Previous news story    Next news story

Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R real-world samples gallery

By Andy Westlake on Dec 9, 2013 at 11:33 GMT
Buy on GearShop$899.00

We've been shooting for a while with Fujifilm's latest X-system lens, the XF 23mm F1.4R, and have prepared a gallery of real-world samples. They cover variety of subjects and lighting conditions, and were all shot on the X-E2. We've also quickly summarised our impressions of the lens's handling and image quality below.

Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4R - Quick Impressions

Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4R on the X-E2, with its deep petal-type hood fitted

The XF 23mm F1.4 R follows essentially the same design approach as the XF 14mm F2.8 R which we reviewed earlier this year. It's a solidly-made, metal-barrelled lens with a focus ring which can be pulled towards the camera to engage manual focus, revealing a distance and depth-of-field scale in the process. It also has an aperture ring with settings from F1.4 to F16 in one-third stops, plus an 'A' setting. Autofocus is pretty fast (especially on the X-E2), reasonably quiet, and unerringly accurate.

Image quality is superb. It's impressively sharp wide open across most of the frame, and the corners sharpen up quickly on stopping down. Lateral chromatic aberration is essentially non-existent, and the lens is near-perfectly optically corrected for distortion. There's a little vignetting wide open, which is automatically corrected by the camera's JPEG processing. The only slight flaw is longitudinal chromatic aberration at large apertures (which can give green or magenta fringing in out-of-focus areas of the frame), but even this isn't generally very objectionable in normal use. Overall the lens produces near-flawless images from F4 through to F16. 

The 23mm is, at around $900/£850/€1000, not a cheap lens by any means. In context, though, that's about the same price as Sony's E-mount Carl Zeiss Sonnar 24mm F1.8, which is two thirds of a stop slower. At this price it becomes a very personal decision about whether it's worth the money - but we don't think anyone should be disappointed by the image quality.

Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R samples gallery

Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R samples gallery

There are 29 images in our samples gallery. Please do not reproduce any of these images on a website or any newsletter / magazine without prior permission (see our copyright page). We make the originals available for private users to download to their own machines for personal examination or printing (in conjunction with this review), we do so in good faith, please don't abuse it.

Unless otherwise noted images taken with no particular settings at full resolution.

226
I own it
144
I want it
7
I had it
Discuss in the forums
Our favorite products. Free 2 day shipping.
Support this site, buy from dpreview GearShop.
Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R

Comments

Total comments: 125
peevee1
By peevee1 (4 months ago)

"The 23mm is, at around $900/£850/€1000, not a cheap lens by any means. In context, though, that's about the same price as Sony's E-mount Carl Zeiss Sonnar 24mm F1.8"

Actually, E 24/1.8 was priced (or rather overpriced) at $1,100. $200 is not such a small difference.

0 upvotes
snow shoe man
By snow shoe man (4 months ago)

fuji XF 23mm f 1.4 - i found this brief article interesting from a comparison point of view. i use a pentax 50mm f 1.4 lens on my lumix GX7 (via an adapter). i originally purchased this lens 35 years ago and used it on 3 successive pentax cameras over many years. been sitting on my shelf for a very long time when i moved beyond pentax cameras. with great pleasure i have given it a second life on my GX7 shooting in manual setting and using focus peaking. the description give by DP fits exactly to my lens as described here re the fuji lens. definitely a dream lens and considering the $900.00 current price of the fuji XF 23mm f 1.4 i am doubly fortunate!

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
jaygeephoto
By jaygeephoto (4 months ago)

Just need a little help understanding this system; this is an APS-C camera?
So the 23mm would give an angle of view of a 28mm or 35mm lens? - compared to that of a full frame (24X36) camera. Sorry in advanced for my lack of knowledge on this.

0 upvotes
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (4 months ago)

It's an APS-C system with a 1.5x crop, so this 23mm lens has the same angle of view as a 35mm on full frame.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Mike99999
By Mike99999 (4 months ago)

I don't understand why everyone is raving about this lens. Judging from the sample pictures the rendering is awful. I *strongly* prefer the images I'm seeing from the Panasonic 20/1.7, the underrated Olympus 17/1.8 and from the new Sony Zeiss FE 35/2.8.

Seems like a repeat of the highly overrated Fuji 35/1.4 which is basically a rebadged Sigma 30/1.4 which nobody wants to admit. Behind the scenes Sigma is an OEM for many major brands, and Fuji is definitely one of them.

0 upvotes
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (4 months ago)

So ignoring, for the moment, that the XF 35mm F1.4 R has absolutely nothing in common with either version of the Sigma 30mm F1.4, which lens do you imagine the 23mm might be based on?

18 upvotes
Den Sh
By Den Sh (4 months ago)

They forgot to tell him that flange is 26mm different. Yeah, totally the same lens, bro.

3 upvotes
kewlguy
By kewlguy (4 months ago)

LOL, both 23/1.4 and 35/1.4 will trash anything similar from the m4/3 camp. Last time I checked, Sony 35/2.8 is way overpriced for an f/2.8 lens.

4 upvotes
AlpCns2
By AlpCns2 (4 months ago)

Surely he's another one of these "pro's", able to judge top-rated lenses using ESP instead of shooting with it.

2 upvotes
Ridethelight
By Ridethelight (4 months ago)

LOL perhaps it the fault of the Fuji lens that the bearded guy is not smiling as well,prehaps a micro 4/3 lens may have raised a smile or a laugh even ?

1 upvote
kewlguy
By kewlguy (4 months ago)

another top Fuji lens! Can't wait to see how the new 56/1.2 and UWA zoom perform :)

5 upvotes
thejohnnerparty
By thejohnnerparty (4 months ago)

Very nice pics. I have been wanting the Nikon D610, but these pics look really good. Tough choice.

1 upvote
sillythings
By sillythings (4 months ago)

Any news of the x-e2 review?

4 upvotes
Beat Traveller
By Beat Traveller (4 months ago)

Never wanted a lens so badly based on sample photos.

5 upvotes
SulfurousBeast
By SulfurousBeast (4 months ago)

+1 to that, seriously sharp, makes me want to abandon the Canon ship and jump !!

4 upvotes
Ian SS
By Ian SS (4 months ago)

The things keeping me to hold on to Canon DSLR is the fast handling and focus speed. But for the EOS M, I dumped it after less than 5 days of owning it!

2 upvotes
SulfurousBeast
By SulfurousBeast (4 months ago)

Agree Ian, that's what has kept me holding on to the 50D still, 60D was a pass, 70D may be the ticket without the mag alloy build, may be 7D Mark II. 50D sensor is outdated by today's standards by a mile, but serves the purposes pretty well if you stay within 1600 ISO. The Magic Lantern firmware added video to it, is also cool. Still may take the call shortly...

0 upvotes
Pat Cullinan Jr
By Pat Cullinan Jr (4 months ago)

May I offer the suggestion that a greater proportion of sample photos be taken in full daylight?

1 upvote
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (4 months ago)

You may. However at this time of year in London and Seattle, I'm afraid that can be easier said than done.

Comment edited 15 seconds after posting
8 upvotes
Rod McD
By Rod McD (4 months ago)

I have to acknowledge the lens build quality and IQ, but TBH, I'd have preferred a smaller, slower lens over this one. I see the mirror-less advantage of small size and light weight slipping away a bit here.......it's almost as heavy as the camera body. I'd have been happier with an ILC version of the 23/2 from the X100.

The 27mm pancake isn't a substitute for a 23mm of modest speed. And before someone suggests buying a X100s because I get my preferred lens 'and a body for free' (as several have posted earlier) let's acknowledge that someone interested in light weight kit isn't necessarily wanting to carry two bodies.

2 upvotes
Jon Ingram
By Jon Ingram (4 months ago)

They offer a 27 f 2.8 which if I recall is less than 4oz, and almost the same focal length (35 vs 40). They are taking the right approach. Offer a super-light prime for those want it, and offer a fast aperture prime for others. Besides, what is there to complain about? Last I checked the sigma 35 1.4 weighed 23oz, this little thing only weighs 10oz. Not so bad. The body and the lens weigh less together than many Dslr's weight without a lens attached.

3 upvotes
Battersea
By Battersea (4 months ago)

Great to see London photos again. Seems to be a really nice lens.

2 upvotes
SulfurousBeast
By SulfurousBeast (4 months ago)

Yes, Seattle was getting too dull and boring honestly! Sorry nothing against Seattlers...

2 upvotes
Clint Dunn
By Clint Dunn (4 months ago)

Awesome looking lens but why oh why couldn't Fuji build a lens hood along the lines of the one for the 35mm 1.4....smaller and metal. I realize the hood needs to be a bit bigger for the 23mm but this thing is a monstrosity.

Comment edited 31 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Craig Atkinson
By Craig Atkinson (4 months ago)

My guess is they'll be selling one soon

0 upvotes
tipple
By tipple (4 months ago)

One thing is apparent from these images, if Fujifilm enters the full frame market, with the results achievable with the XTrans sensor or even their conventional Bayer sensor, Canon and Nikon will have to keep on their toes! Fujifilm has demonstrated very good support in updating lens and cameras for their customers. It is apparent they are in this for the long haul and that bodes well for all photographers.

17 upvotes
thx1138
By thx1138 (4 months ago)

"Fujifilm has demonstrated very good support in updating lens and cameras for their customers."

Doesn't this just mean they didn't get it right the first time and have to keep addressing issues? Sort like releasing a buggy game and then having to release a frequent patches.

4 upvotes
Clint Dunn
By Clint Dunn (4 months ago)

Not all of the FW patches from Fuji were for bugs...some of them were to provided additional functionality...like focus peaking.

23 upvotes
Klay
By Klay (4 months ago)

I think a fundamental idea behind "kaizen" or continuous improvement that companies like Fuji (or more famously - Toyota) use in their operations, product development and production is that there is no such thing as "getting it right". So, yes, they did not "get it right the first time". If you assume that you did "get it right" then you are missing something. Fuji's apparent recognition of this fact and their willingness to actively address issues and even improve their products on an ongoing basis has certainly shown itself to be of value to their customers.

The trick is to get it right enough for release and then get right on top of what you know you missed or what comes up in actual use.

7 upvotes
4054
By 4054 (4 months ago)

"Doesn't this just mean they didn't get it right the first time and have to keep addressing issues? Sort like releasing a buggy game and then having to release a frequent patches."

All software and hardware companies will periodically release patches. They correct very specific problems in their programs and add additional features as well. Have you heard of Microsoft or Apple?

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
57even
By 57even (4 months ago)

Nobody gets it right first time. EOS M, all the early PENs, all a good example. However they forced you to buy a new camera. Fuji made your old camera almost as good as the new one, which they did not have to do.

5 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (4 months ago)

Like (almost) all Fuji lenses it's obviously excellent. But if I was that excited about a 35mm lens to spend this much, I'd just get the X100. I don't dispute that 35mm is a great general purpose focal length but for portraits and out of focus backgrounds? To each his own.

2 upvotes
Clint Dunn
By Clint Dunn (4 months ago)

Dude...the lens is for people like me who bought an XPro1/E1....it's not like many of us would buy the 23(35)mm as our only lens..

Comment edited 13 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
Petka
By Petka (4 months ago)

I have the X-Pro1 with 14, 35 and 55-200mm Fujinon lenses. But no, 23 mm, important mid-wide focal length, is not missing: I have the X100s as a spare body, and I got the excellent 23 f2 free… Same sensor, same IQ. So I also think that the X100s is the best alternative to this new lens. One stop slower, but you get a camera free...

4 upvotes
Paul Szilard
By Paul Szilard (4 months ago)

That's exactly how I feel. Plus have you compared the SIZE of this lens on a body versus the X100s? It's huge.

However I commend Fuji for the outstanding quality that they keep delivering. I think Leica has some stiff competition :).

1 upvote
samhain
By samhain (4 months ago)

Well yeah Paul. That's what happens when you make a lens faster. You're comparing an f2 lens to an f1.4 lens.

1 upvote
Absolutic
By Absolutic (4 months ago)

Thank you for posting samples from beautiful and picturesque London (which I loved dpreview samples before) and not completely uninspiring Seattle pictures. Seattle pictures got old pretty quickly. Can you guys go back to do all the samples in London and not in Seattle?

1 upvote
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (4 months ago)

I saw the mountain once. Always wondered why so many computer millionaires chose Seattle and not, say, Hawaii.

1 upvote
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (4 months ago)

"Can you guys go back to do all the samples in London and not in Seattle?"

No, sorry.

1 upvote
Klay
By Klay (4 months ago)

Seattle has lots of nice vistas but now nearly as much urban character as London. Also, it was nice to have a consistent set of photos (and even a consistent portrait model like Phil's wife) to compare cameras. Is there any effort to create a set of photos that allow easier camera to camera comparisons? e.g. some low light shots, some daylight shots, shoot the same building from the same view point, etc...

0 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (4 months ago)

@ Klay - because of the difficulty in finding a truly consistent 'real world' scene to photograph (in a temperate climate, at least) we have a studio test scene, which we shoot with the maximum possible consistency, under controlled lighting, which is designed to similar real world textures, colors and contrasts.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison

1 upvote
sixtiesphotographer
By sixtiesphotographer (4 months ago)

Why did dpreview leave London for Seattle?

Anyway, thank you for these samples; this lens will be my next X-system purchase.

1 upvote
Absolutic
By Absolutic (4 months ago)

dpreview left London when Amazon bought it. And I am sure you've heard that Bezos guy is a very particular fellow, he likes things done certain way and that means his way. I am sure they'd rather stay in London, but amazon wanted them in Seattle. So these brave guys like Barney moved from rainy London to even more rainy Seattle.

2 upvotes
calking
By calking (4 months ago)

BS....it's the COFFEE, man---woohaa!!!

0 upvotes
Klay
By Klay (4 months ago)

Thanks for the reply Barney. That makes sense. I've seen and used the studio comparison widget. It's well done but the real life pics, even if they are apples to oranges to slightly older apples sort of compariosn, just seem more satisfying. The rational side of my brain says i'm deluding myself but I seem to get more info from the samples than the widget.

0 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (4 months ago)

@ Absolutic - no we didn't. We moved more than three years after Amazon acquired the site.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2007/05/14/amazonacquiresdpreview

The main office moved over the Atlantic in winter 2010.

0 upvotes
jackspra
By jackspra (4 months ago)

Shots were so much better than we get from the seattle office.

6 upvotes
Absolutic
By Absolutic (4 months ago)

I write this everytime dpreview bothers to shoot some samples in London, it is like photos from two different planets.

0 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (4 months ago)

@ Absolutic - 'every time we bother...'

Seems like you're assuming that the only reason we don't constantly make the expensive trip over the Atlantic is that we can't be bothered.... ;)

1 upvote
Absolutic
By Absolutic (4 months ago)

Barnaby, I am just frustrated in Seattle views and hopeful for more samples from London, that's all. I understand amazon had you guys stationed in Seattle for good now.

0 upvotes
KodaChrome25
By KodaChrome25 (4 months ago)

Who is Barnaby? ;)

0 upvotes
cs hauser
By cs hauser (4 months ago)

"In context, though, that's about the same price as Sony's E-mount Carl Zeiss Sonnar 24mm F1.8, which is half a stop slower"
-- Andy Westlake, DPreview

An f/1.7 lens would be half a stop slower than an f/1.4 lens. In this particular case, the Zeiss f/1.8 lens is 2/3 of a stop slower than the Fuji f/1.4 lens. It's a bit disappointing that a long-time lens reviewer for DPreview would make such a mistake.

Comment edited 21 seconds after posting
7 upvotes
Alastair Norcross
By Alastair Norcross (4 months ago)

You must be a lot of fun at parties.

36 upvotes
ryanshoots
By ryanshoots (4 months ago)

Not so sure. There was a lot of purple fringing on the tree trunks and branches.

1 upvote
Den Sh
By Den Sh (4 months ago)

Yeah extreme corners at f/1.4 don't look that sexy.

0 upvotes
bensherman
By bensherman (4 months ago)

Sharpness,lack of CA,colors,contrast,minimal distortion and tones are simply superb. Its hard to believe such quality can come out of APS-C sensor!!

13 upvotes
justinwonnacott
By justinwonnacott (4 months ago)

The lack of chromatic aberration and minimal distortion looks impressive, too bad about the sensor and its chronic softness. Nice legs - shame about the face - The monks.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
topstuff
By topstuff (4 months ago)

Every picture I have seen on the sites of the numerous photo bloggers using Fuji X cameras, contradicts your post. Every. Single.One. I am quite sure that people like Zack Arias are not complaining about softness.

Softness is one thing , to my eyes, Fuji doesn't have a problem with.

15 upvotes
justinwonnacott
By justinwonnacott (4 months ago)

The lens looks great... perhaps I should have kept my mouth shut about the softness , however I have shot tens of thousands of images with the xpro1 and I do use it professionally in many different situations and I feel that my opinion is justifiable from work experience. Lets just leave it at that ok? I still like the camera but . . .

0 upvotes
Clint Dunn
By Clint Dunn (4 months ago)

I've shot thousands of images with my XPro1 too...and very rarely do I get a soft pic or an image otherwise ruined by the 'watercolour' effect.

0 upvotes
57even
By 57even (4 months ago)

@Clint Dunn

Me neither. I only compare it with other cameras I have used with similar resolution and in most cases it wins easily (compare with D7000 for instance). At print sizes up to 24" most of the forum blather is a non-issue anyway.

0 upvotes
Alastair Norcross
By Alastair Norcross (4 months ago)

Looks pretty good. Maybe even as good as the Canon EF-M 22mm F2 pancake, and only 9 times the price. I suppose you pay a lot for that extra stop (and size and weight).

3 upvotes
Clint Dunn
By Clint Dunn (4 months ago)

Yes...and just think, you get to connect that plastic EF-M lens to that inspiring EOS-M that is flying off the shelves.

8 upvotes
Ricardo Maia
By Ricardo Maia (4 months ago)

I thought this was about lens, not toys.

3 upvotes
Alastair Norcross
By Alastair Norcross (4 months ago)

Hi Clint, "It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt". Words to live by. The EF-M 22mm is metal, and the EOS-M is flying off the shelves right now. That's because it's deeply discounted, but if it hadn't have been, I wouldn't have bought it. The M with 22mm lens is about $300, and easily as good in IQ as the X100s at $1000 more. What is more, with the M, you get to use any Canon EF or EF-s lens with adapter. Given this choice, I can't imagine why anyone would buy the X100s, except to have a camera that looks like an old rangefinder. I'm sure the images are good, maybe even as good as the ones from the M with EF-M 22mm, but $1299? Really?

0 upvotes
nutellaface
By nutellaface (4 months ago)

Someone insecure about their camera purchase Alastair?

3 upvotes
makofoto
By makofoto (4 months ago)

So from reading the review and seeing the sample shots @ 100% I now wish they had produced a smaller/lighter 23 mm F2.0 ... oh well

3 upvotes
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (4 months ago)

That lens is on the front of the X100S.

15 upvotes
Petka
By Petka (4 months ago)

True, buy the 23mm f2, and get the camera free… I got the X100s to complement my X-Pro1 & 14, 35 and 55-200mm lenses, fills the gap in focal length and doubles as a spare camera.

Comment edited 16 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Alastair Norcross
By Alastair Norcross (4 months ago)

Buy the 23 F2 and get the camera free? That way of looking at it makes the 23mm F2 about $400 more than the 23mm F1.4! I'm sure it's a nice lens, but $1299? Outside of the Leica world, the X100s has to be about the most overpriced offering out there.

1 upvote
nutellaface
By nutellaface (4 months ago)

I would rather have the lens versus being saddled with the x100s (although I love the camera). Imagine a few years from now, I will still have the lens and can just buy another camera body.

2 upvotes
ruicarv79
By ruicarv79 (4 months ago)

Wow, that's sharp. :)

1 upvote
stupidisanart
By stupidisanart (4 months ago)

Anyone else have an issue with fuji with reliability?

2 upvotes
topstuff
By topstuff (4 months ago)

Given the nature of the internet - any major, consistent problems, would definitely create noise and ballyhoo on the forums.

There is not really any I can see. So I think we can assume that the vast majority of users are happy. Plenty of professionals shooting Fuji these days as well, and they seem happy.

7 upvotes
Asylum Photo
By Asylum Photo (4 months ago)

I've owned:

X100
X-Pro1
X-E1
18mm
18-55mm
23mm
35mm
55-200mm
60mm
EF-20 Flash

All have worked flawlessly for me, in a variety of shooting conditions. My experiences say they are just as reliable as Canon/Nikon (owning both in the past). Most major electronics manufacturers are fairly reliable these days, though.

9 upvotes
Clint Dunn
By Clint Dunn (4 months ago)

Yes...me. When I bought my XPro1 and 35mm 1.4 the lens stopped working in the first 3 hrs I used it....the AF would try to work but something disengaged within the lens body.

That was two years ago....everything been good since (with a replacement lens).

0 upvotes
Beat Traveller
By Beat Traveller (4 months ago)

None.

0 upvotes
stupidisanart
By stupidisanart (4 months ago)

I've worked in camera store and their compacts were fairly badly made tbh, I was wondering about there more expensive equipment as they have made some decent cameras recently. good to know people haven't had that much trouble.

0 upvotes
Photomonkey
By Photomonkey (4 months ago)

I found their compacts to be very reliable and provided great images to boot. The real problem was finding dealers.

1 upvote
Jogger
By Jogger (4 months ago)

I dont understand why you need to pull the focus ring forward to engage MF.. on my Nikkors, if you want MF override you just turn the focus ring. Why did they make the lens more complicated than it has to be.

0 upvotes
Craig Atkinson
By Craig Atkinson (4 months ago)

you pull it forwards to engage AF

5 upvotes
gefrorenezeit
By gefrorenezeit (4 months ago)

Those Nikon and Canon lenses do use an ultrasonic motor to drive the lens, thats a bit different than the Fuji lenses. In case you ask why Fuji does not use those motors to drive the lenses: USM motors may be good for precise movements/stops (this is usually the case with PDAF) but not for rocking forward/backwards as it is the case with CDAF.

0 upvotes
Jogger
By Jogger (4 months ago)

but, it doesnt even have anything to do with the motor.

the ring slide-function acts as a switch telling the camera that you want to MF or AF.. why bother.. just detect if the ring has turning or not. so, if you are in AF mode and the camera detects that the ring has moved.. then the user must want MF override and when you half-press the shutter, the user wants AF again..

why make a physical switch when its not needed.

0 upvotes
Craig Atkinson
By Craig Atkinson (4 months ago)

it's a nice feeling switch though.

0 upvotes
Asylum Photo
By Asylum Photo (4 months ago)

Unfortunately, Fuji lenses are focus by wire.

4 upvotes
technotic
By technotic (4 months ago)

The clutch is to engage/disengage mf and not override. Nikkor lenses have a switch for this don't they?

1 upvote
calking
By calking (4 months ago)

Oh for crying out loud jogger....is it really that big of a problem??? Do you wish that everything from fuji worked like a nikon??? Live a little, learn to appreciate things that are unique. Value the end result more than the process. Something.

0 upvotes
Steve W
By Steve W (4 months ago)

The use of the clutch, rather than the use of a ring motor like Nikon/Canon, let's the designer independently optimize the gearing and desired short through for auto focus, AF, versus the longer smoother focus for manual. I own both types and there are advantages to both. On the Fuji, the desire to keep it small and offer a smooth manual focus leads to the clutch which I've now gotten used to. It's not just a switch. It changes which gears are engaged internally.

0 upvotes
KL Matt
By KL Matt (4 months ago)

It must have been quite a challenge to take so many photographs with an f/1.4 lens and reveal so little about its out-of-focus rendering. Was that the aim here? Make certain every last bit of the image was sharp from corner to corner? Besides the one flower shot and maybe the whiskey cellar to a small extent, I don't have much more of an impression of how this lens renders than I did before. But yes, it does indeed appear to produce sharp images. :-/

1 upvote
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (4 months ago)

It's a 35mm-equivalent semi-wideangle, so it's barely a challenge at all to shoot wide open and not get much of the image out of focus. Because of this, F1.4 wideangles are arguably more useful for keeping ISOs low in low light, than they are for shooting with the aim of getting blurred backgrounds. The gallery simply reflects this.

14 upvotes
KL Matt
By KL Matt (4 months ago)

Yes, your last point is definitely debatable. I would actually argue that low light photography is not the main reason to use a 24mm f/1.4 lens vs. a 24 f/2.8 etc., but rather the enhanced DOF control. I love DOF effects with wide angle lenses. But it's really hard to find a wide-angle lens that renders attractive OOF areas. Which is why I was eager to look at this gallery: "so, we know it's sharp, but how does it render??" I strongly disagree that it is difficult to produce OOF areas with a 24mm 1/4 lens on AFC, since I have no problem doing so with my 24 f/2. The trick is you have to get a little bit closer to the subject, that's all.

1 upvote
Cane
By Cane (4 months ago)

The gallery only holds 30 pictures. they would have had to take 31, not to mention the time/labor costs involved in extra photo shoot time.

0 upvotes
naftade
By naftade (4 months ago)

I have to humbly disagree with Andy.
I find it very easy to produce out of focus backgrounds with this lens. It is the reason why I bought it and I am not disappointed. The rendering of the oof areas is very beautiful imo. If you google 'fuji 23 1.4 review' you will find lots of samples that demonstrate the possibilities.

5 upvotes
KL Matt
By KL Matt (4 months ago)

Thanks naftade. I shoot my Pentax FA 24 f/2 wide open a lot, not because the lens performs particularly well at that aperture (it doesn't), but because I'm looking for subject isolation. There is not enough of that at f/2, which is why I'm very interested in the rendering of this Fuji lens at f/1.4. Is it contrasty at 1.4, or does contrast only pick up towards f/2 and smaller?

0 upvotes
attomole
By attomole (4 months ago)

Tend to agree with the note of criticism here, otherwise why not just buy the f2 that comes with X100s its about the same price and it comes with a complete camera, the control of DOF is one of the reasons this lens lives and takes it head to head with the Sony RX100 if its in in combination with the XE2

0 upvotes
calking
By calking (4 months ago)

@ KL
Why don't you just rent one and shoot with it and find out for yourself what it's capable of. Or find a local dealer and sample one at the counter. For what you're looking for it'll take you 2 minutes to verify.

1 upvote
evandijken
By evandijken (4 months ago)

But that price...!!

2 upvotes
topstuff
By topstuff (4 months ago)

A Canon 35mm 1.4 L costs 20% more and is no better. And frankly the IQ in general from the Fuji is pretty close to a FF Canon anyway.

So taken in that context, the Fuji is a bit of a bargain.

10 upvotes
joelmusicman
By joelmusicman (4 months ago)

I totally agree! For only a few more c-bills you can get an X100S which is also a great lens (not quite as fast though) that happens to come with a body too!

2 upvotes
Craig Atkinson
By Craig Atkinson (4 months ago)

no chance of the same bokeh, if that's your thing, but the x100s is a joy to use, more so than the ILC fujis, in my opinion.

2 upvotes
joejack951
By joejack951 (4 months ago)

The Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art Series is the same price and a full stop faster on a full frame camera. I haven't seen a comparison, but unless this Fuji is THE sharpest lens available at this focal length, it's probably not as sharp as the Sigma. Yet again, full frame is the place to go if you want DOF control.

3 upvotes
Clint Dunn
By Clint Dunn (4 months ago)

Joelmusician...we all know the X100S is a great camera...but the problem is that it doesn't mount so well to the end of my XPro1.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Petka
By Petka (4 months ago)

Clint, you get a spare camera for free with the 23mm f2 lens…

I have it, and X-Pro1 with 14, 35 and 55-200mm lenses.

0 upvotes
straylightrun
By straylightrun (4 months ago)

Will people stop saying you get a spare camera for free? Also that's not exactly a good thing. It's stuck. So when you get a new body with new features, you won't be able to utilize them with the x100 (obviously).

0 upvotes
christiangrunercom
By christiangrunercom (4 months ago)

A shame that the raw-files are not available.. :(

0 upvotes
D200_4me
By D200_4me (4 months ago)

How long will it take one of the internet experts to whine about the X-Trans sensor design/performance? ;-) Come on....get it over with so we can go back to enjoying real photos...

2 upvotes
shigzeo ?
By shigzeo ? (4 months ago)

Whine about x-trans performance. Whine about size of lens.

0 upvotes
Asylum Photo
By Asylum Photo (4 months ago)

Shigzeo,

I was hesitant about the size as well. It does look pretty large in photos. But, in actual use, it balances well on the camera, and fits perfectly in my left hand (I always two hand shoot, so the balance is nice).

2 upvotes
Beat Traveller
By Beat Traveller (4 months ago)

Scroll up.

0 upvotes
inorogNL
By inorogNL (4 months ago)

how does it compare to Panasonic Leica 25mm f/1.4?

0 upvotes
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (4 months ago)

Optically, it's at least as good. But it serves a rather different role - it's a 35mm equivalent moderate wide angle, rather than a 50mm equivalent normal lens. The closest Micro Four Thirds lens is the Olympus 17mm F1.8.

Comment edited 19 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
Infared
By Infared (4 months ago)

Not well.
The Panny 25mm is a 50mm (Equiv.)
The Fuji 23mm is a 35mm (Equiv.)
:-)

2 upvotes
inorogNL
By inorogNL (4 months ago)

My mistake, somehow I thought focal lenght difference would not be that great

0 upvotes
naftade
By naftade (4 months ago)

I did a short comparison between the 23 1.4 and the Oly 17 1.8. The Fuji is clearly better than the Olympus. It is sharper and the DOF is (of course) much shallower. Unfortunately it does not focus as quickly as the Olympus. Especially in low light, it can struggle a litlle.
Manual fous with Peaking works very good though.

6 upvotes
joelmusicman
By joelmusicman (4 months ago)

The Oly 17 is reputedly not one of the best m43 lenses, so the Fuji being better is not surprising at all. That said, the Oly focuses extremely fast.

0 upvotes
Infared
By Infared (4 months ago)

Yes...well I have the Oly 17mm f/1.8..love it ...fast and fun. I would think that the Fuji is sharper, but it is $1000 compared to $400 so...it should be. Both lenses have their places. When I am not using the 17mm on my E-P5 I am using my Sigma 35mm f/1.4 on my 5DIII....talk about sharp...WOW!

0 upvotes
Craig Atkinson
By Craig Atkinson (4 months ago)

it's a fine lens - I find at f.4, the x100s is sharper but at f.2 the 23mm if miles ahead. Shame there's no way of adding an auto ND kind of like the x100s but more like the Ricoh GR.

1 upvote
D200_4me
By D200_4me (4 months ago)

At f/2, closer to a subject (maybe less than 5 feet), there's something odd going on with the X100S (I have one), but once you get beyond 5', the X100S is nice and sharp, but I can't compare to the lens mentioned here for this story since I don't have one :-). Anyway, the X100S f/2 softness at close range has been discussed very much. I suppose there's some design limitation involved.

0 upvotes
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (4 months ago)

The softness of the 23mm F2 on the X100(S) wide open is due to an increase in spherical aberration at closer subject distances - this isn't actually all that unusual. The 23mm F2 is distinctly sharper at close range, but it does develop quite visible barrel distortion.

1 upvote
Craig Atkinson
By Craig Atkinson (4 months ago)

agreed. The lens is a beautiful one but to my mind the only advantage it has over the x100s is the DOF control. The general IQ, overall doesn't warrant the lens. The lens is cheaper than the x100s of course, but it needs putting on something, and an ND filter, and a protective filter, and a bag...At present I have both, but can't keep both. Tricky decision!

0 upvotes
bartolyni
By bartolyni (4 months ago)

Sublime performance....never seen anything as sharp as this in a very long time...I think it makes a perfect combo with X-E2

6 upvotes
topstuff
By topstuff (4 months ago)

I have to say, purely objectively and not currently as a Fuji user, that the general look and quality of the images from the Fuji camera and lens is very, very pleasing in my opinion.

The IQ is lovely.

They have my attention for sure.

Comment edited 21 seconds after posting
15 upvotes
PG Thomas
By PG Thomas (4 months ago)

I've glued to my XE-1! Great Focal Length, Great IQ, Great lens...

2 upvotes
wchutt
By wchutt (4 months ago)

I own this lens.

When you first put the lens on the camera, its length gives you pause. When you use the camera the length does not get in the way. However if the lens was 10% longer it would be too much - for me anyway. It is not heavy.

The price is not an issue for me because this lens delivers performance. I sold my X100 two weeks after I started to use this lens (and I love the X100).

The longitudinal CA is much less than any fast Nikkor G series prime I've used or seen examples from. Of course the fast Nikkor primes are even more expensive (and heavier). The out-of-focus rendering can be a bit nervous in some back lit scenes - such as light filtering through trees. Otherwise the OOF rendering is fine for a 23 mm focal length lens.

The biggest problem is the ugly, gigantic hood. I spent less than $20 on eBay for two screw in hoods (one vented and one not).

I also have the 40/2.8 and 18/2 XF lenses which I use when I prefer a smaller, somewhat less conspicuous lens.

2 upvotes
calking
By calking (4 months ago)

I don't find it heavy or overly priced either.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Total comments: 125