I’m a portrait, editorial and documentary photographer myself. I often use the 33mm f/1.4 for portraits and editorial stuff; and my 23mm f2 for documentary/street. I can see how as a landscape photographer the 50mm equivalent doesn’t make sense. I’m not really a landscape photographer but I take my camera on hikes when I go and the 50mm is frustratingly narrow and not telephoto enough. Even as someone who often photographs with it. Landscape lends itself well to extreme wides and extreme compression imo.
I've got the 33mm twice but didn't keep it anymore now. Thought it was due to the focal length that I didn't get used to then. However, turned out getting two 35mm MF lens afterwards and find them match to my tastes and usage. I feel like the slow focus at 35mm makes me concentrate more on every subjects and incidents. Without having the fast-paced pressure on missing any decisive moments. And particularly the imperfect optical quality always add a lot of fun to the outcome. Always think the definition of a good/bad lens has nothing to do with the specs but the practical use of each person. I’ve never try to get the point of what so-called a good lens is. Like after one day use of the xf35/1.4, I instantly traded out and replaced it with Zeiss 32mm which found to be more interesting in street photography to me. Actually It’s still possible that I would suddenly find them interesting and get them back again in the future. But that’s nothing to care or worry atm. Just follow the flow, follow the heart and listen carefully what it tells you, rather than what online reviews had said.
Let me make an argument for the f1.4 - Night time photography! I went to Japan last year, and because the X-T5 has such good IBIS, I was able to go down to 1/8 handheld with the 33mm and get some absolutely beautiful night time street photography shots. They looked sharp and dreamy. Some of my favorite photos I've taken - and my companion lens was the 16-55mm, so it's not like my alternative was a bad lens either.
I always find the the wider the focal length the more harder it is to compose the frame and the longer the focal length the easier it is to get good composition due to less background to fill the frame
Yeah the LMs seem to be the main feature of these new lenses and I suspect that these lenses are geared more towards the hybrid photo/video shooters using the X-H2(S) whereas the f2 lenses are better suited for every day photography. I got the 18mm f1.4 and its a beautiful lens but its pretty chunky, like the 23/33mm. They're not well suited to street photography in my opinion, just due to their size. However, the new 1.4s are exceptional if the extra bulk isn't a problem.
As someone who's shot on FF for years for street. I think the 1.4s are fantastic for street. Love the 18 1.4 and updating my 35 1.4 to the 33 1.4. They're bigger than the F2s, but I would never describe them as clunky. They're still pretty light and small imo.
Why is it not suited for street? Does it not take pictures or something? I really don't understand this misconception of "street photography" gear. Not everyone wants to hide in bushes and take pictures of people. You can use anything you want for photography without limitations.
35mm fuji is my favorite for street, prefer over the 23mm. I just sold my 23mm f1.4 r lm wr as I want the 33mm I have a nice copy of the 35 f1,4 magic one but after using the 23mm new and seeing lots of videos on the 33 I will sell it . The new versions are Fast focus and great sharp with some charactor also! smooth boka.I am sold
Don't really get the 1.4 concerns, to be honest. You can stop it down, can't you? It's nice to have when you need it, that doesn't mean you have to use it all the time.
Only for low-light photography and portrait photography. if not, no one needs the 1.4 because one would like to have everything sharp corner to corner.
I want this lens so bad, but i have a Laowa 33mm F0.95 manual lens and getting another 33 would just be a waste, considering i also have a 18-55 than can shoot 33mm so having 3 lens of the same focal leght would be a little of waste. What i really want is fuji 18mm F2 to be updated to be weather resistant :)
The 33 mm has magic in its optical performace. It pushes the x-trans sensor to its limits. The 18 mm 1.4 amazes with its optical performance and brings a tiny bit of 'magic', too, and semi-macro capabilities. The latter lens work better for me, too, but selling the 33 lens isn't a good idea, because having a benchmark lens is nice especially for portraits. The 27 mm 2.8 you've mentioned is indeed tiny, but it's boring. The images do not shine at all and this lens holds the camera's potential.
![Lethal Company Music Video 🎵 "Follow The Orders" [VERSION A]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QeooZB4Z7RA/mqdefault.jpg)
I’m a portrait, editorial and documentary photographer myself. I often use the 33mm f/1.4 for portraits and editorial stuff; and my 23mm f2 for documentary/street.
I can see how as a landscape photographer the 50mm equivalent doesn’t make sense. I’m not really a landscape photographer but I take my camera on hikes when I go and the 50mm is frustratingly narrow and not telephoto enough. Even as someone who often photographs with it. Landscape lends itself well to extreme wides and extreme compression imo.
I've got the 33mm twice but didn't keep it anymore now.
Thought it was due to the focal length that I didn't get used to then. However, turned out getting two 35mm MF lens afterwards and find them match to my tastes and usage. I feel like the slow focus at 35mm makes me concentrate more on every subjects and incidents. Without having the fast-paced pressure on missing any decisive moments. And particularly the imperfect optical quality always add a lot of fun to the outcome.
Always think the definition of a good/bad lens has nothing to do with the specs but the practical use of each person. I’ve never try to get the point of what so-called a good lens is. Like after one day use of the xf35/1.4, I instantly traded out and replaced it with Zeiss 32mm which found to be more interesting in street photography to me.
Actually It’s still possible that I would suddenly find them interesting and get them back again in the future. But that’s nothing to care or worry atm. Just follow the flow, follow the heart and listen carefully what it tells you, rather than what online reviews had said.
Let me make an argument for the f1.4 - Night time photography! I went to Japan last year, and because the X-T5 has such good IBIS, I was able to go down to 1/8 handheld with the 33mm and get some absolutely beautiful night time street photography shots. They looked sharp and dreamy. Some of my favorite photos I've taken - and my companion lens was the 16-55mm, so it's not like my alternative was a bad lens either.
I always find the the wider the focal length the more harder it is to compose the frame and the longer the focal length the easier it is to get good composition due to less background to fill the frame
i have 33 1.4 & 18 1.4 with X-T5. for me the perfect combo
5:22 wow, amazing shot
Yeah the LMs seem to be the main feature of these new lenses and I suspect that these lenses are geared more towards the hybrid photo/video shooters using the X-H2(S) whereas the f2 lenses are better suited for every day photography. I got the 18mm f1.4 and its a beautiful lens but its pretty chunky, like the 23/33mm. They're not well suited to street photography in my opinion, just due to their size. However, the new 1.4s are exceptional if the extra bulk isn't a problem.
As someone who's shot on FF for years for street. I think the 1.4s are fantastic for street. Love the 18 1.4 and updating my 35 1.4 to the 33 1.4. They're bigger than the F2s, but I would never describe them as clunky. They're still pretty light and small imo.
Why is it not suited for street? Does it not take pictures or something? I really don't understand this misconception of "street photography" gear. Not everyone wants to hide in bushes and take pictures of people. You can use anything you want for photography without limitations.
35mm fuji is my favorite for street, prefer over the 23mm. I just sold my 23mm f1.4 r lm wr as I want the 33mm I have a nice copy of the 35 f1,4 magic one but after using the 23mm new and seeing lots of videos on the 33 I will sell it . The new versions are Fast focus and great sharp with some charactor also! smooth boka.I am sold
Don't really get the 1.4 concerns, to be honest. You can stop it down, can't you?
It's nice to have when you need it, that doesn't mean you have to use it all the time.
And when you use 2.0 aperture on the lens it is SHARPER than the fuji 2,0 lenses!
Voigtlander’s 35 f1.2 would be my choice small like the f2 size and has the magic it, manual focus
Only for low-light photography and portrait photography. if not, no one needs the 1.4 because one would like to have everything sharp corner to corner.
I want this lens so bad, but i have a Laowa 33mm F0.95 manual lens and getting another 33 would just be a waste, considering i also have a 18-55 than can shoot 33mm so having 3 lens of the same focal leght would be a little of waste. What i really want is fuji 18mm F2 to be updated to be weather resistant :)
Based on my use of the 16-55mm f/2.8 Fujinon zoom, I know that I favor the 23mm focal length for general subject.
The 33 mm has magic in its optical performace. It pushes the x-trans sensor to its limits.
The 18 mm 1.4 amazes with its optical performance and brings a tiny bit of 'magic', too, and semi-macro capabilities.
The latter lens work better for me, too, but selling the 33 lens isn't a good idea, because having a benchmark lens is nice especially for portraits.
The 27 mm 2.8 you've mentioned is indeed tiny, but it's boring. The images do not shine at all and this lens holds the camera's potential.
Achieving such image quality in an APS-C setup is the magic.