Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
new Fujinon XF 23mm f/1.4
#11
I played with one briefly at a trade show; while perhaps large; it feels much lighter than the 18-55 when on the camera. Handle pretty well. Can't comment on optical quality.

#12
Quote:Perspective control??

You should compare it to the Canon EF 35mm f2 or EF 35mm f2 IS USM, as it is a 23 x 1.5 = ~35mm 1.4 x 1.5 = f2.1 FF equivalent.. Of course it is less heavy and has less blur wide open than an f.4 FF lens.

It is not smaller or lighter than the 35mm f2 lenses, but you do have a smaller and lighter combo with the camera body.
 

 

Apples and oranges.

A valid comparison would be the EOS 70D + EF 24mm f/1.4L - even price-wise

 

Otherwise I could just argue with the Leica M + Summilux 35mm f/1.4 - at smaller dimensions and smaller weight than a full format Canon. I could also throw in the Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 which has obviously an more pronounced bokeh.

 

It is a question of "good enough". Dietrdeb has obviously found his sweet spot.
#13
Quote:Apples and oranges.

A valid comparison would be the EOS 70D + EF 24mm f/1.4L - even price-wise
Huh? Why is a 6D with 35mm f2 lens not "valid" and a 70D with 24mm f1.4 lens "valid"?

It is just as valid to compare a 6D and 35mm f2 lens to a 70D with 24mm f1.4 lens. Just the 70D combo will be more heavy, and have a more narrow FOV.

Quote:Otherwise I could just argue with the Leica M + Summilux 35mm f/1.4 - at smaller dimensions and smaller weight than a full format Canon.
Yes, one can. Why could one not compare a Leica M + 35mm f2 to a Fuji X series with 23mm f1.4? Or a Leica M to a Canon 6D with 35mm f2 lens? All valid comparisons.

Quote:I could also throw in the Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 which has obviously an more pronounced bokeh.

 

It is a question of "good enough". Dietrdeb has obviously found his sweet spot.
You should read my post again, it seems you miss the point (the point being that a 35mm f2 lens on FF does the same thing, and that a 35mm f2 lens is less big and heavy than a 35mm f1.4 lens, which appears to be important to Diertdeb).
#14
Quote:Perspective control??

You should compare it to the Canon EF 35mm f2 or EF 35mm f2 IS USM, as it is a 23 x 1.5 = ~35mm 1.4 x 1.5 = f2.1 FF equivalent.. Of course it is less heavy and has less blur wide open than an f.4 FF lens.

It is not smaller or lighter than the 35mm f2 lenses, but you do have a smaller and lighter combo with the camera body.
Actually it is not at all like a FF with a 35mm f2.  The exit elements are much larger than a 35mm f2 to accomidate the light transfer of a F1.4. Also I have shot with a Canon 35mm f2.  It is a crappy lens.   A comparison to the 24mm f 1.4 is more akin.  I agree with Klaus this is apples to oranges. 

 

You are forgetting that although the bokeh might resemble that of an f2 lens, in actual shooting conditions it allows the exposure control of a 1.4.  For street photography this often makes a huge difference.

#15
Quote:Actually it is not at all like a FF with a 35mm f2.  The exit elements are much larger than a 35mm f2 to accomidate the light transfer of a F1.4.
You do not understand lens design then. It is a 23mm lens, that is why the elements are larger for one. But also, compare a Canon 50mm f1.4 and a Sigma f1.4, they show things are more complicated than that.

 

About "light transfer".... You do agree that with both the 23mm on your APS-C and the 35mm on FF the sensors collect light from the same angle of view, right? Ok. Now calculate the aperture size for a 23mm f1.4 and a 35mm f2:

23 / 1.4 = 16.4mm, 35 / 2 = 17.5mm.

The 35mm f2 FF combo collects light from a slightly larger hole. The image gets formed with a bit more light.

Quote:Also I have shot with a Canon 35mm f2.  It is a crappy lens.
I have shot with the Canon 35mm f2 lens. It is not a crappy lens, it actually is quite a nice lens. And the new Canon 35mm f2 IS USM is a very good lens.

Quote:  A comparison to the 24mm f 1.4 is more akin. 
Of course it is not, a 24mm on FF gives a much wider view than a 23mm on APS-C.

Quote:I agree with Klaus this is apples to oranges. 

 

You are forgetting that although the bokeh might resemble that of an f2 lens,
You are mixing up bokeh with blur. The blur will be similar. Maybe the bokeh too, but bokeh is the character of blur, not the quantity.

Quote:in actual shooting conditions it allows the exposure control of a 1.4.  For street photography this often makes a huge difference.
You are not using equivalent ISO settings. f1.4 does not say how much light gets captured (a smaller sensor captures less light than a bigger sensor), it just describes the focal length/aperture ratio. Exposure also depends on exposure duration, and (which you are forgetting) signal amplification. On APS-C with smaller sensels on smaller sensors, the signal gets amplified more. If you use similar amplification (equivalent ISO settings) you get similar results, also for street photography.

So for instance, if you find it important to get similar exposures next to similar FOV and similar DOF, do the following.

On your X series APS-C camera with  your nice 23mm at f1.4, you for instance shoot with ISO 400. To get a similar image with similar exposure on my 6D, use a 35mm (23mm x 1.5) at f2 (f1.4 x 1.5). That makes for a similar FOV, and similar DOF. Now set an equivalent ISO for a similar amount of signal amplification: 400 x 1.5 x 1.5 = ISO 900. You can't really set ISO to 900, so choose between ISO 800 and ISO 1000 and you are close enough.

 

Now you do not only have an equivalent focal length with a similar FOV and an equivalent f-value with similar DOF, but you also have an equivalent ISO setting with similar amplification of the signal and similar noise (well, maybe not exactly the same noise, but then we restarting to compare different sensor technology and not lenses on different sensor formats, a whole different discussion).

 

Everything similar, All apples.  Smile

#16
I think that you are over thinking all of this.  And yes the 35mm is a crappy lens.

 

All I know is that if I take my meter outside and read for a fire hydrant, and set my camera and shoot, both an FF and an APSC, a view camera or any other camera will make the same exposure at the same ISO.  The rest of what you are saying is just ridiculous as each digital camera performs differently using high ISO settings, and it has alot to do with pixel density.  The Fuji I have for example performs better at ISO 6400 than the Canon 5D II I used to shoot with.  And I am sure that both lenses collect light at a "similar" angle of view, but the Canon 35mm f2 has a sinificantly smaller exit element than this lens.  The Canon 24mm 1.4 is closer to the size of this one. 

 

Seriously, if you are that insecure with your Canon, why do you bother reading blogs about the Fuji.  The Canon set up you are describing has it's advantages I am sure, but size is not one of them.  And if you are so "brilliant" at lens design and know so much about what is required, then you should be making cameras instead of trying to tear down the designs of other people to try and make yourself feel better all of the time.

 

One more thing, if you think that the Canon 35mm 2.0 is a good lens, then you have never shot with the Canon 35mm 1.4, and definitely not with a Fuji 23mm 1.4, either of which blows that crappy f2 out of the water!!!  I have shot with all three.  As for the 35 is usm I have no idea, because now that I shoot with the Fuji system I have no intention of going back to Canon.  And I will definately not be over on the Canon blog area tearing it down, ESPECIALLY since I have NEVER used it...HINT HINT HINT!  Sometimes intellectual people spend more time thinking than doing!  Just because I don't take the time to bore everyone with mathimatical equasions doesn't mean I don't know how to take a photo!  BTW if you want to enter the 35mm IS USM into this discussion, then shouldn't we note that it's size and weight are BIGGER than the Fuji 23mm.

#17
One suggestion; if you claim a lens is good or crappy perhaps you should describe how it is good or crappy. This might help orient the discussion around technical merit rather than name calling. There are many parameters which define a lens. Now for my 2ct on the 35f2 (non is). I have never own this lens but have never been 'wooed' by images I've seen taken with this lens. It seems to have decent resolution but  seems to be a bit dull and I personally find the bokeh distracting.

 

Btw blur does depend on more than just aperture (or equivalent aperture). Lens design can change not only the bokeh but also the amount of blur given a fixed focal length/aperture/format. There is an interesting zeiss paper that discuss how the design can impact the transition around CoC.
#18
Quote:I think that you are over thinking all of this.  And yes the 35mm is a crappy lens.

 

All I know is that if I take my meter outside and read for a fire hydrant, and set my camera and shoot, both an FF and an APSC, a view camera or any other camera will make the same exposure at the same ISO. 
You must be aware that you can set any ISO/ASA value on your meter, right? So, if you want things to be similar, set the meter to equivalent ISO settings for each of the camera bodies. Of course, it is very seldom necessary to get the same exposure duration. But if you have to, use equivalent ISO settings.

Quote:The rest of what you are saying is just ridiculous as each digital camera performs differently using high ISO settings, and it has alot to do with pixel density.  The Fuji I have for example performs better at ISO 6400 than the Canon 5D II I used to shoot with. 
That is why mentioned that sensor technology is a totally different discussion.

Quote:And I am sure that both lenses collect light at a "similar" angle of view, but the Canon 35mm f2 has a sinificantly smaller exit element than this lens. 
It is a 23mm lens. Of course it has different element sizes. Especially since one lens is designed for an SLR with much bigger flange distance, and the other is designed for your mirror less  X series Fuji camera. 

Quote:The Canon 24mm 1.4 is closer to the size of this one. 

 

Seriously, if you are that insecure with your Canon, why do you bother reading blogs about the Fuji. 
What are you talking about?

Quote:The Canon set up you are describing has it's advantages I am sure, but size is not one of them.
And? Did I state the Canon + 35mm f2 would have a size advantage? No, I stated the opposite.

Quote:  And if you are so "brilliant" at lens design and know so much about what is required, then you should be making cameras instead of trying to tear down the designs of other people to try and make yourself feel better all of the time.
What are you talking about (again...)?? I do not remember tearing down any lens design in this thread. I merely pointed out that you comparing the big and heavy Canon 35mm f1.4 to the 23mm f1.4 from Fuji was a bit of a wonky comparison, and that a better comparison would be to compare it with a 35mm f2 lens. And I explained WHY that would be a better comparison.

Quote:, then you have never shot with the Canon 35mm 1.4, and definitely not with a Fuji 23mm 1.4,
I never said it was the best lens or that no comparable lens could not be better. I said that it is quite a good lens yes. 

Quote:either of which blows that crappy f2 out of the water!!! 
It is not crappy. And I am sure both lenses you mention perform better in areas.

Quote:I have shot with all three.  As for the 35 is usm I have no idea, because now that I shoot with the Fuji system I have no intention of going back to Canon. 
That is why it is nice that Klaus tested it and provided us with examples. We can see it is a good lens, without even having to won it first!  B)

 

 

Quote:ESPECIALLY since I have NEVER used it...HINT HINT HINT!  Sometimes intellectual people spend more time thinking than doing!  Just because I don't take the time to bore everyone with mathimatical equasions doesn't mean I don't know how to take a photo!  BTW if you want to enter the 35mm IS USM into this discussion, then shouldn't we note that it's size and weight are BIGGER than the Fuji 23mm.
You seem to be the insecure one. I did not type one negative word about the Fuji lens. I merely pointed out that you complaining about the weight of the 35mm f1.4 in comparison to the Fuji 23mm f1.4 was a bit crooked, as the fuji is equivalent to the smaller and lighter Canon EF 35mm f2 or Canon EF 35mm f2 IS USM.

Does that imply in any way that I think you have made a stupid choice for wanting a Fuji X series and the Fuji 23mm f1.4? No, of course not. 
#19
Quote:One suggestion; if you claim a lens is good or crappy perhaps you should describe how it is good or crappy. This might help orient the discussion around technical merit rather than name calling. There are many parameters which define a lens. Now for my 2ct on the 35f2 (non is). I have never own this lens but have never been 'wooed' by images I've seen taken with this lens. It seems to have decent resolution but  seems to be a bit dull and I personally find the bokeh distracting.

 

Btw blur does depend on more than just aperture (or equivalent aperture). Lens design can change not only the bokeh but also the amount of blur given a fixed focal length/aperture/format. There is an interesting zeiss paper that discuss how the design can impact the transition around CoC.
Good suggestion, about describing it not being crappy.

So, yes, it is actually quite sharp, even usable wide open. It's contrast is ok, but still seems to lack a little. It's bokeh can be remarkably smooth (but not always). It is small and very light, not expensive and focusses quite fast and accurately. It also behaves VERY nicely at close focus distances, so with the appropriate extension tubing it can be used for close up/macro stuff. Its short build helps with that.

 

On FF it is said that the extreme corners get soft in an abrupt manner, but the weather has been so that I have not yet been able to test that with my 6D. 

 

Some examples taken with this not so crappy little lens:

[Image: gallery_10230_17_1903.jpg]

[Image: gallery_10230_17_71978.jpg]

[Image: gallery_10230_25_628508.jpg]

[Image: gallery_10230_25_338891.jpg]

[Image: gallery_10230_25_282066.jpg]
#20
Ok, look I am glad that you are happy with your lens.  I am too, and to be sure, as I was hiking in the Utah desert this last summer photographing the Arches in Moab, all I could think was, "I am never going back to full frame".  Especially as I watched all of the others around me lugging their Canons and Nikons around.  For me it works.  BTW your photos are beautiful. 

 

Canon felt they could improve on the 35 lens design, and I imagine that IS USM is even better. 

  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)