CRAZY RESULTS Viltrox 35mm f1.7 Air vs the Fujifilm 35mm f2

[@dianthus605]

Thanks for the review and comparison, very useful.

[@KirkWilliamsonphotography]

Thanks 🙏

[@k3i0]

you forgot the aperture ring on the xf. for me this is the biggest plus for the fuji.

[@KirkWilliamsonphotography]

Yes absolutely messed up with that!

[@legalaz7457]

The Viltrox is a direct competitor to the XC 35mm F2, which does not have an aperture ring. Given the choice of the two, I would definitely go with the Viltrox.

[@billfortney7028]

I always enjoy your videos, good comparison! I tend to go Edith the original manufactures lenses, but several companies are really starting to give them a run for the money! If your budget is tight looks like the Viltrox has a lot going for it! Stay warm up there!

[@KirkWilliamsonphotography]

Bill - I messed up leaving off the aperture ring as a con on the Viltrox and a Pro for the Fuji. Yes it’s getting colder up here and likely to stay that way for a good bit. Brrrr!

[@robmas57]

Thanks for the nice comparison. I would lean toward the Fuji due to the aperture ring and WR (since I use WR bodies). You’ve got some nice things to photograph up there in New England.

[@KirkWilliamsonphotography]

Thanks Rob I agree on the Fuji. I need to get out and photograph the stuff up here now.

[@daveboyle5751]

Fuji started making affordable lenses with the XC series but only did three zooms and the XC35mm f2, then they stopped, great to see Viltrox bringing the AIR series making getting into the Fuji system for those starting out affordable, or for those just wanting to start tying some primes, I have the XF56 f1.2 and Viltrox 27mm f1.2 and 75mm f1.2 along with other fast primes for Event and PJ work, but I'm buying these Viltrox primes as a light weight expendable travel kit. if they get lost or stolen no big deal. The IQ for the price is just unbelievably good.

[@KirkWilliamsonphotography]

Yes I agree. I just used the 56 1.7 for a PJ dark as sin assignment it worked great. I really do need the new 56 1.2

[@Coloradohiker658]

Well informed video. Have you used any Viltrox lenses for night sky’s? Also, any experience with Sigmas 100-400 or Fuji’s 150-600?

[@KirkWilliamsonphotography]

Hi Mark - so far no night sky stuff with Viltrox. I don’t have anything wider than the 35. And sadly no experience with either of those long zooms only the Fuji 100-400 and 70-300

[@edc5338]

Great video. I have the Fuji 35mm and I use it occasionally, prefering the 23mm wider lens. The Fuji doesn't have OIS although mnist Fuji bodies have in camera IS.

[@KirkWilliamsonphotography]

I’m the same way. I like the 23 focal length over the 35. Neither lens has OIS so having it in the camera is a big plus.

[@9Mtikcus]

I've never been a fan of the XF 35 F/2 (I kept my XF 35mm F/1.4) but i picked up for a second shooter the XC 35mm F/2 (which is the same glass as the XF 35mm F/2, but a plastic build) which i sold too, that is a better comparison as they are at the same price point. But If i adjust your pros and cons... the XC loses some of the Pros of the XF (no weather sealing, build quality) but it does come in at the same price if not a little cheaper than the viltrox. Maybe not for an XT-50 buyer (since those cameras are not exactly entry level price anymore), but someone picking up an X-M5 or a 2nd hand last gen fuji camera, either (viltorx or the XC) would make a great first prime lens?

[@KirkWilliamsonphotography]

All good points - I just don’t have any of those XC 35 to compare it to.

[@brownwallet942]

Id pick Viltrox 35mmf1.7 over Fuji 35mmf 2. Even if they're priced the same, 1.7 aperture is better than 2 and improvements of sharpness and minimum focusing distance are great additions. Faster autofocus and weather sealing doesn't appeal too much for me cos I don't take photos when it's raining, and the snow never bothered me. Id also choose Viltrox 35mm over fuji 35mm 1.4 just because it's more affordable

[@albertsmith9315]

Assuming that the camera was tripod mounted at a fixed position for the Santa photos, there is a noticeable difference in the focal lengths at the close focus distance. Focus breathing? Also the f/1.7 brokeh balls are smaller and tighter than the f/2 Fujicron. Truly f/1.7 or marketing? I would like to see a sample photo of a blank wall at f/1.7 shot at a constant shutter speed (set manually, so the camera doesn't pick an in-between soeed) against the Fuji at f/2 at the same speed.... there should be a noticeable difference if the Viltrox is indeed f/1.7. I remember back when photography magazines were a thing, many "fast" lenses actually came in slower than their marked aperture when tested. An f/-one-point-something lens looks cooler on paper than f/2, but not if it really is not that fast. Still, it's nice to have options if money is an issue.

[@KirkWilliamsonphotography]

The camera was locked down and never changed position unless I moved it slightly when changing lenses. I only shot the Viltrox at f2 not at f 1.7. BTW I only shot these at the same exposure in manual.

[@NBPT428]

Interesting comparison. You can't argue about the price of the Viltrox since it seems to be splitting hairs with the more expensive Fuji in performance. I have the 35mm f2 in silver for my X-T3 and love it. I think the biggest difference is unknown at this point. If you're buying one of these lenses with the intention of regular use in different environments, I have a feeling down the road the Fuji will be worth the cost difference due to the build quality. (Just my theory)

[@KirkWilliamsonphotography]

I’m sure you are correct in that assumption. At some point I’ll think about the Fuji 56 f1.2 instead of using the Fuji 56 f1.7 for the occasional news job. I would never use the 35 it’s not wide enough or long enough for my purposes.

[@billfortney7028]

Don’t know why auto spell replaced with - with Edith!!!???

[@dianthus605]

It's funny what makes a lens desirable (as opposed to practical or useful). The two Fujifilm 35mm f/2 lens versions, XF versus XC are supposed to be optically identical but are priced very differently. Rather than choose the lower-cost XC version, I got the Viltrox which is more directly comparable, both are plastic, no aperture ring, no weather sealing. It was curiosity really, rather than which one is 'better'. Though the Fuji XC has a plastic mount while the Viltrox does at least have a metal mount which counts in its favour. So far, I've been impressed by the sharpness of the Viltrox f/1.7 even in the corners. It doesn't particularly impress as an object to handle and admire, it is mostly functional.

[@KirkWilliamsonphotography]

Cost wise the comparison between the XC and the Viltrox makes sense. I felt that for me it made more sense to compare a lens that is in a lot of peoples bags.

[@billfortney7028]

I agree with previous comment, the aperture ring is a big deal to old guys like me!

[@coastalsandwich]

I have the F2 and the autofocus on it feels poor, I’ve pretty much abandon it for manual focus lenses entirely now. Reading the comments here and seeing this comparison, might give Viltrox a go

[@KirkWilliamsonphotography]

You never know it might be worth it especially with the discount ending tomorrow

[@dianthus605]

I've used a few manual-focus lenses, some new and one or two vintage ones. Results can be very satisfying but I've had a few failed shots due to misfocus. At least for me there is a place for auto-focus too.

[@TheSgyro]

I guess the xc version of the fuji is the true opponent for the viltrox lens..

[@KirkWilliamsonphotography]

I don’t have that lens. Weight wise the Fujicron comparison works for me. I’m not concerned about the price so much as the IQ and weight and size.

[@TheSgyro]

@ viltrox really killing it lately 😁

[@bguerrero0410]

Please turn the alarm off on the camera.

[@KirkWilliamsonphotography]

You mean for the 2 sec timer? No

[@awake780]

One thing the Fujicron suffers with is closeup image quality. I think not testing them side by side for CUIQ was a missed opportunity.

[@KirkWilliamsonphotography]

Yes a missed opportunity I should have done that. If they make a 23 1.7 Air I’ll make sure to do that.

[@timothynorris4288]

Loved the video. The fact that the viltrox doesn't have an aperture ring is a con ? Though I'm sure the Fuji plastic fantastic doesn't have one either? Viltrox is fantastic value for the buck., regards, Tim.

[@KirkWilliamsonphotography]

Tim I miss stuff all the time it’s definitely a con for the Viltrox but a Pro for the Fuji since it has an aperture ring!

[@timothynorris4288]

Kirk , the plastic fantastic has a plastic mount compared to the Fuji so that's a plus for the viltrox. All the best for the new year.

[@Invincibleagent]

This video is about the XF lens, not the XC lens. The XF one has a better build and an aperture ring.

[@tiitulitii]

You should take a pictures of reference pictures in order to really be able to compare the outputs to the original pictures. If you compare two photos of a physical subject, nobody will get to know which of the photos is nearer to the reality, which you did omit to show in the comparison! I.e., select b&w and color calibration images as references instead of using physical objects.

[@KirkWilliamsonphotography]

No pixel peeping with real world images. No test charts!

[@bobdrawbaugh4207]

The Fuji looks like a work of art. The Viltrox looks like it came in a Happy Meal. But, the results aren’t bad for the price. I was a little upset at what I paid for the Fuji at the time. But, it looks so good on any Fuji camera. I’ve never been disappointed in the results from The Fuji.

[@KirkWilliamsonphotography]

The Fuji does look better in a throw back way which fits the Fuji x series cameras. The Viltrox without the aperture ring is more of a modern look.

[@brownwallet942]

I have the 15mm f/1.7 Leica lens for my GX85. That one looks similar to this 35mm f/2, but I’d still say the Viltrox's shape and size look appealing to me. I've seen posters of it paired with the XM5, and it looks darn cute

[@craig_m_mi]

The Viltrox aperture ring, that doesn't exist, is not a pro or a con, eh?

[@KirkWilliamsonphotography]

Craig - yes I missed it! It’s a pro for the Fuji! Others have commented on my leaving it out.

[@zyxyuv1650]

The 35mm f/2 is unusable for video. It has such bad focus breathing that it's actually a 34-37mm f/2 zoom lens. I got rid of the Fuji because I don't want to carry any half functional or partially functional lenses while I'm traveling. Viltrox saved Fujifilm, the X mount system was a disaster without Viltrox.

[@KirkWilliamsonphotography]

Not sure I agree with you but appreciate the feedback.

[@zyxyuv1650]

@@KirkWilliamsonphotography I try not to make reckless or irresponsible purchases. Buying a lens that fails for video and then carrying around 2 separate 35mm lenses (1 for video, 1 for photos) would be gratuitous and excessive, so I consider the XF 35mm f/2 to be an irresponsible purchase. And yeah Viltrox, Tamron, Sigma radically altered the X mount lineup and saved the whole system. Five years ago I needed to spend $6000 to build a good Fuji setup because it needed $1000 lenses. That has been radically altered by stuff like the Viltrox AF 75mm f/1.2 which breaks the records on LensTip's MTF50 image resolution tests as being one of the sharpest lenses ever tested out of 550 lenses tested, reaching 100 lp/mm. The price is now a couple thousand dollars for a good X mount setup without compromise. Don't you remember how things used to be? It was a nightmare. Loud grinding external focus motors, severe compromises and show-stoppers at every focal length.

[@zyxyuv1650]

@@KirkWilliamsonphotography Here is proof that they saved the X mount. Pick 2 zooms and 6 primes to build a setup: Sigma 10-18mm f/2.8 DC DN 'C' - $600, 250g = wide zoom Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8 Di III-A VC RXD - $700, 525g = standard zoom Viltrox AF 13mm f/1.4 XF - $420, 420g = fast wide Viltrox AF 23mm f/1.4 XF V2 - $260, 260g = light standard Viltrox AF 27mm f/1.2 XF - $500, 560g = fast standard Viltrox AF 35mm f/1.7 XF - $150, 170g = light standard Viltrox AF 56mm f/1.7 XF - $160, 171g = light portrait Viltrox AF 75mm f/1.2 XF - $500, 670g = fast portrait = $3290, 2976g Fujinon XF 8-16mm f/2.8 R LM WR - $1500, 805g = wide zoom Fujinon XF 16-55mm f/2.8 R LM WR II - $1200, 410g = standard zoom Fujinon XF 16mm f/1.4 R WR - $1000, 375g = fast wide Fujinon XF 23mm f/1.4 R LM WR - $900, 375g = fast standard Fujinon XF 33mm f/1.4 R LM WR - $800, 360g = fast standard Fujinon XC 35mm f/2 - $200, 130g = light standard Fujinon XF 50mm f/2 R WR, $450, 200g = light portrait Fujinon XF 56mm f/1.2 R WR - $1000, 445g = fast portrait = $7050, 3100g

[@brownwallet942]

Nah. X mount has Fuji, Viltrox, Sirui, Ttartisan, 7 artisans, Pergear, Brightin Star lenses. Without Viltrox there's still plenty of options for X mount

[@zyxyuv1650]

@@brownwallet942 Bro...TTArtisan, Pergear (7Artisans) and Brightin Star are not on the same level of Viltrox...we'd be screwed if we were stuck with 7Artisans instead of Viltrox...Viltrox has record breaking lenses, those companies don't have a single lens that's good enough to use, they made no impact on the X mount system. Out of the lot, TTArtisan is trying the hardest, but they're nowhere near Viltrox quality. Sirui might get better. They're a legit company and they're trying but they didn't succeed. I.e. their 75mm f/1.2 AF has bad corner performance and is much less sharp than the Viltrox. Check Chris Frost's resolution charts.

[@the_federic_vii]

Solution ? XC 35mm f2.

[@KirkWilliamsonphotography]

Not a viable solution. It’s all plastic even the mount

[@the_federic_vii]

@@KirkWilliamsonphotography AF 35mm F1.8 Mark II TTARTISAN ;)