Fujifilm XF 35 vs 23 (Portrait, People, Facial/Body proportion)

Started Feb 6, 2014 | Discussions
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
AJ153 New Member • Posts: 13
Fujifilm XF 35 vs 23 (Portrait, People, Facial/Body proportion)

Once I get the Fuji X100s, I will think about upgrading to the X-T1 if I ever need the 35mm

Recap of what I look for

My personal preference is prime lenses, and people photography. I love to capture the natural beauty of people (their faces, and fashion). Not in a clinical environment, but outdoors, in the streets, window light, or in a well lite cafe. I love taking group photos, and I love candid shots. My personal taste in aesthetically beautiful shots are those with tons of natural soft whites, luminant, uniquely soft vivid colors, and natural skin with a hint of a soft bright tone. I also love going on morning,afternoon, and evening hikes into nature. Inside a forest or a the massive landscapes of a meadow. I also like street photography. For that I go to Chicago an hour away.

My question is does anyone have samples or a side-by-side comparison of XF 35 and 23mm? Anyone have thoughts,opinions on these two lenses? like distortion and human eye perspective? Which gives the more appealing look to peoples faces, and body proportion? Which looks more natural? Because in the case of me upgrading to the X-T1; I think I would only need one the two once I get the X100S?

Fujifilm X100S Fujifilm X-T1
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
gbert15
gbert15 Contributing Member • Posts: 579
Re: Fujifilm XF 35 vs 23 (Portrait, People, Facial/Body proportion)

Would love to see this comparison as well! I am betting on the 35 being better at this area though!

 gbert15's gear list:gbert15's gear list
Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R
dark13star
dark13star Senior Member • Posts: 1,373
Re: Fujifilm XF 35 vs 23 (Portrait, People, Facial/Body proportion)

This is the age old question of which "normal" lens is preferred for the 35mm format. In those terms, it is 35mm vs 50mm (23mm vs 35mm on Fuji and other APSC). Just search on "35mm vs 50mm normal lens and you will get a load of material."

I've always preferred the 35mm FOV, so I love my X100S. The 50 is too tight for me. The fact that you like to capture some of the environment says 23mm to me. The 35mm on Fuji will be more about subject isolation.

Rich

-- hide signature --

"I would be an historian as Herodotus was." -Charles Olson
http://herodot.us

 dark13star's gear list:dark13star's gear list
Fujifilm X100S Olympus Tough TG-4 Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm X-T1 +9 more
SVPhotography Regular Member • Posts: 377
Re: Fujifilm XF 35 vs 23 (Portrait, People, Facial/Body proportion)
4

An old article but I think it tells you what you are looking for.

http://www.ormsconnect.co.za/2011/11/comparison-of-tele-to-wide-portraits/

Distortion is caused by distance to subject - how close do you want to be to your subjects - or in other words, how large do you want the subject to be in your photos?

The closer you are - the larger the subject and bigger the distortion - use a longer lens and you don't have to be so close to get the same subject size in the image.

AJ153 wrote:

Once I get the Fuji X100s, I will think about upgrading to the X-T1 if I ever need the 35mm

Recap of what I look for

My personal preference is prime lenses, and people photography. I love to capture the natural beauty of people (their faces, and fashion). Not in a clinical environment, but outdoors, in the streets, window light, or in a well lite cafe. I love taking group photos, and I love candid shots. My personal taste in aesthetically beautiful shots are those with tons of natural soft whites, luminant, uniquely soft vivid colors, and natural skin with a hint of a soft bright tone. I also love going on morning,afternoon, and evening hikes into nature. Inside a forest or a the massive landscapes of a meadow. I also like street photography. For that I go to Chicago an hour away.

My question is does anyone have samples or a side-by-side comparison of XF 35 and 23mm? Anyone have thoughts,opinions on these two lenses? like distortion and human eye perspective? Which gives the more appealing look to peoples faces, and body proportion? Which looks more natural? Because in the case of me upgrading to the X-T1; I think I would only need one the two once I get the X100S?

Brad Evans Contributing Member • Posts: 616
Re: I'd stay with the 23mm...

For street portraiture where context is important, and for urban photography in general, I much prefer a 35mm (referenced to a full-frame camera). That's why I purchased Fuji's 23mm f/1.4 lens; to get the same field of view on my X-A1. I have much more flexibility in making photographs with that focal length.

I wrote about this subject a year or so ago. Here's a link: http://www.citysnaps.net/blog/2012/06/25/why-a-35mm-lens/

............
Brad
Urban photoblog: http://www.citysnaps.net
.

DonSantos Senior Member • Posts: 1,145
Re: Fujifilm XF 35 vs 23 (Portrait, People, Facial/Body proportion)

In these images I like the 50mm the 135mm and the 350mm the best.

35mm looks horrendous

SVPhotography wrote:

An old article but I think it tells you what you are looking for.

http://www.ormsconnect.co.za/2011/11/comparison-of-tele-to-wide-portraits/

Distortion is caused by distance to subject - how close do you want to be to your subjects - or in other words, how large do you want the subject to be in your photos?

The closer you are - the larger the subject and bigger the distortion - use a longer lens and you don't have to be so close to get the same subject size in the image.

AJ153 wrote:

Once I get the Fuji X100s, I will think about upgrading to the X-T1 if I ever need the 35mm

Recap of what I look for

My personal preference is prime lenses, and people photography. I love to capture the natural beauty of people (their faces, and fashion). Not in a clinical environment, but outdoors, in the streets, window light, or in a well lite cafe. I love taking group photos, and I love candid shots. My personal taste in aesthetically beautiful shots are those with tons of natural soft whites, luminant, uniquely soft vivid colors, and natural skin with a hint of a soft bright tone. I also love going on morning,afternoon, and evening hikes into nature. Inside a forest or a the massive landscapes of a meadow. I also like street photography. For that I go to Chicago an hour away.

My question is does anyone have samples or a side-by-side comparison of XF 35 and 23mm? Anyone have thoughts,opinions on these two lenses? like distortion and human eye perspective? Which gives the more appealing look to peoples faces, and body proportion? Which looks more natural? Because in the case of me upgrading to the X-T1; I think I would only need one the two once I get the X100S?

 DonSantos's gear list:DonSantos's gear list
Fujifilm X100S Nikon D600 Sony Alpha 7 Voigtlander 40mm F1.4 Nokton Classic Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G +3 more
Ed B
Ed B Veteran Member • Posts: 7,591
Re: Fujifilm XF 35 vs 23 (Portrait, People, Facial/Body proportion)

I have the 35mm lens and think it's very good for casual portraits but it's a little short to be considered a portrait lens. Here's a snapshot I took yesterday. Spur of the moment type picture but it might give you an idea of what the 35mm (52mm full frame equivalent) focal length is like.

Click on picture for full size

mistermejia Senior Member • Posts: 3,340
Re: Fujifilm XF 35 vs 23 (Portrait, People, Facial/Body proportion)

Ed B wrote:

I have the 35mm lens and think it's very good for casual portraits but it's a little short to be considered a portrait lens. Here's a snapshot I took yesterday. Spur of the moment type picture but it might give you an idea of what the 35mm (52mm full frame equivalent) focal length is like.

Click on picture for full size

It really depends WHAT you want to capture. I personally don't like 35mm, is too long for me and would prefer the 23mm lens. when i took this photo i was around 3 yards away or so and this is the only thing i could frame, i could not get back anymore. I was very disappointed when i got home and saw this.

 mistermejia's gear list:mistermejia's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix S5 Pro Fujifilm X-E1 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G Tamron SP AF 70-200mm F/2.8 Di LD (IF) MACRO Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +6 more
Ed B
Ed B Veteran Member • Posts: 7,591
Re: Fujifilm XF 35 vs 23 (Portrait, People, Facial/Body proportion)

mistermejia wrote:

Ed B wrote:

I have the 35mm lens and think it's very good for casual portraits but it's a little short to be considered a portrait lens. Here's a snapshot I took yesterday. Spur of the moment type picture but it might give you an idea of what the 35mm (52mm full frame equivalent) focal length is like.

Click on picture for full size

It really depends WHAT you want to capture. I personally don't like 35mm, is too long for me and would prefer the 23mm lens. when i took this photo i was around 3 yards away or so and this is the only thing i could frame, i could not get back anymore. I was very disappointed when i got home and saw this.

I can understand how you feel and that's the main reason I hardly ever use a prime lens when I go to an event/function.

I love prime lenses but never seem to be in the situation where I can "zoom" in or out, with my feet.

I usually just throw on the 18-55mm lens and leave the primes at home.

I know the X100/100s cameras are great but that single focal length lens just wouldn't work for me and I agree that the 35mm would be just as limiting.

AJ153 OP New Member • Posts: 13
Re: Fujifilm XF 35 vs 23 (Portrait, People, Facial/Body proportion)

Thank you for posting pictures!

I really like that link, Going to save it for future reference. The face seems slimmer at the wider the lens.

I like this

"the focal length of a lens doesn’t cause the distortion, it’s the distance to the subject."

So regarding the X100S focal length.

Personally I like to get intimate with the people I encounter, as long as I can tell they are comfortable. For example, the kind of distance sitting right across someone at a cafe, or with-in 3ft-5ft (4-7 foot steps away) (0.8m - 1.5m) or 10 feet away for the group vacation shots (10 footsteps) (3m).

Would X100S's focal length be good for flattering facial features with my distance preference?

Red5TX
Red5TX Senior Member • Posts: 1,586
Re: Fujifilm XF 35 vs 23 (Portrait, People, Facial/Body proportion)

Two completely different focal lengths. I've become partial to wider lenses in my old age. I used to like shooting with 50s, but now find them something of a no-man's land.

Here's a nice comparison between 35 and 50mm equiv.

Source: http://www.michaelthemaven.com/images/content/Canon-5Dii50mm-vs-Canon-35mm.jpg

Marco1971
Marco1971 Regular Member • Posts: 340
Re: Fujifilm XF 35 vs 23 (Portrait, People, Facial/Body proportion)

Red5TX wrote:

Two completely different focal lengths. I've become partial to wider lenses in my old age. I used to like shooting with 50s, but now find them something of a no-man's land.

Here's a nice comparison between 35 and 50mm equiv.

Source: http://www.michaelthemaven.com/images/content/Canon-5Dii50mm-vs-Canon-35mm.jpg

Both pictures are nice (and yes the model is also nice)

Without lens info i wouldn't be able to tell the difference in lenses, so it seems not really important whether you use 35 (23mm crop) or 50 (35mm crop).....

So you mean with the crop factor you would pick the 23mm ?

 Marco1971's gear list:Marco1971's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-M1 Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5 +1 more
Astrophotographer 10 Senior Member • Posts: 6,681
Re: Fujifilm XF 35 vs 23 (Portrait, People, Facial/Body proportion)
1

This is a good example. The model looks quite a bit nicer with the 50mm. It makes her look slimmer all over and her face looks better slimmer.

So yes it would seem a longer lens is the better choice. 35mm as a starter.

I think the 56mm F1.2 is the portrait lens not the 23 which is more a capturing a scene type lens.

Greg.

 Astrophotographer 10's gear list:Astrophotographer 10's gear list
Sony Alpha 7R II Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Zeiss Batis 25mm F2 Zeiss Batis 85mm F1.8 Zeiss Loxia 21mm F2.8 +4 more
(unknown member) Senior Member • Posts: 1,321
Exactly.

It all depends on where you stand.

This means you can stand further away with a shorter focal length lens and crop to a tight head shot and there will be no perspective distortion.

I use 23mm for portraits framed from about midi-chest up. I prefer to avoid high amounts of cropping.

 wchutt's gear list:wchutt's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro1 Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R +20 more
dotborg Veteran Member • Posts: 8,250
Re: Fujifilm XF 35 vs 23 (Portrait, People, Facial/Body proportion)

Red5TX wrote:

Two completely different focal lengths. I've become partial to wider lenses in my old age. I used to like shooting with 50s, but now find them something of a no-man's land.

Here's a nice comparison between 35 and 50mm equiv.

Source: http://www.michaelthemaven.com/images/content/Canon-5Dii50mm-vs-Canon-35mm.jpg

What are you trying to point out here? Because there's almost no difference in angle of view between those two setups. In fact, the 35mm lens on Canon's APSC sensor is a little tighter (35 x 1.6 = 56).

whiteyblack Regular Member • Posts: 163
Re: Fujifilm XF 35 vs 23 (Portrait, People, Facial/Body proportion)

Astrophotographer 10 wrote:

This is a good example. The model looks quite a bit nicer with the 50mm. It makes her look slimmer all over and her face looks better slimmer.

So yes it would seem a longer lens is the better choice. 35mm as a starter.

I think the 56mm F1.2 is the portrait lens not the 23 which is more a capturing a scene type lens.

Exactly. 50 equiv is a minimum for portraits unless it's a wider environmental portrait. In the comparison shots, the 35 equiv definitely introduces perspective distortion that detracts from the model's beauty. The tighter the shot the longer the focal length needed to avoid this. This is the reason a 70-200 2.8 zoom on FX is often used by pros for model shoots. For a tight head shot you really need 105 or more.

Of course if you want the perspective distortion for creative purposes, that's a whole different thing.

 whiteyblack's gear list:whiteyblack's gear list
Fujifilm X100S Nikon 1 V1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Fujifilm X-E1
Red5TX
Red5TX Senior Member • Posts: 1,586
Re: Fujifilm XF 35 vs 23 (Portrait, People, Facial/Body proportion)

dotborg wrote:

What are you trying to point out here? Because there's almost no difference in angle of view between those two setups. In fact, the 35mm lens on Canon's APSC sensor is a little tighter (35 x 1.6 = 56).

The point is how the two lenses render the subject.  Pretty obvious stuff.  That's why the original photographer made the comparison to begin with.  Do you really not see any differences?

Ed B
Ed B Veteran Member • Posts: 7,591
Re: Fujifilm XF 35 vs 23 (Portrait, People, Facial/Body proportion)

Astrophotographer 10 wrote:

This is a good example. The model looks quite a bit nicer with the 50mm. It makes her look slimmer all over and her face looks better slimmer.

So yes it would seem a longer lens is the better choice. 35mm as a starter.

I think the 56mm F1.2 is the portrait lens not the 23 which is more a capturing a scene type lens.

Greg.

The term portrait, in its broadest sense, can be used to describe any picture of a person; so yes, a wide angle lens can be used as a portrait lens, if that's what makes a person happy and if they're satisfied with their pictures.

Just the same, wide angle lenses are not good portrait lenses and longer lenses are going to be much better and much more flattering.

In 35mm terms, an 85mm to 135mm lens would be ideal for most portraits, especially head & shoulder type pictures, so I agree with you that the 56mm lens on a camera, with an APS size sensor, would be close to the ideal range.

Everyone has their own idea about what they think is "best" and I have used a 35mm lens (on a cropped sensor camera) with good results but it's still hit & miss and a longer focal length is better.

With all that said, most of us take snapshots of family and friends so I suppose any lens that gets the job done is good enough.

dotborg Veteran Member • Posts: 8,250
Re: Fujifilm XF 35 vs 23 (Portrait, People, Facial/Body proportion)

Red5TX wrote:

dotborg wrote:

What are you trying to point out here? Because there's almost no difference in angle of view between those two setups. In fact, the 35mm lens on Canon's APSC sensor is a little tighter (35 x 1.6 = 56).

The point is how the two lenses render the subject. Pretty obvious stuff. That's why the original photographer made the comparison to begin with. Do you really not see any differences?

What I see is that the photographer's position relative to the model is different. In the 7D shot, the photographer is more to the right, squaring the model a little more to the camera and, of course, making her look wider. This is not because of the lens choice as they have about the same angle of view. If you want to make a comparison like this to point out differences in equipment then all other factors need to be the same.

dotborg Veteran Member • Posts: 8,250
Re: Fujifilm XF 35 vs 23 (Portrait, People, Facial/Body proportion)
1

whiteyblack wrote:

In the comparison shots, the 35 equiv definitely introduces perspective distortion that detracts from the model's beauty.

Take another look. The 35mm lens was used on a 7D, so it's the full-frame equivalent of a 56mm lens.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads