Zeiss Touit 32mm Normal Lens

[fmw]

I'm about to finish up my system acquisition with a fast normal lens. The reviews of the Fuji 35mm f1.4 are solid. The reviews of the Zeiss 32mm f1.8 are all over the place. Frankly I get the impression that the lens is solid but the reviews themselves suck. One guy says a positive is that it has shallow depth of field (Is there a fast lens that doesn't wide open?) Then his negative is that it is expensive (like every high quality lens for the Fuji X system.) Stupid review. I can buy the Fuji for around $450 used and the Zeiss for well under $400 used. I'm attracted to the Zeiss because it is so light.

Gary, I would be interested in your experience with this lens since the reviews aren't getting me anywhere. I wonder if you have encountered any vignetting wide open which is one of the issues I found. It is price competitive with the Fuji lenses and I would be surprised if it couldn't compete optically with them. Zeiss has a very clean reputation as we all know. You said you have all of the Touit lenses so that must mean that they work well for you. Thanks for any input.

 

[jcdeboever]

I'm not @Gary A. but I did borrow that 35 1.4 and it has excellent micro contrast, sharpness, and dreamy OOF. The copy had no discernible vignetting that I could tell. I see it as a super nice portrait lens as well as walk around. Since you don't rely on AF, I think the Fujifilm makes more sense. Now if were talking AF speed, I would steer you to the Fujifilm 35 f/2. You can get them used (35 1.4) pretty readily and I assume the deal is with the AF speed vs. the f/2. I never bought one however because I prefer the field of view from the 23mm f/2 walking around. I can speak to the Zeiss as I rented it for a day and from the images I seen between the two, I think, overall, the Fujifilm delivers a little more of a dreamy, contrasty image... but in reality, pixel peeping splitting hairs. I waxed hard on choosing between those two, 23mm f/2.

 

[fmw]

I'm not @Gary A. but I did borrow that 35 1.4 and it has excellent micro contrast, sharpness, and dreamy OOF. The copy had no discernible vignetting that I could tell. I see it as a super nice portrait lens as well as walk around. Since you don't rely on AF, I think the Fujifilm makes more sense. Now if were talking AF speed, I would steer you to the Fujifilm 35 f/2. You can get them used (35 1.4) pretty readily and I assume the deal is with the AF speed vs. the f/2. I never bought one however because I prefer the field of view from the 23mm f/2 walking around. I can speak to the Zeiss as I rented it for a day and from the images I seen between the two, I think, overall, the Fujifilm delivers a little more of a dreamy, contrasty image... but in reality, pixel peeping splitting hairs. I waxed hard on choosing between those two, 23mm f/2.

Thanks. As it turns out, I ordered the Zeiss. I found a bunch more reviews and some of them had measurements. My impression after reading the reviews is that the Zeiss is sharper and the Fujinon is better corrected. The Zeiss has some vignetting wide open and tiny bit of barrel distortion. Both of these things can be corrected in software. Not so MTF. The Zeiss is also said to be better in the bokeh arena although that doesn't matter to me at all. The other downside of the Zeiss is that it has a noisy focusing motor. I picked it because it is very light and I found one in mint condition for $380 on Amazon. That's really budget lens territory. I have the 18-55 zoom so I have the focal length covered. I just want this as fast lens. For list price I wouldn't be interested but for $380 I doubt I can go wrong.

So I view myself as finished. Two E bodies, 14, 32 and 60mm single focal length lenses and 18-55 and 50-230 zoom lenses. That should cover everything I need to do. Who knows, maybe a 100-400 sometime in the future. I'm amazed at the little 50-230 zoom, though. It is sharp as a tack and contrasty. You can see an image I made with it yesterday in the sports category. It is a shot of a kayaker Crisp and sharp. Neat little telephoto zoom that you can put in your pocket.

 

[jcdeboever]

I'm not @Gary A. but I did borrow that 35 1.4 and it has excellent micro contrast, sharpness, and dreamy OOF. The copy had no discernible vignetting that I could tell. I see it as a super nice portrait lens as well as walk around. Since you don't rely on AF, I think the Fujifilm makes more sense. Now if were talking AF speed, I would steer you to the Fujifilm 35 f/2. You can get them used (35 1.4) pretty readily and I assume the deal is with the AF speed vs. the f/2. I never bought one however because I prefer the field of view from the 23mm f/2 walking around. I can speak to the Zeiss as I rented it for a day and from the images I seen between the two, I think, overall, the Fujifilm delivers a little more of a dreamy, contrasty image... but in reality, pixel peeping splitting hairs. I waxed hard on choosing between those two, 23mm f/2.

Thanks. As it turns out, I ordered the Zeiss. I found a bunch more reviews and some of them had measurements. My impression after reading the reviews is that the Zeiss is sharper and the Fujinon is better corrected. The Zeiss has some vignetting wide open and tiny bit of barrel distortion. Both of these things can be corrected in software. Not so MTF. The Zeiss is also said to be better in the bokeh arena although that doesn't matter to me at all. The other downside of the Zeiss is that it has a noisy focusing motor. I picked it because it is very light and I found one in mint condition for $380 on Amazon. That's really budget lens territory. I have the 18-55 zoom so I have the focal length covered. I just want this as fast lens. For list price I wouldn't be interested but for $380 I doubt I can go wrong.

So I view myself as finished. Two E bodies, 14, 32 and 60mm single focal length lenses and 18-55 and 50-230 zoom lenses. That should cover everything I need to do. Who knows, maybe a 100-400 sometime in the future. I'm amazed at the little 50-230 zoom, though. It is sharp as a tack and contrasty. You can see an image I made with it yesterday in the sports category. It is a shot of a kayaker Crisp and sharp. Neat little telephoto zoom that you can put in your pocket.

The Zeiss does have a weird electronic buzzing noise. When I borrowed the Zeiss ,50 macro, it did it too. You can't really make a bad choice because they are both optically impressive. The , Fujifilm 35 1.4 was noticably better in Acros simulation mode, I think the Zeiss color was slightly better from how I recall.

 

[Gary A.]

I just saw this thread. I have the Zeiss 32mm, the Fuji 35mm F/1.4 and the Fuji 35mm F/2.

Physically, the F/1.4 is the largest and heaviest (obviously). The Zeiss has this sorta sticky rubber focus ring which some like and some don't, (I like). The F/2 is small and nifty but the barrel is slightly wider than the front element giving it a bit of an odd look. The F/1.4 does come with a cool square hood.

In practice, they are all extremely sharp. They all have a superior build quality ... but I give a slight nob to Fuji, all metal ... all the time.

I found the F/1.4 equally sharp as the F/1.8, even at 100% I saw no significant differences. The Zeiss does have slightly creamier bokeh, but not significantly creamier. Not like you can pick up a Zeiss print and a Fuji print and say, Wow ... this is obviously shot with the Zeiss ... this was the Fuji. I shoot with the Zeiss F/1.8 and the Fuji F/2 and I gave the F/1.4 to the wife. (The F/2 lives on the XP2.)

You can't go wrong with either lens. (I prefer the Zeiss over the Fuji (even though the Fuji with its metal focus ring and square hood says Leica all over it ... because, I'd rather walk around with Zeiss hanging from my neck than Fuji.)

PS- Yes, I am that shallow.

 

[Gary A.]

PPS- Next time just PM me.

 

[Gary A.]

Additionally, JC is a pretty good source of info ... he takes notes and stuff.

 

[Gary A.]

Hell, if you were in/near SoCal, you could have tried them all on for size.

 

[fmw]

Thanks Gary, I thought it would be interesting for other Fuji shooters to see. It is true that the Zeiss has some plastic parts inside that metal barrel. $380. Couldn't resist the Zeiss.

 

[Gary A.]

You're shallow.

@ $380 ... that's a pretty good deal. Good for you, you'll enjoy that lens.

 

[Gary A.]

PS- I think there MAYBE is a firmware upgrade for the Zeiss.

 

[jcdeboever]

You're shallow.

@ $380 ... that's a pretty good deal. Good for you, you'll enjoy that lens.

I agree, it was darn nice like you say. I forgot about that focus collar and your right, it's easier to blind feel it on the Zeiss. Now I'm into custom Acros settings but then I wasn't but the Acros did look a bit better on the micro contrast with the 35 Fuji 1.4 but nothing that a bump in the custom settings couldn't address. I love that about Fujifilm. It is worth playing around with making custom settings in my opinion and adding them to the quick menu.

 

[fmw]

The Zeiss 32 arrived today. Immaculate condition. My initial impressions are pretty close to the exact opposite of what I read in the blog reviews. Did I see any vignetting in the corners at f1.8? Nope. Not even a little. Is the autofocus noisy? Nope. There is the little chirp when it reaches focus but nothing noticeable from the motor. Are the rubberized focus and aperture rings problematic? Not for me. Is it sharp as a tack wide open? Nope. Mine isn't. Actually I find it unacceptably soft wide open. At f1.8, it is fine for internet and computer screen viewing but the 100% crops show the edges and corners to be pretty soft. At f2.8 it is as sharp as a new razor blade. It is slightly less contrasty than my Fujifilm prime lenses but very slightly. Color rendition is accurate and no aberrations were noted. It is very well corrected - except at the edges at f1.8.

Overall it's a fine lens comparable to the Fujinon single focal length products. If you make big prints and need sharp corners at f1.8 you may want to buy the Fuji 35 f1.4. If you want a well made, high performance normal lens for your Fuji system, it doesn't really get any better than this. Terrific lens.

 

[Gary A.]

 

[fmw]

Sorry, Gary. I don't understand your dancing emojis.