Congrats! I think this is the best '50mm' equivalent for X Mount, doesn't get much better than this. Enjoy!

If memory serves me correctly, when I was initially researching, I believe I discovered a video comparing the Touit and the 35/1.4. It's not the video of two old men walking about and shooting old wooden boats (that one is kinda lame), it was another video, much better, kinda lens testing IQ stuff, and the Touit seemed to come out on top in ways of IQ, sharpness, micro contrast, better close focusing IQ etc etc. But... it wasn't by any means a landslide but it was what gave me the nod to go for the Touit instead. I have seen wonderful work with the 35/1.4. The 35/2 however I have absolutely no idea. I did own the 23/2 and was not overly impressed, but the 50/2 I had was excellent. I'm imagining the 35/2 is a lot better in ways of AF etc.

You can try their websites, Amazon, or eBay.

Indeed, and inconsistent for build quality and tightness. My XF90 is tight, the 56/1.2RWR (from day one) has always been weak to click into place.

Prolly just my grading. Fuji is actually biased towards magenta and struggles to be corrected properly by tools like Xrite Colour Passports.

Not sure a TC works with Viltrox? Do they have one? Viltrox are fine, no issues really except right now they are not doing zooms, or putting in better motors than stepping for their line up (even when they are trying to make clear distinctions such as LAB and Pro range). They are at least providing super fast glass (1.2) as well as slower but perhaps better AF glass at 1.4 and 1.7. This strategy is more my point in the Fuji range, its all middle of the road stuff.

@@SummersSnaps yeah I found the 75 to be long enough for most things given that it's 112 mm focal length and I use an XT5 so if I need to crop in a little bit I'm still getting decent images. I thought you could use a normal TC with viltrox lenses, but I don't know about that. I'll find out

@@SummersSnaps TC doesn't work on viltrox 75 1.2

Thanks for stopping by Luca.

Unfortunately I think their recent 28-45/1.8 for full frame was it. APS-C is getting left behind...

@@SummersSnaps agree, seems like Fujifilm is only at it.

You must have missed the part where I talk extensively about the 56/1.2RWR, or that I mention I own the 14/2.8, 16/1.4, 90/2 and owned the 23/2 and 50/2? Oh and I'm filming with the Zeiss Touit 32/1.8. Yeh.. its purely a zoom fest here... :/

@@SummersSnaps was mostly joking ;) To me zooms just aren't real lenses. I get they're necessary for certain applications (events for example), but I will never use them personally, and I don't think about them when thinking about a lens range.

@@ChrisThe1 Sorry, this video bombed in some domains with a lot of hate, hard to separate those being facetious and those sincere, my bad.

Optically I really like the 50-140, AF performance is also really one of the best (better than the 90/2 in my tests). I just wanted to highlight how over engineered their lenses are, its like we're using FF glass on APS-C sensors. I used to own a 50/1.2 FF lens that was smaller and lighter than the 56RWR. If they genuinely crafted lenses for APS-C we'd have smaller and lighter stuff, I'm not at all surprised to hear they managed a 37% reduction in size and weight of their upcoming 16-55/2.8 mkII.

It's an iconic lens. People have been crying out for a replacement for mirrorless since forever, but I think that was answered recently by the 28-45/1.8 (basically a Full frame equivalent). It looks like Sigma are not that interested in really putting much effort into the APS-C line :(

Yep, the innovation seems well and truly seated on the FF sensor.

Well it's a lot bigger and heavier than the 16 hehe. It seems very sharp at 14 (more than at 20), I have not really tested in the ways of distortion, colours and contrast much, but I do a lot of post processing so for my intents it is not critical. The point here is that you have little choices, you go for Viltrox 13/1.4, this 14-20/2 or the XF14/2.8.

XH2S+Touit 32/1.8

Hey, 50-140 is awesome! No complaints here. But I do need something faster at times for my work (hence 50-100/1.8). Honestly, if the Fringer III adapter supported the in camera AF.C commands I'd be so happy, instead I find myself needing to own both for different tasks and this makes the value price of the Fuji system go a bit downhill for me. Still... it makes you think... if you consider how many step down rings you can get away with before an ill effect, then I am not at all surprised they managed to make an updated 16-55/2.8 37% lighter. I bet the same could happen to the 50-140! Or... how about they also get making me some 14-45/2 and 50-140/2, be it the same size as current versions or even a little bit larger. I would totally be down with that! Time and time again I try and make the point that I love that there are small lenses for X Mount, I just wish they also did some huge fast ones for the users that need it. Then we're all happy :)

The same advantage that exists over 1.4 lenses, it's the same rationale just greater scope. I just like the 50/1 and 50/2 approach. I think patrons like yourself owning the fujicrons and 1.4 variants are fewer. It's not that the 1.4's are bad, I use the word 'goldilocks' deliberately, its kinda sweet spot. But its a bit like sensor sizes, APS-C, FF and MF. If you own APS-C there's an argument to be had to getting a MF as well, the two formats are very different and produce different looking images. If owning FF then going to ASP-C or MF is less inclined because the difference going up (or down) from that middle sweet spot is less. I would have liked to have seen a 23/1, 33/1 and 56/1 (all with LM) along with the 23/2, 33/2 and 50/2, if not f1 then f1.2. SIRIU managed it with stepping motors at 1.2, IQ is of course not as good, but then the lenses are still very compact and light for f1.2. Considering how over engineered the 56/1.2 is, I genuinely believe if they made lenses for APS-C coverage then they could easily manage it. Perhaps you just need to stop from f1.2 to f2 to get that clinical look, but at 1.2 its still razor sharp and devoid of CA in the center. This absolutely could be done, they just don't want to spend that much R&D on glass for their customers.

Perhaps the point of the video escaped you? I do shoot many of their primes and zooms, I just wanted to highlight that I found some fast zooms that work semi well within the system (and some that people are probably unaware of). I also point out that I think their 50/1 and 50/2 strategy was good but short lived, I wished they'd done the same concept across all their primes and not just a single stop of difference between the 1.4's and 2's. In terms of systems there is no perfect one. I enjoy many Fuji benefits that keep me here, such as the affordability of owning 2x stacked sensor cameras (a tech I very much need). I state many times my own case usage, accept and respect f2.8 zooms are plenty fast for other users and intents. It's an opinion piece only, but it does feel to me they are a little lost in direction. If they want to break into the pro market (which they have stated numerous times) then they need to pick up the pace a little. Way too many body releases and not enough lens development. We only have two tele primes for X mount since forever (90/2 and the unaffordable 200/2).

​@@SummersSnapsI did listen to you grievances, and I am addressing them specifically. I'll give this another go: I can understand that people find it more exciting to see new lenses than camera bodies arrive to the system, but that doesn't change the actual purpose and character of the fx system - which is unmistakingly a budget oriented, lightweight trickle down version of the gfx platform. If this platform doesn't natively support the exact type of lenses that you need for your job, why not simply use a system that supports that specific need? FX is not a pro lineup, and never was. If you want large, heavy lenses that fit you specific need, why not use them with one of the larger and heavier system that supports them natively? If you must use native lenses on the fx system, and you must shoot in low light, there is not much else to do than use double bodies with each their appropriate prime, ie a 16 or 18 1.4, and a 56 1.2 (or even the 50 1.0 if you want to go full retard). If that for some reason doesn't sit right with you, adapting these full frame sigmas and tokinas will do the job, even if you don't get the fuji quality rendering properties of the glass, but there it is. Or if you want better lowlight performance in both body AND lenses, but you don't want to leave fuji, just step up to the gfx lineup. Sure its more expensive and heavier than fx, but so are all pro systems today. And the gfx is actually designed to solve the very problem you are describing, ie. delivering beautiful portraiture, also in low light conditions.

@@b00ty Ok, so to simply answer your question, it is basically a disagreement with what we consider to being 'FX pro'. I personally call a stacked sensor camera a professional tool, and when you consider the cost difference moving away from XH2S to full frame stacked sensor then it becomes a conversation of business sense. For me there is no financial path to buying 2x full frame stacked sensor cameras vs 2x XH2S, and the stacked sensor is instrumental for my particular line of work (I understand and accept that it is not a need for all professionals). The problem here I think is that Fuji spread themselves thin by offering SO many bodies that clearly are aimed at beginners and enthusiasts, that the brand can be mistaken as a 'fun play thing', and very capable cameras like the XH2S are forgotten. It is quite a capable professional tool and I would be doing a huge disservice to my clients replacing with GFX system. Having said that, if I did not need stacked sensor cameras then I would have left already, I don't really understand professional fujifilm owners using XT5 and XH2, I think better value would be had with something full frame. It is the stacked sensor tech here, the XH2S is quite a niche product, especially at its price. Here, in this video, I am championing for the Fujifilm owners who are in that more professional field, where we can see already other options out there (fast zooms) yet they still choose to play very safe. Fuji clearly want to be seen as a professional camera company, stealing some of the Canikony users, but they really need to step up if they really want to tempt users away. First they need competent AF, then they need to give professional lenses. The new 16-55/2.8 red badge has no OIS, yet their cheap plastic XC line does. Size and weight issues for OIS? I really don't think so, they just making silly mistakes, lacking in vision and genuine direction. So in the end it can be a frustrating experience, a love hate dynamic, but in reality that is very true for a lot of camera brands and models. There is no perfect camera.

@@SummersSnaps That is very interesting, you do get your point across. But you do understand that this possible second camera body does not have to be a full price, brand new xh2s, right? Anyway I think the main issue that stops fuji from releasing the fast zooms you want, is price and weight. Faster lenses are more expensive, and the fact that fuji has put their foot down and refuse to only release incrementally pricier lenses every year is a good think in my opinion. In terms of what it is, ie. the 10-24 f4 is already overpriced, imagine what that thing would cost if it was f 1.2. And the new 16-55 is even more expensive, and its still only 2.8. The fx lineup is still for us enthusiasts and amateurs, we can actually afford it and be able to carry the glass without getting herniated. Those are all good things in my book. I love the fact that mobility, weight and price are still factors that fuji care about. Ie the new 18-55 could have been faster, and it could have been stabilized, but then it would be both bigger, heavier and more expensive - the exact things fuji are trying to avoid. Sure the old 18-55 is still preferred by many (myself included), but it does not render the full resoulution of these new stacked sensors you seem to must have, and thats the only reason the new lens was launched: so that they had a kit lens that actually can render the full readout of these new, stacked sensors. So yet again, I implore you to explore a system that has actual native support for the glass that you claim to depend upon. You and fuji seem to not agree on what the fx lineup should be, and thats okay. Im just telling you, in case you actually hadn't noticed

Hell yeah!

I own it and it has been one of the best buys for me. But I also wish there was a native zoom with a wider aperture for some occasions.

@@jandzoe9249 And that's all I've really been meaning to say. I've had to go outside of native for faster zooms and paying for it in terms of AF.C video performance. It does get annoying after awhile and makes you look at other options/brands... Considering how over engineered a lot of their lenses are (I am not at all surprised a mkII of the 16-55/2.8 is 37% lighter), it makes me feel we really could get some f2 zooms natively, if they tried.

Absolutely. Regardless of where I go in the future, I think I will always keep some Fuji body for this lens alone. It's that worth it.

😢

35mm Macro is a special lens indeed. Very impressive.

That I agree.

Well there are other lens manufacturers, too, who could make those lenses. Don't have to blame Fujifilm for everything.

That lens was a consideration, and I think there is nothing wrong with a lot of the direct mirrorless 3rd party glass. Like Viltrox, Sigma 18-50/2.8, heaps of options. But for what environments I find myself in, I am "happy" to cope with additional size and weight of lenses if they deliver on speed, so the Tokina 14-20/2 won out. The only sad thing is, every EF lens adapted to the Fuji (via the Fringer III) is not supported for VIDEO AF.C options inside the camera. That doesn't mean it doesn't have AF.C, just I can't control the transition speed etc, so its very limited and basic in this regard. So I either get the speed with some nice zooms like the 14-20/2, 18-35/1.8 or 50-100/1.8, but limited video support, or I get native and 3rd party zooms which are all slower but do support video properly.. gah!

@@SummersSnaps That makes sense; I can see why you're frustrated. I used to shoot real estate and family portraits for paid work, but these days, I shoot for fun, so I mostly use my Zeiss 32 1.8 and Sigma 10-18 2.8 for travel and street. Thanks for sharing.

@@jtes1442 Touit 32 is unbelievably good. How so many leave it out of the conversation I'll never understand..

@@SummersSnaps The Touit 32 is criminally underrated.

I meant over engineered on the lenses they do make, but yes absolutely under producing glass period (hence when I said they have taken their foot off the gas). Where are their tele primes, we have 90/2 and 200/2, that's it! And I meant from a job perspective, wielding a fast zoom that is heavy, I can cope with, as I need the speed more and am willing to put up with the weight. But I know they could make fast light glass if they relaxed a little on their scoring, not everything has to be so clinical and perfect from the get go, many of us are happy to stop down the lens to get better performance, but the trend of late is to have lenses that stopping down does nothing to improve quality. Great! I hear you say, but that performance wide open comes with a cost, both in the financial sense, weight, size and in the case of the 56/1.2 an inferior AF motor. A very bizarre direction indeed. Like I said, its an astro lens first and foremost (where wide open IQ matters and AF does not).

Yeh, it put a few people off. I think where Pentax was going with this one, was to create a partner to the K-1, not necessarily a flagship meant to dethrone or replace anything. The K-1 is in many ways still absolute boss at what it does, slower tripod work with emphasis on IQ. The K3III enters the arena as a means to fulfill the faster paced shots yet still giving the user that full frame OVF experience. I think Pentax wanted their customers to own both, and here we are many years later without successors of either because in their minds you have what you need between these two cameras (from an enthusiast perspective). And look honestly, I shoot mostly Fujifilm these days and its incredibly common to find so many users of a system with multiple different bodies. The mentality of owning one camera and having it do it all is a little draconian now. So apply this logic to pentax, get a K-1, get a K3III, get the right lenses for each system and you have a nice well rounded out OVF experience based system. At the end of the day, putting a K3III in a tripod or low to the ground means you have the wrong camera. FWIW that touch screen on the K3III is gorgeous, beats my XH2S's hands down. What it lacks in swivel it makes up for in real estate and resolution. Reviewing work is a joy on that cam. Thanks for stopping by.

@@SummersSnaps Time to add an XT-5 to my Fuji gear!

Do let me know how that goes. I do join a lot of non Fuji groups (including Canon), you'd be surprised how many members complain about AF. I worry that Fuji is not as far behind the likes of Canon that we think and that we'd be losing a lot for not much gain going to Canonville...

@@SummersSnaps Hi - Just back from morning with R5 - for me - night and day improvement over Fuji - so sad as love my XH2s but ....

Yeh, this is what concerns me. There's a good amount of evidence stacking up that not much has changed tech wise for Fuji with AF since XT3 days. What we're seeing from the XH2S would be more software assistance to driving the AF, and perhaps some stacked sensor benefits so that the system can see a face in very dark scenarios (beyond the visible light etc). But at the core of it, it feels like glossy recognition tools trying to help quite a nervous hardware based AF system, and this is what is holding them back. You can add more and more software on top of this but its not going to ultimately help, so I'll be giving Fuji another couple of years to see if they can make genuine strides here, otherwise its starting to feel like Pentax all over again 🤣

Panasonic’s AF is no where near Sony… lol. I use Sony, Fuji, and Panasonics hybrid flagships regularly and Panasonic is marginally better than Fuji, but it’s still night and day compared to Sony’s best offerings.

@@TheJ_G not compared to the newest sony with the ai chip but close with the sony like the FX30, i seen a review of the FX30 vs GH7 and GH7 was doing better

Weird huh.

Just give google a go, something like 'fujifilm firmware roll back reddit', see what comes up.

​@@SummersSnaps ..nothing with 5.03

Have a google and follow the reddit trail, there you should find some help or download links.

@@EsKa.777 Oath. It was actually still fixated on my hand/remote, maybe a good thing or not depending on the circumstances 😆

​@@SummersSnapsAt 4:59 nothing's in focus. Seems we have to live with it.

@@EsKa.777 It seems that its still steady on the focus plane where my hand holding the remote was, I recall putting my arms down to force it to leave that area well and truly alone for focus and come back to me.. but it seemed to take a few seconds longer than I thought it should... In this instance, the AF performed NOT how I would have preferred, I even had the AF.C settings set to be quick to adjust and not hang around, yet it really got a little fixated here on the small times my hand came back in and out of frame. Maybe for some creative shoot this would be good, but not here. Of course the elephant in the room here however is there's simply is no way to control AF properly in video, I can't even do simple things like use AF Hold to stop autofocus and MOVE the AF box to a new location within the frame and then release the AF Hold to resume Autofocus. There are just way too many hurdles for the user to really derive control over autofocus on a shoot with these cameras, its kinda awful. Or in this instance, with me showing the remote, it works better to block the face momentarily with the item, but then once I move the item out of the way and bring my face back to being visible, what now? What should the AF do, choose the object I thrust in its face to keep track of, or come back to me? It's very random what it does, another day it will just come back to my face, but today it wanted to try and keep up with the remote/hand despite having Face/Eye detection on... For a talking head piece there are workarounds, use AF Area and have the AF box overlaying the face, limit AF distance also, if it loses your face/eye it will at least come back to having your face in focus till it picks it up again, its what I normally do. Today I thought I'd try Multi. Tbh... it picked the remote up nice and quickly, which was a complaint that the more recent f/w modes struggled with... 🤷