gzisis69
Established
I also checked that there is a canon 32mm 1.4. Has anyone experience with this lens-system ? It sounds a not so bad idea too..
Hmmm, another candidate could be a Leica CL with Sigma 30mm 1.4. It has been discontinued but should still be a nice camera.
gzisis69
Established
That would be also interesting but the sigma is too big and if i was gonna buy leica that would be for the glass. I really wonder why so many systems lack of a small 50mm lens. The canon apsc dlsrs dont even have a 50mm equavalent. The new zfc for example could be a great camera if there was a 35mm( 50 equavalent). I quess thats a not so desirable focal length
Yes, 50mm has been a problem in small cameras for awhile. Seems the world is 28mm crazy after phones. 35mm is the normal lens many prefer. I like at least a 40mm but prefer 50mm. Which is why I went Fuji. I agree about the zfc. I do not need a 40mm because I have the Fuji one and the Ricoh GR3x. That said, there is the TTArtisan 32mm 2.8 for Nikon z. It is Af and very small but I am not sure if its quality.
Attachments
gzisis69
Established
Yes i feel the same too, 50 is a little niche now and of course the 40mm equavalent are always smaller too. I just dont understand why the nikon zfc came out without a proper standard lens, except if someone is considering 40mm as standard cause for me it sits between 2 classic focal lengths but the 35mm is not for me. Im thinking i will try the xe-4 with the 35 f2. Have you also tried the 35 1.8 ? Whats your opinion on this lens ?
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
EF-M future is uncertain and it has limited lens selection.
With EF-S you could get tiny SL3 with flipping screen. Way more practical than any mirrorless. Turn screen inside, use only OVF and it will lasts on same battery for weeks.
And with 24 2.8 ef-s it is very small and light.
I went on forest walk with dog yesterday with this lens on 500D.
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/node/4786854/page4#post4804720
gzisis69
Established
The sl3 (or say european eos 250) seems a very good idea. I could do a compromise on the focal length if the combination makes something small, that focuses quick and with decent quality.. I must try this camera for sure..
Well, I have the feeling people think 50mm is generic in its fov. It is exactly why I like it. No added dramatic distortion.
35mm 1.8? is that the Zeiss? I have not tried that. If you meant the Fuji 35mm 1.4, yes I have used it many times. It is slower and clunkier than the F2. It is a nice lens but not what you are looking for.
gzisis69
Established
Yes i meant the 35 1.4. I had earlier the 35 f2 xc. Could that be that the focus motor on this lens is too slow ? Cause i talked with a friend yesterday and he says like you that the 35 f2 is quick and was also surprised by my complaints. Also how is the evf on the xe-4 ? I remember the xe-3 was ok but small and was hunting a little bit. Small size im sure stayed but did it become any quicker ? Sorry for the many questions but i dont have the chance to try the lens-camera combination near me.
Harry the K
Established
The E4 is a little smaller than the E3, but has the guts of the next genaration, the af is improved. The 35/1.4 is not much heavier than the 35/2 XF, but bigger and slower when autofocussing. I had both and kept the 1.4 for it´s rendering. The 2 is tacksharp, and the bokeh is good, but there´s the certain magic in the way the 1.4 renders.....
I guess the XC could be slower than the XF version. I know it is the same optical formula but the build is different. Maybe it affected the AF too. For me, the XF is just fast. As fast as anything else I have used. The EVF on the X-E4 is pretty much the same as the X-E3 I believe. It is just sufficient but bright and good enough. However, there is this little blurb to explain a little difference "What is new on the X-E4 is the boost mode (available with two settings: low light and resolution priority)". To me, the X-E4 seems better, but take that with a grain of salt. I have been using EVFs for 12 years now and modern ones feel great to me... even the X-E4. That said, what I am used to could be a deal breaker for someone else who is not used to using EVFs.
The AF of the X-E4 is greatly improved in low light.
Evergreen States
Pierre Saget (they/them)
I don't own one but I've handled an EOS M5 (I think? Or was it an M50 II?) in the store and it was tiny. I've seen comparisons showing that the 32mm ƒ/1.4 is a sharper lens than the Fuji 35mm ƒ/1.4, with smoother bokeh to boot. KoFe made an important point earlier, but the truth is a bit more severe. The Canon M line is dead. They won't admit it but the writing is on the wall. They're going to expand APS-C versions of their R line. You can still buy one and use it as a camera but just keep in mind that, as an investment, there is no upgrade path. And you will lose most product support in a few years. If I had money to burn I'd still get one myself, but you should be aware of what you'd be getting yourself into.
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
The XC lenses are bargain basement entry-level stuff. The 35/2 XF is a much newer lens and a totally different kettle of fish - I love mine. Focus motor is silent and the AF on an X-Pro 2 is fast (when I use it - I normally stick to MF).
The XC version of the 35mm F2 came out after the XF (by many years) and is the same exact optical formula. It is just made of plastic and does not have an aperture ring.
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
I stand corrected - generally I stay far away from the XC stuff. Surely it doesn't have the same focusing motor as the XF, though?
I am not sure but it could be why the OP experienced a slow lens. It would make sense. That said, none of the XC zoom lenses are slow to focus so I am just not sure. A quick review of reviews shows none say it focuses slow. All say it focuses fast.
Last edited:
gzisis69
Established
I checked out the fuji 35 f2 today and it is really faster than the xc. I dont know if thats a motor firmware camera model thema but it could focus really good and in bad light. I tried him with the xpro-3 and found the combination really good balanced and the xpro-3 very sexy but also very expensive. I think ill save money and go for that and in the meantime i will try to find an xe-4 and xt-4 to try the lens too
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
To be honest, I'd have a look for a used X-Pro 2 if I was you.
I was more or less in the same boat a couple of years back when the X-Pro 3 had just come out; I'd had an X-Pro and X-T1 for ages, and was thinking of upgrading. In the end, I decided to save some money by going for the X-Pro 2. I didn't see a lot of benefits to justify the extra cost of the X-Pro 3 - and the lack of OVF support for 18mm lenses due to dropping the dual magnification OVF of the X-Pro 2 was a real deal-breaker.
That said, the X-Pro 3 supposedly has better AF, but I'm not sure how noticeable it will really be - the X-Pro 2 is already very good in this respect. See if you can find a way to try them both out side-by-side, I guess.
I have used them all and I can say that the X-Pro3 is definitely faster than the last generation of cameras. It is basically perfect with the 35mm f2. The X-E4 and X-T4 will feel similar. That said, the last generation was pretty good too. I did not care about the OVF change since I am not a wide angle fan. Once I got the X-Pro3, I sold my X-Pro2 to a friend. It felt sluggish afterwards.
gzisis69
Established
I thought a lot the last time and also tried cameras of friends. After all the size is for me a very important factor and i am between the ricoh griii x and the leica x2. Has anyone experience with the x2 ? I tried it at a used shop but didnt have much time to have a whole day experience. The settings are really ahead from everything so small i have tried but its also an old camera.. but leica colors and leica lens canot be so bad.