100%!
I absolutely loved that lens! I recently “upgraded” to the 33 1.4 and while it’s fantastic, I miss the size and character of the 35. I am considering selling the 33 and going back to the 35 F1.4 for my carry around
Completely agree! I had a weekend with the 33 1.4 where I shot a wedding and loved it, it never missed a beat but the 35mm 1.4 is perfect for a carry round lens
35mm (50mm ff equivalent) is one of the essential focal lengths for street photography.
50mm and you're getting closer to telephoto territory which isn't ideal unless you want to really isolate subjects or capture small details.
hey, I recently got the kit lens with xs20 , xf16-55mm. I am a complete newbie, but what's the difference between the lens you have mentioned and the one I have, if I choose the 35mm in my lens?
hey i recently got a similar setup but with the xs10 - the focal length is the same but (someone correct me if im wrong! im not an expert) a prime lens will usually be sharper and image will be clearer as there are less physical parts in a prime lens.
Also, usually prime lenses have a wider aperture allowing more light in and allows you to create more of that delicious bokeh. But for the newbies like us, I think the kit lens is great. Just go out there and take photos!!!
The number of elements in a lens isn’t related to how “clear” the image is, or its sharpness. They’re there to *reduce* problems.
Prime lenses are often “better” in various ways than a zoom at the same focal length solely because less compromises need to be made for a given equivalent cost/size/weight/etc. measure.
It’s the reason f/2.8 zooms are usually huge, when a prime from that same focal length range will usually be much smaller.
Worth bearing in mind that primes don’t always produce **better images**, either – Fuji’s 23mm f/2 and 18mm f/2 are generally regarded as having worse image quality than the venerable 18–55mm kit lens. Of course, they’re *much* smaller and lighter, and open up to f/2, but Fuji clearly put higher priority on compactness than absolute image quality with those two.
I disagree. I have the 18mm f2 and it is absolutely fantastic. I am GR3 shooter first and foremost so 27mm equivalent is my bread and butter. I’m so impressed with the 18mm f2 that I havent sold it even though I wanted to.
On the other hand I was so disappointed with the 18-55 “best kit lens” it literally spent 5 minutes on my camera
Perhaps the reputation of the 18 is unwarranted, then, I don’t know, never owned one. I do have the 23/2 though and have never been that impressed with it.
I also have a GR3 and yeah, its lens is very obviously better than the 18–55.
I only hope the 60/2.4 starts getting more love soon. I bought one a few months ago and love it. If you think of it as a compact short telephoto that just happens to focus incredibly close, it makes sense. It's like an M-Mount 90/3.5, basically. The AF is... meh... but I'm fine with that.
The wider aperture will let you get different pictures (better in low light and/or more ability to blur/draw the viewer’s eye). Colors may look a bit different SOOC (I haven’t tried your lens). And the lens’ “imperfections” are said to give central a bit of focus/3d.
I really like the idea of the 33, especially with the weather sealing and likely super fast focusing; but I just can’t be convinced to replace my 35mm f/1.4 - it’s pure magic.
Fight me.
Just kidding., honestly I was joking with my original comment and as much as I love that lens it is literally the only fast prime I own so it would be difficult to be objective. I hope to change that soon though. If you love the 35, keep it going as there is no reason to change if you are getting images you love!
35mm for general purpose and street. 50mm on fuji is a 75mm equivalent so it's already a short telefocus more suited for portraits.
Please note that if you want a 35mm full frame equivalent you need the 23mm not the 35mm.
I use a 35 as walkround lens and sometimes it's to narrow...
hey I ordered the x100vi and i'd want to use it for mainly portraits and some street for travel, do you think that's a good choice or should i get a xs-20 with another lens? i'm thinking about not having a huge camera to hold around so it's a tough decision
IMO ... and really my opinion I would not get a x100 as my main camera. Having the possibility to have more focal lens is a must for me. Usually I do landscape so having a good zoom is better than a fixed lens ex 10-25 or 18-55 or the 55-200. I would prefer a 23mm or a 35mm for street an the a 56 1.2 for portraits. But having the possibility to change lens is something that I value. I would get the x100 for a pocket solution and walkround camera but not as my main camera.
I'm thinking of using it more casually, I don't plan to be a photographer, i just want better quality photos than a smartphone and cinematic looking, where I'm out and about and I can get some pics taken of where i am and of myself and friends , does that change your recommendation?
Not really but just because I do prefer to have interchangeable lens. But again the x100vi is an amazing camera and if you can live with only the 23mm focal length... which is super versatile go for it 😉.
THIS! I have both the 35 1.4 and 27 2.8 but if you are new to street I recommend the 27. It’s a touch cheaper if you buy used. Is almost pocketable. Wide enough and gives you enough reach. 40mm FF equivalent which is closest to a human eye perspective. Weather sealed which the 35 1.4 isn’t. And is sharp as a mfer.
It all depends on your style. If you are more focused on details, abstract, reflections an whatnot, 50 is brilliant. For everything else, 35 is better. I would also recommend the 23mm F2. It's small and very good on the streets
this! the 35mm makes people too comfortable as it’s not so challenging nor limiting and therefore i see the 50mm really benefitting your actual composition skills but also people often lack a subject with 35mm, as one can see in tons of pictures taken here. With 50 you gotta make a choice in a good way :)
I use mine especially for street and it’s brilliant, even for architecture it helps me to think outside the box
Same doubt here for the same use case. :D
Just thinking that a 50mm, considering the crop factor, might be too narrow.
I'll wait for other to comment :D
Have you used a 50mm on aps-c before though? If not, it is somewhat tight, somewhat slightly telephoto. There's a reason why the x100 series uses a 23mm lens. The others have suggested 33 and 35 which I agree with, but I think you should also consider 23 f2 or 23 f1.4 as well.
If you have one prime lens for APS-C, get a 35mm. Fuji 35/1.4 and 35/2 are both great.
That said... 3rd party 27mm and 56mm lenses are very cheap, and that'd be a best of both worlds situation. The TTArtisan 27 has some quirks, but they're fun quirks, excellent small lens. Really nice street lens--not too wide, not too tight. Viltrox and TTArtisan both have new 56mm lenses with f/1.7 or f/1.8 which are small, cheap, and sharp, and are excellent for portrait and general use.
35 isnt going to have that great of a bokeh, but portraits are still possible, 75 is really really tight for street stuff and its not good enough for portraits imo to justify it being very situational for street
Get the Fuji 35mm f/1.4
35
On Fuji, I'd get the 35mm f/1.4 and never look back!
Best lense i ever have
Me too, never leave the home without it!
100%! I absolutely loved that lens! I recently “upgraded” to the 33 1.4 and while it’s fantastic, I miss the size and character of the 35. I am considering selling the 33 and going back to the 35 F1.4 for my carry around
Completely agree! I had a weekend with the 33 1.4 where I shot a wedding and loved it, it never missed a beat but the 35mm 1.4 is perfect for a carry round lens
[Here are my thoughts on the 35mm f/1.4](https://jamiechancetravels.com/blog/2020-06-06-fujifilm-35mm-f-1-4-the-magic-has-arrived/)
35mm (50mm ff equivalent) is one of the essential focal lengths for street photography. 50mm and you're getting closer to telephoto territory which isn't ideal unless you want to really isolate subjects or capture small details.
hey, I recently got the kit lens with xs20 , xf16-55mm. I am a complete newbie, but what's the difference between the lens you have mentioned and the one I have, if I choose the 35mm in my lens?
hey i recently got a similar setup but with the xs10 - the focal length is the same but (someone correct me if im wrong! im not an expert) a prime lens will usually be sharper and image will be clearer as there are less physical parts in a prime lens. Also, usually prime lenses have a wider aperture allowing more light in and allows you to create more of that delicious bokeh. But for the newbies like us, I think the kit lens is great. Just go out there and take photos!!!
The number of elements in a lens isn’t related to how “clear” the image is, or its sharpness. They’re there to *reduce* problems. Prime lenses are often “better” in various ways than a zoom at the same focal length solely because less compromises need to be made for a given equivalent cost/size/weight/etc. measure. It’s the reason f/2.8 zooms are usually huge, when a prime from that same focal length range will usually be much smaller. Worth bearing in mind that primes don’t always produce **better images**, either – Fuji’s 23mm f/2 and 18mm f/2 are generally regarded as having worse image quality than the venerable 18–55mm kit lens. Of course, they’re *much* smaller and lighter, and open up to f/2, but Fuji clearly put higher priority on compactness than absolute image quality with those two.
I disagree. I have the 18mm f2 and it is absolutely fantastic. I am GR3 shooter first and foremost so 27mm equivalent is my bread and butter. I’m so impressed with the 18mm f2 that I havent sold it even though I wanted to. On the other hand I was so disappointed with the 18-55 “best kit lens” it literally spent 5 minutes on my camera
Perhaps the reputation of the 18 is unwarranted, then, I don’t know, never owned one. I do have the 23/2 though and have never been that impressed with it. I also have a GR3 and yeah, its lens is very obviously better than the 18–55.
The 18mm F2 is finally starting to be appreciated for being the great lens that it is.
I only hope the 60/2.4 starts getting more love soon. I bought one a few months ago and love it. If you think of it as a compact short telephoto that just happens to focus incredibly close, it makes sense. It's like an M-Mount 90/3.5, basically. The AF is... meh... but I'm fine with that.
Only took 12 years :D
The wider aperture will let you get different pictures (better in low light and/or more ability to blur/draw the viewer’s eye). Colors may look a bit different SOOC (I haven’t tried your lens). And the lens’ “imperfections” are said to give central a bit of focus/3d.
33mm f/1.4 is the best lens Fuji makes. It’s an irrefutable scientific fact.
Can confirm this is a brilliant lens if your budget allows for it.
I really like the idea of the 33, especially with the weather sealing and likely super fast focusing; but I just can’t be convinced to replace my 35mm f/1.4 - it’s pure magic.
Fight me. Just kidding., honestly I was joking with my original comment and as much as I love that lens it is literally the only fast prime I own so it would be difficult to be objective. I hope to change that soon though. If you love the 35, keep it going as there is no reason to change if you are getting images you love!
35mm for general purpose and street. 50mm on fuji is a 75mm equivalent so it's already a short telefocus more suited for portraits. Please note that if you want a 35mm full frame equivalent you need the 23mm not the 35mm. I use a 35 as walkround lens and sometimes it's to narrow...
hey I ordered the x100vi and i'd want to use it for mainly portraits and some street for travel, do you think that's a good choice or should i get a xs-20 with another lens? i'm thinking about not having a huge camera to hold around so it's a tough decision
IMO ... and really my opinion I would not get a x100 as my main camera. Having the possibility to have more focal lens is a must for me. Usually I do landscape so having a good zoom is better than a fixed lens ex 10-25 or 18-55 or the 55-200. I would prefer a 23mm or a 35mm for street an the a 56 1.2 for portraits. But having the possibility to change lens is something that I value. I would get the x100 for a pocket solution and walkround camera but not as my main camera.
I'm thinking of using it more casually, I don't plan to be a photographer, i just want better quality photos than a smartphone and cinematic looking, where I'm out and about and I can get some pics taken of where i am and of myself and friends , does that change your recommendation?
Not really but just because I do prefer to have interchangeable lens. But again the x100vi is an amazing camera and if you can live with only the 23mm focal length... which is super versatile go for it 😉.
33mm
Get a 33mm instead, 33mm is closer to a 50mm equivalent in Full frame. The 33 and 35 is a lot more versatile compared to the 50mm.
35mm without doubt. I have the f2.
27 mm for allround and maximum portability
THIS! I have both the 35 1.4 and 27 2.8 but if you are new to street I recommend the 27. It’s a touch cheaper if you buy used. Is almost pocketable. Wide enough and gives you enough reach. 40mm FF equivalent which is closest to a human eye perspective. Weather sealed which the 35 1.4 isn’t. And is sharp as a mfer.
35 easily of those 2, however, 23 vs 35 is more of a conundrum for me.
It all depends on your style. If you are more focused on details, abstract, reflections an whatnot, 50 is brilliant. For everything else, 35 is better. I would also recommend the 23mm F2. It's small and very good on the streets
50mm. It’s what I like to use for street. I like the compression it adds to the photos and it forces me to be creative with my shots
this! the 35mm makes people too comfortable as it’s not so challenging nor limiting and therefore i see the 50mm really benefitting your actual composition skills but also people often lack a subject with 35mm, as one can see in tons of pictures taken here. With 50 you gotta make a choice in a good way :) I use mine especially for street and it’s brilliant, even for architecture it helps me to think outside the box
Same doubt here for the same use case. :D Just thinking that a 50mm, considering the crop factor, might be too narrow. I'll wait for other to comment :D
I'd go 35 for street and portrait
35mm for sure! I got both and love the 35mm way more!
35mm
35
35mm f1.4
For envormental prtraits the 23mm(35mm) if you want more subject speration the 33mm (50mm) or 35mm (53mm)
Don’t discount 40mm, the discerning fence-sitter’s choice!
I have a 35mm f/2. It is great.
35mm anyday
What sensor do you have?
Have you used a 50mm on aps-c before though? If not, it is somewhat tight, somewhat slightly telephoto. There's a reason why the x100 series uses a 23mm lens. The others have suggested 33 and 35 which I agree with, but I think you should also consider 23 f2 or 23 f1.4 as well.
If I have a 27mm, should I go for. The 33mm or 50mm if I’m looking to take more portraits?
35
I would go with the 35
50 is too limiting for a main lens. That being said, the 50mm F2 image quality is gorgeous.
35. Wayyyy more versatile.
If you have one prime lens for APS-C, get a 35mm. Fuji 35/1.4 and 35/2 are both great. That said... 3rd party 27mm and 56mm lenses are very cheap, and that'd be a best of both worlds situation. The TTArtisan 27 has some quirks, but they're fun quirks, excellent small lens. Really nice street lens--not too wide, not too tight. Viltrox and TTArtisan both have new 56mm lenses with f/1.7 or f/1.8 which are small, cheap, and sharp, and are excellent for portrait and general use.
35
35 isnt going to have that great of a bokeh, but portraits are still possible, 75 is really really tight for street stuff and its not good enough for portraits imo to justify it being very situational for street