Reading mode: Light Dark

All those "issues" with the 23/2.0 ...

Go to last post
D

deednets

Forum Pro
Messages
15,736
Solutions
1
Reaction score
13,593
Location
NZ
I just read the comments regarding the 1.4 vs the 2.0 lenses. lydecker had an impressive list of identified issues with the 23/2. Fair enough. I had/have both so also have some thousands of photos taken with both lenses.

If you repeat a certain statement often enough it becomes reality. Like this "close focusing issue" or the corner softness or the bokeh. F1.4 will potentially give you better background blur, but the 23/2 has a 9-blade aperture, so whilst not as creamy maybe, it is actually not bad.

Here are some photos taken yesterday. The 23/1.4 would have been what?? Sharper at close focus??



Corner softness an issue
Corner softness an issue



Contrast also an issue? F2 and around 35cm away
Contrast also an issue? F2 and around 35cm away



But certainly the much dreaded close-focus issue (25cm here...) F8 alright but chosen because of DOF
But certainly the much dreaded close-focus issue (25cm here...) F8 alright but chosen because of DOF



F2.5 here as at F2 just not enough in focus.
F2.5 here as at F2 just not enough in focus.

So maybe a closer match than one would expect?



[ATTACH alt="23/1.4 @F1.4 note the "better bokeh" over the 2 mudguards e.g. the tent on the left "]1474103[/ATTACH]
23/1.4 @F1.4 note the "better bokeh" over the 2 mudguards e.g. the tent on the left



No match for the 23/1.4 but not bad - and also much closer ...
No match for the 23/1.4 but not bad - and also much closer ...

So not sure what those guys who keep on saying the 23/2 is not good at close focusing and the bokeh is not good - compared to the 23/1.4 are on about.

Note that I think the 23/1.4 is an excellent lens, loved it. But I now use the F2 version and don't seem to be lacking as such. maybe I just have lower standards or expectations? The old "good enough" - a euphemism for mediocrity comes to mind??

Deed
 

Attachments

  • 9c7656ff45ea4b4c918b755ded43e2eb.jpg
    9c7656ff45ea4b4c918b755ded43e2eb.jpg
    1.3 MB · Views: 0
But you didn't print those as billboards and then take a magnifying glass to them! You clearly don't understand image quality.

:-D ;-) :-P
 
AlbertInFrance said:
But you didn't print those as billboards and then take a magnifying glass to them! You clearly don't understand image quality.

:-D ;-) :-P

--
Albert
(The one in France)
There is no such thing as a professional camera.
A 'pro' or 'professional' photographer is someone who earns money from photography. It is not some sort of measure of quality or expertise.
Cameras don't get paid.
Click to expand...
In fact now that you mention it ...:-P
 
Deed thanks for posting this. Your "almost good enough images" are good enough for my taste. ;-)

You would have been welcome to post at my thread but this is also welcome. :-)

I made up my mind today that I just need to rent both lenses for two days and keep the one I like best. This will also cover sample variation. I have no idea how good the quality control at Fuji is but at 23mm I expect a chance there is some variation even with lenses for mirrorless cameras that do not need retrofocus design but are still complex.
 
WalterH said:
Deed thanks for posting this. Your "almost good enough images" are good enough for my taste. ;-)

You would have been welcome to post at my thread but this is also welcome. :-)

I made up my mind today that I just need to rent both lenses for two days and keep the one I like best. This will also cover sample variation. I have no idea how good the quality control at Fuji is but at 23mm I expect a chance there is some variation even with lenses for mirrorless cameras that do not need retrofocus design but are still complex.
Click to expand...
I thought about posting on your thread, but those responses often get snowed under within a thread. I thought it might interest more people and not just you.

We had an NZ$ 150.00 cash rebate here, which made the NZ$ 799.00 retail an interesting proposition, almost a little bargain. The built quality of the 23/2 is imo the best I have seen from Fuji, incredibly tight fit. Should be right up your alley, Spaltmaß excellent comes to mind 😎

P.S.: The "good enough" comment was meant to be a joke
 
Last edited:
It only matters if you're directly comparing the same scenes shot with the two - then you see these differences. Otherwise, you're never complaining about the f/2 version. I think it's a fantastic little lens and I may get it one day.

I've compared the 35 f/2 to a Touit 32 f/1.8 and the Touit is sharper at minimum focus distance, wide open. The 35 f/2 just isn't strong at minimum focus. Everywhere else, it excels. I use it a lot.

The form factor is wonderful - you want to leave it on the camera at all times. So I may get this 23 f/2.
 
stevo23 said:
It only matters if you're directly comparing the same scenes shot with the two - then you see these differences. Otherwise, you're never complaining about the f/2 version. I think it's a fantastic little lens and I may get it one day.

I've compared the 35 f/2 to a Touit 32 f/1.8 and the Touit is sharper at minimum focus distance, wide open. The 35 f/2 just isn't strong at minimum focus. Everywhere else, it excels. I use it a lot.

The form factor is wonderful - you want to leave it on the camera at all times. So I may get this 23 f/2.
Click to expand...
Yes ... the form factor. Originally I thought this "curving in" towards the front would bother me but since the lens is of such superb built, the clicking of the aperture ring is what all lenses should be like - except of course for video (can't have everything right??)

The 35/1.4 a completely different beast, but boy that lens is sharp ... maybe also a matter of sample variety??
 
deednets said:
stevo23 said:
It only matters if you're directly comparing the same scenes shot with the two - then you see these differences. Otherwise, you're never complaining about the f/2 version. I think it's a fantastic little lens and I may get it one day.

I've compared the 35 f/2 to a Touit 32 f/1.8 and the Touit is sharper at minimum focus distance, wide open. The 35 f/2 just isn't strong at minimum focus. Everywhere else, it excels. I use it a lot.

The form factor is wonderful - you want to leave it on the camera at all times. So I may get this 23 f/2.
Click to expand...
Yes ... the form factor. Originally I thought this "curving in" towards the front would bother me but since the lens is of such superb built, the clicking of the aperture ring is what all lenses should be like - except of course for video (can't have everything right??)

The 35/1.4 a completely different beast, but boy that lens is sharp ... maybe also a matter of sample variety??
Click to expand...
Actually, as tested, the f/2 (at lenstip) is a sharper lens by a bit, has lower LoCA and better coma performance. It's ever so slightly a better lens in the optical sense. Not that the 1.4 is bad - it's stellar. It's also f/1.4 and has that clutch manual focus. The 1.4 is for speed and wide open bokeh - I like it's bokeh at f/2 better than the f/2 wide open. Also, the 1.4 is better wide open at minimum focus so I hear. The f/2 is for everything else which might be the bulk of most peoples' shooting.
 
I've been using the Fuji system since day one for personal work, travel, and street photography. I have had most of the Fuji X bodies and glass. I'm pretty critical. As far as I'm concerned, the 23 f/2 is excellent, but keep in mind I don't use this focal length to photograph subjects 10 inches away wide open! I can't believe some of the threads I've read :-). YES, I had the 23mm f/1.4 lens and optically it was one of Fuji's best, but in every other respect it didn't measure up to the f/2 version. After getting the 23 f/2, I sold the 23 f/1.4. My sample of the f/2 version is optically excellent, focuses very fast, is compact, weather sealed, beautifully constructed. A perfect match for the X series and ideal for fast street work. I don't miss the f/1.4 version at all.
 
Tony Bonanno said:
I've been using the Fuji system since day one for personal work, travel, and street photography. I have had most of the Fuji X bodies and glass. I'm pretty critical. As far as I'm concerned, the 23 f/2 is excellent, but keep in mind I don't use this focal length to photograph subjects 10 inches away wide open! I can't believe some of the threads I've read :-). YES, I had the 23mm f/1.4 lens and optically it was one of Fuji's best, but in every other respect it didn't measure up to the f/2 version. After getting the 23 f/2, I sold the 23 f/1.4. My sample of the f/2 version is optically excellent, focuses very fast, is compact, weather sealed, beautifully constructed. A perfect match for the X series and ideal for fast street work. I don't miss the f/1.4 version at all.
Click to expand...
I bought the 1.4 because I was just getting into the system and the sale was on but the F/2 wasn't on sale. In hindsight, I probably would have benefitted more from 1.4 on the 35mm.
 
Are these SOOC?
 
I agree, some dudes attacked this lens with such a furry that I thought it was a junk lens, but I bought it thanks to the many positive reviews and the results are outstanding.

I am an occasional portrait and bokeh guy, but I tried this field in numerous photos and I have found the results very good at f2 to f4 even at 20cm, with a bit of Capture 1 editing you get 99% the same sharpness results as the f1.4 lens at f2. Please visit my tutorial for that https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58890709 . For landscape and street meaning f5.6 to f9 this 23mm f2 is the best, yes slightly sharper than the f1.4.

The results I got at f6.4 of the snow are perhaps 10x more detailed and sharp compared to my xc 16-50 at f6.4 which is not bad.

So I guess the people who complained about these issues are either:

-Extremely insanely pixel picky at f2

-Got a bad unit (yes it happens specially in the 1st batches)

-Paid a lot on the f1.4 and will never ever say a good word about the cheaper f2 version, some of them never actually got the f2 or barely used it 3 mins in a showroom.

Now given that if you work (meaning a business) on close up photos with bokeh only, then it's better to get the bokeh specialist aka the 23mm f1.4, but if you are like me a photograph who like to shoot landscapes,street, architecture, environmental portrait and bokeh, and want a cheaper,smaller,lighter,WR lens then the 23mm f2 is perfect for you, bare in mind it's the better 23mm lens for landscape
 
Last edited:
deednets said:
I just read the comments regarding the 1.4 vs the 2.0 lenses. lydecker had an impressive list of identified issues with the 23/2. Fair enough. I had/have both so also have some thousands of photos taken with both lenses.

If you repeat a certain statement often enough it becomes reality. Like this "close focusing issue" or the corner softness or the bokeh. F1.4 will potentially give you better background blur, but the 23/2 has a 9-blade aperture, so whilst not as creamy maybe, it is actually not bad.

Here are some photos taken yesterday. The 23/1.4 would have been what?? Sharper at close focus??

Corner softness an issue
Corner softness an issue

Contrast also an issue? F2 and around 35cm away
Contrast also an issue? F2 and around 35cm away

But certainly the much dreaded close-focus issue (25cm here...) F8 alright but chosen because of DOF
But certainly the much dreaded close-focus issue (25cm here...) F8 alright but chosen because of DOF

F2.5 here as at F2 just not enough in focus.
F2.5 here as at F2 just not enough in focus.

So maybe a closer match than one would expect?

[ATTACH alt="23/1.4 @F1.4 note the "better bokeh" over the 2 mudguards e.g. the tent on the left"]1474103[/ATTACH]
23/1.4 @F1.4 note the "better bokeh" over the 2 mudguards e.g. the tent on the left

No match for the 23/1.4 but not bad - and also much closer ...
No match for the 23/1.4 but not bad - and also much closer ...

So not sure what those guys who keep on saying the 23/2 is not good at close focusing and the bokeh is not good - compared to the 23/1.4 are on about.

Note that I think the 23/1.4 is an excellent lens, loved it. But I now use the F2 version and don't seem to be lacking as such. maybe I just have lower standards or expectations? The old "good enough" - a euphemism for mediocrity comes to mind??

Deed
Click to expand...
I got a copy and it gets used on my XT2 about half the time. The other half is used by the nifty 35/2. I haven't yet shot anything i considered soft.
 
I'm waiting for the believers to sell their 23/2's at a discount so I can score one cheap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Viltrox 23 1.4 for Fuji
Replies
11
Views
3K
BluesJake
BluesJake
DNBush
  • Question Question
X-T5 Lens Choices [reset]...
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
1K
CatBus
C
R
  • Locked
Serious question re: f/1.2 trinity lack of performance wide open at 45mp
3 4 5
Replies
91
Views
65K
TOF guy
T
Richard Murdey
Super-quick impressions of Brightin Star 23/5.6 and 35/1.7
Replies
0
Views
2K
Richard Murdey
Richard Murdey
J
More Sigma 12 mm pictures, Astro shots included
Replies
7
Views
4K
jm10
J

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top