Poll: Field lens test comparison (on APS-C)
Not interested
[Show Results]
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Interested in head-to-head field comparison?
(12-18-2019, 07:54 AM)faint Wrote:
(12-18-2019, 05:54 AM)Brightcolours Wrote: The Fuji is not in the same league, the Sigma also is an exception, and the Fuji is comparable to 52mm f2.1 in FF terms. Is that what you gotta tell us?

That's your interpretation, not mine. I can see that the Milvus 35/1.4 gives me the same field of view and compression as Fojinon XF 35/1.4. While the FF lenses have a larger image circle, can the difference in weight be also explained by their more complex optical formulas:
  • Fujinon XF 35/1.4 has 8 elements,  covers APS-C, weights 187 grams
  • Milvus Distagon 1.4/35 has 14 elements, covers Full Frame, weights 1171 grams (ZF.2)
  • Sigma Art 40/1.4 has 16 elements, covers Full Frame, weights 120 grams
  • Sigma Art 35/1.4 HSM has 13 elements, covers Full Frame, weights 667 grams
  • Tamron SP 35/1.4 USD has 14 elements, covers Full Frame, weights 805 grams
I would speculate that the amount of corrections applied, and the extariour housing contributes to the weight just as much, if not more...
Pointing out the obvious....

The Fuji 35mm f1.4 is APS-C only. So, not sure why you are hell bent on comparing it to much bigger image circle lenses with much wider FOV. And all performing better at the borders on FF than that Fuji on APS-C.

Compare it to 50mm FF lenses, if you must compare it to something FF. So yeah. to that lighter, cheaper, smaller Canon 50mm f1.8 STM with 6 elements. 
Or compare that Fuji 35mm f1.4 APS-C lens to the Canon EF-M 32mm f1.4 STM APS-C lens, Sony E 35mm f1.8 OSS lens, Zeiss Touit 32mm f1.8 lens, Sigma 30mm f1.4 DC DN lens.

Your "interpretation" seems rather odd. You say that weight is the reason you went for Fuji APS-C, but the same FOV on FF is offered by 50mm, not 35mm, and the Canon 50mm f1.8 lens beats this Fuji "52mm f2.1" lens.
Can the small difference in weight between those two be explained by the similar FOV and pretty close equivalent max. f-value and the lighter lens having 2 elements less? My educated guess is: yes.

Another pointer to that "yes" for you:
The more modern, better Canon EF-M 32mm f1.4 STM has 14 elements, weighs 235 grams compared to the 187 grams of the Fuji 35mm f1.4 R. So yeah, it is FOV (and aperture size) that is the important factor (in weight/size), not the focal length.

This is after all what you wrote:
"But I got to tell you - new optics weight a ton. Putting two of these concrete blocks in the camera bag quickly reminded me why I went for the X system back in the days."
So that can NOT mean you went for "the X system" to use a 52mm f2.1 equivalent on that system instead of future (back then) 35mm f1.4 high performance FF lenses on FF. Because the FOV is not similar at all. And neither is the max. shallow DOF.

Perhaps you meant that you chose "the X system" over other APS-C systems which did not have a 35mm f1.4 lens available (yet) and would have to use a FF lens, but that is not relevant now.

Messages In This Thread
RE: Interested in head-to-head field comparison? - by Brightcolours - 12-18-2019, 12:10 PM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)