Lens choice 35 f1.4 or f2 or other

[CherylL]

I have the 18-55 and coming from primes on my Canon I tend to forget about the zoom. I do not like that the aperture changes with the length and looking at getting a prime for the Fuji X-T2.

Most of my travel photos with the Sony rx100 iv are around the 28 to 35 range and the last trip the Fuji was around 25 to 35 length.

Two used ones are at my camera store, the 1.4 and the 2.0 Which one is sharper? I am open to looking at other lenses.

 

[SnappingShark]

I would go with the 23 F/2 or the 35 F/2 as they are newer, sharper, and ... WEATHER SEALED (to an extent).
Plus they're TINY and cheap!

I think the 2 best XF lenses are actually the 16 F/1.4 and the 23 F/2

 

[Derrel]

Go smaller on the prime lenses and you'll tend to carry and use them more often, that's my experience. For the first 20 years or so of my 'serious' photo life, I used almost exclusively prime lenses. I've owned multiple 35mm lenses, the first of which was a 35mm f/2.8 (1) ,a few slower ones, f/2 (three) ,and f/1.4 lenses (two) and a 35mm f/1.7. The thing is...the bigger, heavier f/1.4 lenses were Nikkors, but still, quite large, heavy, a PITA except for the times when I really NEEDED a fast lens.

I would make the decision based mostly on size and weight...I would not want a heavy and large lens for regular carry on a smaller camera. TO me, compactness and weight are the big issues on shorter-length prime lenses.

 

[cgw]

The f2 "Fujicrons"(23-35-50) are sweet. The older, nominally faster, slower-AF, heavier versions are discounted now but not enough relative to the f2 versions to be tempting. I don't see the f2 versions as bargain-priced but the Japanese workmanship does shine through at a reasonable price point. High performance aside, they look and feel right on Fuji bodies.

Read the reviews on all three. The 35/2 (50mm equiv.)might be a nice place to start.

 

[jcdeboever]

@CherylL . I chose the 35 1.4 because it can be a little more creative for me, it has closer focus. It is also has a little better micro contrast but I shoot a lot of Acros simulation (B & W). I manual focus a lot. The F2 has lightning fast auto focus and wonderful image quality. I think the 35 1.4 has a very unique look to the images, the line draw and bokeh are wonderful. You can't go wrong, both are solid but very different. If auto focus is important to you, get the f2. The F2 is a little more of a "perfect lens".

 

[pixmedic]

I went to our almost local camera store and tried out the 35 f1.4 and 35 f2.
I went with the 35 f2.
Faster focusing, smaller, lighter, cheaper.
Plus, for what i shoot f2 is plenty of aperture.

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk

 

[Fujidave]

I have the 35mm f2 and totally love it, sharp and fast and gives out beautiful colours.

 

[CherylL]

I've watched/read reviews on the 23 and 35. The 1.4 vs the F2, the 23 vs the 35. Since I can get the 35 F2 used at a good price I am leaning towards that lens. Maybe pick up the 23 later when I will need the extra room for indoors. Weight for travel and festivals is a deciding factor.

Thanks for all of the feedback.

 

[CherylL]

I picked up the 35 F2 yesterday. Love the lens and the focal length. Before I made my final decision, I walked around the house with the 18-55 set at 35mm and then at 23mm to see which view I liked better.

 

[Derrel]

I picked up the 35 F2 yesterday. Love the lens and the focal length. Before I made my final decision, I walked around the house with the 18-55 set at 35mm and then at 23mm to see which view I liked better.

Congratulations! I think the zoom-preview way of checking out a potential prime lens is very smart. I have the feeling you're gonna love the 35/2 and its size and handling and focusing.