Other than landscapes, how often is the corner in focus anyway? Good call, seems like a neat lens.

Same here! Currently working on a photobook project with the XF18MMF2 @xftales Only shooting in black and white and 1:1 crop for a year

Do you shoot a lot of portraits? People often like portraits with a bit more blur and less contrast. Sometimes other pictures with less blur too. But these things can all be edited in post so I'd take the sharper lens.

Because objective sharpness tests can't adequately capture how pleasing a lenses "look" can be, which is highly subjective. Sharpness and perfect bokeh are important for commercial product and fashion photography, but less so for more artistic work

@@CianMcsweeneyperfect ‘bokeh’ is absolutely not required in fashion photography lmao open a magazine

@@dva5610 fashion photography extends beyond just magazine work these days

Yesterday I made the same transition. I had the 23mm 1.4 for a long while but the newer 33mm 1.4 for some reason spoke to me. I replaced the 23mm for the 33mm and will be shooting the 33mm all day today. After some tests after the purchase yesterday, I can tell my I won’t regret my decision

@@davidgaritta9195 are we referring to the new 23mm 1.4 WR here? I love it but often have to walk a lot, am wondering if a 33mm will fit me better.

Used to be that good looking lenses was much more common, look at canon and Nikon's old film SLR lenses, beautiful compared to today's black glossy plastic look

@@CianMcsweeney A good half of why I like shooting vintage Nikon glass. Looks good mounted to an a7III and a7IV and most of it holds up optically

The sound of xf 35mm f/1.4 reminds me of a dot matrix printer.

@@quikee9195 haha that is surprisingly accurate actually.

I used the f/2 at a wedding, on several trips abroad and portraits, it's pretty solid. However, it has some horrible barrel distortion, so when you photograph up close it overcorrects to extreme pincushion. Its close focus performance is also quite horrible. It doesn't sit well with me, knowing the 50 and the 23 are corrected for distortion, but for some reason they didn't care to fix it in this lens. I didn't know these things when I bought it, so i switched back to the 1.4. I use it in conjunction with the 16-80, so if I need weather sealing, some flexibility and don't care about distortion I'll just use that.

@@stinkystealthysloth I ended up with the same 2 lenses in my everyday kit as you. I just adore the 35mm f/1.4. It’s my favorite lens, probably because I’ve used it to take photos at some happy occasions in my life, but also for the amazing color rendering. It seems to have the ability to read my mind and give me the shots I’m envisioning, and sometimes it gives me better shots than I could have even imagined.

it is

Yeah.. Waiting for this comparison 🙌

Not really.

The sigma is better that both fuji 35mm’s. Especially agains the 35mm f1.4 … urgh.. there is nothing “Magical” about that lens. Just a lot of flaws…

​@@recepuenel1 what sort of flaws your talkin' about?

Have you chosen the 35 f2 or the 33 f1.4?

@@Jgheiler still got both but I do use the 33 a lot more. Still, can’t beat the 35/2 size..

LITERALLY ME RN! Haha, I'm also between the Fuji 16mm 2.8, the 16mm 1.4 and the 18mm 1.4. Did you decide one?

My rationale for switching from XF 35mm f/2 to XF 33mm f/1.4 (and not choose XF 35mm f/1.4, Viltrox 33mm f/1.4 or wait for SIgma 30mm f/1.4) was that I like the "normal" focal length, so I will probably shoot a lot with it and for a long time (next 10 years), so I want the best lens for that.

@@quikee9195 this might be one of the greatest answers ever. I'm convinced. 50mm is my favorite focal length. Wide angle zoom for youtube videos, and 50mm for occasional portraits. But the 33mm will be my daily driver. Thank you.

I traded the 35mm f2 in against the 33mm 1.4 and haven't regretted it for a second, even though the f2 is a great lens. The clarity and speed of autofocus are amazing, just watch out for the issue I describe above if you're shooting near the sun with a sensor older than the latest. There's a fix, just be aware before buying

Forget the 33mm and move on, you already have the sweetest lens🙂

This is exactly wat Chris said, the XC and XF 35 F2 are exactly the same lens optically, so the XF 35 f2 offers you better build quality and weather sealing, although it's not optically superior to any of the f1.4 lenses. Although it's quite good. That was my first Fuji lens, but then I replaced it the 35 f1.4. I'm quite happy with it, I don't see myself upgrading it to the 33 f1.4, as I tested it and I found it too clinically sharp for my taste.

I started to dislike the 35mm f/2 because of the extreme focus breathing and soft close-focus performance is annoying (need to remember to stop down).

You see a soft halo around the objects when close focusing, and the objects aren't as sharp. It's essentially the same issue as with the 23mm f/2 but the 23mm is criticised over it all the time, while most people with 35mm f/2 don't even notice it.. I wonder why.

It's optically the same as the xc 35mm f2, as he stated in the video. They are just different in build quality.

Have you noticed anything wrong with the performance of your f2? Are you in anyway disappointed with the images you have produced with it? In real world use what improvement would the 33mm f1.4 bring? And at what cost? This excellent review of the 3 lenses only focuses really on their optical performance and build. What about the ergonomics? The new 33mm is not only a lot more expensive but also a lot bigger and heavier than the f2 and much more indiscreet. I would hate to put it on a X-E3/4 , X-T20/30 0r XPro model. If you are going to predominately use the new 33mm inside as a studio queen or outside for astro photography, I can see the value in it, but otherwise the f2 is a very fine high performing lens with good AF in a compact body. It is ideal for general walk about use, travel, landscape and street. You might need the extra performance of the 33mm at the margins, but I reckon you would miss the f2 if you sold it to help finance its purchase. Opitically the only real fault with the f2 is the slight softness with close up images. But that is an issue that macro lenses are there to solve, and they do close up much better than a standard lens.

@@richardhale9664 Thank you ever so much for your response Richard, I completely agree! I absolutely love my little 50mm f2 and cannot say a bad word about it! The image quality, weather sealing, size & autofocus are excellent qualities and I would, no doubt, regret parting with it. The predicament I have is that I’ve doubled up focal lengths with the 50-140 & the 50 f2 (my initial lens purchase after moving over from Sony) and now I’m in need of something that bit wider to widen the focal length of my day to day "do it all lens". I predominantly use the 50-140 at around 70, 90 & 140 as I love the compression of those longer focal lengths but have found myself in need of something wider than 50mm, hence the 33mm/35mm, probably paired with an ultra wide 9mm for those infrequent interior/architectural/landscape shots. My current thought process is; I use an X-T3 with battery grip on most of the time which puts weight and ergonomics a little lower on the list (everything is lighter than the 50-140!!), that said, I understand the 33mm weighs the same as a coke can which does make the 35f2 all the more appealing, however, if I can get the same or improved image quality as my 50 f2 but with that marginally wider focal length, then it’s worth the slight compromise in weight… which is where the 16-55 2.8 enters the consideration - I’d have the wide and mid focal lengths covered and only need to carry the two lenses for pretty much all occasions (but with that there’s the sacrifice of the additional 1.4 aperture, though as you say, the excellent Fuji ISO deals with the problem of low light and the 50-140 tends to bokeh cravings - there is indeed a lot to be said for the little 35 f2, it really does tick most of the boxes doesn’t it! Thank you very much again for your advice, I shall hang on to my beloved little 50 f2 and get to the camera shop to try all of the aforementioned My warmest regards Ben

@@benbeattie4609 The difference between 33 and 35mm is tiny and likely to be unnoticeable in real world use. To get a noticeable widening of FOV you really need to drop to 30 or 27mm. Fuji's 27mm pancake is wonderful but has slow continuous AF. This does not bother me as I use mine only in single AF mode on my X-E3. A better choice for you may be Sigma's new 30mm f1.4. As a fan of the 40-45mm FF equivalent FOV. I am quite tempted by this lens myself for use on my larger Fuji bodies. Having re-read what you say, in your case, for something significantly wider than 35mm a 23mm f2 WR would be an ideal choice. It's not a lens I own, but it is basically the same idea as the others in the range, and if my 35mm and 16mm are anything to go, by a stunner. Walking around with the 23mm and 50-140mm you would have almost all subjects covered.

Viltrox has a 13mm 1.4 that also looks very nice.

Maybe it's time for Fuji reviews to see how the lens is doing when shooting in a square format. And another thought, how the lens is doing when shot in the same ratio as say, the film, The Cranes Are Flying, which with it's moving camera, manages amazing detail across the frame, obviously using wide lenses, but the format, like television dramas from the period automatically cropped the sides. And the top and bottom, as all formats except square does!

@@sclogse1 I have to think what these words can be applied to (do you mean measuring actual MTFs or asking Fuji to build a multi-aspect ratio camera). This Soviet film I should watch.

How so?

Sigma 30mm f/1.4

@@quikee9195 thanks