Chris, I really enjoy your reviews. They're so consistent in terms of the methodology (the chart you use, what/how you shoot, etc.) that they are really helpful for thinking across brands. Once again, informative and nicely done. Cheers!
Can't be worse than the original 23mm f/1.4, surely. One of the worst modern lenses I've used, I can't believe I paid $800 for that mediocre thing. It wasn't even very sharp at f/2, forget about f/1.4. The Sigma 35 f/1.4 ART cost less, is a full frame lens and creams it in image quality.
You are the first channel I visit when looking for an honest review. Thank you for your hard work. I hope you'll get to review the new 23mm f1.4 soon =))
Actually the 16mm 1.4 had the reputation of being the best Fuji lens beside the 90mm until they started to release the new 1.4 designs. Also a difference of 2mm to the 18mm doesn't seem like a lot, but the equivalents of a 24mm and a 28mm show: these are two very different lenses and the 18mm is not a replacement.
The XF33mm F1.4 is a 'must buy' for Fuji X shooters. The image quality is great and the lens is not very expensive. The AF is fast and accurate. It is a small and light lens. Even if you have other lenses in that focal range, including vintage lenses, get this lens anyway.
So disappointed you didn’t review “the living daylights” out of it! 😉. Love your reviews Chris and the fact you’re a fellow believer as well. ❤️ I wouldn’t buy a lens without your seal of approval !
Having been lucky enough to own this lens for several months now I can say it is every bit as good as you say Chris. I was a fan of the original 35mm lens but this beauty is in a different league. Great review as always
Totally agree, I never quite got converted into the magic that the original 35 has. I couldn’t wait to sell it. The 33 is definitely in a different league well said.
@@ahmonon4352 There's nothing 'special' about it, I've owned 2 copies, one was awful, the other was pretty decent but that was on an old XT-1, I noticed on later sensors it wasn't so hot. I wish people would just stop with this nonsense about the old 35 1.4, it's bog standard, a normal prime, nothing more.
@@KeithG75 I think we will just have to agree to disagree. Some of my favorite shots were with the 35/1.4. Just one of those lenses that works for artistic images. Like mentioned above, it’s just sharp enough to be passable for prints but has some really nice vintage lens look. The flares were also very nice, controllable but pleasing.
If you get some cellophane and a toilet paper roll and use an elastic band to secure it on the top it makes an amazing 25cm 1.0 lens. You’ll need an adaptor ofc
I find it funny that people keep defending the old 1.4 lenses in the comments. I agree they had that they had "character" but between the slow autofocus, softness at open apertures, and other characteristics that weren't stellar, there was nothing but a subjective appreciation for their build quality, size, and the characteristic of their color. The new 1.4 lenses have those same subjective characteristics but fix all of the objective issues. These really should take the forefront of the Fuji lens catalog over the old lenses for the next decade. Fuji fans should get on board otherwise those who neglected to appreciate the old 1.4s, justifiably, will miss that these new lenses are the real deal. tl;dr please appreciate that these new lenses actually perform the miracles that everyone claims the old ones were capable of!
I don't agree with that. Yesterday I returned my new xf 23mm 1.4 lm wr. The images looked too clean and had nothing special. Sharpness is the priority now by Fuji's lens designers and lens character doesn't have highest priority anymore. The better sharpness comes with bigger size, weight and less character. Although the 33mm 1.4 is not far behind the old 35 1.4 characterwise, it is a noticeable difference. There are many comparisons out there on youtube so you can see for yourself. That's the reason the old 35.1.4 was continued. It offers beautiful character in a small form factor which stil may be the better choice for some people.
Haha, no. In my opinion it looked sterile with lack of character. What you define is "Perfect" is pretty subjective and for me the lens was far from beeing that.
Which is why Fuji gets away with the overpriced glass, the fanboys take the confirmation bias to a new level. Granted the cameras are pretty and fun to use but the entire system is full of quirks and overpriced. I have owned 3 Fuji cameras and in good light they have nice colors but anything above base ISO and its a crapshoot. Fuji marketing is genius and they have hypnotized a substantial group of people based on a feeling, Leica does the same thing and apparently it works
@@longrider9551 people made iconic photographs using equipment that is inferior to 5 year old fuji or any other crop camera, gear does not matter, and that is even more true today when 99% of all photographs is viewed on mobile phones, sure new lenses and cameras do create technically better photos but in the end no one cares, if photo is good, using 10 or 30 year old lens will not make is less appealing, that is the only truth!
Thanks Chris, I actually compared this lens to my sigma 50mm f1.4 art full frame on an R6 and no one could pick the difference in a blind test. Sharpness were even, if anything the fuji had richer colors probably due to the x trans.
@@Bayonet1809 Coatings actually matter a lot to colour reproduction. Just try to slap almost any Samyang lens on a Nikon or Fuji camera, you'll see some slight magenta shift. Not that that's a bad thing, just an example. Samyang's coatings are amazing but they do have that one quirk.
@@Bayonet1809 actually the x trans sensor due to its unique 6x6 pixel array worth its hype and thus illuminating the need for a low pass filter resulting in sharper images, also Conventional Bayer sensor arrays can produce false colour as they don’t have R & B photosites in some horizontal and vertical lines. This gives the X trans sensor an advantage in improved colour reproduction due to all horizontal and vertical lines containing at least one R, G and B pixels.
@@eliaspap8708 X-Trans sensors still have moire and false colour problems, only foveon truly fixes those issues (while creating new ones). X-Trans has slightly more accurate colours at the pixel level, but at the image level this is masked by the sheer quantity of pixels found in modern sensors. At the image level the most influential factor on colour is the raw developer, even more than the lens or sensor colour filter. There are huge differences between even the same "Adobe Standard" profile across different camera models and especially across brands, due to the differences in their proprietary raw formats and pre-processing. Basically, you can't ignore other relevant variables and attribute any image level colour differences to different sensors. It is just not scientific.
@@Vinterloft I know Samyang lenses have tended to have colour shifts, but such differences between Sigma and Fuji lenses are minor in comparison to the differences in Canon and Fuji raw profiles. Either way, my point was that crediting X-trans colour filters with "richer colours" is anything but accurate when there is such an important variable as raw profiles not taken into consideration.
That lens performs beautifully and is pretty small for an f/1.4 lens. The Fujifilm community has been waiting for some more super sharp optics for some time now. But that price, I'm finding it harder and harder to justify a Fujifilm kit when premium FF DOF equivalent kits are the same price or cheaper. 33mm f/1.4 APS-C is a 50mm f/2.2 FF lens. Finally, I think Fuji should have marked all these super sharp prime lenses with some red badges.
I just took this 33mm f1.4 out for a first test run today. It's excellent. The fast continuous autofocus is working great (combined with my X-T5 camera with its all-important firmware update). Seems very sharp too. I bought it to provide a good low light alternative to my beloved 16-55 f2.8, but I'm also loving the little things like how the 33mm doesn't stick out as much - so doesn't feel like it's going to get bashed when I'm moving through crowds. I was afraid that 33mm on a crop sensor would be too tight for street photography, but it definitely isn't for mine. I still found myself having to walk in quite close. I'd like having 16mm or 18mm capability on a separate lens for some 'fancy' close-in shots, but otherwise this 33mm gives me almost everything.
If you can live with a quite strongly pronounced field curvature, the lens is very likable … Soft at 1.2, with flaring built in, from 1.4 contrast starts to improve… stopped down to f4 / 5.6 it resolves better than Fujis 35mm 1.4
I’m not even gonna try and time stamp reference several of the very witty little things Mr. Frost said in this review. I will say straight away, that anyone that doesn’t care for this delightful and knowledgeable chap, is a moron! This looks to be a solid lens indeed! Very much appreciate this and ALL your reviews, Sir! Please stay safe and healthy! 👍👍👍✌🏻😃🙏🙏🙏📷
I have only just switched over to Fuji a bit over a month ago, but left a gap in my kit to allow for this lens. They are a bit hard to come by in my part of the world (Australia) right now... and a little bit pricey, but far out it it really is a swiss army knife lens.
Chris, do you still prefer Sony for your main system or have you been drifting to Fuji? I would like to know your thoughts since that video a few years ago!
Sometimes I think everybody get a bad copy of a particular lens and it is normal to base your conclusion on that. I was also surprised to hear about the “not so good” 16mm.
In 2015 it stood out with the close focussing wide open party trick. But it was never the sharpest lens, corner performance is pretty poor until about f2.8 (if blurred out you won't see it so much), and the distortion probably contributed to that. Don't think it was even the best lens Fuji made in 2015, let alone ever. Had it for two years. Now have the 18 1.4 and the 16 2.8 which is sharper than the 16 1.4, wider (a proper 16) focuses almost as close and is free of most of the aberations, apart from vignetting. Needs an update.
I have 16mm for 4 years, it has fantastic rendering and great sharpness, best overall image quality out of the box compared to my other Fuji lenses. Even compared to 56mm, which is the second best
I absolutely love my 33mm 1.4. However, it does have one issue that at least affects older x-trans sensors. Shooting into strong sunlight it will often cause the tiling or structure of the sensor to appear in the image and it cannot be removed. This is a known but rare issue - Fuji tech help in the UK acknowledged that - with the x-trans iii and earlier, but the new lens seems to have such resolving power that it can overwhelm the sensor and create this issue - either that or the internal structure is reflecting in some specific way that does. No change of aperture prevents it, but a decent cpl filter will, so I use one if I'm shooting in strong sunlight just in case - the benefits of this amazing lens are more than worth the small inconvenience and it's beneficial for reducing glare on windows etc anyway. I have X-H1 and X-T2, both use the 3rd-gen sensor. I don't know if it affects 4th-gen, perhaps you could test for it on your XT4?
That's not an issue with the lens, it's the sensor. I have the same issue with my X-T2 and the older 35mm f/1.4. Grid flares happen on many cameras, but I think on Fuji it's something to do with the fact that there are far more green pixels, so it creates an even greater purple grid pattern.
Great job Fuji! They've successfully addressed all shortcomings of the original 35mm 1.4, and this is by far the best APS-C lens with this kind of FoV. If I were to nitpick, it's still a bit worse IMHO than the best FF equivalent (Nikon 50mm 1.8 Z) but clearly better than the rest.
I like both Fuji and Nikon, and I would have to agree with you, having used a 50mm 1.8 S lens, on a Z7 rental. Great lens, and the Z7 ain’t too shabby either!
@@hunglemed I've just cross-compared these two reviews, and Fuji looks sharper and contrasty and with much better flare resistance. Granted, Canon is tested on a higher megapixel body, but I think Fuji would still be sharper even when Canon's image is downsized to 26 megapixels.
0:35 I'm sorry, WHAT??? The 16mm f1.4 is quite possibly the most popular Fuji lens ever, despite its "niche" focal length. People LOVE that lens. I"m one of those people. I know that's not the main theme of your review, but that statement really doesn't sit right with me. (I don't own the old 35, but many many people have called it "magical", including Palle Schultz here on TH-cam.)
I don't like how large it is, and how much it protrudes compared to the compact nature of the old 35 1.4. i would be more inclined to shoot with the older lens with its portability, or even the 35mm f2 before i would consider the 33 1.4
Fuji 33mm 1.4 is around the same size as for example Sigma 30mm 1.4 and Viltrox 33mm 1.4. The Fuji 35mm 1.4 is actually unusually small due to an old lens design and this shows in the corner sharpness and focusing speed (it has to move a large front part of the lens when focusing, which needs powerful but slow motors). The great thing is that you have the choice - you can go with 35mm 1.4 or 35mm f2 if you want small and 33mm 1.4 if you don't want to any compromise in the IQ.
You give your personal opinion instead of users opinion on XF 16/1.4 and 35/1.4 lenses. Both lenses get generally good reviews. I've never heard anyone told these lenses image quality was not so good except you.
Nice! Not quite at the level of the 18mm, but a great lens nonetheless. Think I might go in for this and replace my 35 1.4 which frustrates me every now and again...
I know this is a wack question, but here goes. What happens when you focus on the corner of your chart (but not moving the camera) and look at it and the rest? Is there something to learn from this? And with all these great lenses, I think it's time for in camera stabilization...
You'll probably learn that the lens has a slight field curvature. Chris knows about this, but doesn't mention it in the test unless it makes a big difference in sharpness.
Microcontrast is resolution. What you, like way too many others mix up with Microcontrast is bit depth/tonal range. And no lens will show more than another, as you cannot even see the full 14-bit RAW file data from you camera, as programs and monitors cannot display it. You will max out at around 10-bit. Just think a bit logically how a digital image is created and you will understand that only a perfectly corrected lens can display maximum microcontrast and global contrast. How will a less well resolving lens pick up all the fine nuances and details in tones and project it precisely on all the small photosites? Not gonna happen… fine structures will look smeary and thats where people think that old lenses show a higher tonal range, because the smeariness tricks them into seeing more color nuances, while the lens just could not perfectly resolve whats actually there.
Just yesterday I was wondering when you were going to do this review. Lord I wish I had the money for this 33mm and that 18mm. Fantastic lenses! Come to think about it, I wouldn't be surprised if Fuji are working on a replacement for the 56mm too. With them teasing new cameras and possibly higher resolution sensors, I can see why they're replacing their older lenses with ones like this 33mm.
I really hope they're working on a 10-12mm prime. The Samyang AF and Viltrox 13 aren't cutting it, and the zooms are too dark. I still love the manual 12mm Samyang for video though
The 35 1.4 was trashed on when it first came out and now it's praised for it's character. It's cult following will surely be defending it in the comments.
I think the phrase "It's a shame" has run it's course and should be left to the old grannies sitting on the porch watching the world go by. Along with, "You just wait and see".
Fujifilm joined sterile, technically perfect, flat imaging club with latest 3 lenses.Lenses are bulky, heavy and character is likely wise a bit suppressed (not like those lemons in Nikon Z line). If you want technically perfect photo ,which is not always what art of photography is or looking for video features then is this perfectly fine lens line up.If you want to make art photos I would go for older 35 f1.4 or even for zeiss 32 f1.8 planar. Fuji 33 f1.4 is not replacing old 35 or 32 zeiss it is just another option.
Odd thing to say about the 35mm f1.4 as not having a reputation for great image quality or was anything particularly special? For real? You've just disqualified yourself for your lack of knowledge and history. Countless users swear by its so-called "magical" qualities, its special and unique characteristics - even by today's standards. I know photographer's who bought into the Fuji system because of this lens alone. The 33mm 1.4 is a very good lens clinically, but does lack the characteristics, that je ne sais quoi if you will when just looking at and comparing directly to the unique optics of the 35mm f1.4. It will remain a favourite among those who have it - and especially by those who sold it only to buy it back again. This is particularly true for those photographer's who regularly print their work. If all we're measuring a lens these days is sharpness, cleaner, clinical looking images (though most of the Fuji line are plenty sharp), have at it. But there is more to many photographer's than simply sharpness and looking at their images on a screen or social media. We must also consider its tonality, colour rendering, 3d pop, and image fidelity among other critical factors. Even the beauty that can be found in the flaws in the glass of a particular lens that lends to its unique character are sometimes very desirable - as we try to mimic such things in post. Then there are the benefits of the 35mm small size and weight - though lack of weather sealing is unfortunate, its loud'ish chatter and slower A/F (though pretty decent on newer Fuji body's), however I know photographer's who have taken this lens through the dusty towns of the southwest U.S. to harsh environments in India and the Middle East with no problems giving them many years of reliability, rarely missing an indented shot. That all being said, most Fuji glass is great, regardless what one decides to buy, or what one can afford in their budget, you will most likely be happy. But let's not fool ourselves that the 35mm f1.4 isn't something special in its own right. Fuji knows it which is why they continue to produce it.
@@djstuc i not talking about aps-c camera but full frame only though about the large format lens becuase of how they render the image and if i could get at least the midel of the image ( what the full frame sensor would cover ) that could be awesome i own a sony a7r my self and my fav lens to use on it is a old topcon lens
18mm f1.4 is replacement for mediocre 18 f2 and not for 16 f1/4 which performance is pretty good.It seems that reviewer mixed up some things ,maybe too much reviews lately.
Of course one could focus on the corner of the frame just to see the results you get. The distance to the corners is longer than the distance to the center of the chart, after all...
@@djstuc Why are you so hostile? I never said the difference was major, just dissapointing to me. I'm looking for a lens and the 33mm fits my focal lenght preference. The 18mm doesn't. It's dissapointing because I believed Fuji had commited to an optically "perfect" design for these lenses. It's fairly certain that the next camera release will have a 40+ MP sensor, so any softness will be amplified. Given the hefty price tag (And weight for APSC) these lenses absolutely deserve scrutiny.
@@djstuc If one was wanting perfect sharpness from wide open then being disappointed in this lens would be the expected reaction. Some people just have higher standards. And yes, there are lenses that are perfect from wide open, so it is not an unrealistic expectation either.
@@djstuc A bit dissapointing compared to the 18mm* These charts are made to show those exact small differences. I can clearly see it (Even if minor) and Chris also mentions "it's a little softer". Compare that to the 18mm review. The real world of photography is what you make it. Some people enjoy Polaroids and others GFX 100S.
Disappointed! Not neutral in this conflict. I always liked your videos, still do, but disappointed in you chosing one side. Did you know the first casualty of war is the truth?
A bit hyperbolic and doesn't give credit where it's due, you could have done better. Like this: "Imagine paying $800 for a premium 50mm f/2.1 DOF equivalent APS-C lens with great image quality. The Nikon Z 50mm 1.8 outperforms it for less." Sigma has the right idea with their 1.4 APS-C trio.
Chris, I really enjoy your reviews. They're so consistent in terms of the methodology (the chart you use, what/how you shoot, etc.) that they are really helpful for thinking across brands. Once again, informative and nicely done. Cheers!
Hope to see the new 23mm 1.4 Lm Wr review as well!
Loving the fuji content
Can't be worse than the original 23mm f/1.4, surely. One of the worst modern lenses I've used, I can't believe I paid $800 for that mediocre thing. It wasn't even very sharp at f/2, forget about f/1.4. The Sigma 35 f/1.4 ART cost less, is a full frame lens and creams it in image quality.
The three new lenses really seem lovely. I'm personally very excited for my 23mm f1.4 R LM WR to arrive. VERY excited.
Has it arrived?
Still excited?
You are the first channel I visit when looking for an honest review. Thank you for your hard work. I hope you'll get to review the new 23mm f1.4 soon =))
Actually the 16mm 1.4 had the reputation of being the best Fuji lens beside the 90mm until they started to release the new 1.4 designs.
Also a difference of 2mm to the 18mm doesn't seem like a lot, but the equivalents of a 24mm and a 28mm show: these are two very different lenses and the 18mm is not a replacement.
This.
it's 27mm equivalent. 18 x 1.5 = 27. You were off by 33% -- not an insignificant amount.
Yup, the 16mm is great for low light landscape or slight wider than normal shots and is super sharp almost all the way through.
The old xf35 f1.4 is also a fantastic lens. Sharp and with beautiful rendering. My favourite lens.
Indeed, but unfortunately I turned off the pre focus on my XT as the constant jittering noises were driving me nuts! Noisy lenses the early batches
i love that lens too, wish it had WR, this new one has it but im scared it wont be as good:D
It does make lovely images but the AF is the worst of any lens I own and I've got a lot!
Me to !!
The XF33mm F1.4 is a 'must buy' for Fuji X shooters. The image quality is great and the lens is not very expensive. The AF is fast and accurate. It is a small and light lens. Even if you have other lenses in that focal range, including vintage lenses, get this lens anyway.
So disappointed you didn’t review “the living daylights” out of it! 😉. Love your reviews Chris and the fact you’re a fellow believer as well. ❤️ I wouldn’t buy a lens without your seal of approval !
Having been lucky enough to own this lens for several months now I can say it is every bit as good as you say Chris. I was a fan of the original 35mm lens but this beauty is in a different league. Great review as always
Totally agree, I never quite got converted into the magic that the original 35 has. I couldn’t wait to sell it. The 33 is definitely in a different league well said.
The original 35mm 1.4 is a classic. Sharp enough and has that magical character that is hard to come by.
Indeed, well said Mervyn
Agree, the pictures out of XF 35 f/1.4 has a special feel
@@ahmonon4352 There's nothing 'special' about it, I've owned 2 copies, one was awful, the other was pretty decent but that was on an old XT-1, I noticed on later sensors it wasn't so hot. I wish people would just stop with this nonsense about the old 35 1.4, it's bog standard, a normal prime, nothing more.
@@KeithG75 I think we will just have to agree to disagree. Some of my favorite shots were with the 35/1.4. Just one of those lenses that works for artistic images. Like mentioned above, it’s just sharp enough to be passable for prints but has some really nice vintage lens look. The flares were also very nice, controllable but pleasing.
If you get some cellophane and a toilet paper roll and use an elastic band to secure it on the top it makes an amazing 25cm 1.0 lens. You’ll need an adaptor ofc
I find it funny that people keep defending the old 1.4 lenses in the comments. I agree they had that they had "character" but between the slow autofocus, softness at open apertures, and other characteristics that weren't stellar, there was nothing but a subjective appreciation for their build quality, size, and the characteristic of their color.
The new 1.4 lenses have those same subjective characteristics but fix all of the objective issues. These really should take the forefront of the Fuji lens catalog over the old lenses for the next decade. Fuji fans should get on board otherwise those who neglected to appreciate the old 1.4s, justifiably, will miss that these new lenses are the real deal.
tl;dr please appreciate that these new lenses actually perform the miracles that everyone claims the old ones were capable of!
I don't agree with that. Yesterday I returned my new xf 23mm 1.4 lm wr. The images looked too clean and had nothing special. Sharpness is the priority now by Fuji's lens designers and lens character doesn't have highest priority anymore. The better sharpness comes with bigger size, weight and less character. Although the 33mm 1.4 is not far behind the old 35 1.4 characterwise, it is a noticeable difference. There are many comparisons out there on youtube so you can see for yourself. That's the reason the old 35.1.4 was continued. It offers beautiful character in a small form factor which stil may be the better choice for some people.
@@s.l.7781 So if I read that right, you returned the lens because it was too perfect.
Haha, no. In my opinion it looked sterile with lack of character. What you define is "Perfect" is pretty subjective and for me the lens was far from beeing that.
Which is why Fuji gets away with the overpriced glass, the fanboys take the confirmation bias to a new level. Granted the cameras are pretty and fun to use but the entire system is full of quirks and overpriced. I have owned 3 Fuji cameras and in good light they have nice colors but anything above base ISO and its a crapshoot. Fuji marketing is genius and they have hypnotized a substantial group of people based on a feeling, Leica does the same thing and apparently it works
@@longrider9551 people made iconic photographs using equipment that is inferior to 5 year old fuji or any other crop camera, gear does not matter, and that is even more true today when 99% of all photographs is viewed on mobile phones, sure new lenses and cameras do create technically better photos but in the end no one cares, if photo is good, using 10 or 30 year old lens will not make is less appealing, that is the only truth!
I've got the XF 16mm 1.4 and the image quality is outstanding
I like how you explain the image quality in details
The best part is when you say “I can highly recommend this lens”!!
Thanks Chris, I actually compared this lens to my sigma 50mm f1.4 art full frame on an R6 and no one could pick the difference in a blind test. Sharpness were even, if anything the fuji had richer colors probably due to the x trans.
Any colour differences would be due to raw converter profiles.
@@Bayonet1809 Coatings actually matter a lot to colour reproduction. Just try to slap almost any Samyang lens on a Nikon or Fuji camera, you'll see some slight magenta shift. Not that that's a bad thing, just an example. Samyang's coatings are amazing but they do have that one quirk.
@@Bayonet1809 actually the x trans sensor due to its unique 6x6 pixel array worth its hype and thus illuminating the need for a low pass filter resulting in sharper images, also Conventional Bayer sensor arrays can produce false colour as they don’t have R & B photosites in some horizontal and vertical lines. This gives the X trans sensor an advantage in improved colour reproduction due to all horizontal and vertical lines containing at least one R, G and B pixels.
@@eliaspap8708 X-Trans sensors still have moire and false colour problems, only foveon truly fixes those issues (while creating new ones).
X-Trans has slightly more accurate colours at the pixel level, but at the image level this is masked by the sheer quantity of pixels found in modern sensors. At the image level the most influential factor on colour is the raw developer, even more than the lens or sensor colour filter. There are huge differences between even the same "Adobe Standard" profile across different camera models and especially across brands, due to the differences in their proprietary raw formats and pre-processing.
Basically, you can't ignore other relevant variables and attribute any image level colour differences to different sensors. It is just not scientific.
@@Vinterloft I know Samyang lenses have tended to have colour shifts, but such differences between Sigma and Fuji lenses are minor in comparison to the differences in Canon and Fuji raw profiles. Either way, my point was that crediting X-trans colour filters with "richer colours" is anything but accurate when there is such an important variable as raw profiles not taken into consideration.
Just the review I was waiting for!!! Thank you Chris!
Extremely happy with the sharpness of my 16mm F1.4 as it happens.
me too! great lens
Just when I wanted to see you review it!
Thank you for your excellent review. I watched three of your videos before deciding to purchase this lens with the link provided.
That's an impressive lens, thanks for testing it!
Fine review again!
Please review XF10-24/4 old and new WR 😊👍
Awesome review as always! Very helpful!
That lens performs beautifully and is pretty small for an f/1.4 lens. The Fujifilm community has been waiting for some more super sharp optics for some time now. But that price, I'm finding it harder and harder to justify a Fujifilm kit when premium FF DOF equivalent kits are the same price or cheaper. 33mm f/1.4 APS-C is a 50mm f/2.2 FF lens. Finally, I think Fuji should have marked all these super sharp prime lenses with some red badges.
The red badges is all marketing, not indicative of performance.
I just took this 33mm f1.4 out for a first test run today. It's excellent. The fast continuous autofocus is working great (combined with my X-T5 camera with its all-important firmware update). Seems very sharp too.
I bought it to provide a good low light alternative to my beloved 16-55 f2.8, but I'm also loving the little things like how the 33mm doesn't stick out as much - so doesn't feel like it's going to get bashed when I'm moving through crowds.
I was afraid that 33mm on a crop sensor would be too tight for street photography, but it definitely isn't for mine. I still found myself having to walk in quite close. I'd like having 16mm or 18mm capability on a separate lens for some 'fancy' close-in shots, but otherwise this 33mm gives me almost everything.
I really enjoy your reviews, The best!!!
The 35mm was amazing. What do you talk about?
It might be good for you, but Chris' tests show that it is a bad performer by his metrics.
@@Bayonet1809 maybe he got a bad sample. One of the best 50s I ever used
Can you please do a comparison video between this lens and the sigma 30mm 1.4 lens ?
The new lenses from Fuji have been great
Thanks for this Chris. Your lens reviews are the only ones I trust. Can I request the voightlander 35 for Fuji? I’ve heard mixed reviews.
If you can live with a quite strongly pronounced field curvature, the lens is very likable …
Soft at 1.2, with flaring built in, from 1.4 contrast starts to improve… stopped down to f4 / 5.6 it resolves better than Fujis 35mm 1.4
I love my 35mm f1.4 my copy is REALLY sharp ;)
I have the new 18/1.4 but feel no need to upgrade to the new 33mm
How would the viltrox alternative hold up against this?
When will we be able to purchase a 1.2 other than the 56mm lens, from Fuji?
Wondering whether I should get this or the 18mm as my first prime lens when I already have a zoom lens.
How does this lens compare to the ef-m 32 from canon regarding image quality? Can i expect the same or better sharpness for example?
I’m not even gonna try and time stamp reference several of the very witty little things Mr. Frost said in this review. I will say straight away, that anyone that doesn’t care for this delightful and knowledgeable chap, is a moron!
This looks to be a solid lens indeed! Very much appreciate this and ALL your reviews, Sir!
Please stay safe and healthy! 👍👍👍✌🏻😃🙏🙏🙏📷
I have only just switched over to Fuji a bit over a month ago, but left a gap in my kit to allow for this lens. They are a bit hard to come by in my part of the world (Australia) right now... and a little bit pricey, but far out it it really is a swiss army knife lens.
Chris, do you still prefer Sony for your main system or have you been drifting to Fuji? I would like to know your thoughts since that video a few years ago!
Hi, can you help me pick a good 50mm lens for my nikon z7ii and zfc, I usually take cosplay portraits
The 16 did not have good quality? It was for a long time the best lens fuji ever made. Many would suggest it still is.
Sometimes I think everybody get a bad copy of a particular lens and it is normal to base your conclusion on that. I was also surprised to hear about the “not so good” 16mm.
@@sevdarasdarashe’s a HUGE canon fanboy
In 2015 it stood out with the close focussing wide open party trick. But it was never the sharpest lens, corner performance is pretty poor until about f2.8 (if blurred out you won't see it so much), and the distortion probably contributed to that.
Don't think it was even the best lens Fuji made in 2015, let alone ever.
Had it for two years. Now have the 18 1.4 and the 16 2.8 which is sharper than the 16 1.4, wider (a proper 16) focuses almost as close and is free of most of the aberations, apart from vignetting.
Needs an update.
I have 16mm for 4 years, it has fantastic rendering and great sharpness, best overall image quality out of the box compared to my other Fuji lenses. Even compared to 56mm, which is the second best
10-24mm next please 🙏
Looking forward to 23mm lm wr review.
I absolutely love my 33mm 1.4. However, it does have one issue that at least affects older x-trans sensors. Shooting into strong sunlight it will often cause the tiling or structure of the sensor to appear in the image and it cannot be removed. This is a known but rare issue - Fuji tech help in the UK acknowledged that - with the x-trans iii and earlier, but the new lens seems to have such resolving power that it can overwhelm the sensor and create this issue - either that or the internal structure is reflecting in some specific way that does.
No change of aperture prevents it, but a decent cpl filter will, so I use one if I'm shooting in strong sunlight just in case - the benefits of this amazing lens are more than worth the small inconvenience and it's beneficial for reducing glare on windows etc anyway.
I have X-H1 and X-T2, both use the 3rd-gen sensor. I don't know if it affects 4th-gen, perhaps you could test for it on your XT4?
That's not an issue with the lens, it's the sensor. I have the same issue with my X-T2 and the older 35mm f/1.4. Grid flares happen on many cameras, but I think on Fuji it's something to do with the fact that there are far more green pixels, so it creates an even greater purple grid pattern.
Great job Fuji! They've successfully addressed all shortcomings of the original 35mm 1.4, and this is by far the best APS-C lens with this kind of FoV. If I were to nitpick, it's still a bit worse IMHO than the best FF equivalent (Nikon 50mm 1.8 Z) but clearly better than the rest.
I like both Fuji and Nikon, and I would have to agree with you, having used a 50mm 1.8 S lens, on a Z7 rental. Great lens, and the Z7 ain’t too shabby either!
Canon EFM 32F1.4 has better IQ and color IMHO
@@hunglemed I've just cross-compared these two reviews, and Fuji looks sharper and contrasty and with much better flare resistance. Granted, Canon is tested on a higher megapixel body, but I think Fuji would still be sharper even when Canon's image is downsized to 26 megapixels.
0:35 I'm sorry, WHAT??? The 16mm f1.4 is quite possibly the most popular Fuji lens ever, despite its "niche" focal length. People LOVE that lens. I"m one of those people. I know that's not the main theme of your review, but that statement really doesn't sit right with me.
(I don't own the old 35, but many many people have called it "magical", including Palle Schultz here on TH-cam.)
While the 16 mm 1.4 is a great lens, the focal length is too wide for alot of people. To each his own.
I don't like how large it is, and how much it protrudes compared to the compact nature of the old 35 1.4. i would be more inclined to shoot with the older lens with its portability, or even the 35mm f2 before i would consider the 33 1.4
Fuji 33mm 1.4 is around the same size as for example Sigma 30mm 1.4 and Viltrox 33mm 1.4. The Fuji 35mm 1.4 is actually unusually small due to an old lens design and this shows in the corner sharpness and focusing speed (it has to move a large front part of the lens when focusing, which needs powerful but slow motors). The great thing is that you have the choice - you can go with 35mm 1.4 or 35mm f2 if you want small and 33mm 1.4 if you don't want to any compromise in the IQ.
@@quikee9195 nice synopsis
Thanks!
Thanks!
I wish it was $600 lolz. IQ is superb because Fuji prepares these new prime for the demanding 40mp sensor
You give your personal opinion instead of users opinion on XF 16/1.4 and 35/1.4 lenses. Both lenses get generally good reviews. I've never heard anyone told these lenses image quality was not so good except you.
You need to read more reviews
@@christopherfrost I'm reading reviews whole life.
@@djstuc It's easy for those who have passion
@@djstuc Yeap so you just learn this in process of reading reviews and you even don't know about it
Nice! Not quite at the level of the 18mm, but a great lens nonetheless. Think I might go in for this and replace my 35 1.4 which frustrates me every now and again...
I know this is a wack question, but here goes. What happens when you focus on the corner of your chart (but not moving the camera) and look at it and the rest? Is there something to learn from this? And with all these great lenses, I think it's time for in camera stabilization...
I agree with you on IBIS, for £700 there's no excuse for the lens not having it.
You'll probably learn that the lens has a slight field curvature. Chris knows about this, but doesn't mention it in the test unless it makes a big difference in sharpness.
@@djstuc My suggestion was for his own real world use.
@@djstuc Comes in handy using the 90mm 2.0.
What is the best fuji lens for night photography?
XF 50mm f1
The 35mm 1.4 has microcontrast that the high element count 33mm 1.4 will never be able to replicate. They are both great lenses.
I've yet to see anyone show me an example of microcontrast in side-by-side identical images. It kind of seems like folks are seeing ghosts to me.
Microcontrast is resolution. What you, like way too many others mix up with Microcontrast is bit depth/tonal range. And no lens will show more than another, as you cannot even see the full 14-bit RAW file data from you camera, as programs and monitors cannot display it. You will max out at around 10-bit.
Just think a bit logically how a digital image is created and you will understand that only a perfectly corrected lens can display maximum microcontrast and global contrast. How will a less well resolving lens pick up all the fine nuances and details in tones and project it precisely on all the small photosites? Not gonna happen… fine structures will look smeary and thats where people think that old lenses show a higher tonal range, because the smeariness tricks them into seeing more color nuances, while the lens just could not perfectly resolve whats actually there.
Just yesterday I was wondering when you were going to do this review. Lord I wish I had the money for this 33mm and that 18mm. Fantastic lenses! Come to think about it, I wouldn't be surprised if Fuji are working on a replacement for the 56mm too. With them teasing new cameras and possibly higher resolution sensors, I can see why they're replacing their older lenses with ones like this 33mm.
The 56 mk2 has been heavily rumored for 2022. At this point it should be a surprise if it DOESN'T get announced
I really hope they're working on a 10-12mm prime. The Samyang AF and Viltrox 13 aren't cutting it, and the zooms are too dark. I still love the manual 12mm Samyang for video though
fuji making it real hard to hold on to my money here xD
Fujifirst!
Go shave your wife's moustache...
First second!
the original XF35 f/1.4 was / is still stellar
Hi! Are you Greek Orthodox? I see a reference to the Logos in which all are made through him.
The 35 1.4 was trashed on when it first came out and now it's praised for it's character. It's cult following will surely be defending it in the comments.
Omg I like your avatar!
Another forensic lens by Fuji. I’ll keep the old 35mm 1.4
I wish Sony or Sigma did a 33mm and 23mm
As much as I love my original 35 1.4, my wallet hates this video. 🧐
I read a lot of times that xf 16mm f/1.4 is the best fujifilm lens! Hmmm...
only if that field of view works for you. Matters not a jot how good it is if its going to sit in your bag.
okay, the last one will be 23 and its also a fantastic lens too xD
Great new channel icon :)
Wooooo
It's a shame you don't own any medium format camera. I really would love to see some tests of Fuji GFX lenses or Hasselblad.
I think the phrase "It's a shame" has run it's course and should be left to the old grannies sitting on the porch watching the world go by. Along with, "You just wait and see".
@@sclogse1 It's a shame you don't like the phrase ;)
@@sclogse1 The phrase will see a renaissance eventually. You just wait and see.
This lens is ridicoulsly good.
Did I just heard the 16mm 1.4 is not known for great image quality? Rsrsrs….
The price of this lens should be cut in half
Fujifilm joined sterile, technically perfect, flat imaging club with latest 3 lenses.Lenses are bulky, heavy and character is likely wise a bit suppressed (not like those lemons in Nikon Z line). If you want technically perfect photo ,which is not always what art of photography is or looking for video features then is this perfectly fine lens line up.If you want to make art photos I would go for older 35 f1.4 or even for zeiss 32 f1.8 planar. Fuji 33 f1.4 is not replacing old 35 or 32 zeiss it is just another option.
You can always apply vignette, distortion, and soft focus in post to get that magical character.
@@bigd7696 You can not add something what is not there,and things you mentioned are not items which are making lens character.
Odd thing to say about the 35mm f1.4 as not having a reputation for great image quality or was anything particularly special? For real? You've just disqualified yourself for your lack of knowledge and history. Countless users swear by its so-called "magical" qualities, its special and unique characteristics - even by today's standards. I know photographer's who bought into the Fuji system because of this lens alone. The 33mm 1.4 is a very good lens clinically, but does lack the characteristics, that je ne sais quoi if you will when just looking at and comparing directly to the unique optics of the 35mm f1.4. It will remain a favourite among those who have it - and especially by those who sold it only to buy it back again. This is particularly true for those photographer's who regularly print their work. If all we're measuring a lens these days is sharpness, cleaner, clinical looking images (though most of the Fuji line are plenty sharp), have at it. But there is more to many photographer's than simply sharpness and looking at their images on a screen or social media. We must also consider its tonality, colour rendering, 3d pop, and image fidelity among other critical factors. Even the beauty that can be found in the flaws in the glass of a particular lens that lends to its unique character are sometimes very desirable - as we try to mimic such things in post. Then there are the benefits of the 35mm small size and weight - though lack of weather sealing is unfortunate, its loud'ish chatter and slower A/F (though pretty decent on newer Fuji body's), however I know photographer's who have taken this lens through the dusty towns of the southwest U.S. to harsh environments in India and the Middle East with no problems giving them many years of reliability, rarely missing an indented shot. That all being said, most Fuji glass is great, regardless what one decides to buy, or what one can afford in their budget, you will most likely be happy. But let's not fool ourselves that the 35mm f1.4 isn't something special in its own right. Fuji knows it which is why they continue to produce it.
would love to see a large format lens on a full frame sensor
@@djstuc dont know if its fully relevance for this video but i guess it is for the channel it somewhat is
@@djstuc i not talking about aps-c camera but full frame
only though about the large format lens becuase of how they render the image and if i could get at least the midel of the image ( what the full frame sensor would cover ) that could be awesome
i own a sony a7r my self and my fav lens to use on it is a old topcon lens
18mm f1.4 is replacement for mediocre 18 f2 and not for 16 f1/4 which performance is pretty good.It seems that reviewer mixed up some things ,maybe too much reviews lately.
Corner sharpness is a bit dissapointing after the stellar 18mm review.
Of course one could focus on the corner of the frame just to see the results you get. The distance to the corners is longer than the distance to the center of the chart, after all...
@@djstuc Yes I am. The 18mm is better.
The 33mm is great, but not as good.
@@djstuc Why are you so hostile? I never said the difference was major, just dissapointing to me.
I'm looking for a lens and the 33mm fits my focal lenght preference. The 18mm doesn't.
It's dissapointing because I believed Fuji had commited to an optically "perfect" design for these lenses. It's fairly certain that the next camera release will have a 40+ MP sensor, so any softness will be amplified.
Given the hefty price tag (And weight for APSC) these lenses absolutely deserve scrutiny.
@@djstuc If one was wanting perfect sharpness from wide open then being disappointed in this lens would be the expected reaction. Some people just have higher standards. And yes, there are lenses that are perfect from wide open, so it is not an unrealistic expectation either.
@@djstuc A bit dissapointing compared to the 18mm*
These charts are made to show those exact small differences. I can clearly see it (Even if minor) and Chris also mentions "it's a little softer". Compare that to the 18mm review.
The real world of photography is what you make it. Some people enjoy Polaroids and others GFX 100S.
Disappointed! Not neutral in this conflict. I always liked your videos, still do, but disappointed in you chosing one side. Did you know the first casualty of war is the truth?
What do the British say? where Iraqi weapons of mass destruction are?
Imagine paying $1000 for a 50mm f/2.1 equivalent lens with „ok“ image quality.
You can’t be talking bout this lens then.
Imagine buying cameras from a company selling gaming consoles
@@voorachter2733 🤣
@@voorachter2733 🤣🤣 or tv.
A bit hyperbolic and doesn't give credit where it's due, you could have done better. Like this: "Imagine paying $800 for a premium 50mm f/2.1 DOF equivalent APS-C lens with great image quality. The Nikon Z 50mm 1.8 outperforms it for less."
Sigma has the right idea with their 1.4 APS-C trio.