Whether you like this lens or not will depend on your use cases. I replaced my Fuji 35mm f1.4 with the Zeiss 32mm f1.8 because I felt the latter had better color saturation. It worked well for photographing my family and family events. Looking back, I admit that my issue with the Fuji lens could have been due to my inexperience. But once I started using the Zeiss lens the Fuji lens not missed. i have since sold both lenses. I would probably revisit the Fuji 35mm f1.4 is I still had it.
I bought this lens back in 2018 for my Fuji cameras, and already had the 35mm f/2. This lens outperformed the 35mm f/2 in almost every aspect, except for its bokeh rendering, which was harsher than the Fuji's 35mm f/2. That being said, I sold both and bought the optically superior 35mm f/1.4. I gotta be honest, the Fuji 35mm f/1.4 was the best lens of the three, at least optically speaking, but ended up selling it and getting the Touit 32mm f/1.8 in 2020. Why? The Touit 32mm f/1.8 It has a nice pop when shooting at smaller aptures that the Fujis just don't have. So for street and cityscapes, the Touit is perfect. Now for faster apertures, the Fuji 35mm f/1.4 is still king, and it has the nicest bokeh of these three. The good thing about the Fuji system is that you have a few 35mm lenses to choose from, so there's one for every shooting style/budget for the X-Mount.
I chose the Touit32 for my XE-1 and sold my XF35 f2 but I never used the XF35 f1.4 and sometimes I regret not buying it... But when I am shooting with the Touit with the first generation of Xtrans and especially in monochrome, its something unique. Maybe having both is the ultimate solution though.
Alexandros Kolovos I agree, this lens on my X-Pro1 is gold. Honestly, it performs excellently on my X-T2 and X-T30 as well, so there's not much to complain about. I've found the bokeh to be identical in rendering as that of my ZEISS Planar T* 50mm f/1.4 ZE, except it had to be stopped to about f/2.8 to perform like the Zeiss Touit wide open at f/1.8. In a nutshell, classic Zeiss rendering, but with punchy colors, and autofocus all in one small package. Add Fujifilm's film simulations, and boom, the perfect combo!
There's uniqueness with this lens. Some people don't like the classic rendering and that's OK. I bought one but it was on sale and I had tons of discount. It wasn't anymore than a new 35 f2 WR. However as much as I liked the 35 f2, up close it still wasn't that sharp and I love shooting the 50mm fov up close and wide open. The Zeiss outperforms both in that department which is the most important to me. Also its significantly wider with the zeiss being equivalent of 48mm vs 53mm. It's quite noticeable and it makes a good bit of difference with how the images feel. I really don't understand the hate, yeah it's expensive new but wait until it's on sale or get a good used copy. It's a good lens, doesn't deserve all the hate it receives. I'll be making my own review.
I used this lens and have to say that I have different experience.The copy which I used had latest issue and XT-3 behind where focus was fast and no chatter of aperture.Switching to Xpro-1 caused aperture chatter and so is also Fujifilm 35mm f1.4 too,so it might be camera dependent and not only lens. Other than that my copy was razor sharp and contrast was good straight from f1.8.
My main lens for Travel Photography, I’ve the Distagon 12/2.8, but this one get’s the grand majority of my shooting time. It’s “look” reminds me so much of the vintage look of a Rolleiflex. I’ve never shot the Planar 45/2 for Contax, but several friends say the rendering is bang-on. Loving old Rollei Zeiss HFT 35mm Film Lenses, especially the Planar 50/1.4 and 1.8, I’ve yearned for a APS-C Zeiss Normal Lens, and AF is just a bonus(that sadly rules out Video), but I grab the old Rollei Zeiss HFT Lenses for any Videos. Lastly is the price now!!! On the used market, you can get this Touit Planar for -or- less than $300 if you look hard enough, and don’t mind Pre-owned.
I love the colour rendition with this lens on my a6000 and a6300 I picked mine up second hand I also like the fact it's a light lens and easy to carry for street photography
Got this lens at 280GBP used in Hong Kong back in 2018. Chose this instead of the Fuji 35 1.4 which was similar priced because I have never tried a Zeiss and I preferred a lens that is slightly wider. Totally agree on your comments criticizing its optical performance and overpricing, although the auto focus performance of this lens is better on newer fuji cameras and actually is on par with the also old 35 f1.4. I always take raw and do post-editing, but I must say the color it produces is very different to Fuji lens, which I prefer. I mainly used it for street photography and personally, this is my favorite lens of X-Mount, along with the 56 f1.2.
This lens can be quite a bargain on the used market. I got a near perfect one for about half the retail price. However, on both my Sony cameras, the focusing was hit-or-miss. Definitely not acceptable for the price. Zeiss is aware of this, and says that they can fix it with a firmware update. The owner cannot do the update; the lens must be sent to Zeiss for service. The service is free, and I've heard that it only takes about a week. I've sent mine in, but haven't gotten it back yet. We'll see.
You might even prefer the Fuji XF 35mm f/2 for its very tiny size, quiet and fast focus, sharp optics, closer focus, better bokeh, build quality, weather sealing, in camera distortion/vignette corrections, and low price. Note that the apertures are almost identical. Zeiss 32/1.8 = 17.8mm aperture. Fuji 35/2 = 17.5mm aperture. So DOF vey close. Fuji just has slightly narrower FOV.
Yea, I think it is a bit overpriced and noisy when focusing but I love this lens. It is my favorite lens for street and portrait when using my old A6000.
Hmmm. I mean. Zeiss got their rep originally by coming up with the first somewhat good 50s I think. Like back in the film days. Now their af lenses sometimes play the size game, the same route as Sigma art, and are just as supers harp. Sometimes, like with the 55 1.8,they try a balance of sharp but small. In that case going for only 1.8. And that lens isn't perfect but still widely praised and kinda close. The price sure is hefty though. Disappointments seem rare but happen, the Zeiss 24-70f4sony isn't all that great I heard and I've used a dslr mount Zeiss 24_70 that wasn't anything special either
@@gur262 Zeiss is not great in making zoom lenses. Their most of the Milvus line up is great if you can manual focus. I waited to get a steal of a deal on those lenses and I am very happy. Now I shoot more manual lenses that af ones. I used af lenes in heavy populated situations - eg when shooting on the street between traffic light intervals.
Their cine zooms are good tho. Those just costs an arm and a leg. I have mixed feelings about Sigma. I have never tried their Art lenses, which seems to be good based on popular opinion. I just remember Sigma as the company that made super clunky clone lenses with poor AF. When they came up with the EX series they somewhat caught up with the regular line up of the 1st-party lenses. Interestingly, Sigma lenses used to be all-metal but while their optical quality improved they moved to use mostly plastic and glue. Albeit with higher tolerances for internal play.
one thing zeiss seems to do very well is color rendition. i might be wrong, but i always have the impression zeiss lenses perform above average, maybe among the top 3.
Sam Sen ...and hopefully a load more subscribers. People appreciate his passion for camera lenses, clear voice and his easy to understand, sincere reviews.
@@hablemosde1950 if you're happy to over spend for mediocre sluggish lenses when even third party Chinese offerings are superior, then more fooled you.
The issues you have on your Sony Camera, I dont see it on my Fuji X-T100, and yes i mean the problem with aperture and the Autofocus. The image quality is awesome, much way better than the fuji 35mm f1.4 and comparable with Fuji 35mm f2. I decided to go with zeiss 32mm because it's wider and have better aperture, also the logo of "Carl zeiss" makse Photography more enjoyable.
Surprisingly low performance for this brand. Personally, I have the Mitakon Speedmaster 35/0.95 mark II which you have also happened to review, and I'm quite happy with it.
I thought the angry Geiger counter noises the two Samyang AF 35mm lenses made was annoying but this is something else. (Even if it is reasonably quiet.)
Hello Chris, great video as always. I have to point out that the AF performance does change when upgrade the camera. If you want to show the actual AF performance on current day gears, it would be nice for you to upgrade the body. For exemple, a Nikon Z mount lens will always beat E mount for AF performance in your testing. The reason is not E mount lens is inferior, but A7R2 is really NOT the best AF performer (neither is a5100).
I think you have a point about the performance, but actually the most problems with af is in the lens itself and also the most users don't use the very last camera bodys, so I believe the variety of camera body he had bought is just about right, Christopher widely says that he is a independent reviewer so as his money's tree to invest in new gear, cheers!
@@davidvicencio5259 What you said is true for most of the DSLR systems. But I assure you that for mirrorless systems, the camera body accounts for 80% of the AF performance. The reason is very simple, there's NO second sensor above the mirror for fast and reliable optical AF as in DSLRs. Thus the AF purely depends on software and algorithm, hence the hesitation. You cannot cheat physics. Take another example. Take a DSLR and a lens, shoot through view finder, you'll get a normal AF. Then shoot on live view, most of the time the AF is a lot worse. That's the same lens, you see? Mirrorless systems are pure live view AF. I use A7III body and the most "AF hesitation" showed by Chris does not appear in my use case.
@@leoren5128 thank you for your answer, really kind of you, I get it... I guess Chris can add this detail in further videos because is something to consider, maybe always to think about a certain development in performance in newer cameras, I'm really ok with how it is because I have a a6000 and like to manual focus and im not thinking of buying new gear... Glad of this conversation, see you!
How does this lens compare to Sigma 30mm 1.4? Great video as always. :) I am waiting for a review of those ugly looking Viltrox lenses for APS-C mirrorless cameras. Did you have a chance to test them out?
The Sigma 30mm f1.4 is a good lens for the price and it's very very sharp, but I didn't love using it. It has a very big problem with chromatic aberration, the worst I've seen and it's autofocus is below average especially at lower apertures, plus the focus ring got very dirty and I couldn't clean it.
Błażko The release of the Viltrox f/1.4 Trio has been postponed due to the coronavirus. Viltrox hasn't provided a time frame for their release. It seems like they are working with Tokina since they will also be releasing the same rebadged lenses. They have already done so with the Viltrox PFU RBMH 85mm f/1.8 STM and the Tokina atx-m 85mm F/1.8 FE, and both lenses share the same optical formula. Check out this article: www.diyphotography.net/tokina-promises-five-new-e-mount-lenses-in-2020-including-23mm-33mm-and-56mm-f-1-4-for-aps-c/
@@saadazzahrani this is a perfect summation of this lens. I used to have the Sony 35mm 1.8 OSS but when it was unfortunately stolen, I replaced it with the Sigma 30mm 1.4. while it IS sharper, it misses a lot more shots and performs much worse in low light despite the faster aperture.
Test for the sony 10-18mm ultra wide! theres not much detailed review online and it is a very old lens with no alternatives and seemed to be decentered in most of the copies
Thanks for the review Chris. I can't speak for Sony users, but for Fujifilm shooters, Fuji's excellent 35mm f/2 seems like a better bet - IQ is similar, faster and quieter autofocus, even more compact, arguably better looking and cheaper too.
Hi Chris, would you please review the Tokina ATX-i 11-16mm F2.8 CF ? Ps. It is the latest version of ATX PRO. Also please mention adaptability on Fuji x mount.
Hi Christopher. I always watch and follow your videos. I would like to know if you would ever make a comparison between different generation lenses. For example: Tamron 28-75 vs Tamron 24-70 vs Tamron 24-70 G2 or Tamron 70-200 IF LD vs Tamron 70-700 VC vs Tamron 70-200 G2. I think it would be interesting in many ways. Thanks for your time in all your videos. Excellent work. Greetings from Mexico.
For a change could you please review Sony 135mm 1.8 gm, i really want to pull the trigger on this one but but a bit unsure compare to the sigma 105 1.4 art By the way i always consider your opinion on lenses before get one ofbthem myself, thanks
And also if you do a review for this lens try this. Turn on the camera with both the AF and OS on, than turn the OS off. After that turn the AF off and than turn the AF back on. See if the AF doesn't work or if it is only my copy of the lens. By the way, I use the Nikon mount version. Thanks.
Probably also made by Tamron as Zeiss Batis series lenses, looks very similar and some materials are also identical, also with new Tamron series lenses. But all of them are great lenses, including Tamron lenses. Of course this lens is totally overpriced.
Good review, whilst a Zeiss user and fan but felt /feel that the Fuji versions were not good value and out performed by Fuji glass. I also have worries about the aging of that rubber ring. Nor Zeiss's best efforts. 😎😎😎
With so many great and affordable lenses around today (Sigma 30mm 1.4, Samyang 35mm 2.8, Tamron 35mm 2.8 ) I dont really get it ..... why would anybody buy such an expensive lense ?
Yeah this lens is really only good if you are into that planar character (which all have that same kind of bokeh.) I love it but I can see how it's not for everyone or for every moment.
What kind of joke is this lens supposed to be, when Sigma primes exist and don't sound and focus like a shitty RC car from Family Dollar? And have optical quality an order of magnitude greater for half the cost? Great review btw.
Here's a guy, self proclaimed lens expert, that knows very little about lenses. I simply laughed when you said at 4:17 "busyness" and "sloppy" about the bokeh. If i were you i would present the lens, show everything about it and refrain from giving an opinion.
Yeah, the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 gives *MUCH better and "blended in" bokeh* than this Zeiss lens, not to mention the fact that the AF on this thing is beyond DOGSHIT compared to the Sigma or even the *Zeiss branded* Sony 24mm f/1.8!!
I have the sigma 30 mm f 1.4 , sony 35 mm f 1.8 and this lens, this lens is way better than the other two as far as sharpness and colours are concerned. The problem is that most of the reviewers who reviewed this lens did it on a sony NEX camera or an A6000 where the autofocus sucked, I use it with a new ZVE10, the autofocus works fine! There is a new firmware update for this lens which fixes most of its AF issues. The planar lens design gives it the legendary '3D pop' effect that the zeiss lens are known for. The T* coating handles light very well, unlike the cheap sigma or viltrox. The videos and photos are way more cinematic with this lens, and the bokeh has a special character to it which some might like, some might not.
Well, over the last decade or so, Zeiss has mainly been known for good manufacturing and build quality, rather than supreme image quality (always on the good side though, just rarely the best) or outstanding technical features, but I have to say that this one is a particularly awful example. Definitely no recommendation for it, even if it was half the price!
