FUJINON lenses questions, tips and tricks

[Emanuel]

http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/xf_lens/roadmap/

 

To begin with. Anyone here has something to tell on 23mm f/1.4 vs faster AF f/2 WR models but at video end?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIBVrApLrNQ

"I tested this (23mm f/1.4) in the shop on the X-E3. The AF was disappointingly slow and imo not usable in cases where you want to shoot moving objects like playing children eg.. I compared with the 23 mm f2 and that was snap fast! Would have liked the 1.4 though for its bokeh though..." ~ Raf Degrève on YT comments section

What about along the new X-T3?

 

[androidlad]

The newer f/2 primes and f/2.8 zooms are quad-linear motor so AF-C performance is much improved. On X-T3 older gen lenses got a bump in performance but still cannot compete with the newer ones.

[Emanuel]

49 minutes ago, androidlad said:

The newer f/2 primes and f/2.8 zooms are quad-linear motor so AF-C performance is much improved. On X-T3 older gen lenses got a bump in performance but still cannot compete with the newer ones.

I guess no matter the technique, the newer the faster : ) My fair point is to wonder on the practice for good enough outcome.

As well, as far as focus transition smoothness concerns.

Any experiences out there?

[Attila Bakos]

19 minutes ago, androidlad said:

The newer f/2 primes and f/2.8 zooms are quad-linear motor so AF-C performance is much improved. On X-T3 older gen lenses got a bump in performance but still cannot compete with the newer ones.

Only the lenses with LM in their name use linear motor. The newer f/2 primes (23,35,50) use some other technique. And I believe only the XF90 is quad linear. The XF 50-140 is triple linear, and the XF 16-55 is twin linear.

[DBounce]

1 hour ago, Emanuel said:

http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/xf_lens/roadmap/

 

To begin with. Anyone here has something to tell on 23mm f/1.4 vs faster AF f/2 WR models but at video end?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIBVrApLrNQ

"I tested this (23mm f/1.4) in the shop on the X-E3. The AF was disappointingly slow and imo not usable in cases where you want to shoot moving objects like playing children eg.. I compared with the 23 mm f2 and that was snap fast! Would have liked the 1.4 though for its bokeh though..." ~ Raf Degrève on YT comments section

What about along the new X-T3?

 

Firstly, this is confusing terminology. Wider apertures are considered "faster". So the f1.4 lens is "faster" than the f2. I believe what you mean is "quicker". As in quicker to focus. That said, the slower but newer f2 lenses are very snappy when focusing. Also of interest for video work is the fact that they are near silent in operation. When I purchased the X-T3 I was sure to get the newer f2 trinity so as to cover the bases for video. But after reading many reviews I was compelled to also add the 16mm f1.4. Which by many accounts is one of the best lenses ever made.

[Mattias Burling]

Many of the older has more accurate MF. The WRs can drift.

[Emanuel]

28 minutes ago, DBounce said:

Firstly, this is confusing terminology. Wider apertures are considered "faster". So the f1.4 lens is "faster" than the f2. I believe what you mean is "quicker". As in quicker to focus. That said the slower but newer f2 lenses are very snappy when focusing. Also of interest for video work is the fact that they are near silent in operation. When I purchased the X-T3 I was sure to get the newer f2 trinity so as to cover the bases for video. But after reading many reviews I was compelled to also add the 16mm f1.4. Which by many accounts is one of the best lenses ever made.

I've seen your trinity purchase indeed, coupled to your 16mm f/1.4.

 

This new X-T3 made me to actually switch from my X-H1 purchase plan.

I'd rather include some other f/1.4 in-between anyway.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCzdde0EjjY

"Sold the 1.4 for the f2. Disapointed with f2 not sharp till f4...bought the 35mm f1.4 again." ~ Count Alucard (YT user on the YT comments section)

 

'Faster AF' not 'faster lens/glass'. I don't find this terminology confusing at all. Pretty accurate, actually : ) Call it quicker as you wish : -)

To be quicker doesn't mean better though.

 

[DBounce]

1 minute ago, Emanuel said:

I've seen your trinity purchase indeed coupled to your 16mm f/1.4. This X-T3 made me to switch from X-H1. I'd rather include some other f/1.4 in-between.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCzdde0EjjY

"Sold the 1.4 for the f2. Disapointed with f2 not sharp till f4...bought the 35mm f1.4 again." ~ Count Alucard (YT user on the YT comments section)

 

'Faster AF' not 'Faster lens/glass'. I don't find this terminology confusing at all. Pretty accurate, actually : ) Call it quicker as you wish : -)

To be quicker doesn't mean better though.

 

I don’t think it’s better, it’s different. And it really comes down to use case. For me size also factors into the equation as I want the camera work for travel. Indeed, I want to carry it everywhere. 

Honestly, before buying the 35mm f1.4, I might just opt to wait for the 33mm f1.0. That should be one beautiful beast.

[toxotis70]

rack focus with fuji is problematic.... on most  videos i saw, the transition is not as precise as with canon and sony (it passes the target and then goes back, like panasonic  does)

It seems like it uses contrast detection instead of PDAF.

[frontfocus]

1 hour ago, androidlad said:

The newer f/2 primes and f/2.8 zooms are quad-linear motor so AF-C performance is much improved. On X-T3 older gen lenses got a bump in performance but still cannot compete with the newer ones.

Well, techically that's not right. 

--> 

1 hour ago, Attila Bakos said:

Only the lenses with LM in their name use linear motor. The newer f/2 primes (23,35,50) use some other technique. And I believe only the XF90 is quad linear. The XF 50-140 is triple linear, and the XF 16-55 is twin linear.

Well, those are STM motors instead of LM motors. The older f/1.4 lenses use different type of motors. 

Overall personally I find all lens motors fast enough, even the old f/1.2 and f/1.4 lenses. It's more about the settings. The main problem with some lenses that the new f/2 WR lenses don't is sound. The older once are noticeable which can be a problem. Personally I love the rendering of the older lenses and didn't buy a single f/2.0 lens after testing them. 

[Emanuel]

22 minutes ago, DBounce said:

I don’t think it’s better, it’s different. And it really comes down to use case. For me size also factors into the equation as I want the camera work for travel. Indeed, I want to carry it everywhere. 

Honestly, before buying the 35mm f1.4, I might just opt to wait for the 33mm f1.0. That should be one beautiful beast.

1-stop faster will undeniably be : ) When, though? In two years or so? Heavier can too, don't forget ; )

Right, different doesn't necessarily mean better... Or yet, enough for your AF needs. The whole of my wondering, actually. 

12 minutes ago, toxotis70 said:

rack focus with fuji is problematic.... on most  videos i saw, the transition is not as precise as with canon and sony (it passes the target and then goes back, like panasonic  does)

It seems like it uses contrast detection instead of PDAF.

Indeed. Reason why my conjecture on the older f/1.4 vs the quicker AF f/2.0...

12 minutes ago, frontfocus said:

(...)

Overall personally I find all lens motors fast enough, even the old f/1.2 and f/1.4 lenses. It's more about the settings. The main problem with some lenses that the new f/2 WR lenses don't is sound. The older once are noticeable which can be a problem. Personally I love the rendering of the older lenses and didn't buy a single f/2.0 lens after testing them. 

Motors fast (sorry @DBounce LOL) enough. If so, why more speed in any way other than as strictly under stills shooting perspective, as matter of fact.

Sound can justify a 2nd purchase later on; the extra cost may push you there now made from scratch. 

[Emanuel]

4 hours ago, Emanuel said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCzdde0EjjY

 

"Sold the 1.4 for the f2. Disapointed with f2 not sharp till f4...bought the 35mm f1.4 again." ~ Count Alucard (YT user on the YT comments section)

More complaints on the f/2.0 vs the f/1.4 counterpart, this time all about the 23mm focal length but there's also a comment on the 56mm f/1.2 to infer it as slow with autofocus (by the YT user, buddahlushious on the comments section):

"I have the 23 F2 but im underwhelmed by the IQ. At first i was happy with the lens but after I got the 16mm you can really see a difference in IQ between the two. So im still looking into the 1.4 and see if i will sell the f2" ~ madwindsurfer (YT user on comments)

"(...) used both 1.4 & 2 versions, the f2 is almost silent AF and much smoother - however when used for close focus work the image is SOFT unless you use f4 or more." ~ Mike Whiles (YT user on comments)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIBVrApLrNQ

 

Following all this discussion, I'd tend to see both f/1.4 23mm (more versatile lens) and 16mm as second thought to couple with the zoom 16-55mm f/2.8 while waiting for the upcoming 33mm f/1.0 bomb, even though, under some perspective that zoom may end as the ultimate basic glass for:

https://***URL removed***/forums/thread/4155396

https://***URL removed***/forums/thread/3974837

As for instance the following comments:

by the user Ambulater:

"I had both lenses, but sold the 16mm f/1.4 after using the 16-55mm for awhile."

https://***URL removed***/forums/thread/4181174

by the user Bmat:

"The 16-55 is my favorite lens.  I rarely use the 16 1.4 by comparison.  And after getting the 16-55, I got rid of my 18-55 and 23 1.4."

https://***URL removed***/forums/thread/4137795

On the other hand, others like myself feel the 23mm f/1.4 as the first prime to go:

"Depends on where you travel and what you shoot there. But the thoughts are the same. 16 is nice and wide but the 23 is more versatile because it’s not that wide."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MI68Gj8j_I8

 

[Emanuel]

2 hours ago, Emanuel said:

https://***URL removed***/forums/thread/4137795

 

The user Vic Chapman hints another useful one here with a quad linear motor:

https://www.thephoblographer.com/2015/09/10/review-fujifilm-90mm-f2-r-lm-wr-x-mount/

 

There's also the macro route on 80mm f/2.8 vs 16mm f/1.4:

 

Or then, the 50-140 f/2.8 for twice the weight coupled to some extension tube for extra macro feature as another good alternative:

 

Or yet, the cheaper route:

 

As basics, extension tubes can offer an interesting macro add-on to a primary fav kit:

f/2.8 16-55m + 50-140mm (only 1-stop slower than the f/2 road but as quick & quiet autofocus as the Fujicrons, I presume) with a teleconverter XF1.4X to couple an extra 2-stops faster 23mm f/1.4 for flexible wide and still portrait all-round shooting prime -- my best alternative to this trinity, I do believe: 

https://fujilove.com/the-fujicron-f2-trinity-all-the-lenses-i-will-ever-need/

 

Earlier than the arrival of the promising fastest mirrorless lens ever:

https://fstoppers.com/gear/fujifilm-planning-insane-33mm-f1-autofocus-lens-271161

[Trek of Joy]

Shot extensively with the 18-55, 16-55, 50-140, 10-24, 23/1.4, 56/1.2 and 55-200 -- all on the XT2. I've also spent time in camera shops demo-ing just about every other X-mount lens available. The absolute worst AF of all my lenses was the 56, followed closely by the 23/1.4. In good light they're fine - slower and noisy compared to the LM lenses like the 16-55 and 50-140. But in dim light they hunt a lot and are really slow to lock. The 56 was useless at night, I just couldn't get it to lock onto anything. I bought it to use as a low light portrait lens and stopped carrying it because it was just so frustrating in use. Bokeh was gorgeous wide open, it has great rendering, but AF is a chore. My Sony 85/1.8 on the a7r2 and now the a73 is a pretty dramatic difference, much faster and very useable in low light conditions. The 23 wasn't as bad as the 56, its moving a lot less glass so that helps. They're both pretty bad for shooting video because of the noise and the hunting. I find the 10-24 to be better in low light, so I typically carry that instead of the 23. The 90 with the LM motors is significantly faster than my 23/56 combo, so are the f/2 primes. I really wish Fuji would update the older primes with newer focusing motors.

Chris

[Emanuel]

37 minutes ago, Trek of Joy said:

Shot extensively with the 18-55, 16-55, 50-140, 10-24, 23/1.4, 56/1.2 and 55-200 -- all on the XT2. I've also spent time in camera shops demo-ing just about every other X-mount lens available. The absolute worst AF of all my lenses was the 56, followed closely by the 23/1.4. In good light they're fine - slower and noisy compared to the LM lenses like the 16-55 and 50-140. But in dim light they hunt a lot and are really slow to lock. The 56 was useless at night, I just couldn't get it to lock onto anything. I bought it to use as a low light portrait lens and stopped carrying it because it was just so frustrating in use. Bokeh was gorgeous wide open, it has great rendering, but AF is a chore. My Sony 85/1.8 on the a7r2 and now the a73 is a pretty dramatic difference, much faster and very useable in low light conditions. The 23 wasn't as bad as the 56, its moving a lot less glass so that helps. They're both pretty bad for shooting video because of the noise and the hunting. I find the 10-24 to be better in low light, so I typically carry that instead of the 23. The 90 with the LM motors is significantly faster than my 23/56 combo, so are the f/2 primes. I really wish Fuji would update the older primes with newer focusing motors.

Chris

Thanks Chris : ) That's what I really intended to. Fuji users may come and leave to us upcoming brand users the finest experience of your own. Pretty useful : -)

What about the zooms?

 

I'd love to hear from Fujicron shooters:

what about those complaints as far as IQ concerns at the fastest end?

 

Mainly when we are focused on that quiet and quick AF f/2 focal length feature for video.

 

Any other takers?

[jhnkng]

Just checking I'm understanding you properly -- are you looking to use the 23/1.4 or 23/2 for video using AF? If so, the only reviews you can base your decision on is if they used an X-H1 or maybe the X-T3. No other Fuji body has consistently smooth and accurate AF for video on any lens. Some lenses work better than others, but until the X-H1 came along they were all pretty rubbish. 

I don't have the 23, but I do have the 14/2.8, 16/1.4, 18/2, 35/1.4, 35/2, 50/2, and 90/2 -- with the X-Pro2, X-T2 and X-H1. The AF works pretty well with all those lenses for stills until you're pushing 12800 ISO wide open at 1/60 -- in those situations you really have to be careful where you're trying to find focus. You have to find areas of tonal contrast -- dark jacket/light shirt for example, as opposed to skin and hair. In really low light a lot of the contrast we see is actually differences in colour, if you change to black and white you'll see that the tones are really similar. And since AF systems "see" in tones, it struggles mightily in low light. Mind you, Fuji's AF just isn't as good as Nikon or Canon or Sony, and the older lenses like the 23/1.4 and 56/1.2 suffer the worst.

Video wise with the X-H1 the AF is pretty good with all the lenses I have. With a bit of tweaking it's about 80% as good as my C100mk2, most of the time. Weirdly I get better video AF performance with the 35/1.4 than the 35/2 -- the 35/2 is noticeably more jerky. I'm sure it can be fixed with a firmware update though.

If you're not worried about AF, then the 23/1.4 is the pick of the two because it has the manual focus clutch with hard stops (the 14/2.8 and the 16/1.4 has it as well.) On that note, the X-H1 firmware has a function that switches the fly-by-wire focus ring to linear mode so you can use a follow focus with it. It's magic, and I don't understand why this was never available with any other camera manufacturer.

In terms of sharpness I can't speak for the 23, but the my 35/2, 50/2 and 90/2 are beautiful wide open. The 90/2 is a touch softer wide open than at 2.8, and the 35/2 is so, so, so smooth -- really beautiful. 

[toxotis70]

is there ANY prime lens from fuji , that has SMOOTH rack focus from one point to another via touch screen , like canon and sony ?

[Emanuel]

@jhnkng Thank you for your post.

I am looking for glass options along a Fuji camera being X-T3 or X-H2 when released. For AF use. Other than that, the upcoming Pocket 4K (touchscreen focus aka tap to focus) is my primary choice, with Panny cams from past already in use or other acquisition tools exclusively for manual focus shooting.

Have you seen that video test up there?

Any outcome is a combo route. We should never forget that. It is rather possible some bad performance may end a sweet spot combined with some other factor in-between.

 

 

 

37 minutes ago, toxotis70 said:

is there ANY prime lens from fuji , that has SMOOTH rack focus from one point to another via touch screen , like canon and sony ?

Exactly my wondering even though I never exclude zooms. Their versatility (framing is invariably key) cannot be matched by a prime lens. 16-55mm f/2.8 seems to be (my only experience with Fujifilm is restricted to film) a combination of primes set despite the slower range.

[jonpais]

16-55mm f/2.8 - one ludicrously beautiful lens.

[toxotis70]

16-55 2,8  has smooth rack focus ?

Is there any demo video to see ?