-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
23F2 or 35F2?
- Thread starter Dreamrist
- Start date
Greg7579
Forum Pro
I would say the 23. The new 23/35/50 F2s are fantastic. You just have to pick a focal length you want and your 18-55 has them all covered anyway. So it can be a tough decision. I would say the 23. I use the 35 more than I thought, but it is 50 equivalent and I have found 50 to be boring until lately.....
When you have zooms and decide to go with a prime or a few primes, it is tough to decide which one first.
I would say, in order:
16, 23, 90, then get the 35, 50 , and 56 if you are a portrait guy.
16 is Fuji's best prime. The 90 is superb. The three F2s are great.
When you have zooms and decide to go with a prime or a few primes, it is tough to decide which one first.
I would say, in order:
16, 23, 90, then get the 35, 50 , and 56 if you are a portrait guy.
16 is Fuji's best prime. The 90 is superb. The three F2s are great.
The Ghost of Caravaggio
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,006
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 747
The 23 mm.
It is much smaller than the 18-35. Of course the 35/2 is much smaller as well.
I prefer the 23 mm lenses angle of view. Over the years I used that angle-of-view exclusively with five different camera/lens systems. After a while I began to pre-visualize framing with that angle of view. Pre-visualization did not come naturally with wider or narrower angles of view.
For your, decision think about how far you typically stand from your subject(s). If you prefer to be a but further away, the 35/2 would be better.
It is much smaller than the 18-35. Of course the 35/2 is much smaller as well.
I prefer the 23 mm lenses angle of view. Over the years I used that angle-of-view exclusively with five different camera/lens systems. After a while I began to pre-visualize framing with that angle of view. Pre-visualization did not come naturally with wider or narrower angles of view.
For your, decision think about how far you typically stand from your subject(s). If you prefer to be a but further away, the 35/2 would be better.
I have the same lenses as you. Between, the 23mm and 35mm, I'd choose the 23, because the 35 is closer to your 56mm than the 23.
However, personally, I'm targeting the 10-24mm, 55-200mm or the 16mm now. Those are the FL that aren't covered by our 18-55mm.
However, personally, I'm targeting the 10-24mm, 55-200mm or the 16mm now. Those are the FL that aren't covered by our 18-55mm.
Last edited:
W
walie007
Guest
If considering the 23, i would spend a bit more and get a used x100t.
dv312
Veteran Member
the 23mm is more versatile than 35mm IMHO
I bought it as the prime lens to bring along with my XT20 but after getting the X100F it became 'obsolete'
Some prefer the normal perspective of the 35mm but I find it on the boring side
A bit wider makes things more interesting
Cheers,
I bought it as the prime lens to bring along with my XT20 but after getting the X100F it became 'obsolete'
Some prefer the normal perspective of the 35mm but I find it on the boring side
A bit wider makes things more interesting
Cheers,
tkbslc
Forum Pro
This is kind of like asking us what you should have for dinner. Both are great lenses, but they have significantly different angles of view. Which focal length suits what you want to photograph better? And if you have no idea, then you probably shouldn't get either.
Watertight
Well-known member
I have both. The 35 came a year ago and _really_ hit the spot since it was on sale. I totally love it, and it made me set my 18-55 aside for quite a few months. It's my walkabout lens, and I'm delighted with my silver copy (with silver sun shade) that goes with my silver X-E2 . The combined package really contributes to my enjoyment by hearkening back to my first cameras too many years ago.
I added the 23 a little over a month ago. It's a fine value, is very slightly larger than the 35, and no, it's not noticably soft at short range.
However, I've found that when I want to go wide, the 18-55 does the job just fine. I suspect my 23 will be mounted much less frequently than the 35. Nothing lacking re: performance, but my need for that focal length seems to be lower than I'd expected. Time will tell.
I added the 23 a little over a month ago. It's a fine value, is very slightly larger than the 35, and no, it's not noticably soft at short range.
However, I've found that when I want to go wide, the 18-55 does the job just fine. I suspect my 23 will be mounted much less frequently than the 35. Nothing lacking re: performance, but my need for that focal length seems to be lower than I'd expected. Time will tell.
Dyeman
Forum Enthusiast
Having both, I prefer the 23 field of view. You could set your 18-55 to 23 and go shoot, then do the same with 35. You will soon see which FOV you prefer.
Cheers.
Cheers.
yardcoyote
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 18,132
- Solutions
- 14
- Reaction score
- 18,310
You could study the images coming from your 18-55 and see if you already have a preference. Do your images "clump" around 20-25 mm, or around 30-40mm? If they do, you have your answer.
I am with Ghost of Caravaggio above-- I have a strong "notch". Mine is in a different place (23mm on crop is a "learn to love" for me, and my X100T has pretty much satisfied my interest in it) but my decision between the two lenses above would be just as obvious.
(I am sort of planning on getting one of the f/2 trio when I eventually get an X-Pro, since I will want a sealed prime for that camera. And I am already chewing on whether it should be the logical 35mm, or the sort of weird 50mm. My tastes are getting longer with age, I think.)
I am with Ghost of Caravaggio above-- I have a strong "notch". Mine is in a different place (23mm on crop is a "learn to love" for me, and my X100T has pretty much satisfied my interest in it) but my decision between the two lenses above would be just as obvious.
(I am sort of planning on getting one of the f/2 trio when I eventually get an X-Pro, since I will want a sealed prime for that camera. And I am already chewing on whether it should be the logical 35mm, or the sort of weird 50mm. My tastes are getting longer with age, I think.)
Ambulater
Leading Member
Both are in a range that could be considered "normal". The 35mm would be more of a classic-normal lens that corresponds to the fabled "nifty-fifty" that is so often recommended to photographers of all types. The 23mm would be a wide normal that corresponds to a classic journalistic photography look.
I have owned both the 35mm f/2 and the 23mm f/2, but sold the 35mm. Personally, I don't think it's really worth it (for me) to carry around two normal lenses. Between the two, the FOV of the 23mm is both more versatile and more interesting to me, so that's my choice. YMMV. It's really a personal preference.
I have owned both the 35mm f/2 and the 23mm f/2, but sold the 35mm. Personally, I don't think it's really worth it (for me) to carry around two normal lenses. Between the two, the FOV of the 23mm is both more versatile and more interesting to me, so that's my choice. YMMV. It's really a personal preference.
This is what I did when choosing between the 1.4 versions of 23 and 35.
I chose the 23 1.4, as I felt much more confortable with this FOV outdoors, and it is a more convenient FOV indoors (eg also for shots at small dinnertable)
Size-wise, not much difference between the 23 2.0 and 1.4, the 1.4 has a bit wider front element of course. The 23 1.4 is about twice the price of the 2.0 though when new.
Another detail, the FOV of the 23 2.0 is just a little wider than actual 23 FOV.
Strangely, Fuji quote both lenses as having an field of view of 63.4` Which is what I would have expected. What do you calculate to be the difference between the two lenses?
The material online is pretty consistent, in that the 2.0 catches a slightly wider portion of the scenery compared to the 1.4. So either the 2.0 is wider than 23mm FOV, or the 1.4 is narrower, or both, or...?
I made the (possibly wrong) assumption that the 2.0 wider than 23mm, because I heard it mentioned to be closer to 21mm FOV. The difference is not huge, but it is noticeable when comparing the output of both lenses.
Last edited:
John Gellings
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 11,472
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 9,345
Which focal length do you enjoy using more? Your answer to that question is the answer.
If you can afford, buy the x100f. the nd filter is really nice for street photos during daytime. the fill flash is awesome and it takes great low light shots. I've been waiting for a price break, then pulling trigger myself. already have the xt- and would carry both cameras with 18-55 and 10-24 on xt-2. just my thoughts
It seems I am one of the few to prefer the classic 50mm look of the 35 compared to the 23. Also, the 35 is smaller (not much, but enough to notice it) and my head also has a problem accepting that a wider angle lens is bigger and longer.
my answer to your question is: It depends what/how you shoot and your feeling about the two focal lenght. For instance I find more difficult to produce interesting photos witht the 23, I mostly use it for indoor shots. It's my limit, of course (the lens is superb). But since I have this limit as a photographer, and I know I have this limit, then the 35 is my preferred option between the two.
my answer to your question is: It depends what/how you shoot and your feeling about the two focal lenght. For instance I find more difficult to produce interesting photos witht the 23, I mostly use it for indoor shots. It's my limit, of course (the lens is superb). But since I have this limit as a photographer, and I know I have this limit, then the 35 is my preferred option between the two.
Last edited:
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum