pro1 with that specific adapter used.

Attach the 35L to a Canon APS-C camera with similar megapixels as X-Pro1 and the results will be closer to the reviews I posted.