5
May
2013

Zeiss Touit (vs Fuji XF) sample images and feedback (PCH store Brussel)

 photo Buddah_zps3bccd6b3.jpg

Michel from PCH store in Brussel shared with me his Zeiss samples. You can check more at his facebook page. You can pre-order these lenses at PCH Brussel here. He’s not a pro gear reviewer nor pro photographer, but he told me that he made a comparison between the 12mm Zeiss and the 14mm Fuji, and between the 32mm Zeiss and the .

“To be honest I do not see something that strikes me, the files look similar, maybe the Zeiss 12mm is a bit smoother and not as sharp, or maybe it is more creamy than the 14mm Fuji, and maybe the 32 Zeiss is a bit sharper, or has better micro contrast? I can not tell really the differences. What is sure is that the Zeiss Lenses are beautiful to see and play with, I like the focus ring a lot, it’s a better feeling than the one of the 35mm. The aperture ring is a bit too smooth for my taste, and one can easily change the aperture without noticing it. It happened to a lot of shots during the comparison, were I had to be careful and check every time the aperture ring cause it had moved [...] After testing the 2 lenses 32&35, I found them equally fast, providing that the xf35 has the latest firmware. It’s difficult to say which is faster. The Zeiss on the other hand seems a bit less noisy and the focus seems smoother, I would say not so mechanical. But these are subtle differences. I did not have two bodys to compare.  The Quality of the Zeiss is beautiful, the feel is georgeous, I like them, but image quality wise, they do not seem to be better than the Fuji’s. Only precise tests will tell from the usual Photozone and the likes what the truth is [...] Another thing, I’m testing now the Zeiss 32mm, and in manual focus mode, like the Fuji’s, you can still get AF when pressing the AE-L/AF-L button”

For the PCH comparison shots (Fuji vs Zeiss full resolution samples) you can check this dunkelkammer post here.

Pre-order the 32mm f/1.8 lens (Adorama / BHphoto / Uniquephoto / PCH Brussel)
Pre-order the 12mm f/2.8 lens (Adorama / BHphoto / Uniquephoto / PCH Brussel)
XF14mm DigitalRev
XF35mm DigitalRev

Zeiss 32 f/5.6
zeiss 32 f5.6 photo Zeiss32F56_zps584b6210.jpg

Fuji 35 f/5.6
Fuji 35 f5.6 photo Fuji35F56_zpsf53c6420.jpg

Zeiss 32 f/1.8
zeiss 32 f1.8 photo Zeiss32F18_zpsb1190a67.jpg

Fuji 35 F/1.8
Fuji 35 f1.8 photo Fuji35F18_zps269ba75b.jpg

Zeiss 12 f/5.6
zeiss 12 f5.6 photo Zeiss12F56_zpsb2888f74.jpg

Fuji 14 f/5.6
Fuji 14 f5.6 photo Fuji14F56_zps90446aa8.jpg

Zeiss 12 f/2.8
zeiss 12 f2.8 photo Zeiss12F28_zps799df2b5.jpg

Fuji 14 f/2.8
Fuji 14 f2.8 photo Fuji14F28_zpsb87dea84.jpg

 

Zeiss 12mm
12 Zeiss photo 12_zps6a529d69.jpg

Fuji 14mm
14 Fuji photo 14_zps5cac958d.jpg

Zeiss 32mm
32 Zeiss photo 32_zpscd260b68.jpg

Fuji 35mm
35 Fuji photo 35_zps02fb3312.jpg

  • laseneka

    indeed, hard to tell the difference, if anything both fuji lenses are a bit sharper, have less nervous bokeh and seem nicer in the corners… they a bit wider though. I think i could go for the zeiss wide angle, but so far the 35xf looks perfect.

  • 2wk

    So I guess you pay a ill extra for build quality? Although the fuji build is fine for me. I don’t see that Zeiss color…

  • http://dunkelkammer.co/ Sarah

    My hopes were high, the result are ‘okay’. I will wait for more images to appear before I make a final judgement. Right now, I’m using mostly ZM lenses (Zeiss M Mount) on the Fuji and the results look fabulous.

    • Michel

      Hi Sarah

      Can you tell me which ZM lenses are you using with you Fuji ?

      Thanks

      Michel

      • Iullian

        I’m using Zeiss Planar 50/2 ZM. A nice lens to use, perfect for portraits. Sharper then most at F2 and has that nice contrast and vibrancy.

      • http://dunkelkammer.co/ Sarah

        Hi Michel,

        I’m also using the Planar 50/2 ZM. It’s the perfect lens for portraits (75mm equiv.) and plenty sharp at f2. The bokeh is delicious too!

        Here are some night shots (X-E1 and Planar 50/2): http://ow.ly/kJh48
        Here’s another day shot. You can see how well it performs: http://ow.ly/kJh8a

        I do have 2 other Zeiss lens on my radar. Both the C Sonnar T* 1,5/50 ZM and Distagon T* 4/18 ZM would fit perfectly.

        Best,
        Sarah

        • klehmann

          Hi Sarah,

          You can expect great results with the ZM18/4 on the X-Series. I used it extensively in the ‘early days’ of this system camera with mixed Zeiss/Leica-glass. The 18/4-X-Pro1 was in my opinion one of the more successfull of combos – a ‘sizzling’ match – sharp and clean as h..ll Sold the lens later on though when ditching Zeiss alltogether when streamlining my Leica setup and to help funding new glass.

          Best,
          klehmann

          • http://dunkelkammer.co/ Sarah

            Hi Klehmann,

            Thanks for the feedback. I’m looking forward to use the ZM18/4 on the Fuji! I’ve actually found this to be the perfect set-up. I’ve owned 3 Fuji lenses so far and all of them went back days after I got them. I always loved the feel of a manual focus Zeiss. It’s very satisfying to use, you get extra control and the results are great. The only thing I hate is using the Fuji at night. It’s terribly hard to focus trough an electronic viewfinder – even with magnification. I guess the any rangefinder will be much easier to use.

            Regarding the Leica lenses: What do you like most about them? I’ve always had Zeiss around me – starting with a Praktika and a Zeiss Biotar 58/2 (kind of inherited it) which still works fabulously after 60 years – Made in DDR :)

          • klehmann

            Hi Sarah,

            Well 1st of all I dont use the Fuji M-X official adapter at all any longer – I did initially but to be honest I simply didn’t find the price/performance ratio acceptable – and besides I got tired of constantly adjusting/memorizing the different settings in the adapter setup because I used so many diff. lenses with it outside of the builtin focallenghts. Finally I had some seriously annoying infinity issues with it – weird, huh? Instead I went for the Kipon Macro-Helicoid adapter that gave all my Leitz/Zeiss glass massively improved closer focusrange. For example newest Voightlander 21/1.8 now focuses down to less than 10cm as opposedtot he standard 70cm (this lens is one of the extreme examples; normally I ‘gain’ quite less, say 20-30cm). Anyways, I changed from the Kipon adapter to an adapter I actually preordered very early on but never received due to miscommunications – namely the Hawks Macro Helicoid Adapter (bought used from a guy over at Fuji X Forums)… and never looked back;o) – same benefits as the Kipon except not so flimsy/loose in the lensmount… Comes highly recommended! Still not ‘cheap’ though as its around 180$ from new.

            To what I like most about the Leitz/Leica? – Well, size for one thing on a ‘practical level… but also that these are the glasses I have already due to years of rangefinder-usage;o) Some of the modern Zeiss (ZM) glass is just as good as the Leicas, I guess – just different approaches in design-philosophy. However the Leicas is built to a somewhat higher tolerance and whether this is actually needed for You mostly using it on CSC is really questionable… You (we) have Liveview there and thats not available on the previous generation of Leica rangefinders… Theres obviously also optical differences but whether You recognize them is entirely up to You…. And yes, rangefinder usage is largely unhindered at nighttime – but You need the glass to ‘back it up’… Priceeeeeey;o)

            I also happen to love older lenses a lot and You mention the Biotar 58/2 which I have in a russian knock-off copy (Helios-44) which I happen to like even more – but the heritage is clearly Zeiss… in fact most of the glass I kept from ‘back in the days’ are either old ruski’s or Pentax Takumars in M42 – but also Meyer, Rollei, Konica and a few others in the stowaway… Theres a lot to be refound, re-enjoyed there in old manual glasses… And basically this was why I even bothered about the Fuji X-Series in the 1st place – however as it turned out most of the Fuji native lenses really hold their own and I tend to use the 35/1.4 a lot… I’m not really into zooms (Im not being puristic or even snobbish about them, though) allthough even these seem to be quite up there or even in some cases better than som primes I’ve seen from other brands… Just not my thing.

            Best
            klehmann

          • MJr

            Improved close focus !!?? That means the adapter is too thick and acting like a macro extention tube… And that means no more infinity.

          • klehmann

            Hi MJr,

            Actually, You couldn’t be more in the wrong here…

            Infinity-focus is perfectly aligned and the adapter is no thicker than the similar ‘fixed’ official Fuji Leica-X ditto – in fact it might be a tiny tad thinner… Clearly You haven’t used one but speak from general conception;o)

            Its a Macro-Helicoid NOT a fixed tube… meaning a tube going back and forth within a mount…for approx, 4-5mm,

            So YES focus-range is ‘improved’! The only small err I made was to mention that the 21/1.8 had a native minimum closefocus limit of 70cm – it’s 50cm; however on the Hawks its closer to 10cm and going ALL the way to infinity.

            Why would You think I would state such otherwise utter nonsense?

            Best
            klehmann

          • MJr

            I see. Assumed you were talking about a ‘copy’ of the Fuji M adapter, but i missed the Macro-Helicoid part. I see what it does now, very smart tool. Best of both worlds basically, except for the handy button.

            I wonder if it exactly matches the lens’ focus scale when fully retracted, so you can blindly put it at infinity for example, or do you always have to play with it a little in live-view ?

          • klehmann

            Hi again, MJr

            Well regarding the little tab on the official Fuji M-adapter for recalling settings was initially what sold me on that one – however as previously noted here for me this really wasn’t coming in so very usefull as it might suggest – my focallengths were often outside of the builtin 6 profiles (whereas only 2 were fully userconfigurable) and as such really became more of a setup-nuisance than truely beneficial – besides most of the stuff I could easily fix in post anyways… And also it was the Fuji adapter that gave me infinity-issues not any of the knock-off copies!

            You do lose distance-scale though, on all distances due to the absence of any electrical contacts which only the Fuji adapter currently provides – for macro its not really a loss as such since its basically out of the scope of the in-camera distance scale anyways;o) On longer distances I use my scale on the actual lens and use my eye for quick estimate before fineadjusting or use zonefocus – that never fails me.

            Lastly, hardly any lens is possibly to 100% match infinity by blind adjust unless they were matched together – even on Leica theres a mechanical drift over time in the patch or the lens itself can be out-of-specs… Infinity is also becoming somewhat of a loose term when used like this – how far away is infinity? the moon? the furthes point of view in the landscape? I mean You need to know these ‘things’ pretty exact to be able to just ‘turn towards infinity’ and bang You’re in focus somewhere just ‘far-away’ where You expect to be infinity…

            Happy shootin’

            Best
            klehmann

          • MJr

            Thanks klehmann, very interesting to hear personal experience.

            And you’re right, mostly a tad in front of infinity is better where DoF will take care of the rest. But that’s exactly why it needs to be reliable.

            Losing the focus scale on screen is no problem, the whole point of manual (like the direct shutter/aperture dials) is to eliminate the screen as much as possible, or the need to have the camera on all the time even. Those numbers on the lens aren’t there for nothing. ;)

        • Garrett

          which converter do you use and recommend to use leica M or Zeiss ZM lenses with your Fuji system?

          I’m considering using my 25 ZM on my fuji but want to make sure that I purchase an adapter that hits the right price-function sweet spot. Some of the adapters seem very expensive, so would be curious to know whether you have and would recommend the fuji adapter, or another?

          Thanks,

          Garrett

          • http://dunkelkammer.co/ Sarah

            Hi Garret,

            I went with Fuji Leica Adapter right away. It’s a bit pricy but it’s easy to switch lenses (Just press the button at the front, the Menu will pop up and you get the choose the correct focal length). Also, I’ve had some bad experience with adapters in the past because even a minimal variation can cause you to loose the infinity focus point.. If you’re in Europe, you can usually give it back within 14 days so it’s not an issue.

            Also cool: Fuji maintains an official list of supported lenses. Since I also buy some used, I can be 100% sure that they are going to work, even if I don’t have the opportunity to try them. Have a look: http://ow.ly/kJZHz

            If you want something a little bit less pricy, I’ve heard a lot good about the ‘Kipon’ adapter. I think they cost around 60 Euro.

            Best,
            Sarah

          • MJr

            Very interesting, didn’t know about the button.

  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/lifeispixels/ lifeispixels

    I’m glad I moved to Fuji x camp. The Fujinon lenses are premium and on the same optical level as Zeiss, Leica at more affordable price. I’m not surprised with the finding as Zeiss has to make some serious magic to make the lenses tangibly better than the already excellent Fujinon. Great works Fuji!

  • 21s

    Fuji did well, no need to buy Zeiss lenses for just a mark..

  • http://dunkelkammer.co/ Sarah

    I’m actually shocked comparing some of the images. This is not the Zeiss I know.

    I’d suggest we wait for a firmware update from Fuji. I wouldn’t be surprised if that fixes some of the issues I’ve seen… Still, I was expecting SO much more from the Zeiss.

    • Chris

      Of course, this Zeiss is not from Germany, it is from Japan, it losts the soul.

  • Tom

    Zeiss seems a bit sharper and vibrant. But in reality this is really a “thin as hairline” difference and it seems to me that u just can’t go wrong here. Zeiss glass is, as always, top notch, and it’s microcontrast is obviously better. But this so small difference here only proves how Fuji is good. This is why I found X-mount as most appealing mount for me at this point. The sensor quality and raising choices of lenses with no compromise in build or optical quality makes me feel confident in my decision to invest into this system. All the lenses for X-mount seem to be very good to excellent to this point and worth the investment. Good work Fuji, indeed. But I’m am still very, very pleased to see Zeiss in this lineup. They just now how to make best glass in the world. And having that option is just awesome.

  • imgurian

    I for one am glad. Since I own the Fuji 35 and 14mm I feel I’m not missing out on anything.

  • Gab

    The Fuji 35mm is better wide open, that’s the only thing I’ve learned watching the samples, there seems to be no stopped down pics, or harsh light samples, this is less than half the story, albeit it’s not even funny how much better the Fuji is @1.4 than the zeiss @1.8.

  • http://Www.spacepirations.com Amnon

    It’s like splitting pixels, or hairs, or pixels of photos of hair, or something :-).
    So far the best decision I made regarding my X-E1 is to only have the 18-55 lens and take the best photos I can (previous setup which was stolen was a D90 with 4 lenses).
    That aside it’s great there are more lenses which establish the mount.

  • Daniel Jenkins

    I’ll stick with my Fuji primes, thanks. No appreciable difference if you’re not documenting brain surgery.

    • Gab

      By the looks of it the Zeiss loses anyhow.

    • MJr

      No appreciable difference ?

      On my monitor it is clear in ALL these samples that the Fujis are sharper, assuming these images are done properly. On the other hand the contrast of the Zeiss’s is definitely higher, which could be perceived as sharpness, but probably is just a coating property, which only means you’re losing shadow detail … ( look at the trees behind the lake )

  • Raphael

    I think the Zeiss lenses cause a little under exposure, and Fuji’s got brighter result. If you level the exposure, the difference in color will goes away.

  • Chavi

    I see that the heads are different, one is bigger than the other one. Does it come from the difference between 32 & 35mm ? Tkz

  • Vladislav

    For me there is a basic usability difference: Fuji has DOF scales and thus allows zone focusing, Zeiss does not have the DOF scale, and is not suitable for zone focusing. I may be wrong, but I can not recall any older Zeiss primes without the DOF scales, is it the first ever for Zeiss? Because of that AND plastic external casing in my opinion Zeiss fits more Sony PlayStation mentality. I am sure that optically it is pretty good, but it has lost some character, now it is just another lens with rather silly name. Not so metal cased Fuji XF 14, pleasure to hold it.

    • bertel

      The XF14 is the only Fuji lens with a Dof scale. No other Fuji lens has one. The Fuji XF14 and all other Fuji lenses are also ( like Zeiss ! ) a mix from metal and plastic. I own the Zoom and the XF14 – don’t tell me the aperture ring is made exclusively from metal ;-)…

      Don’t get me wrong, I love especially the XF14…

      • Vladislav

        @bertel, the Tuit is not designed like the Fuji XF series: the Tuit lens barrel is (quality) plastic, the Fuji XF is metal. The Touit lenses are not aimed at the same market as the previous Zeiss designs, for example compare Distagon T* 15mm and Tuit 12mm: the Distagon has metal casing, DOF scale, looks and feels like a classic Zeiss lens (and is more expensive). The Tuit series appears to be addressing needs of a very small market: cheaper, plastic encased lenses with excellent optics and “Zeiss” name, “less technical”, modern, cool design, but… the Tuit 12mm is $350 more then Fuji XF 14mm.

  • NickA

    In both cases, the Fuji has a focal length advantage in terms of revealing detail, biasing the sharpness results toward Fuji. If a direct comparison is really to be made, then the camera-object distance needs to be adjusted so that the object fills the same area on the sensor. That said, the Fuji lenses appear to be holding their own against Zeiss really well.

  • http://think4u.co.kr Yunhee

    Hi~ Sarah~
    I useing planar 50/f2 with x-pro1.
    It is best lenses for potrait.
    Can you tell me which is better one 12 or fuji’s 14mm as a user.
    Thank you~