Dolls .... 35 & 23 F2 good, good enough or fabulous even? Mediocre? Don't care?

deednets · May 17, 2017

Taken with the 35 and the 23 F2. Maybe I am not particularly critical but those seem ok for my standards.

But would of course be interested to see how much better the faster (and heavier in case of the 23 F1.4) lenses (I had both for a long time) would have rendered those images.

EXIF should be visible incl the ISO.

Deed

eric333 · May 17, 2017

"My name is Talky Tina...and you'd better be nice to me"

Rod McD · May 17, 2017

Hi Deed,

These look fine. What's your view of the often-repeated notion that the 23/2 isn't sharp at very close distances? I haven't seen any lab tests of the lens, but these look good to me and were obviously shot quite close even if not at MFD. They're stopped down a bit in the last pair and look very sharp up to the site viewing limit. Is this another internet lens myth that's gained traction or is it really an issue?

Cheers, Rod

deednets · May 17, 2017

Rod McD said:
Hi Deed,

These look fine. What's your view of the often-repeated notion that the 23/2 isn't sharp at very close distances? I haven't seen any lab tests of the lens, but these look good to me and were obviously shot quite close even if not at MFD. They're stopped down a bit in the last pair and look very sharp up to the site viewing limit. Is this another internet lens myth that's gained traction or is it really an issue?

Cheers, Rod

I think those lenses are "sharp as" and I personally also like the bokeh, a gentle roll-off. The stopping down I did because of the incredibly shallow DOF those lenses have at this focusing distance.

On a side.note: the guy who must have watched "Chucky" above you got the most "likes" ... whereas it wasn't really about dolls as such ;-)

Deed

baobob · May 18, 2017

apart an obvious plastiky or waxy look of the skin, absolutely perfect

baobob · May 18, 2017

BTW which film simulation ?

Thx

Bob

keesenzo · May 18, 2017

deednets said:
Taken with the 35 and the 23 F2. Maybe I am not particularly critical but those seem ok for my standards.

But would of course be interested to see how much better the faster (and heavier in case of the 23 F1.4) lenses (I had both for a long time) would have rendered those images.

Define better,

I do not have the f/2's but for these images i would not expect any spectacular differences, When in need of corner to corner sharpness, in critical lighting or high contrast conditions.

but even then. most lenses nowadays are stellar anyway. if you do not see a problem in your images, then what would another lens do better?

Kees

deednets said:
Deed

ScottD1964 · May 18, 2017

eric333 said:
"My name is Talky Tina...and you'd better be nice to me"

To this day that episode creeps me out.

Scott

eric333 · May 18, 2017

The photos are good but that second one is nightmarish. Definitely on the far side of the uncanny valley.

Vic Chapman · May 18, 2017

I can see why a new buyer might choose the f2s as their first primes but what was there about the f1.4s that made you sell expensive glass for cheaper lenses which probably cost what you got for the 1.4s? Was it the physical aspects of size, weight, looks, WR, AF or something lacking in the IQ of the 1.4s.

Vic

Mikegee · May 18, 2017

deednets said:
Taken with the 35 and the 23 F2. Maybe I am not particularly critical but those seem ok for my standards.

But would of course be interested to see how much better the faster (and heavier in case of the 23 F1.4) lenses (I had both for a long time) would have rendered those images.

EXIF should be visible incl the ISO.

Deed

I have the XF35mm f/1.4 and the XF 23mm f/1.4 both purchased with the Fuji instant rebates. For the little extras I paid will not be replacing. The XF f2.0 line of lenses is nice but the f/1/4 is special sometime magic.

deednets · May 18, 2017

baobob said:
BTW which film simulation ?

Thx

Bob

deednets · May 18, 2017

keesenzo said:
deednets said:

Taken with the 35 and the 23 F2. Maybe I am not particularly critical but those seem ok for my standards.

But would of course be interested to see how much better the faster (and heavier in case of the 23 F1.4) lenses (I had both for a long time) would have rendered those images.

Click to expand...

Define better,

I do not have the f/2's but for these images i would not expect any spectacular differences, When in need of corner to corner sharpness, in critical lighting or high contrast conditions.

but even then. most lenses nowadays are stellar anyway. if you do not see a problem in your images, then what would another lens do better?

Kees

keesenzo said:

Deed

Click to expand...

They are faster and render oof areas differently. Also the 23/2 has been mentioned to be soft at close focus.

I disagree with your statement regarding "most lenses are stellar". You mean Fuji lenses or lenses in general? I have possibly used more than 100 lenses on various formats and found most of them mediocre to sort of ok, a rare few really good and maybe 10 or so stellar. What makes a great lens for me is good contrast, colour and the way a lens renders the transition between in and out of focus areas. Sounds easy? It often isn't as nervous background can pull your eye away from your main subject.

Lenses with a good reputation that I have used, but found south of so-so include the 18-55/2.8-4 Fuju, Olympus 45/1.8 Olympus 75/1.8 Nikon 85/1.8 Nikkor 105/2.5 and Canon 16-35.

Those F2 Fujis are remarcable by comparison in terms of bokeh, sharpness and colour. Since I read this article about the cinematic look of those 3 lenses I can't help noticing this every time I use them.

Deed

deednets · May 18, 2017

Vic Chapman said:
I can see why a new buyer might choose the f2s as their first primes but what was there about the f1.4s that made you sell expensive glass for cheaper lenses which probably cost what you got for the 1.4s? Was it the physical aspects of size, weight, looks, WR, AF or something lacking in the IQ of the 1.4s.

Vic

deednets · May 18, 2017

Mikegee said:
deednets said:

Taken with the 35 and the 23 F2. Maybe I am not particularly critical but those seem ok for my standards.

But would of course be interested to see how much better the faster (and heavier in case of the 23 F1.4) lenses (I had both for a long time) would have rendered those images.

EXIF should be visible incl the ISO.

Deed

Click to expand...

I have the XF35mm f/1.4 and the XF 23mm f/1.4 both purchased with the Fuji instant rebates. For the little extras I paid will not be replacing. The XF f2.0 line of lenses is nice but the f/1/4 is special sometime magic.

I had both lenses too and found the 23/1.4 an excellent lens. Brilliant in fact. But looking at what I get from the F2 lenses I find the 9-aperture blades in those 3 possibly add to the way they render images. I also really like the somewhat cooler colour bias in those 3, a certain look that I find very appealing.

chaimav · May 18, 2017

Looks like they have waxy skin, must be a X-trans issue ;-)

Joachim Gerstl · May 18, 2017

eric333 said:
The photos are good but that second one is nightmarish. Definitely on the far side of the uncanny valley.

True! Thank you. It's 3:30am here and I can't sleep because of my jet lag and now I have this picture in my head too.

Good Night!

But it is a very good shot though.

Search

Dolls .... 35 & 23 F2 good, good enough or fabulous even? Mediocre? Don't care?

deednets

Forum Pro

eric333

Senior Member

Rod McD

Veteran Member

deednets

Forum Pro

baobob

Forum Pro

baobob

Forum Pro

keesenzo

Well-known member

ScottD1964

Senior Member

eric333

Senior Member

Vic Chapman

Forum Pro

Mikegee

Well-known member

deednets

Forum Pro

deednets

Forum Pro

deednets

Forum Pro

deednets

Forum Pro

chaimav

Senior Member

Joachim Gerstl

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts