>>2977161Where'd you hear that? The only sources I can find say they were made by Cosina. And yeah, I know all about the difference between real Zeiss and the modern stuff, I own a real Zeiss myself. (Pic related.)
>>2977162You'll find plenty of people who openly admit the compromises they've made with Fuji as soon as you get away from the ultra-gearfag sites. (/p/, DPR, etc.)
That "inherent softness" has never actually been an issue in any of my real photography. I'd never know it existed were it not for the constant hammering on about it on the internet.
As for that photo, I can't at all see where the Fuji is supposedly losing to the Canon. The Canon's rendering is flat, it has haze around the details on the point of focus (the trash bin), and transitional bokeh is distorted and unpleasant. I'd say that of those photos, the Zeiss 55 and Fuji 35 are pretty closely matched, and the other two are far behind. (The deciding factor for me is the separation between the brick wall and the background - it "pops" nicely with those two images, and that kind of "pop" is very useful in my real photography.)
Also, the 35 1.4 is well known as one of the weakest lenses in Fuji's lineup. Not surprising, since it was one of the first ever made for the system.
>>2977214I chose that example because it compares directly with my own setup and because somebody above me suggested a used A7II and 35 2.8 as an alternative to a Fuji. A fast 35 prime is also a core lens for a huge proportion of photographers.
I explicitly avoided Sony APS-C because they only use that format for entry level and "prosumer" products. I'm comparing the two companies' high-end gear and nothing else. They're much more competitive at the low level, but I haven't owned an entry level camera in well over a decade.
