Fujifilm Fujinon XF35mmF2 R WR - Silver

Let's get this out of the way, first - This lens is only 13 grams lighter than the F1.4. It's 5MM shorter. So if you are looking for this strictly because it's a lighter and shorter lens, well - it IS, but not significantly. That being said, the lens is much better balanced than the front-heavy F1.4 - so it "feels" lighter when taken as a full package, at least with the X-T1. So don't fool yourself into thinking that there are significant weight and size reductions like you'd see in a pancake lens, because there really aren't. That is in NO WAY a mark against this lens, but I know that many are looking to this for the purposes of "weight reduction" - It will feel lighter because it is better balanced, but 13 grams is insignificant in the overall package - it ends up being 2% lighter overall with the X-T1.As long as you aren't looking for a miracle there, this should be your lens of choice over the 35mm F1.4 unless you truly require the extra stop of light - If you think you do, but you aren't sure, then you probably don't - for several reasons:- It's cheaper. The 35MM F1.4 looks good at sale prices right now, but that's only because the F2 R WR is newer. The price will drop more. This is a small point, because nobody got into fuji to save money.- It's weather resistant. I live in Seattle, and I want something I can take into inclement weather and not worry about. The 16mm and 18-135MM have both done well in this regard- I've taken both out in wet weather (and near waterfalls, etc) and I've had zero issues. This should be similar to the 16MM and superior to the 18-135MM in this regard. Fuji's WR system is very well proven at this point. They will never advertise it as waterproof, because no camera maker really does, but it's about as close as you can practically get at this point. I still wouldn't submerge it, that's just common sense, but there's no need to be afraid of weather.- It SEEMS to focus closer. This may be perception, as according to specs, the F1.4 focuses 7 CM closer. That may be the case, but it seems like that rarely ever happened, even deliberately in macro mode (which is supposedly no longer needed with the X-T1). It's something I always thought was really irritating with the F1.4 - and a huge point in favor for this, as there were plenty of times I couldn't focus anywhere near as close as I wanted to with the F1.4. This may not match technical specs, it may have even been a glitch with my F1.4. This is 100% subjective, and is mostly a matter of my own perception.- It focuses much, much faster, but more importantly, there is no focus hunt on this - It just locks focus immediately, with misses being VERY rare, and usually due to operator error or limits of the camera. The overall focus performance as fast as you can reasonably expect for a lens in this era, and leaves the old 1.4 in the dust.Does it completely replace the F1.4? For most people, I'd guess yes. There's a certain mindset that you must have the largest aperture possible for a focal length, and there are others that will gripe that this is really a F3 equivalent - These are largely irrelevant issues, and the type that typically comes with or leads to bad cases of "gear acquisition syndrome." It is true that this doesn't let in as much light. That can affect you when you are shooting in poor lighting at low ISO. Those are also the same cases that really require someone to operate slow, and focus manually, and really take their time with a shot. If you are the sort of photographer that works very slowly and deliberately, and you already have the 35MM F1.4, the only reason to get this lens would be if you are running into close focusing issues, or if you are concerned about weather resistance. For most people, the F2 will result in sharper images (due to the increased depth of field more so than the lens), and better overall usability - There's a chance that action shots will be blurrier or that you will blur a bit more due to hand shake at slower speeds, but that's largely offset by the difficulty of getting in-focus shots at F1.4.I'm not going to get into some of the pixel-peeping details regarding sharpness, etc - there are other resources that can do that better than I can. I'm quite happy with that so far, but it's also really unsurprising as every single Fuji lens is optically excellent. If your images aren't sharp, the first place to look is at your technique. Chasing sharpness via lenses reaches diminishing returns very quickly, and it's easy to start valuing lenses based on some technical quality that's only really observable in controlled conditions. I speak from experience, as I have gone down that route in the past. Don't get either lens over the other based on technical tests. Make the choice based on how you use it. For most people, that choice should be this lens.Finally, if you've always liked the X100 series, but felt that it was too wide and deserved a 35MM equivalent, this lens will put you closer to that than anything else in terms of focus performance, handling, and overall quality. It's still nowhere near the same in terms of close-focus and overall size - The overall package will still be twice as long. So again, don't expect miracles there.This lens is an excellent performer, and should be part of every Fuji X shooters kit. For someone new to the Fuji X system, this should be the first lens you purchase. For those of us who have been using the system for a while, if you've found yourself frustrated with some of the limitations of the F1.4 in terms of handling and focus performance, then I'd highly recommend you give this lens a try. It has replaced the F1.4 in every way for me. On the other hand, if you have been perfectly happy with the F1.4, the only reason to look at this would be for weather resistance - and only after being very honest with yourself as to if you need it. Both lenses are excellent choices, and every Fuji X photographer should have one of them. Note that I said one - I can't think of any valid reason to have both. If you have some VERY specific use cases, perhaps you do, but you'd already know if you needed both in that case. If you are wondering if you need both and truly aren't sure, then the answer is no.

I got this lens because I was missing too many kids' action shots using my old manual lens, the legendary Pentax Asahi Super Multi-Coated-Takumar 1:1.4/50 (with radioactive! glass, de-yellowed).Upon its arrival I took some side-by-side comparison shots and to my delight the quality of this Fuji lens is marginally better than the classic Takumar. Slightly better contrast, color saturation and sharpness. Very subtle, but noticeable even by my wife when I pointed it out. I would have been happy if it had been merely as good, so I'm delighted to have something a little better.In addition to auto-focus, this lens works far better with the built-in flash. The manual lens required a fixed ISO of 1600, and a prayer. But the Fuji lens works with the flash every time.It's also much lighter and smaller. Here are the weights and sizes of the two lenses, both unmounted and mounted on my Fuji X-E1 having a strap and a thumbrest.Takumar 50mm F/1.4 with *adapter*, polarizer, lens cap and lens shade:unmounted = 14.2oz, 4.25" longmounted: 26.8oz, 5.25" deepFuji XF35mm F/2 with polarizer, lens cap and lens shade:unmounted: 7.6oz, 3" longmounted: 20.3oz, 4" deep6.5 ounces may not sound like much but the weight of the Takumar is all forward so it's a lot less wieldy. That's why I had to get a thumbrest in the first place.I got my start in photography on that old Takumar 50mm F/1.4, and I'll always have a soft spot for it in my heart, a joy to use. But my kids are only young once and I'm tired of missing shots because they're moving too fast to focus. Sure, the X-E1 has the focus-aid "twinkling" effect, but it still takes me at least 10 seconds. That's good enough for posed portraiture but useless for pre-teen kids at play.In some ways the better comparison is to my Takumar 35mm f/3.5. It is a more practical lens on the Fuji X-E1 than the Tak50, smaller and a having a more "normal" focal length for its APS-C sensor, not too "zoomed in." The Tak35 is a fine lens, nice and sharp, but simply doesn't compare to the Tak50 in image quality for contrast or color saturation. When I use the Tak35 I dial in a bit of enhancement on the camera: usually "+1 Shadow" does the trick. Sadly, in practice I end up using the Tak35 most of the time for its compositional convenience and ergonomics, only occasionally bringing out the Tak50 for its image quality and sheer nostalgia. So, if I'm going to desert my first love anyway, the Fuji 35mm F/2 gives me the best of both worlds: a 35mm "normal" frame, with the finest image quality I've ever known. Sorry, honey.TLDR; the Fuji 35mm F/2 gives me the auto-focus I need with the image quality I demand, improved ergonomics, flash compatibility, and a "normal" focal length for Fuji X-E1's APS-C sensor. It goes into manual-focus mode if I'm feeling nostalgic.