Since Carl Zeiss AG first released their line of Touit lenses for Sony NEX and Fuji X-mount, there has been much debate, especially among Fuji owners, as to whether the pricey Zeiss lenses are worth their premium over the excellent options from the OEMs. Last year, I did a faceoff between the Fuji XF 14mm f/2.8 and the Zeiss Touit 12mm f/2.8. Today’s battle? Zeiss Touit 32mm f/1.8 Planar vs. Fujifilm Fujinon XF 35mm f/1.4.
Both of these lenses have been praised as outstanding normal lenses for the APS-C Fuji X-System. The 35mm f/1.4 is one of the original lenses for Fuji X-Mount, while the Zeiss comes in promising that legendary Zeiss character and sharpness.
Both lenses are extremely well-built, with bodies constructed of metal. The lenses are almost exactly the same size as well. The Fuji lens has the added advantage of a faster f/1.4 aperture…a full 2/3 stop faster than the Touit 32mm. The Zeiss name comes with a cost: $1,000 for the Touit 32mm. the Fuji comes in a whopping $400 less, at $600. Let’s find out if the 32mm is worth nearly double the cost.
Thanks to LensRentals.com for providing the Zeiss 32mm f/1.8 for this test and my upcoming review. Head over there if you need a lens or camera for a special event or just to try out.
The Test
Today’s test looks at the lenses in an interior type setting, which allows us to evaluate center and edge sharpness as well as the rendition of out of focus areas, or bokeh. The setup involved a flat book box stood up to evaluate sharpness. Behind this was placed a crystal decanter, which provides a wealth of specular highlights, as well as a vase filled with wooden spiral sticks, which can show how the lenses render busier backgrounds. Every shot was taken tripod mounted, square to the target book box, approximately 1m away. Self timer was used in order to eliminate any residual camera shake from the shutter actuation. The 35mm shots were framed first, and then the tripod was moved slightly closer to make the target box the same size in the frame for the slightly wider 32mm lens. Focus was made in the center of the frame, directly on the upper left corner of the book box. Crops from the same aperture and lens are all taken from the same image.
Shots were taken wide open, then with both lenses at f/1.8, f/2.8, f/4 and f/5.6.
First, let’s look at the whole scene, and look at how the lenses render this scene when each lens is shot at maximum aperture. This will also give you an idea of the degree of extra subject separation the Fuji’s 2/3 stop speed advantage confers.
As with all images in this comparison, click to enlarge the image.
Center Sharpness
What follows are 100% crops from the RAW images, processed in Lightroom 5.3. Each shot was processed with identical settings. Click on each image to enlarge to full size.
Wide open, there is very similar sharpness in the center of the frame. The Zeiss might have ever so slightly higher contrast and be ever so slightly sharper, but they are very close. Remember the Fuji is much faster here as well.
With both lenses at f/1.8, center sharpness is essentially a wash. Both lenses produce extremely sharp results in the image center at large apertures.
As the images are stopped down further, the lenses remain extremely close to each other in the image center. The Zeiss might be a hair sharper at f/2.8, while the Fuji might be a hair sharper at f/4 and f/5.6. In any case, this one’s close enough to be considered a wash.
Nice write up! I’m really debating on getting this lense since I’ve read its sharper wide open and lusting to try a Zeiss lense on my xe1. Are you seing better color, contrast then the Fuji with that signature Zeiss look everyone seems to say. I love the 35 also witch I used for almost a year exclusively, i like also its slightly wider view then the fuji.
IMO, it doesn’t have what I consider to be the ‘typical Zeiss look.’ Not that it’s bad. It’s a very good lens, and it’s quite sharp at f/1.8 for an f/1.8 lens. As you can see, though, it doesn’t sharpen up a whole lot beyond that though, which is rather unusual. I associate the ‘Zeiss look’ with extremely high contrast and microcontrast with high color saturation. This doesn’t have that. It is also downright bizarre that it never sharpens up across the frame completely.
Having tried and owned a bazillion different lenses over the years, I just have to say…don’t buy a lens because of the name on it. There are Zeiss lenses that are downright incredible (and some are among my favorite lenses of all time, such as the 85/2.8 Sonnar). And there are Zeiss lenses that are a little disappointing. IMO, unless you like busy bokeh or really need that extra corner sharpness at maximum aperture, the Fuji 35mm is the better lens. For wide aperture work, I care much more how it performs in the middle 75% of the frame, and the Fuji does very well there…plus it has nicer bokeh and is 2/3 stop faster. Then, you put on top that it’s tack sharp across the frame when stopped down and has little to no CA, where the Zeiss falters a bit, and for Fuji buyers, I don’t think the Touit 32mm makes a lot of sense. You’re paying $400 more for better corners at wide apertures but worse performance stopped down, 2/3 slower aperture and worse bokeh.
Thanks for doing this evaluation. Very interesting. To me, in the pictures here in your review, and in other reviews, the Zeiss has a richer color to it, and is more contrasty. Given the current sale on the Touits, I went for them!
Obviously old Fred above has more money than sense Mr Livingstone.
OK, I a digital Neanderthal who has decided to cross over to the darkside due to the pending birth of our first grandchild. I use Summicron optics on my Leica M6’s so I am tempted to buy the C Zeiss Touit 32mm 1.8 with my new Fujifilm camera as I favour German optics, having used both Japanese and German ones. I read Ken Rockwell’s comments on the Fuji 35mm 1.4, he reckons it to be as good as Summilux lenses which is an amasing recommendation to going for the Fuji version, but, I am not sure?
Great comparison! With the new Fuji 35mm WR f2 lens and the price adjustments of the Zeiss 32mm f1.8 and Fuji 35mm f1.4, what are your thoughts on the best all around lens at this focal length for the x-mount? I have an XT-1 and basically see them all as a wash with balance of different features and performances unique to each. Any thoughts or will there be upcoming head to head comparisons?
I had a similar situation. I select the first lens on the XT-1. And it was WR f2.0. I think the lens of the Fuji completely without character. Because before that I had a Canon with Planar 1.4 ZE and it was fantastic lens. Tests is good, but the main thing is the result. And if a good result, you will be comfortable working with Zeiss, why not buy it? 🙂
In the Conclusion where you say “… the comparison I did between the Touit 12mm and the Fuji 14mm…” it would be helpful to put a link there, pointing at that review.
The link is in the opening paragraph.
Very helpful review, that Fuji 35mm 1.4 is a beautiful lens! In the end I went with the Zeiss (though I got it used for like $450) because of the way it renders color & contrast. In future reviews I would recommend talking g about this because through your images the Zeiss is a lot more contrasty with richer colors and you never addressed it.
At any rate I enjoyed the read and you helped me out, thank you!
I have never seen a sharp Plannar. Looking at blue lines on paper it proves. Every photo Fuji is better. Autofocus Zeiss probably better.