I think you hit the facts of lens comparison perfectly. Decent/good lenses depend on the skills of the photographer using the lens and camera body. I have a Fujifilm XT5 and a 23mm F1.4 and 33mm F1.4 amongst other lenses. I also have a full frame Leica Q2 that I find myself using less and less, much as I love it. I truly can’t find it does better than the Fuji does in similar photographic situations.
I did the same test with my xpro3 23 2.0. Vs Leica 240 with a 2020 35 f2.0. I printed 11x17. I could not tell the difference either. It was amazing. Thank you for your testing! I recently compared the Leica q2 28mm 1.7 with the Fuji xt5 and new 18mm 1.4. Again I could not tell the difference. Remarkable!
This is such a great video, and one I needed (didn't need?) to see. I own an X-Pro2 paired with the 18mm f2 (for the Leica Q focal feel) and 35mm f1.4. I also use the X-H1 with two zooms for when I'm in the hills. I've always enjoyed my Fuji shooting experiences, especially the X-Pro2, and the images they have produced. I have recently pre-ordered the Q3 having wanted a Q series camera for the past 4 years or so. After watching this video I'm left wondering if I'm doing the right thing. While I do believe very strongly in the 'experience' of the shoot, eventually, when all said and done, it's the final image that we seek. This is what will remain when the feelings have subsided and the memory of that day fades. Thank you for your honest and detailed comparison video ... you've left me wondering!
As much as I love my Leica gear I don’t use it as much as my Fuji stuff. I use the Fuji gear for work and the Leica for my personal work but the lines get crossed once in awhile. I would love a Leica Monochrom but that will not happen.
Great review, your enthusiasm is infectious. I still have my X100V which like my old Fuji XPro1 and Xpro2 were great as were the various lenses. I shoot with Leica M and SL now as I enjoy the full manual experience + the full frame sensors and the shallower depth of field. But Fuji is a cracking system, especially the 16-55 f2.8, very sharp, and wonderful sunstars. Truth is though, a great deal of fun can be had just adapting cheap vintage lenses.
Truth is Marcus that if I did not have photojournalism work still going on I would be all Leica. For the long stuff like moonrises maybe still keep the 100-400 and a small Fuji.
Hi Kirk, love your channel. I am a big fan of Fuji lenses.(I have a range from the 8-16mm to a 200mm f2.) I believe the “best” of Fuji lenses compare very favourablely to Canon top tier lenses that I shot with for nearly 40 years. I had a chance many years ago to buy a Leica film camera with a 50mm Leica lens for a very “reasonable” price. To this day, I regret not having done so! Oh well!!! Best wishes!😊🙏
The reason I moved to Fuji from my much loved Canon gear like you for over 40 years was size, weight, and cost. But the lens quality was equal in my view. Thanks Jeff.
That was a lot of work, Kirk! Thanks for sharing the results! It sure looks like you've found the Fuji sweet spot with the X-T5 and their trinity lenses. It's also reaffirming for me. I've been enjoying my Fuji cameras since 2018 after nearly 50 years of shooting Nikon (and some film Leicas.) I find my X-T3 and X-Pro2 are real pleasures to use with results that are usually better than I am!
Leica is the greatest marketing company in the world. They have created a brand to cater to the high end market but the price to performance ratio is ridiculous. Prob 10% of the cost goes to making the lens and 90% of it is all profit.
Thanks for the comparison. I shoot the following lenses on my Leica M6 and M10 rangefinders: 90mm f/2 Leitz 35mm f/1.4 Zeiss 21mm f/1.4 Leitz I shoot the following lenses on my Fuji X-Pro1 and X-Pro2 digital mirrorless: 56mm f/1.2 Fujinon 23mm f/1.4 Fujinon 16mm f/1.4 Fujinon Since I have been very satisfied with their images, I have never performed a head-to-head comparison. Thanks for doing it for me.
Good to see this. As others have pointed about, trying the Leica lens on the Fuji body is what most people think about, so it would be interesting to see. And shot wide open, where there’s a greatest chance of seeing a difference in sharpness despite the difference in depth of field…
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography yes, but as people are often tempted to save on the body and go for the optics, what really matters is the final result, and that's to be compared, considering this differences are taken into account...and since you already have the gear, all it takes is a cheap dumb adapter...
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography we can see the results of your summicron 35mm vs fuji 35mm f2 both on a fuji body, it would be definitely interesting comparison
Kirk, I always enjoy your videos. Thank you for all of the time and effort you put into them. I’m an old guy, older than you, I think. Been seriously photographing both professionally and/or personally for 52 years now. I guess I’m really old! Lol. Two questions. If you have to look that close, that long and that hard, to see a difference, does it matter? Second, in the end, isn’t content still king and we should put more effort into content? One final question, if you will indulge me. The JPEG comparison seems more pertinent as raw converters have a huge affect on how a raw file looks and we know Lightroom does a pretty average job (at best) with demosaicing Fuji raw files. That said, what were your in-camera ‘sharpening’ settings for both the Fuji and Leica JPEG images? Just curious. Nice comparison. Your videos are always very well done. Very professional. I was a Leica shooter for many years in the 90s and early 2000s until I moved to digital. So, I understand the ‘Leica’ feeling. Now, I’m a Fuji shooter primarily and the X-T5 has become what I think is my ‘perfect’ camera!
Hi Dennis, the sharpening on both cameras was set to Standard. I tried using C1 and it was such a pain to do a comparison of files I went back to LR. My problem, since I have not worked with C1 long enough to do a good job. Yes content is king I agree. I felt like I needed to show both the raws and jpg’s even though the cameras do a lot to the jpgs.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography Thanks Kirk. You did the right thing by showing both. I don’t know if you have yet tired the DXO PureRaw 3 plug-in, but I’ve found that DXO with both its specifically engineered camera/lens correction modules as well as its Deep Prime noise reduction and sharpening feature does an outstanding job with my Fuji files. They offer a 30 day free trial. I don’t have any affiliation with DXO but just wanted to pass on something that has worked well for me. Again, thanks for your hard work. …Of course, being of a certain age, you remember “F/8 and be there!” 😁
Enjoyed the video Kirk. I would be curious to how the two lenses compare if you adapt each to the other body. In otherwards, take the sensor out..... For the record, I love Fuji lenses as well as Leica cameras....
That would be a very interesting comparison but we would only be using the inner portion of the Leica lens and the Fuji circle would not fit the full frame Leica.
Thanks for sharing. Both great systems. I have got the 23 as well. But wouldn't it be better to compare at f2? In the end most lenses perform well stepped down.
@@svetlanagrobman3476 Just a little but now that I have used it more I don't see the issues as much. Pixel peeping aside looking at the overall image is still pleasing to me.
I'm not too fond of the XF23mm F2. (Maybe one day I could be.) You've found that the Leica has more contrast (or was it just darker?) I'm interested now what the XF23mmF1.4 WR looks like? Or because I own it and it has wonderful contrast, the XF50-140, but that's a completely different lens I know.
As you can tell, I love my 23 f2. Why, because it reminds me of my Leica 35 f2. Small, light, and (at least my copy) really sharp. I have the 16 f1.4 and love the lens but it is large like all the 1.4 variants of all the primes. The Leica raw file was warmer and had more contrast. The Leica PRINT was a littler darker not the raw file.
Yeh I would not expect things to be that discernible on any lens test when stopping down. I've always felt the lens trait and what you're essentially paying for exists wide open or close to it. For example, take any modern fast 50 or 85mm lenses, these days these lenses are huge and heavy, and most of that is down to giving a really clinical performance wide open. At 1.4 you can get little to no CA, edges and corners as sharp as the center right from the get go. Whereas stopped down lenses that are far cheaper perform similarly to their expensive counterparts and I bet many would fail those blind tests. Really, we should be comparing other optical qualities at the wide open apertures or close to it. Micro contrast, colours, bokeh fall off, bokeh traits (soap bubble), etc etc. That's when differences start to become much more noticeable. Still nice test to show that if you are the kind of shooter that rarely goes below f5.6 or f8 then many cheaper lenses will do the task fine with little to no ill effects.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography oh nice!! I’m going to be making a video about that exact same soon. I’m also going to make one about a near equivalent manual focus setup with with my TTArtisan lenses.
The quality is consumer vs. the big name and longevity? Names and value are important over time. Big money goes with the big name. The average consumer must be consumed by price. Great Job….
Excellent comparison Kirk I don't think I'll be upgrading? if that's the right word! my Fuji for a Leica system which as you have proved is so overpriced. Keep the great vids coming many thanks.
Kirk I am a former Fuji shooter and used to love the xt 35mm lens. I switched back to Nikon when they went mirrorless, and ended up acquiring all the ne lenses both the f2.8S as well as the af 4's. I go through this type of a test all the time trying to justify my keeping the high end glass, and like this test it is hard to see the difference. However, I do see a richer color difference between the fuji and the Leica shots. Not sure if that is the way the camera processes the images or the lens. It is similar to what I see with my Nikons. There is a clarity and color that is different between the expensive lenses and the less expensive lenses ( the f4s are not cheap but just not as expensive). I ended up switching from Fuji to Nikon due to Adobe's processing issues, which as I understand it now are fixed. Adobe LR and PS handled my Nikon Files so much better than my fuji files. I am too old now to switch back, but I still like your channel and still like Fuji.
Eric - the Leica raw files were warmer and had more contrast than the flatter Fuji files. Was this the lens or the sensor? Umm 🤔 I’m not sure. That’s why I tried to equal them out and just concentrate on sharpness and honestly I could not tell the difference.
You could have used the Fujinon 23mm f/1.4 which has superior optical performance than the f/2 and still saved over $2,000. We switched from Leica to Fuji when the X-Pro2 came out and then replaced our Nikon DSLRs with X-T and X-H gear and have never looked back!
You pay 10x the price for how it looks with the lens wide open. A $800 voightlander f1.5 looks almost the same as a $3500 Leica 50 summicron f1.4 at f2.8. But at f1.4, the voightlander had CA and more vignetting. I sold the voigtlander for half, the Leica has appreciated from $3500 - $4500. It appreciated more than the orig cost of the voightlander!
This was my Summicron experience summed up. I shot wide open, still was able to focus in time, and a scene near darkness was perfectly in camera. Compared to the Fuji's also, the Bokeh is a dream, as well as the fact that I have to do much lesser in post-production. It renders the colors perfectly. Taking one single picture and stating it is the same is not fair at all. I am pretty damn sure the Leica lens brings its own pros to the table.
I use a Canon Pro 1000. I used to have an Epson 7890 24” printer which was great if you liked unclogging the heads every time you wanted to print. So I got rid of it and went with the Canon. I have a friend that has a 44” Canon and he lets me print the really big stuff.
Thanks for this comparison it supports my suspicion that Leica users are so full of it shelling out loads of dosh for nothing and telling themselves lies about having the best just a bunch of Rolex wearers and Gucci boys let's face it Fuji are bloody damned good for what you pay you get a lot
In this market, I would use the Fuji as my work-a-day camera and keep the Leica as an investment that will appreciate relative to the US Dollars devaluing through inflation.
Oh man, you better hope the Leica police don't watch this video. LOL. All kidding aside, I enjoyed the video and thank you for saving me the cost of Leica cameras and lenses to try this myself. I have the 35mm f2 and just love using it with my X-T3. I've wanted a wider field of view for a while and this video leaves no doubt that the 23mm f2 is my next investment.
Not a surprise. The f2 Fujis are all outstanding. I have the 35mm f2 and it’s great. Film Leicas are nice and something special. Digital Leicas never interested me all that much.
My eight year old Leica is way behind technologically. But it still does what I want it to do make great photos in the old style. I wish I could afford a newer one but that's not happening.
I have 200 USD Pentax K-3 and two 100 USD for each zooms. Beats any FujiNoFilm and Leica for bad weather. And I have Jupiter-12, Nokton 35 1.4 II and Summarit-M 35 2.5 all together for less than overpriced for nothing Cron :)
I compare lenses quite differently... Shoot with both for some time, say a year or 6 month. One day you take one lens with you, the next day take the other. After some time, you will know which one is better for you... Easy. This is the most reliable way, the most subjective. There is no such thing as objective comparison.
I immediately picked the Leica image and it looked more 3d to me. You may say it’s because of more contrast. I don’t know. It just looked better to me by a mile.
With either raw file you can make them look any way you want in post. I think it would be easy to adjust contrast and sharpness on the Fuji file. He should process both raw files to look the same. I bet the difference would be negligible.
I have a Fuji xpro 3 and a Leica TL2…and honestly the only thing the Leica lens does is render a bit more natural than my Fuji stuff. The Fuji lenses are a little bit TOO sharp for me and I typically prefer a softer look to my photos (a realistic softness, not 1980s soft filter), which is why I love shooting my Fuji 23 f2 r wr wide open because it’s just the right amount for me. Aside from that, I knows a few years difference in the camera models, but the Fuji blows the Leica out of the water. Build quality obviously goes to the Leica, but the AF, the handling and weight, etc are leagues ahead on the Fuji. I bought the Leica when they discontinued the camera and got it for a steal brand new. At its original price of close to $5000 for the body and lens, no way in H E Double hockey sticks is it worth that much. I’m in the camp that the $2700 price difference just doesn’t warrant enough! Maybe a few decades ago when you paid top dollar for sharp lenses, but these days pretty much everything is sharp if you want it to be. I’m not a pixel peeper so that level of clarity doesn’t apply to me. Fantastic video and thanks for sharing it with us
As I have said before I only own the Leica gear because my father started me out on it and I inherited his lenses. I bought a very used M9 and traded it when I had Leica test the sensor for fungus. It was expensive but worth it at the time. I also like shooting my 23 wide open but I am more likely to shoot both around f8 for the work I like to do. Low light, yes, wide open and both lenses are awesome wide open at f2. Yes pretty much everything these days is sharp. This test would have been more realistic if I had chosen a real cheap Chinese knockoff of the 35 Summicron. But just on general principals I won't test Chinese glass.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography I’m right there with you in that one! I enjoyed reading your response and appreciate your time! I thought I subbed already but I don’t see that i did. Subbing right now for you!
As a fuji and a Leica user I agree that Fuji lenses are very good indeed. But your test is not accurate at all. Did you try various apertures? What about corners sharpness. What about other lightning conditions. I have the impression that the comparison is mostly on price. You can get a very good second hand old lens for less then the Fuji. So price is not pinacle. Also you forget the resell value. My 50mm summilux has the same value as I bought it 10 years ago. Fuji lenses price are dropping faster. What about manufacturing costs? Employees salary and social benefits. Finally everybody is spending their money as they intend. But you hit a point and expensive lens is not de facto a better lens. I love your videos but I don’t buy this one.. sorry.
@Kirk Williamson l know, the comment was not a complaint of the vidro, just a general point that every Leica user or luster, specially in the comment section forgets. I have this little lens and I've used it in heavy rain a lot and it's shiny as new.
I shoot at f2 on both lenses a lot a the Fuji does very well unlike what some YTr’s say. More people shoot at f8 with these lenses than f2. The 50 Summilux 1.4 is a different story. More people shoot wide open with that lens.
F2 really isn’t even that bad on the 23mm. Majority of lenses are TOO sharp these days and a lot of photos just lose all feeling to me, almost to the point that photos are over sharpened. People can shoot photos for how ever they enjoy. If they choose to look at how many pixels they can view at 100% magnification, then great for them. I personally prefer taking photos of people, places, and things to focus (no pun intended) on the subject matter instead
Today Leica products is too expensive ! Lens today can be calculated in design with a computer in a short time, so Leica do NOT have any advantages in Lens designs any more. When more people find out that Leica just are a kind of #Gucci" brand where you pay for the brand name and not the quality, Leica either have to cut their prices or shot down. If you get a Fujifilm X-T5 with a Fujifilm XF 23mm 2.0 R WR (or XF 23mm 1.4 R WR) Lens and a Fujifilm 56mm 1.2 R WR (total $3150) you can really do nearly anything.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography A least half. If Leica made a "Q"-type Camera with Leica mount, the 61 megapixels sensor, 9.5 mega dot EVF and a price max 50% higher than the Sony A7RV plus cut the prices of Leica M Lenses, then I would be thinking of buying a Leica camera and Leica Lenses.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography I only own a M3 with a 50mm Summicron and a 90mm Elmar. Amazing quality and feel and produces great photos. I also shoot a Fujifilm Xpro 2 with the 23mm WR F2 it also makes good images. In a few years, the whole kit will not be worth my Leica Kit nor will it likely be repairable. I will try the Voigtlander manual focus lenses for X mount as I hear they have some character. My Fujifilm 23mm F2 is good, not great, not special. I shoot Canon for work with a mix of EF and RF glass, great lenses. Thanks for the video
Leica are overrated, but if you’re like one who appreciates Patek Philippe watches or Hermes hand bags, then by all means, get them 🤣🤣 Then again, Fujis are also overrated, probably the best bang for the Buck are Sony with third party lenses, but I’m willing to pay a little extra for Fuji’s film simulations and the tactile experience. I’m not willing to pay 10x for Leica though.
Alan - I must say that I enjoy the Leica experience with my now very old M-p 240. But no way am I dropping big money for an M10 or 11. For shooting film Leica is a fun experience. Just for kicks I’m going to do a side by side film experience with the M5 and the Canon A1 and the 50 1.4’s. Just in general principals I don’t use or review Chinese glass so using over priced Sony cameras is out of the question. That being said I have a very old Sony Nex7 which I use the 35 Summicron on. It’s very nice. Too bad the menu is a mess. One thing I like about the Leica is the menu system is very simple and easy to use. Fuji is best for my everyday uses both as a pro and for my personal uses. I live with the poor AF on the xt3 shooting sports but I have been able to make it work!
I think you hit the facts of lens comparison perfectly. Decent/good lenses depend on the skills of the photographer using the lens and camera body. I have a Fujifilm XT5 and a 23mm F1.4 and 33mm F1.4 amongst other lenses. I also have a full frame Leica Q2 that I find myself using less and less, much as I love it. I truly can’t find it does better than the Fuji does in similar photographic situations.
Greg I agree. I like the Leica experience but for everyday work and pleasure the Fuji fits the bill nicely.
Your honest joy and surprise about results made my day! Great work without overhyped pushing. Thank you from one Leica M4/Fuji X user.
Thanks it was an interesting video to work on.
I did the same test with my xpro3 23 2.0. Vs Leica 240 with a 2020 35 f2.0. I printed 11x17. I could not tell the difference either. It was amazing. Thank you for your testing!
I recently compared the Leica q2 28mm 1.7 with the Fuji xt5 and new 18mm 1.4. Again I could not tell the difference. Remarkable!
Don many thanks for reaffirming my test results. My only regret was not doing some wide open. Did you make any images at f2?
Great to see someone finally print in their videos! The XF23mmF2 was my least liked Fujifilm lens.
Amazing looking at the results on paper and seeing very little difference.
This is such a great video, and one I needed (didn't need?) to see. I own an X-Pro2 paired with the 18mm f2 (for the Leica Q focal feel) and 35mm f1.4. I also use the X-H1 with two zooms for when I'm in the hills. I've always enjoyed my Fuji shooting experiences, especially the X-Pro2, and the images they have produced. I have recently pre-ordered the Q3 having wanted a Q series camera for the past 4 years or so. After watching this video I'm left wondering if I'm doing the right thing. While I do believe very strongly in the 'experience' of the shoot, eventually, when all said and done, it's the final image that we seek. This is what will remain when the feelings have subsided and the memory of that day fades. Thank you for your honest and detailed comparison video ... you've left me wondering!
As much as I love my Leica gear I don’t use it as much as my Fuji stuff. I use the Fuji gear for work and the Leica for my personal work but the lines get crossed once in awhile. I would love a Leica Monochrom but that will not happen.
Great review, your enthusiasm is infectious. I still have my X100V which like my old Fuji XPro1 and Xpro2 were great as were the various lenses. I shoot with Leica M and SL now as I enjoy the full manual experience + the full frame sensors and the shallower depth of field. But Fuji is a cracking system, especially the 16-55 f2.8, very sharp, and wonderful sunstars. Truth is though, a great deal of fun can be had just adapting cheap vintage lenses.
Truth is Marcus that if I did not have photojournalism work still going on I would be all Leica. For the long stuff like moonrises maybe still keep the 100-400 and a small Fuji.
Hi Kirk, love your channel. I am a big fan of Fuji lenses.(I have a range from the 8-16mm to a 200mm f2.) I believe the “best” of Fuji lenses compare very favourablely to Canon top tier lenses that I shot with for nearly 40 years. I had a chance many years ago to buy a Leica film camera with a 50mm Leica lens for a very “reasonable” price. To this day, I regret not having done so! Oh well!!! Best wishes!😊🙏
The reason I moved to Fuji from my much loved Canon gear like you for over 40 years was size, weight, and cost. But the lens quality was equal in my view. Thanks Jeff.
Great assessment, just saved me $2700! Seriously, I'm very content with my Fuji 23/f2 (on a XE4 & XT5). Thanks.
Both those cameras are excellent with the 23!
That was a lot of work, Kirk! Thanks for sharing the results! It sure looks like you've found the Fuji sweet spot with the X-T5 and their trinity lenses. It's also reaffirming for me. I've been enjoying my Fuji cameras since 2018 after nearly 50 years of shooting Nikon (and some film Leicas.) I find my X-T3 and X-Pro2 are real pleasures to use with results that are usually better than I am!
Thanks Melvin - I wish I could find a good used X-Pro2 for a decent price. They have gone up as the xpro3 has disappeared from store shelves.
Leica is the greatest marketing company in the world. They have created a brand to cater to the high end market but the price to performance ratio is ridiculous. Prob 10% of the cost goes to making the lens and 90% of it is all profit.
@@youssefhamidi8152German labor is expensive.
Great ~ Excellent comparison 👍
Thanks it was fun to do
Thanks for the comparison.
I shoot the following lenses on my Leica M6 and M10 rangefinders:
90mm f/2 Leitz
35mm f/1.4 Zeiss
21mm f/1.4 Leitz
I shoot the following lenses on my Fuji X-Pro1 and X-Pro2 digital mirrorless:
56mm f/1.2 Fujinon
23mm f/1.4 Fujinon
16mm f/1.4 Fujinon
Since I have been very satisfied with their images, I have never performed a head-to-head comparison. Thanks for doing it for me.
Nice kits
Good to see this. As others have pointed about, trying the Leica lens on the Fuji body is what most people think about, so it would be interesting to see. And shot wide open, where there’s a greatest chance of seeing a difference in sharpness despite the difference in depth of field…
The problem with that method is that only the middle of the Leica lens is used and the crop factor gives a different angle of view.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography yes, but as people are often tempted to save on the body and go for the optics, what really matters is the final result, and that's to be compared, considering this differences are taken into account...and since you already have the gear, all it takes is a cheap dumb adapter...
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography we can see the results of your summicron 35mm vs fuji 35mm f2 both on a fuji body, it would be definitely interesting comparison
@@pshelnh yes that is an option but we are still comparing the center of the Summicron with the whole of the Fuji.
Kirk, I always enjoy your videos. Thank you for all of the time and effort you put into them. I’m an old guy, older than you, I think. Been seriously photographing both professionally and/or personally for 52 years now. I guess I’m really old! Lol. Two questions. If you have to look that close, that long and that hard, to see a difference, does it matter? Second, in the end, isn’t content still king and we should put more effort into content? One final question, if you will indulge me. The JPEG comparison seems more pertinent as raw converters have a huge affect on how a raw file looks and we know Lightroom does a pretty average job (at best) with demosaicing Fuji raw files. That said, what were your in-camera ‘sharpening’ settings for both the Fuji and Leica JPEG images? Just curious. Nice comparison. Your videos are always very well done. Very professional. I was a Leica shooter for many years in the 90s and early 2000s until I moved to digital. So, I understand the ‘Leica’ feeling. Now, I’m a Fuji shooter primarily and the X-T5 has become what I think is my ‘perfect’ camera!
Hi Dennis, the sharpening on both cameras was set to Standard. I tried using C1 and it was such a pain to do a comparison of files I went back to LR. My problem, since I have not worked with C1 long enough to do a good job. Yes content is king I agree. I felt like I needed to show both the raws and jpg’s even though the cameras do a lot to the jpgs.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography Thanks Kirk. You did the right thing by showing both. I don’t know if you have yet tired the DXO PureRaw 3 plug-in, but I’ve found that DXO with both its specifically engineered camera/lens correction modules as well as its Deep Prime noise reduction and sharpening feature does an outstanding job with my Fuji files. They offer a 30 day free trial. I don’t have any affiliation with DXO but just wanted to pass on something that has worked well for me. Again, thanks for your hard work. …Of course, being of a certain age, you remember “F/8 and be there!” 😁
@@DennisMook Thanks Dennis I might give that a try.
Enjoyed the video Kirk. I would be curious to how the two lenses compare if you adapt each to the other body. In otherwards, take the sensor out..... For the record, I love Fuji lenses as well as Leica cameras....
That would be a very interesting comparison but we would only be using the inner portion of the Leica lens and the Fuji circle would not fit the full frame Leica.
Thanks for sharing. Both great systems. I have got the 23 as well. But wouldn't it be better to compare at f2? In the end most lenses perform well stepped down.
Yes that is something I should have done and did not. Apologies!
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography No need for apologies, just an idea for maby a feature video. :)
Thank u, Kirk! What middle range fuji lens would u recommend with x-t5? (16-55 is to heavy for me)
I love my 16-80 never had a problem with sharpness. Yes the 16-55 is much to big for the x-t5
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography Thanks again, although I did see your video where u sounded somewhat disappointed about it on x-t5.
@@svetlanagrobman3476 Just a little but now that I have used it more I don't see the issues as much. Pixel peeping aside looking at the overall image is still pleasing to me.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography Thank you!
Thank you!
I'm not too fond of the XF23mm F2. (Maybe one day I could be.) You've found that the Leica has more contrast (or was it just darker?) I'm interested now what the XF23mmF1.4 WR looks like? Or because I own it and it has wonderful contrast, the XF50-140, but that's a completely different lens I know.
As you can tell, I love my 23 f2. Why, because it reminds me of my Leica 35 f2. Small, light, and (at least my copy) really sharp. I have the 16 f1.4 and love the lens but it is large like all the 1.4 variants of all the primes. The Leica raw file was warmer and had more contrast. The Leica PRINT was a littler darker not the raw file.
Yeh I would not expect things to be that discernible on any lens test when stopping down. I've always felt the lens trait and what you're essentially paying for exists wide open or close to it. For example, take any modern fast 50 or 85mm lenses, these days these lenses are huge and heavy, and most of that is down to giving a really clinical performance wide open. At 1.4 you can get little to no CA, edges and corners as sharp as the center right from the get go. Whereas stopped down lenses that are far cheaper perform similarly to their expensive counterparts and I bet many would fail those blind tests.
Really, we should be comparing other optical qualities at the wide open apertures or close to it. Micro contrast, colours, bokeh fall off, bokeh traits (soap bubble), etc etc. That's when differences start to become much more noticeable.
Still nice test to show that if you are the kind of shooter that rarely goes below f5.6 or f8 then many cheaper lenses will do the task fine with little to no ill effects.
Yes Eddy I do regret not shooting some wide open. that would have made the test better.
Thanks, make it clear why I don't take this "test" as legit.
Great video! I love my Fujifilm compact primes. Fantastic lenses.
Thanks Craig! This weeks video is about the 3 compact primes. I really like them.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography oh nice!! I’m going to be making a video about that exact same soon. I’m also going to make one about a near equivalent manual focus setup with with my TTArtisan lenses.
The quality is consumer vs. the big name and longevity? Names and value are important over time. Big money goes with the big name. The average consumer must be consumed by price. Great Job….
Excellent comparison Kirk I don't think I'll be upgrading? if that's the right word! my Fuji for a Leica system which as you have proved is so overpriced. Keep the great vids coming many thanks.
Thanks Gary! I’m keeping my Leica stuff for sentimental reasons. But other than that Fuji is working for me.
love this
Years ago I went a camera store where you could buy brass belt buckles: Minolta $12. Pentax $12. Nikon $12. Canon $12. Leica $ 35. Nuff said!
Right on the money Bill!
Kirk I am a former Fuji shooter and used to love the xt 35mm lens. I switched back to Nikon when they went mirrorless, and ended up acquiring all the ne lenses both the f2.8S as well as the af 4's. I go through this type of a test all the time trying to justify my keeping the high end glass, and like this test it is hard to see the difference. However, I do see a richer color difference between the fuji and the Leica shots. Not sure if that is the way the camera processes the images or the lens. It is similar to what I see with my Nikons. There is a clarity and color that is different between the expensive lenses and the less expensive lenses ( the f4s are not cheap but just not as expensive). I ended up switching from Fuji to Nikon due to Adobe's processing issues, which as I understand it now are fixed. Adobe LR and PS handled my Nikon Files so much better than my fuji files. I am too old now to switch back, but I still like your channel and still like Fuji.
Eric - the Leica raw files were warmer and had more contrast than the flatter Fuji files. Was this the lens or the sensor? Umm 🤔 I’m not sure. That’s why I tried to equal them out and just concentrate on sharpness and honestly I could not tell the difference.
You could have used the Fujinon 23mm f/1.4 which has superior optical performance than the f/2 and still saved over $2,000. We switched from Leica to Fuji when the X-Pro2 came out and then replaced our Nikon DSLRs with X-T and X-H gear and have never looked back!
Sadly, I don't have one to use.
Great video📷✌
You pay 10x the price for how it looks with the lens wide open. A $800 voightlander f1.5 looks almost the same as a $3500 Leica 50 summicron f1.4 at f2.8. But at f1.4, the voightlander had CA and more vignetting. I sold the voigtlander for half, the Leica has appreciated from $3500 - $4500. It appreciated more than the orig cost of the voightlander!
That’s why I will never sell my Leica gear unless I need money.
This was my Summicron experience summed up. I shot wide open, still was able to focus in time, and a scene near darkness was perfectly in camera. Compared to the Fuji's also, the Bokeh is a dream, as well as the fact that I have to do much lesser in post-production. It renders the colors perfectly. Taking one single picture and stating it is the same is not fair at all. I am pretty damn sure the Leica lens brings its own pros to the table.
What kind of printer do you use?
I use a Canon Pro 1000. I used to have an Epson 7890 24” printer which was great if you liked unclogging the heads every time you wanted to print. So I got rid of it and went with the Canon. I have a friend that has a 44” Canon and he lets me print the really big stuff.
Thanks for this comparison it supports my suspicion that Leica users are so full of it shelling out loads of dosh for nothing and telling themselves lies about having the best just a bunch of Rolex wearers and Gucci boys let's face it Fuji are bloody damned good for what you pay you get a lot
I was lucky my father left me his Leica gear.
Try the 23 1.4 LM....razor sharp..way better than the 23 f2...my favourite lens on my X-T5...best Fuji Lens imho
I wish I could but I don’t have that lens.
In this market, I would use the Fuji as my work-a-day camera and keep the Leica as an investment that will appreciate relative to the US Dollars devaluing through inflation.
Bruce pretty much the way I am looking at it.
Oh man, you better hope the Leica police don't watch this video. LOL. All kidding aside, I enjoyed the video and thank you for saving me the cost of Leica cameras and lenses to try this myself. I have the 35mm f2 and just love using it with my X-T3. I've wanted a wider field of view for a while and this video leaves no doubt that the 23mm f2 is my next investment.
Bill - The Leica police have been negated. Yes you should try the 23 f2 it’s a good value.
XF23f2 maybe my most used lense since I bought it. I think you should try it
Not a surprise. The f2 Fujis are all outstanding. I have the 35mm f2 and it’s great. Film Leicas are nice and something special. Digital Leicas never interested me all that much.
My eight year old Leica is way behind technologically. But it still does what I want it to do make great photos in the old style. I wish I could afford a newer one but that's not happening.
Great comparison Kirk. Not seeing the difference either.
Amazing to me - still can’t believe it.
I have 200 USD Pentax K-3 and two 100 USD for each zooms. Beats any FujiNoFilm and Leica for bad weather. And I have Jupiter-12, Nokton 35 1.4 II and Summarit-M 35 2.5 all together for less than overpriced for nothing Cron :)
Works for me.
I compare lenses quite differently... Shoot with both for some time, say a year or 6 month. One day you take one lens with you, the next day take the other. After some time, you will know which one is better for you... Easy. This is the most reliable way, the most subjective. There is no such thing as objective comparison.
Yes this is true.
If shot / edited with PROVIA simulation, Fuji's picture would look even more like Leica's, in my opinion. Just saying...
Thanks I'll have to take a look.
I immediately picked the Leica image and it looked more 3d to me. You may say it’s because of more contrast. I don’t know. It just looked better to me by a mile.
With either raw file you can make them look any way you want in post. I think it would be easy to adjust contrast and sharpness on the Fuji file. He should process both raw files to look the same. I bet the difference would be negligible.
🤣🤣 stop it
@@ashtonal.2634 what’s so funny?
@@JerryMungo there's no difference jerry
@@ashtonal.2634 that’s my point. To say the Leica may be a little more contrasty means nothing if you post process them.
I have a Fuji xpro 3 and a Leica TL2…and honestly the only thing the Leica lens does is render a bit more natural than my Fuji stuff. The Fuji lenses are a little bit TOO sharp for me and I typically prefer a softer look to my photos (a realistic softness, not 1980s soft filter), which is why I love shooting my Fuji 23 f2 r wr wide open because it’s just the right amount for me. Aside from that, I knows a few years difference in the camera models, but the Fuji blows the Leica out of the water. Build quality obviously goes to the Leica, but the AF, the handling and weight, etc are leagues ahead on the Fuji. I bought the Leica when they discontinued the camera and got it for a steal brand new. At its original price of close to $5000 for the body and lens, no way in H E Double hockey sticks is it worth that much. I’m in the camp that the $2700 price difference just doesn’t warrant enough! Maybe a few decades ago when you paid top dollar for sharp lenses, but these days pretty much everything is sharp if you want it to be. I’m not a pixel peeper so that level of clarity doesn’t apply to me. Fantastic video and thanks for sharing it with us
As I have said before I only own the Leica gear because my father started me out on it and I inherited his lenses. I bought a very used M9 and traded it when I had Leica test the sensor for fungus. It was expensive but worth it at the time. I also like shooting my 23 wide open but I am more likely to shoot both around f8 for the work I like to do. Low light, yes, wide open and both lenses are awesome wide open at f2. Yes pretty much everything these days is sharp. This test would have been more realistic if I had chosen a real cheap Chinese knockoff of the 35 Summicron. But just on general principals I won't test Chinese glass.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography I’m right there with you in that one! I enjoyed reading your response and appreciate your time! I thought I subbed already but I don’t see that i did. Subbing right now for you!
Leica pictures only looks better if you tell people you are using a Leica.
Yes of course!
The Fuji has more detail in the shadows even when “equalized”, I think we all know what Ansel Adams would say!
Haha yup 👍
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography although is that the lens or the sensor?
Probably a little of both.
Foojeee ❤
I bet if you just tweaked the white balance on the Fuji ever so slightly you really wouldn't be able to tell.
Neville - Just a minor tweak to WB might do it. Very tough to tell.
As a fuji and a Leica user I agree that Fuji lenses are very good indeed. But your test is not accurate at all. Did you try various apertures? What about corners sharpness. What about other lightning conditions. I have the impression that the comparison is mostly on price. You can get a very good second hand old lens for less then the Fuji. So price is not pinacle. Also you forget the resell value. My 50mm summilux has the same value as I bought it 10 years ago. Fuji lenses price are dropping faster. What about manufacturing costs? Employees salary and social benefits. Finally everybody is spending their money as they intend. But you hit a point and expensive lens is not de facto a better lens. I love your videos but I don’t buy this one.. sorry.
David all good points.
Laica is jewelry brand. Not a fair comparison 😂
Exactly the reason I did it.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography yeah it was great. I really enjoy your content so please keep em coming 😄
Wow, shocking.
Yes really shocking.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography Thank you for the comparison. The Leica kit is nice, but it's not ten times better.
I’m not seeing a $2700 difference 🤷🏻♂️
Neither am I it shocked me!
300 dollar WATER AND DUST PROOF vs 3000 dollars lens that is not. Sharpness is one of the least important things in photography.
Yes absolutely I forgot to mention that fact so focused on the other stuff.
@Kirk Williamson l know, the comment was not a complaint of the vidro, just a general point that every Leica user or luster, specially in the comment section forgets. I have this little lens and I've used it in heavy rain a lot and it's shiny as new.
Wait till you shoot at f2
I shoot at f2 on both lenses a lot a the Fuji does very well unlike what some YTr’s say. More people shoot at f8 with these lenses than f2. The 50 Summilux 1.4 is a different story. More people shoot wide open with that lens.
@Kirk Williamson no really, most of my photos are indoors and with families so it's a lot of group and portrait shots. Any decent lens is good at f8.
F2 really isn’t even that bad on the 23mm. Majority of lenses are TOO sharp these days and a lot of photos just lose all feeling to me, almost to the point that photos are over sharpened. People can shoot photos for how ever they enjoy. If they choose to look at how many pixels they can view at 100% magnification, then great for them. I personally prefer taking photos of people, places, and things to focus (no pun intended) on the subject matter instead
@@Deetroiter true
Today Leica products is too expensive ! Lens today can be calculated in design with a computer in a short time, so Leica do NOT have any advantages in Lens designs any more. When more people find out that Leica just are a kind of #Gucci" brand where you pay for the brand name and not the quality, Leica either have to cut their prices or shot down. If you get a Fujifilm X-T5 with a Fujifilm XF 23mm 2.0 R WR (or XF 23mm 1.4 R WR) Lens and a Fujifilm 56mm 1.2 R WR (total $3150) you can really do nearly anything.
I agree. They need to cut their prices in half.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography A least half. If Leica made a "Q"-type Camera with Leica mount, the 61 megapixels sensor, 9.5 mega dot EVF and a price max 50% higher than the Sony A7RV plus cut the prices of Leica M Lenses, then I would be thinking of buying a Leica camera and Leica Lenses.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography I only own a M3 with a 50mm Summicron and a 90mm Elmar. Amazing quality and feel and produces great photos. I also shoot a Fujifilm Xpro 2 with the 23mm WR F2 it also makes good images. In a few years, the whole kit will not be worth my Leica Kit nor will it likely be repairable. I will try the Voigtlander manual focus lenses for X mount as I hear they have some character. My Fujifilm 23mm F2 is good, not great, not special. I shoot Canon for work with a mix of EF and RF glass, great lenses. Thanks for the video
Leica are overrated, but if you’re like one who appreciates Patek Philippe watches or Hermes hand bags, then by all means, get them 🤣🤣
Then again, Fujis are also overrated, probably the best bang for the Buck are Sony with third party lenses, but I’m willing to pay a little extra for Fuji’s film simulations and the tactile experience. I’m not willing to pay 10x for Leica though.
Alan - I must say that I enjoy the Leica experience with my now very old M-p 240. But no way am I dropping big money for an M10 or 11. For shooting film Leica is a fun experience. Just for kicks I’m going to do a side by side film experience with the M5 and the Canon A1 and the 50 1.4’s.
Just in general principals I don’t use or review Chinese glass so using over priced Sony cameras is out of the question. That being said I have a very old Sony Nex7 which I use the 35 Summicron on. It’s very nice. Too bad the menu is a mess. One thing I like about the Leica is the menu system is very simple and easy to use.
Fuji is best for my everyday uses both as a pro and for my personal uses. I live with the poor AF on the xt3 shooting sports but I have been able to make it work!
leica is leica, fuji not be leica, its look like some youtuber PR for voigtlander lol
Don’t own any Voigtlander so can’t compare