11-05-2013, 11:41 AM
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.
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.