Why do you say the lens "is just plastic"? It's a metal body with rubber rings. It's just the lens hood that is plastic. I actually love the haptics of the Touit lenses, but I know it's an opinionated topic. Anyway, otherwise nice review. I also think this lens is underappreciated and I believe the reasons are mostly pricing and timing. The Touit line of lenses came out after their Fujifilm counterparts. The Touit 50mm was kind of unique at the time due to the full macro capability, but the Touit 32mm came with a slower aperture at a higher price than the Fuji XF 35mm f/1.4. The Touit 12mm was a bit wider than the Fuji 14mm, but again more expensive. I first got the Touit 12mm for landscape photography and that lens impressed me so much (in terms of image quality, character and haptics) that it made me get the Touit 32mm despite the fact that I already owned the Fuji XF 35mm 1.4 (the first Fuji lens I bought) and the XC 35mm 2.0 (that one I bought after my first daughter started to get too fast for the XF 35mm 1.4 to keep up). In terms of autofocus performance, I feel that the Touit 32mm sits in between the XF 35mm 1.4 and the XC 35mm 2.0), at least on my X-T3. The Touit seems fast enough for my needs that I'm thinking about selling the XC 35mm 2.0 and just keep the old Fuji 35mm 1.4 and the Touit 32mm 1.8. I like them both.
Feels plastic to me? I owned the FA Limiteds, which are an all metal construction and similarsize to the touit, and they are weighty and quite obviously metal. This lens is so light and feels plastic, that I assumed it is was plastic but I could be wrong. I don't really mind plastic lenses per se as long as the glass is good, plastic can keep weight down vs metal. Dropping a plastic lens or metal I don't think makes a huge difference anyway, you'll likely bugger/decenter the optics regardless. So I don't hate on the lens for its plastic or plastic metal vibes 😁, I just find the rubber rings super bad, non textured and lacking that tactile feedback but of course like you said this is subjective point. Thanks for commenting.
@@SummersSnaps Maybe it's because I've used the Touits in Iceland outside in the cold that makes me sure they're metal ;) But there's also this old interview by Zeiss in which they talk about the construction of the lens and say that the barrel is all metal: ruclips.net/video/mXFFdg73b98/видео.html But generally speaking, you're right. I also use some plastic lenses that just feel fine and work great. So, it shouldn't be a decisive factor.
@timos.5960 To add to your point, many companies, particularly German, will choose only the most effective materials to meet the best end item quality or need. If that means a particular grade of plastic, mixed in conjunction with other alloys, metals, and materials, then so be it. Plastic with such undeniably meticulous companies such as Zeiss needn't apologize. They've chosen their materials for a very good reason. Lastly, I just received my 32mm Zeiss Touit. Yes, and as you correctly point out, the outer casing is indeed metal. Also, the rubber focus ring is beautiful and not something that (as often reported) will wear poorly. Enjoy shooting! 👍
All modern Zeiss lenses were made of metal, albeit a lighter alloy was used to keep the weight down (the batís line for Sony too). The only downside to these lenses besides the dated af motors and ca is the focusing ring which tend to become loose with age/use. All in all they render color beautifully!
Great comment, very insightful. I have been looking at the 12mm as well but I already have the viltrox 13mm now which is much faster and also has incredible image quality. But I very well might pick up the 12mm as well, it seems extremely unique.
I liked this video a lot. I have moved away from shooting Fufjifilm mostly and moved to Sony. I've been getting used to the Batis 18 and Batis 40mm that they make for Sony. They have a real character too. Because of shooting with those Zeiss lenses I'm thinking of getting the Touit lenses now for my remaining xpro1 and xh1 especially since they have so much more character than other Fuji-mount lenses. Thanks for this video! -DK
Good review, thanks! I first saw the Touit 32mm while using my X-T1. Now owning a Sony a6600, I opted to grab this Zeiss lens. Not for the pixel peeping, but for the character this lens exudes. Really, what you first were directing your many good points towards. The Zeiss T coatings remind me a bit of that special ED Nkkor glass. Very special.
Oath! It's so frustrating! On X Mount alone we have 23 ,33 and 56 varieties from so many third party now (Viltrox, Sigma, Tokina etc) and there isn't a lot in it for variety of rendering. So boring!
This may be a scaled down version of the Contax G Planar 45mm f2 (which has an effective focal length of 47mm) which is reputed to be one of the sharpest standard lenses of the film era which incidentally was also an autofocus lens.
You manage to make cats and flowers not boring! Impressive! I'm not happy to hear it has bad build quality? I'm sure I heard others say it makes the Fuji lenses feel like toys in comparision...
Well... I have several Fuji lenses and they vary in terms of build quality. Some have loose aperture rings, some stiff. Some the lens hoods come off awfully easily, others better secure. I wish Fuji had some consistency here. But back to the Zeiss... no... it is garbage when considering what it is housing. Feels like plastic, the focus ring is barely detectable by feel, it also becomes loose like the aperture ring, basically the aperture ring here is a rubber ring glued down... pfft. These Touit's deserve metal housing, takumar focus rings, something bloody classy. This stuff is modern and cheap, aesthetics over functionality.
I used this lens once, many many years ago, and kept the XF 35mm F/1.4, focus was more accurate on the fuji, It's more expensive than the Fuji 35mm F/1.4 (even today), it is half a stop slower, it is not a bad lens and it may perform better no, but back when i tested with the X-T10 & X-Pro 1 (which was slow to focus anyway) the XF was the better purchase for me. now today, if I was going to drop £600+ on a lens for that kind of focal length it would be the XF 33mm F/1.4 or the XF 30mm Macro. Even 2nd hand in UK, this lens is way more expensive, the Zeiss name adds to the cost/demand i'd guess Nice review though
There's really no right and wrong when it comes to optics and we all like different qualities they give. My motivation for making this video was that any time a discussion came up for options for a 30mmish lens for Fuji X mount it was never ever mentioned as an option (and I thought this was a real shame). I think because of its semi unique properties it deserves at least a mention in the conversation. But as always price is a factor, which is why I tend to say only get this if you see it for a good price. I picked up mine used for around $400AUD and that's a pretty good deal seeing as they go for around $1000AUD new. New they are too expensive I agree, and I think of recent their used prices have gone up also (as you pointed out). There was a time they were on eBay for $200 or so, absolute steal at this price. It just goes to show though, now SIRUI have released the 'Sniper' trio, one is a 33/1.2 and that thing has character but I think errs on the side of too many flaws to make it genuinely a super release. This Touit I feel hits that sweet spot in terms of optical performance, character and a shift away from clinical (without too many of the hurdles associated with that shift). FWIW, I now have the XF56/1.2RWR, and that thing has WORSE AF than the Touit 32. Absolutely shameful for Fuji to update this 56 without insisting on it being driven by LM... urgh. Anyway, thanks for commenting. Put out an price alert for the Touit at a price you can afford. It takes awhile to really master it but its absolutely super under the right conditions.
@@SummersSnaps that is interesting about the 56, I've not heard that complaint about speed (granted others have mentioned it is not quick, but not as slow as the 10yr old plus lenses. I was seriously considering the XF56 F/1.2 but I tested and got a great deal on the Sigma 56 F/1.4 (for 1/3 of the price) and was so impressed with the quality and the autofocus speed was quick too considering it only has a stepping motor. I pre-ordered the Sigma 23mm F/1.4 and that lens is fast becoming a favourite, it is quick and accurate... I've actually found myself leaving all fuji glass at home and just using the 23mm & 56mm from sigma. They strike the right balance at least for me that they are sharp but not clinical and for me pair well with the 35mm F/1.4
Thanks for this video! I think this lens is overlooked due to thebhigh price in comparison to other same length lenses. Where did you purchase yours from if I may ask?
@@SummersSnaps Thanks! sorry for asking but was it FB Marketplace, Gumtree or a particular second-hand shop? I'm struggling to find any second hands at the moment!
Enjoyed this thanks. Looks like a decent lens, and sadly as I’ve now realised I’m as much a lens collector as a photographer I might need to have a look for one. Your shots were really nice and I also liked the character of the lens. I guess the question is, if I did n’t have the new FujiFilm 33/1.8, why should I not get that, because it is really excellent. The Zeiss does not seem any cheaper, which is one big reason I think people go non-Fuji. The only obvious reason to me could be that the Zeiss’s looks smaller.
When I bough the Touit there was no 33/1.3 LM WR. I recall doing some research and watching some videos where the Touit seemed the clear winner in every regard against the old 35/1.4 and 35/2. And this is what I could not understand, if the Touit was sharper, similar AF, then why was the 35/1.4 so popular and the Touit completely left out of the conversation ?! Don't get me wrong, I am not hating on the 35/1.4, I am sure it has a super rendering because I am a firm believer that lenses that don't score so well are still sometimes (in the right context) able to produce the better image than some of our modern equivalents. I just found it perplexing that essentially two characterful lenses with about the same AF performance, same non WR and with the Touit actually sharper.... why was it getting no love at all... :S Of course now we have the excellent 33/1.4. It will be the better lens in every way over the Zeiss. I might argue, that under the right circumstances (for example f1.8 or f2 is the better photographic aperture choice than 1.4), and the contrast not too high, and AF not crucially important... then the Zeiss might produce the nicer shot. But overall the 33/1.4 LM WR is the better choice. Thing is tho, despite the failings of the Touit 32 I have not rushed out to replace it with the 33/1.4. I kinda like the direction Fuji took with the 50/1 and 50.2. Little and large lenses, completely different in terms of size, weight, cost, performance and case usage. I really wished Fuji pushed the 23 and 33 a little harder and at least got f1.2, so for now I sit and wait. The new upcoming Viltrox 27/1.2 has my interest piqued. Thanks for commenting David.
Yeh, sensible conclusion. I guess I have my optics in two boxes, one where it gets the job done with ease and the other where it might be a little harder but the rewards can often be worth it. I would not recommend the Touit over the 33 LM for someone in general unless they really understand the drawbacks and are willing to accept them. However, it is still quite amazing how often it gets left out of the conversation piece when someone is enquiring about 30mmish options. I was even once in a '3rd party AF only lens for Fuji X Mount' group and submitted a Zeiss Touit 32 shot and was met with one comment "this is for AUTOFOCUS 3rd party lenses only"... 🤦
I have both touit 32 and 50marco. The image is great but don't expect a fast autofocus. As zeiss discontinued tis lenes, don't expect any support from them.
Ehh, for most photography I find my 32 Touit to be pretty snappy, if you want to be dynamically tracking moving subjects than sure it's lacking, but I seriously question how many photographers actually need that
I don't know, I believe so. Have a hunt for Matthew Ruderman, a fellow Aussie YTer. He recently put out a video about this lens too and I believe someone asked him this in the comments or something and he said it does fine.
It’s the Fuji snobs…”….Fujifilm lenses are as good as Zeiss glass.” This is a big reason probably why there aren’t more Zeiss lenses for fujifilm. I’ve wanted Zeiss to port the Loxia series of lenses to Fujifilm forever. It seems ridiculous that Zeiss would leave the photo market as that probably (especially Zeiss on Sony) but CAD is giving lens companies like Sigma, Samyang/Rokinon, Laowa, Viltrox, Sony etc. the ability to eat Zeiss’ lunch on sharpness. Other companies like Pergear with all their brands are getting sharper, with more controlled CA, approaching historically APO levels of control at cheap prices. The goal posts are being moved and the baseline is higher than ever and sometimes with more optical elements, sometimes not. I can see the threats. I would love to see Zeiss do something like Cooke is doing and make a legacy mirrorless set of matched lenses like the Loxia set for every mount and reel back a lot of the other models.
Zeiss killed themselves on the x mount by making hideous looking lenses and pricing them disproportionately. Their was no need but rubber on this lens, it's an amazing lens no doubt, I might even say it's character is better then that of og Fuji 35 1.4 but it falls behind a lot on the looks department, which is a pity since zeiss use to make just good looking lenses.
Fuji 35 1.4 is sharper than Zeiss only at 4 and 5.6, at all the other apertures is softer (center, middle, corner) but the legends say that it's sharp also wide open...
Yeh I can't comment, and also variance in copies could account for a lot of discrepancies. From the videos I found the Touit was certainly cleaner and sharper from the get go than the old 35/1.4 but hey... 🤷
@@SummersSnaps 33 1.4 is surely better (well..Touit is eight years older ) but it's much bigger. Anyway between 1.4 and 1.8 I don't think there is much difference (2/3 stop) for night shots, only in bokeh
For me the main point is not which one is sharper between the Fuji & the Zeiss. Finally sharpness is just a criteria amongst others. For me the point is which one deliver the experience I want to give to my photos. As a planar fan, I can say that the experience on the Zeiss is un achievable on the Fuji. There is something magical about the Planar design and this is exactly what I want.
@@nicolasb.3809 what I noticed on the Zeiss is that it seems brighter (crystal bright) and blows better the lights. When you close it Fuji is sharper but Zeiss delivers more micro-contrast. Then it manages better the lights (no flares, star shapes and so on…)
Yeh a no brainer imo. I have seen this sell new for $1300AUD in my parts, way too much, but if you can get it used under $500 it's definitely worth a look.
Why do you say the lens "is just plastic"? It's a metal body with rubber rings. It's just the lens hood that is plastic. I actually love the haptics of the Touit lenses, but I know it's an opinionated topic.
Anyway, otherwise nice review. I also think this lens is underappreciated and I believe the reasons are mostly pricing and timing. The Touit line of lenses came out after their Fujifilm counterparts. The Touit 50mm was kind of unique at the time due to the full macro capability, but the Touit 32mm came with a slower aperture at a higher price than the Fuji XF 35mm f/1.4. The Touit 12mm was a bit wider than the Fuji 14mm, but again more expensive.
I first got the Touit 12mm for landscape photography and that lens impressed me so much (in terms of image quality, character and haptics) that it made me get the Touit 32mm despite the fact that I already owned the Fuji XF 35mm 1.4 (the first Fuji lens I bought) and the XC 35mm 2.0 (that one I bought after my first daughter started to get too fast for the XF 35mm 1.4 to keep up). In terms of autofocus performance, I feel that the Touit 32mm sits in between the XF 35mm 1.4 and the XC 35mm 2.0), at least on my X-T3. The Touit seems fast enough for my needs that I'm thinking about selling the XC 35mm 2.0 and just keep the old Fuji 35mm 1.4 and the Touit 32mm 1.8. I like them both.
Feels plastic to me? I owned the FA Limiteds, which are an all metal construction and similarsize to the touit, and they are weighty and quite obviously metal. This lens is so light and feels plastic, that I assumed it is was plastic but I could be wrong. I don't really mind plastic lenses per se as long as the glass is good, plastic can keep weight down vs metal. Dropping a plastic lens or metal I don't think makes a huge difference anyway, you'll likely bugger/decenter the optics regardless. So I don't hate on the lens for its plastic or plastic metal vibes 😁, I just find the rubber rings super bad, non textured and lacking that tactile feedback but of course like you said this is subjective point.
Thanks for commenting.
@@SummersSnaps Maybe it's because I've used the Touits in Iceland outside in the cold that makes me sure they're metal ;) But there's also this old interview by Zeiss in which they talk about the construction of the lens and say that the barrel is all metal: ruclips.net/video/mXFFdg73b98/видео.html
But generally speaking, you're right. I also use some plastic lenses that just feel fine and work great. So, it shouldn't be a decisive factor.
@timos.5960 To add to your point, many companies, particularly German, will choose only the most effective materials to meet the best end item quality or need. If that means a particular grade of plastic, mixed in conjunction with other alloys, metals, and materials, then so be it. Plastic with such undeniably meticulous companies such as Zeiss needn't apologize. They've chosen their materials for a very good reason. Lastly, I just received my 32mm Zeiss Touit. Yes, and as you correctly point out, the outer casing is indeed metal. Also, the rubber focus ring is beautiful and not something that (as often reported) will wear poorly. Enjoy shooting! 👍
All modern Zeiss lenses were made of metal, albeit a lighter alloy was used to keep the weight down (the batís line for Sony too). The only downside to these lenses besides the dated af motors and ca is the focusing ring which tend to become loose with age/use. All in all they render color beautifully!
Great comment, very insightful. I have been looking at the 12mm as well but I already have the viltrox 13mm now which is much faster and also has incredible image quality. But I very well might pick up the 12mm as well, it seems extremely unique.
One of the great and under appreciated lenses on both Fujifilm and Sony APS-C system. Glad to see others using it. Cheers
I liked this video a lot. I have moved away from shooting Fufjifilm mostly and moved to Sony. I've been getting used to the Batis 18 and Batis 40mm that they make for Sony. They have a real character too. Because of shooting with those Zeiss lenses I'm thinking of getting the Touit lenses now for my remaining xpro1 and xh1 especially since they have so much more character than other Fuji-mount lenses.
Thanks for this video! -DK
Wish Sony had a real rangefinger type camera like X-Pro2.
Good review, thanks! I first saw the Touit 32mm while using my X-T1. Now owning a Sony a6600, I opted to grab this Zeiss lens. Not for the pixel peeping, but for the character this lens exudes. Really, what you first were directing your many good points towards. The Zeiss T coatings remind me a bit of that special ED Nkkor glass. Very special.
Thank you for taking the time to create such wonderful and useful video!
Great summary and good examples, Eddy! Wish Zeiss made more stuff like this.
Oath! It's so frustrating! On X Mount alone we have 23 ,33 and 56 varieties from so many third party now (Viltrox, Sigma, Tokina etc) and there isn't a lot in it for variety of rendering. So boring!
This may be a scaled down version of the Contax G Planar 45mm f2 (which has an effective focal length of 47mm) which is reputed to be one of the sharpest standard lenses of the film era which incidentally was also an autofocus lens.
You manage to make cats and flowers not boring! Impressive! I'm not happy to hear it has bad build quality? I'm sure I heard others say it makes the Fuji lenses feel like toys in comparision...
Well... I have several Fuji lenses and they vary in terms of build quality. Some have loose aperture rings, some stiff. Some the lens hoods come off awfully easily, others better secure. I wish Fuji had some consistency here. But back to the Zeiss... no... it is garbage when considering what it is housing. Feels like plastic, the focus ring is barely detectable by feel, it also becomes loose like the aperture ring, basically the aperture ring here is a rubber ring glued down... pfft.
These Touit's deserve metal housing, takumar focus rings, something bloody classy. This stuff is modern and cheap, aesthetics over functionality.
@@SummersSnaps someone else said it WAS metal... all most confusing!
@@malthus101 It maybe is, I dunno, feels plastic though..
Gorgeous images. I just bought the old 35mm 1.4f and am looking to possibly pick up this lens as well. Greetings from Scotland!
Scotland! WooOohoOO, my motherland 🥰
If you do let us know how you feel about the two!
Great to see your face pop up on my list!
I'm at 5:30 so far and believe it is pronounced "bucket" like from the 90s tv show Keeping Up Appearances
I used this lens once, many many years ago, and kept the XF 35mm F/1.4, focus was more accurate on the fuji, It's more expensive than the Fuji 35mm F/1.4 (even today), it is half a stop slower, it is not a bad lens and it may perform better no, but back when i tested with the X-T10 & X-Pro 1 (which was slow to focus anyway) the XF was the better purchase for me.
now today, if I was going to drop £600+ on a lens for that kind of focal length it would be the XF 33mm F/1.4 or the XF 30mm Macro.
Even 2nd hand in UK, this lens is way more expensive, the Zeiss name adds to the cost/demand i'd guess
Nice review though
There's really no right and wrong when it comes to optics and we all like different qualities they give. My motivation for making this video was that any time a discussion came up for options for a 30mmish lens for Fuji X mount it was never ever mentioned as an option (and I thought this was a real shame). I think because of its semi unique properties it deserves at least a mention in the conversation.
But as always price is a factor, which is why I tend to say only get this if you see it for a good price. I picked up mine used for around $400AUD and that's a pretty good deal seeing as they go for around $1000AUD new. New they are too expensive I agree, and I think of recent their used prices have gone up also (as you pointed out). There was a time they were on eBay for $200 or so, absolute steal at this price.
It just goes to show though, now SIRUI have released the 'Sniper' trio, one is a 33/1.2 and that thing has character but I think errs on the side of too many flaws to make it genuinely a super release. This Touit I feel hits that sweet spot in terms of optical performance, character and a shift away from clinical (without too many of the hurdles associated with that shift).
FWIW, I now have the XF56/1.2RWR, and that thing has WORSE AF than the Touit 32. Absolutely shameful for Fuji to update this 56 without insisting on it being driven by LM... urgh.
Anyway, thanks for commenting. Put out an price alert for the Touit at a price you can afford. It takes awhile to really master it but its absolutely super under the right conditions.
@@SummersSnaps that is interesting about the 56, I've not heard that complaint about speed (granted others have mentioned it is not quick, but not as slow as the 10yr old plus lenses. I was seriously considering the XF56 F/1.2 but I tested and got a great deal on the Sigma 56 F/1.4 (for 1/3 of the price) and was so impressed with the quality and the autofocus speed was quick too considering it only has a stepping motor. I pre-ordered the Sigma 23mm F/1.4 and that lens is fast becoming a favourite, it is quick and accurate... I've actually found myself leaving all fuji glass at home and just using the 23mm & 56mm from sigma.
They strike the right balance at least for me that they are sharp but not clinical and for me pair well with the 35mm F/1.4
@@9Mtikcus Yeh, Fuji need to lift their game. My workhorse these days is the Sigma 18-35/1.8, a beautiful lens.
Nice review and what an intro!
Thank you! Be sure to check out Alessandro Cortini, a synth wizard!
Thanks for this video! I think this lens is overlooked due to thebhigh price in comparison to other same length lenses. Where did you purchase yours from if I may ask?
I just bought mine second hand which is where I advise most. Brand new it is a bit overpriced for 2023 I think.
@@SummersSnaps Thanks! sorry for asking but was it FB Marketplace, Gumtree or a particular second-hand shop? I'm struggling to find any second hands at the moment!
Enjoyed this thanks. Looks like a decent lens, and sadly as I’ve now realised I’m as much a lens collector as a photographer I might need to have a look for one. Your shots were really nice and I also liked the character of the lens. I guess the question is, if I did n’t have the new FujiFilm 33/1.8, why should I not get that, because it is really excellent. The Zeiss does not seem any cheaper, which is one big reason I think people go non-Fuji. The only obvious reason to me could be that the Zeiss’s looks smaller.
When I bough the Touit there was no 33/1.3 LM WR. I recall doing some research and watching some videos where the Touit seemed the clear winner in every regard against the old 35/1.4 and 35/2. And this is what I could not understand, if the Touit was sharper, similar AF, then why was the 35/1.4 so popular and the Touit completely left out of the conversation ?! Don't get me wrong, I am not hating on the 35/1.4, I am sure it has a super rendering because I am a firm believer that lenses that don't score so well are still sometimes (in the right context) able to produce the better image than some of our modern equivalents. I just found it perplexing that essentially two characterful lenses with about the same AF performance, same non WR and with the Touit actually sharper.... why was it getting no love at all... :S
Of course now we have the excellent 33/1.4. It will be the better lens in every way over the Zeiss. I might argue, that under the right circumstances (for example f1.8 or f2 is the better photographic aperture choice than 1.4), and the contrast not too high, and AF not crucially important... then the Zeiss might produce the nicer shot. But overall the 33/1.4 LM WR is the better choice.
Thing is tho, despite the failings of the Touit 32 I have not rushed out to replace it with the 33/1.4. I kinda like the direction Fuji took with the 50/1 and 50.2. Little and large lenses, completely different in terms of size, weight, cost, performance and case usage. I really wished Fuji pushed the 23 and 33 a little harder and at least got f1.2, so for now I sit and wait. The new upcoming Viltrox 27/1.2 has my interest piqued.
Thanks for commenting David.
Even though the optics are appealing from Carl Zeiss Touit I would definitely go for Fuji 33mm f/1.4 purely for the auto focus and sharpness.
Yeh, sensible conclusion. I guess I have my optics in two boxes, one where it gets the job done with ease and the other where it might be a little harder but the rewards can often be worth it.
I would not recommend the Touit over the 33 LM for someone in general unless they really understand the drawbacks and are willing to accept them. However, it is still quite amazing how often it gets left out of the conversation piece when someone is enquiring about 30mmish options. I was even once in a '3rd party AF only lens for Fuji X Mount' group and submitted a Zeiss Touit 32 shot and was met with one comment "this is for AUTOFOCUS 3rd party lenses only"... 🤦
Heavy as heck.
I have both touit 32 and 50marco. The image is great but don't expect a fast autofocus. As zeiss discontinued tis lenes, don't expect any support from them.
Ehh, for most photography I find my 32 Touit to be pretty snappy, if you want to be dynamically tracking moving subjects than sure it's lacking, but I seriously question how many photographers actually need that
Zeiss does not discontinued this lenses. I bought a 32mm and speaking with Zeiss official dealer, he explain me that's a myth
Is this Len about to use the full 40mp sensor on XT5?
I don't know, I believe so. Have a hunt for Matthew Ruderman, a fellow Aussie YTer. He recently put out a video about this lens too and I believe someone asked him this in the comments or something and he said it does fine.
@@SummersSnaps awesome thx!
It’s the Fuji snobs…”….Fujifilm lenses are as good as Zeiss glass.” This is a big reason probably why there aren’t more Zeiss lenses for fujifilm. I’ve wanted Zeiss to port the Loxia series of lenses to Fujifilm forever.
It seems ridiculous that Zeiss would leave the photo market as that probably (especially Zeiss on Sony) but CAD is giving lens companies like Sigma, Samyang/Rokinon, Laowa, Viltrox, Sony etc. the ability to eat Zeiss’ lunch on sharpness. Other companies like Pergear with all their brands are getting sharper, with more controlled CA, approaching historically APO levels of control at cheap prices. The goal posts are being moved and the baseline is higher than ever and sometimes with more optical elements, sometimes not. I can see the threats. I would love to see Zeiss do something like Cooke is doing and make a legacy mirrorless set of matched lenses like the Loxia set for every mount and reel back a lot of the other models.
Zeiss killed themselves on the x mount by making hideous looking lenses and pricing them disproportionately. Their was no need but rubber on this lens, it's an amazing lens no doubt, I might even say it's character is better then that of og Fuji 35 1.4 but it falls behind a lot on the looks department, which is a pity since zeiss use to make just good looking lenses.
the glass is super pity about the rubber rings expanding with use over time.
Yeh, I mean it's good where it matters I guess 😄
Must admit I think my threshold for 'unusable' is a tad lower than yours... ;)
Yeh I'm becoming a grumpy old man! 🤣
Fuji 35 1.4 is sharper than Zeiss only at 4 and 5.6, at all the other apertures is softer (center, middle, corner) but the legends say that it's sharp also wide open...
Yeh I can't comment, and also variance in copies could account for a lot of discrepancies. From the videos I found the Touit was certainly cleaner and sharper from the get go than the old 35/1.4 but hey... 🤷
@@SummersSnaps 33 1.4 is surely better (well..Touit is eight years older ) but it's much bigger. Anyway between 1.4 and 1.8 I don't think there is much difference (2/3 stop) for night shots, only in bokeh
For me the main point is not which one is sharper between the Fuji & the Zeiss. Finally sharpness is just a criteria amongst others.
For me the point is which one deliver the experience I want to give to my photos. As a planar fan, I can say that the experience on the Zeiss is un achievable on the Fuji. There is something magical about the Planar design and this is exactly what I want.
@@nicolasb.3809 what I noticed on the Zeiss is that it seems brighter (crystal bright) and blows better the lights. When you close it Fuji is sharper but Zeiss delivers more micro-contrast. Then it manages better the lights (no flares, star shapes and so on…)
Ordered one with sony e mount for 200€. Guess thats a great price
Yeh a no brainer imo. I have seen this sell new for $1300AUD in my parts, way too much, but if you can get it used under $500 it's definitely worth a look.
yes this lens is awful, cough cough. no one should buy it and keep the price down. cough cough. its metal body feels like cheap plastic cough cough
😆