I am looking to add a prime to go with my 18-55 lens for my XT2 and I really like the 35mm equivalent view. The new 23/2 seems like an intriguing lens but the reviews are all over the map and I'm confused. The Angry Photographer said this is a must have lens and along with the 16 1.8 the best lenses in their lineup. Then I search threads and read some reviews and I keep hearing that it's soft wide open and that many people are disappointed. Has anyone here recently bought a copy that could comment before I purchase one?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
So what's the deal with the 23mm f2? Good lens or not?
- Thread starter Ponchsox
- Start date
shakenmartini
Forum Enthusiast
It is soft wide open (f2 to f4) and *close up* (< 4 ft).
Generally, a 23 mm lens like this shouldn't be used for close up pictures or macro. At distance it is pretty sharp wide open.
Considering its size and fast focusing, it is a good compromise at this focal length. The absolute best IQ will from the older 23 mm f/1.4.
Generally, a 23 mm lens like this shouldn't be used for close up pictures or macro. At distance it is pretty sharp wide open.
Considering its size and fast focusing, it is a good compromise at this focal length. The absolute best IQ will from the older 23 mm f/1.4.
I am very happy with the 23/2. You should handle these two as they are very different lenses. Do I need f/1.4 or is f/2 sufficient? That was my first thought and secondly do I want WR? The 23/2 gave me a small kit with the 35/2 and 50/2.
There are times I would like to have better low-light and more subject isolation. But in all l am very happy with these and the results I get.
There are times I would like to have better low-light and more subject isolation. But in all l am very happy with these and the results I get.
mjhoy
Member
The 23 f2 is an excellent lens. Small, quiet & fast AF, feels rock solid in the hand, weather resistant. It is a little soft close up & wide open but otherwise quite sharp. Using it convinced me to buy the newer "fujicrons" -- the 35 and the 50 f2s -- as I love the design so much.
Greg7579
Forum Pro
You will hear all kinds of nonsense about the 23 and 35 F2s. They are not soft wide open. In fact, they are great little lenses.
The 23 especially I fell in love with. If you want to look in my Italy Album on Flickr, you will see 70 or so images taken with the 23 and 35 F2 a few weeks ago. I normally travel with zooms, but I'm loving the little F2 prime lineup and just got the 50F2.
Those lenses are built like tanks. They are very fast focusing, quiet, extremely compact, great IQ and very sharp. Oh ... and the have WR. That is important if nothing else than for light showers, build quality and dust.
Let me tell you this. I dropped the 23 one time (on the Patagonia trip) from about chest high and it fell in the dirt and rolled down a trail. I have tested it every way I know and it is sharp and did not hurt the focus motor. I got lucky. But the lenses are tough and extremely well made. I love the little F2 lineup.
No, they are not soft, not even wide open. I think some of the guys who say that might have softness issues of their own. Maybe a little soft in the head? Or.... ;-)
Just kidding guys. But come on.... Soft? Fuji glass soft? I don't think so.
---
Greg Johnson, San Antonio, Texas
www.flickr.com
The 23 especially I fell in love with. If you want to look in my Italy Album on Flickr, you will see 70 or so images taken with the 23 and 35 F2 a few weeks ago. I normally travel with zooms, but I'm loving the little F2 prime lineup and just got the 50F2.
Those lenses are built like tanks. They are very fast focusing, quiet, extremely compact, great IQ and very sharp. Oh ... and the have WR. That is important if nothing else than for light showers, build quality and dust.
Let me tell you this. I dropped the 23 one time (on the Patagonia trip) from about chest high and it fell in the dirt and rolled down a trail. I have tested it every way I know and it is sharp and did not hurt the focus motor. I got lucky. But the lenses are tough and extremely well made. I love the little F2 lineup.
No, they are not soft, not even wide open. I think some of the guys who say that might have softness issues of their own. Maybe a little soft in the head? Or.... ;-)
Just kidding guys. But come on.... Soft? Fuji glass soft? I don't think so.
---
Greg Johnson, San Antonio, Texas
Greg Johnson’s albums | Flickr
www.flickr.com
W
walie007
Guest
Its soft at close distances when the aperture is wide open. Everyone knows this.
Greg7579
Forum Pro
Nonsense.
W
walie007
Guest
Yes you are.
Greg7579
Forum Pro
Hey Walie, I don't understand your reply. I'm what? Anyway....
Let's clear things up between us because if we actually met we would be friends. Let's not argue about that great little 23 and 35 F2s being soft. They are not. In fact, they are TAC sharp baby! Let's not confuse the OP here.
Here is what I want you to do. I want you to go out and shoot about 500 images with the 23 and 35. Then I want you to pixel-peep them and come back on here and report to me your findings. (Try to hold the camera very still -- I don't want you to add camera shake because you are nervous trying to complete my assignment.)
You will no doubt report back to me and say how you learned that the 23 is such a nice and sharp little lens. What was I thinking Greg? (You will ask me.)
In order to prepare yourself for this arduous task, I want you to get on a nice big 4K screen and view the 300 images I just posted from Italy and Patagonia that were shot with the 23 and 35 F2s.
Please tell me if you note any softness problems with 23 or the 35 for those images. You won't be able to say that. And those were 75% quality JPEG Exports from LR.... I don't have time to send you the RAWs or export full quality and size JPEGs.
I will give you 4 days to complete this assignment. So don't let this thread die boys!
:-D
Let's clear things up between us because if we actually met we would be friends. Let's not argue about that great little 23 and 35 F2s being soft. They are not. In fact, they are TAC sharp baby! Let's not confuse the OP here.
Here is what I want you to do. I want you to go out and shoot about 500 images with the 23 and 35. Then I want you to pixel-peep them and come back on here and report to me your findings. (Try to hold the camera very still -- I don't want you to add camera shake because you are nervous trying to complete my assignment.)
You will no doubt report back to me and say how you learned that the 23 is such a nice and sharp little lens. What was I thinking Greg? (You will ask me.)
In order to prepare yourself for this arduous task, I want you to get on a nice big 4K screen and view the 300 images I just posted from Italy and Patagonia that were shot with the 23 and 35 F2s.
Please tell me if you note any softness problems with 23 or the 35 for those images. You won't be able to say that. And those were 75% quality JPEG Exports from LR.... I don't have time to send you the RAWs or export full quality and size JPEGs.
I will give you 4 days to complete this assignment. So don't let this thread die boys!
:-D
mjhoy
Member
Greg, people aren't arguing the 23 is soft wide up in general, just when focusing closely. This is definitely the case with mine. For me, it's not a big deal.
PeteHolland89
Active member
- Messages
- 84
- Reaction score
- 125
This is exactly the situation I was in a couple of weeks back. I bought a X-T2 + 18-55 earlier this year, but was looking to invest in my first prime. Like you, I loved the 35mm (fullframe) field of view, so I bought the 23mm f/2; and I'm glad I did.
It's light, compact, sharp, WR and the autofocus - especially with the X-T2 - is blazing fast. No, it might not give you perfect results when shooting close and wide open, but I tend to avoid that anyway. I cannot tell you anything about the 1.4 version, but I know I'm very happy with the 23mm f/2 for allround photography needs.
To each their own, but in general people tend to take their cameras with them more often when it's not as bulky and heavy, and the f/2 primes are much lighter and smaller than their 1.4's predecessors.
It's light, compact, sharp, WR and the autofocus - especially with the X-T2 - is blazing fast. No, it might not give you perfect results when shooting close and wide open, but I tend to avoid that anyway. I cannot tell you anything about the 1.4 version, but I know I'm very happy with the 23mm f/2 for allround photography needs.
To each their own, but in general people tend to take their cameras with them more often when it's not as bulky and heavy, and the f/2 primes are much lighter and smaller than their 1.4's predecessors.
Greg7579
Forum Pro
Hey Ponch -- I missed part of your post. You mentioned the Mighty 16. Yes, if you can afford it make that your second lens after the 18-55. It is Fuji's best prime. You will also grow to love that FOV since you already have 18, 23, 35 and 50 fairly well covered with your trusty little 18-55.
I'm getting to the point thought that I would tell anyone to get this awesome little F2 Prime trio -- 23, 35 and 50, even though it is fairly well covered by the 18-55 and the brick.
That gets us into the old Prime vs zoom discussion. I love (and have) all of them.... So I can argue it both ways.
I'm getting to the point thought that I would tell anyone to get this awesome little F2 Prime trio -- 23, 35 and 50, even though it is fairly well covered by the 18-55 and the brick.
That gets us into the old Prime vs zoom discussion. I love (and have) all of them.... So I can argue it both ways.
Greg7579
Forum Pro
Oh OK. For close, use the Mighty 16.
For those that say it's soft up close, can you give me an example? I'd like to be able to do some create depth of field stuff with this lens, for example, isolate a subject like a tree or architecture from the background while up close. Possible?
Greg7579
Forum Pro
Look, I often shoot with the 16 with the central object very close -- almost macro close because it is so fast and has creative effects that way. The edges are out of focus wide open anyway and I often seek that.
Some of these guys who say the F2 is soft on the edges wide open are encountering that. I don't buy it Man. My 23 is not. Sorry. Maybe I have the world's best copy. It is a great lens. Trust me. Don't worry about it.
Everyone does not know that guys, so please stop telling me I know that the 23 F2 is edge soft wide open. I don't know it. It ain't so. Prove it. And don't show me that review that everyone harps about or your wide open hand-held shot with edge blur.
Get the 23. Wait ... save your pennies and get the Mighty 16 first.
Great leans, one of the Fujicrons, it is soft close up and wide open, but if that is not critically important to you, go for it ( ignore Greg's superlatives, he seems to be very fond of his gear). If you don't mind size and weight, and don't need WR, the f1.4 version is better optically. WR Is a very good thing to have, especially if you have one of the newer WR bodies.
Comments here are all over the place, but I find the reviews fairly consistent. I trust reviews with objective data, samples and experienced writers. Generally, they say it's a great lens and the only thing you're losing is WR and speed.
Make sure to compare it to the 23 1.4 for yourself:
Loading…
www.lenstip.com
Loading…
www.lenstip.com
Particularly, it stands out in a few ways above the 23 1.4. Each has it's own strengths and weaknesses.
If you don't need the speed, go with the 23 f/2. It's a great lens.
W
walie007
Guest
W
walie007
Guest
Greg7579
Forum Pro
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum