[Brightcolours]

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.

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.

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. 

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?

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.

  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.

, 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. 

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.

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)

 

 

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.