The 33mm, which is roughly 35mm or a 50eq focal length, has always been a challenging one for me in my photography journey.

I’ve come back and forth to this focal length many times, trying to figure it out and make use of it properly.

It’s what many would consider a standard focal length, the “nifty fifty.”

So by that metric, it should be an easy to understand field of view.

But for me personally, something like the 23mm (35eq) was always preferred.

That was a FL I felt connected with instantly.

The 35mm however, wasn’t something I understood well.

I could get good images with it but the look of it didn’t entrance me in the same way.

It’s something I’ve revisited constantly, not only to try and find the magic but to also better myself as a photographer.

I’ve bought and resold the XF 35mm f2 twice.

I’ve trained myself to learn and use the 35mm through zoom lenses like the 18-55 and 16-55.

And about 7 months ago I got my hands on the 33mm f1.4.

I shared with you guys my first impressions then, lets see if anything’s changed.

Is the 1.4 Necessary?

We’re not going to talk much about build quality, functionality, and operations today - much of that we already covered in the first impressions.

All you need to know is the lens is pretty damn good.

However when buying this lens, my main interest was in the f1.4 aperture.

I wanted to see whether or not that made a difference when compared to something the like f2 of the x100v.

And I’m sad to say - I still haven’t been able to fully stress this feature out.

This is because my current day to day life doesn’t require a wide aperture.

I go on a lot of walks during the day and an f1.4 aperture without an nd filter makes it difficult to expose.

I usually have to bump the shutter speed to ridiculous numbers, which is doable, but I’d rather just change my aperture.

Similarly, most of my sunset photography is at f4 or above.

This allows me to get more of my frame in focus, since much of sunset photography doesn’t really require bokeh.

So ironically, this led me to ask the question:

“Is a super wide 1.4 aperture really necessary?”

I used to think having a wide aperture was what made a lens good.

And the wider the aperture, the better.

But I’ve since realized that a wide aperture comes with not only benefits, but problems as well.

This would be things like:

• too much light when shooting during the day which makes it hard to expose without an nd filter or bumping the shutter speed

• bokeh between a group of subjects that should all be in focus (too much separation)

Which means shooting at f1.4 is not necessary all the time.

Which sounds obvious, I know.

But when I use a camera like the x100v, my aperture is almost always at f2.

I have no problems with light since there’s a built in nd filter.

Shooting in low light isn’t a problem either because of the built in flash.

And bokeh isn’t a problem since f2 isn’t too much separation.

We’re in the weeds here, but the point is I’ll have to test the 33mm more with either an nd filter or in different scenarios like street photography to see if I can make it work.

That’s the current challenge, and where I’m looking to improve.

“And I’ll update you guys if things change”…is what I would’ve said.

But after thinking about it, I thought, “Whatever, lets go out and take some street photos.”

Street Session

When using this lens, I had a doubt I couldn’t shake.

I didn’t know whether the focal length was the problem or my environment was the problem - or maybe I was the problem.

I’ve been doing sunset photography for so long I needed to see how this lens performed in a different scenario.

So this meant back to the streets.

And I’m glad I did.

On this day I brought with me the 33mm f1.4 paired with the Fujifilm X-T4.

I’ve been using the X-Pro3 a lot and I wanted to switch it up and see if having a screen would free up the process.

I kept everything at f1.4 and used a variable nd filter to help me control light.

The day started off rough.

It’s been a while since I did any street photography and I needed to get reacquainted.

This meant a bunch of warm up shots of basic perspectives and architecture.

But gradually as time passed, I got more and more into it.

I let my feet carry me and began to progress into more street portraits, finding subjects in crowded places.

The lens performed great.

Autofocus worked well and f1.4 didn’t seem to cause many problems.

I think environment was the key, and bringing the 33mm to a place it was more suited for allowed me to get better images.

I did however notice a bit of shutter blur from trying to be too quick.

I was shooting at 1/500th so I thought I’d be fine but I think the size of the lens creates more motion than something like the V.

So next time I’ll have to either slow down or raise my shutter speed.

Maybe it was just a good day, but this street session had me thinking:

“Was it always supposed to be this easy?”

Not to say that street photography is easy, but that street photography with wider lenses is more challenging.

Even with something like the x100v, I have to get close or only seek out opportunities where the scene can actually fill up the frame.

But with the 33mm, I don’t have to walk as much, a lot of excess frame is shaved off, and there’s a lot more fitting scenarios in the real world.

I guess that’s why it’s such a popular focal length.

The prior environment I was using it in put me directly in line of sight of the subject.

There weren’t many buildings, obstacles, or things to shield me.

Which made it difficult to get close and not be noticed.

It’s a weird in-between of “not close enough to pretend I’m just passing by”, but also “not far enough to pretend I’m taking a picture of something else”.

But for street scenarios, it’s a great length.

Because everything around you is crowded, there’s a lot going on, and it’s much easier to go unnoticed.

So this day changed my opinion of this lens.

The field of view is becoming a bit more natural for me and I’m starting to see when and where I can use it.

And I’m looking forward to using it more.

Is There Any “Magic”?

When I bought this lens I wasn’t looking for a lens that would “inspire me”.

I just wanted a clean, solid, high quality, high performing lens of the 50eq.

And by that measure, this lens is great.

I think that’s what Fuji intended for when making this lens.

I will say however, there’s nothing really “magical” about it.

I wouldn’t go as far as to call it boring, but it’s just a good lens.

A very solid high performing lens without any problems.

And although there isn’t much to complain about, there hasn’t been anything that makes me say “wow, thats interesting”.

I’ll give you guys context.

People often talk about many of the older Fujifilm lenses as having “character”.

Some were optically “imperfect” and had a lot of little quirks about their operations, but nothing major that interfered with their performance.

Their imperfections were positives and their designs were interesting.

For example, take the fujicrons which are all shaped uniquely, the 18mm and 27mm are fun pancake lenses (which might be my favorite lens shape), and the images from something like the 35mm was famous for being “magical”.

I haven’t noticed any such character or magic with the 33 1.4.

Maybe I just haven’t looked hard enough, but I figure stuff like that should be noticeable, right?

So maybe you guys can let me know if you’ve noticed any of this magic or not.

Now I don’t think that was the point for Fujifilm when they made this lens, nor do I think it’s necessary for a lens to have interesting design quirks or characteristics to be good.

It’s just something I’ve taken note of.

I think Fujifilm built this lens and the whole suite of updated f1.4s to be optically clean and perfect lenses for their new higher megapixel camera bodies.

Which is a bit of a rebranding.

They wanted a line of great performing updated lenses to carry the x-mount system forwards.

And maybe to them, the quirks of their older lenses seem “amateurish” or too “unprofessional” for the direction they wanted to go in.

Personally, I’m not sure if I would’ve wanted a unique lens characteristic.

I think those are moreso happy accidents, and less intentional design.

And trying to add come character could have easily messed the lens up.

So those are my current thoughts.

Pretty good, but so far, nothing “magical”.

Is It a Keeper?

After 7 months, is this lens a keeper?

To be honest, I’m not sure.

As I’ve mentioned before, the 50eq has always been a challenging one for me.

Not because I couldn’t get good photos with it, but because I don’t connect with it nearly as much.

And the feeling of nailing the framing on a shot with the V is hard to beat.

Maybe me buying this lens was hoping that this would change that.

So for now, I’m keeping this lens.

I’ve got plans and scenarios I want to try it in - at least for the next foreseeable year.

And, I’ll update you guys with my thoughts then.

As always, if you found this helpful, please share this with a friend who may also find this helpful.

And be sure to check out my latest photography zine “The Sinking Sun”!

Thanks for reading.