Poll: Field lens test comparison (on APS-C)
35mm
50mm
85mm
Not interested
[Show Results]
 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Interested in head-to-head field comparison?
#11
(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...
#12
(12-17-2019, 07:56 PM)faint Wrote: To be honest, I expected slightly more enthusiasm from this vibrant community.

Since only one member seems to be interested in the 35mm round-up, I will have to return these beauties.



The 85mm offer still stands Big Grin

  I think I have just spotted the last "traces of vibrancy" still remaining in my bones .... Smile 
...... and the normal portrait 85mm FL is a lens that I'm always interested in for it's rendering qualities ...... true, it's a shame that these FF lenses are going to have their central area "scrutinized" and FOV transformed by  an APSc sensor.  Have you no access to a FF sensor?
  No, point in posting images here due to the max. image sizes ...... Flickr would be ideal as it has the most flexible format for examining images.
  I'll look at the results of any lens that you care to show images of!
Dave's clichés
#13
(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...

The Sigma 40/1.4 is 10× heavier Wink and all FF lenses are an overkill on APS-C and perform bloody good on FF. And if weight is an issue, there are a couple of f/1.8 which are not too shabby.
#14
(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.
#15
Yes, I'm shooting with the XF 35/1.4 for several years not. It's compact and quite good, but it's far from perfect. Fujifilm does not offer anything better, so my only alternative is to look for a third party options, and these are limited on the X system. If I want to get the same look, I need 35/1.4 equivalent that can cover the image circle of APS-C. These are absent, so the next option is Full Frame. And current lenses, at 1.4, are quite heavily corrected with twice the number of elements. Be reminded that Fujifilm also tried to create a similar lens and they gave up, because that resulted in massive instrumen (XF 33/1.0) so they went for another focal lenght.

I don't see a conctradiction here, just an opportunity to use FF lens on APS-C body and get jaw-dropping performance. But since nothing is perfect, the tradeoff is that the system becomes quite heavy and with 2 top-class lenses in your bag, things become ugly.

Yes, you can get similar Noise, Compression, FOV with 50/2 on FF, but that will still weight more, unless you go for not so well corrected lens. And at F2, lenses like Otus 55 and Art 40 have nothing in common with Canon 50/1.8 or similar lenses. I would argue that these two would kick most other fifites even wide open, they are that good.
#16
I explicitly quoted the line that I reacted to. Also, i "debunked" your theory about the FF lenses being that much bigger and heavier because of the number of elements and not so much the imaging circle.

So lets put those things to rest.

The Fuji 35mm f1.4 is not that well corrected itself... Slightly better coma than that Canon 50mm f1.8 STM, comparable CA. What is does better is a bit less restless bokeh.
I'd choose the Canon EF-M 32mm f1.4 STM over the Fuji 35mm f1.4 R for sure, though (both mirrorless and similar FOV, they are in the same context), which renders pretty nicely and is pretty sharp in the borders too.

The Sigma 50mm f1.4 ART is a more logical candidate to compare with an Otus 55mm f1.4, Milvus 50mm f1.4 or for instance a Canon RF 50mm f1.2 L USM, rather than the Sigma 40mm f1.4.

You can compare whatever you want, but take care of how you frame things.
#17
(12-18-2019, 03:52 PM)Brightcolours Wrote: I explicitly quoted the line that I reacted to. Also, i "debunked" your theory about the FF lenses being that much bigger and heavier because of the number of elements and not so much the imaging circle.

So lets put those things to rest.

The Fuji 35mm f1.4 is not that well corrected itself... Slightly better coma than that Canon 50mm f1.8 STM, comparable CA. What is does better is a bit less restless bokeh.
I'd choose the Canon EF-M 32mm f1.4 STM over the Fuji 35mm f1.4 R for sure, though (both mirrorless and similar FOV, they are in the same context), which renders pretty nicely and is pretty sharp in the borders too.

The Sigma 50mm f1.4 ART is a more logical candidate to compare with an Otus 55mm f1.4, Milvus 50mm f1.4 or for instance a Canon RF 50mm f1.2 L USM, rather than the Sigma 40mm f1.4.

You can compare whatever you want, but take care of how you frame things.

I did not realize that I'm talking to an internet warrior who is on a mission to spread online justice.

I see that you love to hear your own voice, so I'll leave you amusing yourself comparing apples to oranges.
#18
(12-18-2019, 04:52 PM)faint Wrote:
(12-18-2019, 03:52 PM)Brightcolours Wrote: I explicitly quoted the line that I reacted to. Also, i "debunked" your theory about the FF lenses being that much bigger and heavier because of the number of elements and not so much the imaging circle.

So lets put those things to rest.

The Fuji 35mm f1.4 is not that well corrected itself... Slightly better coma than that Canon 50mm f1.8 STM, comparable CA. What is does better is a bit less restless bokeh.
I'd choose the Canon EF-M 32mm f1.4 STM over the Fuji 35mm f1.4 R for sure, though (both mirrorless and similar FOV, they are in the same context), which renders pretty nicely and is pretty sharp in the borders too.

The Sigma 50mm f1.4 ART is a more logical candidate to compare with an Otus 55mm f1.4, Milvus 50mm f1.4 or for instance a Canon RF 50mm f1.2 L USM, rather than the Sigma 40mm f1.4.

You can compare whatever you want, but take care of how you frame things.

I did not realize that I'm talking to an internet warrior who is on a mission to spread online justice.

I see that you love to hear your own voice, so I'll leave you amusing yourself comparing apples to oranges.

Apples oranges ..... what's the difference? ........ when your hungry !! Smile
Dave's clichés
#19
(12-18-2019, 07:44 PM)davidmanze Wrote: Apples oranges ..... what's the difference? ........ when your hungry !! Smile

From practical standpoint, the difference is that you should not eat the oranges with the peel. From medical perspective, it is not advised to eat acidic food on empty stomach. Go figure.

Had a brief interlude with the 35-ish mm lenses that have been shown. It's obvious that the Minolta MC Rokkor-HH 35mm F1.4 is the odd one out, but I have no intention selling.

The Fujinon XF 35mm F1.4 R was the second one beaten up big time by the big boys. Straight from F1.4 to F8 it's visibly not playing it the same league in terms of sharpness. I'm not selling that one either.

And this is where the MTF charts can help you make any decisions. I have never shot with Zeiss before so I'm still recovering from the shock. I have shot with Sigmas, have Sigmas, had other Sigmas, but because of the reviews, I had very high expectations... And the Art delivers! Somehow, Sigma has found a way not only to construct an amazingly sharp lens that shines straight from F1.4, but to add a smoother bokeh compared to some previous Arts, and even some art character. I will go as far as saying *SPOILER ALERT* it gave me less problems against bright light compared to the Zeiss Milvus 1.4/35, and it even kicked the later's  mount cap on the bokeh balls test... If I got the money, I would be buying both without even thinking for a second!

Too bad that the majority seems uninterested in this.
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
2 Guest(s)