Zeiss Touit 32mm f/1.8 T* Review
The Zeiss Touit 32mm f/1.8 is one of two options for a normal (50mm eq.) lens on the Fujifilm X-mount system, with the other being the Fujifilm Fujinon 35mm f/1.4. Weighing in at a hair over 200g, the Zeiss Touit 32mm f/1.8 weighs in at just around 20g heavier than the Fujinon 35mm f/1.4. This Zeiss lens is extremely well built and is optically great, producing amazing images wide-open with both good acuity and contrast. It retails for around $700 in Australia.
For an overview of the Fujifilm X system, see my Fujifilm X System Guide. For other reviews of Fujifilm X System gear, click here to see my complete list of Fujifilm gear reviews.
For an overview of the Fujifilm X system, see my Fujifilm X System Guide. For other reviews of Fujifilm X System gear, click here to see my complete list of Fujifilm gear reviews.
As with most lenses these days, especially the lenses available for the Fujifilm X system, it's simply great. It works well for most things and completely negates the need for a normal zoom. With a fast f/1.8 aperture, it is perfect for low light shooting, allowing in over four times as much light as f/2.8 zooms such as the Fujinon 16-55mm f/2.8.
Part of a good review stems from being able to compare a lens to other offerings to see how they stack up in different metrics, including image quality, autofocus performance, value...etc. One of the best (or worst, depending on how you look at it) things about the Fujifilm X System is that there aren't many alternatives at each of the different focal lengths, however, all of the offerings available are excellent. For example, if we're looking at 50mm equivalent lenses, Nikon produces four such lenses today, with multiple offerings from other brands such as Zeiss and Sigma, bringing the total up to over six 50mm lenses. On the Fujifilm system, there are very few lens offerings at different focal lengths, meaning that we often have to judge Fujifilm X lenses by their own merits rather than in comparison to other similar lenses, which can sometimes be a difficult thing to do.
Part of a good review stems from being able to compare a lens to other offerings to see how they stack up in different metrics, including image quality, autofocus performance, value...etc. One of the best (or worst, depending on how you look at it) things about the Fujifilm X System is that there aren't many alternatives at each of the different focal lengths, however, all of the offerings available are excellent. For example, if we're looking at 50mm equivalent lenses, Nikon produces four such lenses today, with multiple offerings from other brands such as Zeiss and Sigma, bringing the total up to over six 50mm lenses. On the Fujifilm system, there are very few lens offerings at different focal lengths, meaning that we often have to judge Fujifilm X lenses by their own merits rather than in comparison to other similar lenses, which can sometimes be a difficult thing to do.
Specifications
What's In the Box
This Zeiss lens comes with a quite minimalist set of accessories.
This lens is manufactured by Cosina in Japan to Zeiss specifications - so it is not a 'real' Zeiss lens per se.
- Zeiss Touit 32mm f/1.8 Lens itself
- Front and rear Zeiss-branded caps. The front cap is excellent - better than the stock Fuji cap
- Plastic Zeiss branded lens hood - feels flimsy and thin, I wouldn't use it.
This lens is manufactured by Cosina in Japan to Zeiss specifications - so it is not a 'real' Zeiss lens per se.
Samples
Apologies in advance for the car pictures, the first real outing I had with the Zeiss Touit 32mm f/1.8 was at a car show. I'll add more pictures of different things later on, but as you can see from all these pictures, the Zeiss lens is sharp wide open at f/1.8 as it is at f/5.6. In this level of sunlight, I was shooting at around 1/4000s and ISO200 at f/1.8, so there's no need to go that low unless it's to limit your depth of field.
I shot several of these at f/1.8 to see the performance wide-open. It's great, apart from the shallower depth of field, there seems to be no loss in sharpness to the eye by looking at the f/1.8 100% crops compared to the f/5.6 ones. I shot most of the later pictures at f/5.6 not for the purpose of sharpness, but rather to extract slightly more depth of field and to get more in focus.
Because the autofocus sensors of the X-T1 are on the sensor rather than on a separate module, it does not suffer from missing focus the way a DSLR can. Focus is not as fast as a DSLR, but in terms of accuracy, when the focus is found and locked, the pictures always turn out tack sharp because of how well the focus has locked and how accurate the on sensor phase-detect autofocus system is. The key point stopping many from achieving sharp images, provided they have decent technique and equipment is missed focus. The Fuji mirrorless system definitely helps here.
Shooting in direct sunlight, the Zeiss Touit 32mm f/1.8 handles flare extremely well. I did not use a lens hood - it uses Zeiss' T* coating, famous for its resistance to flare and great colour and contrast. As seen in the images below, contrast is excellent as well as colour, but arguably the camera is the biggest decider in this regard. You would definitely be able to get similar amounts of colour and contrast from the Fuji 35mm f/1.4 without any problem.
I shot several of these at f/1.8 to see the performance wide-open. It's great, apart from the shallower depth of field, there seems to be no loss in sharpness to the eye by looking at the f/1.8 100% crops compared to the f/5.6 ones. I shot most of the later pictures at f/5.6 not for the purpose of sharpness, but rather to extract slightly more depth of field and to get more in focus.
Because the autofocus sensors of the X-T1 are on the sensor rather than on a separate module, it does not suffer from missing focus the way a DSLR can. Focus is not as fast as a DSLR, but in terms of accuracy, when the focus is found and locked, the pictures always turn out tack sharp because of how well the focus has locked and how accurate the on sensor phase-detect autofocus system is. The key point stopping many from achieving sharp images, provided they have decent technique and equipment is missed focus. The Fuji mirrorless system definitely helps here.
Shooting in direct sunlight, the Zeiss Touit 32mm f/1.8 handles flare extremely well. I did not use a lens hood - it uses Zeiss' T* coating, famous for its resistance to flare and great colour and contrast. As seen in the images below, contrast is excellent as well as colour, but arguably the camera is the biggest decider in this regard. You would definitely be able to get similar amounts of colour and contrast from the Fuji 35mm f/1.4 without any problem.
Compared to Fuji 35mm f/1.4
The only alternative to this Zeiss lens if you're after a fast, normal prime lens for your Fuji X System camera is the Fujinon 35mm f/1.4. Both these lenses are excellent. Unlike on DSLRs where both Nikon and Canon have are trying to cut costs and quality in order to compete on simply price and optical quality alone, both Fuji and Zeiss have produced optically and mechanically great lenses. They are equally good with slight differences which give the advantage to each one in several key areas. However, all up, both the Fuji and Zeiss lenses are great buys. I got the Zeiss for cheap (cheaper than the Fuji), but if I was to buy at retail pricing, I would go with the Fuji, because the Zeiss is not worth the premium. Save your money for another lens or a couple of accessories - both the Fujinon and Zeiss lenses will provide you with 99% the same image quality.
Given that they are almost the same size, which one you choose really comes down to what you value in a lens as well as the price. The Zeiss wins slightly over the Fuji in terms of image quality. Wide-open, shooting portraits, both are equally sharp to the eye, however, stopped down, the Zeiss' corners get much sharper than the Fuji, which stays noticeably less sharp. This could be critical for landscape shooters. For most of us, however, the difference is still minuscule at best and requires looking at extremely large prints or blown up to 100% to notice.
Mechanically, the Zeiss lens is inferior to the Fuji lens. Whilst they both have lots of metal in them, the Zeiss lens includes these rubber rings for the focus and aperture rings that are just dust magnets. For those rings, the Fuji lens uses a more tactile metal. For those of you who live in colder climates, the Zeiss' rubber rings might be better in the cold. I live in a moderate climate, making the feel of metal usually much better than tacky rubber.
The Fuji lens is also 2/3rds of a stop faster than the Zeiss lens, allowing it to capture more light as it is an f/1.4 lens as opposed to the Zeiss at f/1.8. For the most part, the difference is small, especially if you're just looking to alter the depth of field. For nicer bokeh, it's always more important to use a longer focal length and a lens that renders smoother bokeh rather than just looking at lenses with wider apertures. However, the Fuji lens does have a distinct advantage in low light compared to the Zeiss. This might be important for some use cases.
However, perhaps the greatest difference between the two is their price. At around 50% more expensive than the Fuji, the Zeiss Touit 32mm f/1.8 just simply isn't worth the price. It makes much more sense to purchase the Fuji lens and pocket the difference. Whilst the Zeiss is slightly better optically, it is far from 1.5x better, making the price difference very difficult to swallow.
I bought the Zeiss because I was able to get it for the same price as the Fuji and I figured I might as well give it a try, given that I can simply sell it at a later date and buy the Fuji without any net loss incurred. So far I haven't found any reason to sell it, so it's stayed with me.
Given that they are almost the same size, which one you choose really comes down to what you value in a lens as well as the price. The Zeiss wins slightly over the Fuji in terms of image quality. Wide-open, shooting portraits, both are equally sharp to the eye, however, stopped down, the Zeiss' corners get much sharper than the Fuji, which stays noticeably less sharp. This could be critical for landscape shooters. For most of us, however, the difference is still minuscule at best and requires looking at extremely large prints or blown up to 100% to notice.
Mechanically, the Zeiss lens is inferior to the Fuji lens. Whilst they both have lots of metal in them, the Zeiss lens includes these rubber rings for the focus and aperture rings that are just dust magnets. For those rings, the Fuji lens uses a more tactile metal. For those of you who live in colder climates, the Zeiss' rubber rings might be better in the cold. I live in a moderate climate, making the feel of metal usually much better than tacky rubber.
The Fuji lens is also 2/3rds of a stop faster than the Zeiss lens, allowing it to capture more light as it is an f/1.4 lens as opposed to the Zeiss at f/1.8. For the most part, the difference is small, especially if you're just looking to alter the depth of field. For nicer bokeh, it's always more important to use a longer focal length and a lens that renders smoother bokeh rather than just looking at lenses with wider apertures. However, the Fuji lens does have a distinct advantage in low light compared to the Zeiss. This might be important for some use cases.
However, perhaps the greatest difference between the two is their price. At around 50% more expensive than the Fuji, the Zeiss Touit 32mm f/1.8 just simply isn't worth the price. It makes much more sense to purchase the Fuji lens and pocket the difference. Whilst the Zeiss is slightly better optically, it is far from 1.5x better, making the price difference very difficult to swallow.
I bought the Zeiss because I was able to get it for the same price as the Fuji and I figured I might as well give it a try, given that I can simply sell it at a later date and buy the Fuji without any net loss incurred. So far I haven't found any reason to sell it, so it's stayed with me.
Compared to DSLR 50mm eq. Lenses
This 32mm f/1.8 lens gives a similar angle of view to a 50mm lens on a full-frame sensor. So how does it compare to DSLR lenses. Compared to the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 lenses, this is a hair heavier, though at a difference of less than 30g, nobody would notice unless they were placed on a scale.
In terms of sharpness, this Zeiss lens is excellent. It's sharper wide-open than the old Nikon 50mm f/1.8D, and about the same as the newer Nikon 50mm f/1.8G. The newer Nikon lens also has an aspherical element, which helps with sharpness.
Compared to the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G DX, Nikon's 50mm equivalent lens for its DX crop-frame bodies, the Zeiss lens is sharper at wide-open 100% crops when pixel-peeping compared to the 35mm f/1.8G DX on a Nikon D7000, which is also a 16MP sensor. However, this might be due to the Fuji X-T1's X-Trans sensor being sharper, in general, than Nikon's traditional Bayer sensor, so I'm not sure how much of the acuity difference is due to the sensor - it's difficult to make these sorts of comparisons on different sensor types.
In terms of mechanical quality, the Zeiss is clearly better built, with more metal and a real aperture ring. The Nikon lenes are basically an all plastic affair, which is what Nikon's standard for consumer primes have been for a while now.
In terms of sharpness, this Zeiss lens is excellent. It's sharper wide-open than the old Nikon 50mm f/1.8D, and about the same as the newer Nikon 50mm f/1.8G. The newer Nikon lens also has an aspherical element, which helps with sharpness.
Compared to the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G DX, Nikon's 50mm equivalent lens for its DX crop-frame bodies, the Zeiss lens is sharper at wide-open 100% crops when pixel-peeping compared to the 35mm f/1.8G DX on a Nikon D7000, which is also a 16MP sensor. However, this might be due to the Fuji X-T1's X-Trans sensor being sharper, in general, than Nikon's traditional Bayer sensor, so I'm not sure how much of the acuity difference is due to the sensor - it's difficult to make these sorts of comparisons on different sensor types.
In terms of mechanical quality, the Zeiss is clearly better built, with more metal and a real aperture ring. The Nikon lenes are basically an all plastic affair, which is what Nikon's standard for consumer primes have been for a while now.