Is the 23mm F2 a bad lens?

Greg7579 wrote:

Peter Jonas wrote:

Greg7579 wrote:

jor23 wrote:

I had an X100 and and an X100T. If you focus close and shoot at f2, the pictures are blurry ... I don't think this needs to be argued.

Hmmmm. Hadn't heard that. The X100F is a pro camera body with a pro 23 F2 lens permanently attached, so that surprises me.

Well then. I am currently shooting in Rome and I brought 7 tac-sharp Fuji lenses with me (but I left the 23 F2 at home).

I also have the X100F with me but haven't gone out with it yet. I'll go give it a try. Close at F2. I don't ever shoot close at F2 but I will go out today and see if it is blurry close at F2.

OK guys... Thread derailment time. Is the X100F "blurry" close at F2 like the OP says? I dont recall ever reading that when you guys made me buy that camera a few months ago on that X100F thread.

Greg,

If you are so inclined, you can do lots of testing with the X100F or the X100T. However, as far as the performance of the XF23mm f2.0 is concerned it will have very little relevance.

They are not the same lenses. Please see my earlier post in relation to that.

Thanks Peter, but I wasn't talking about the 23 F2, which is a great lens and certainly not blurry or "bad" like the OP so weirdly insinuated.

On this last bit, I was talking about the F2 lens on the X100F. This dude says it sucks and is blurry close up, which I think is ridiculous. Is there merit to say that it is blurry at F2 focused close? If so, I would be very surprised, but don't care because I doubt if I ever shoot it absolute closest focus distance at F2. To be honest, I doubt if I shoot much with the X100F at all. Just like I doubt if I shoot with the XT-3 much. I like the XH-1 too much and cameras with lack of IBIS have almost zero interest to me (and they will not exist within 4 years anyway).

I just told Teresa that I am going to get this new MF camera from Fuji. 100MP! Why not? She was not happy. It doesn't fit my travel shooting but it would be good to have I think. Well maybe not.

This thread really sucks. Ridiculous. Can't believe I even answered it. But I'm jet-lagged in Rome and just shot this last night. Bride on the bridge and she was posing for a photographer and I sneak-snapped it in the dark with the 56. She was lit a little by the bridge lamp, but the wedding pro was lighting her with strobes. Of course, that did me no good. This is a very small JPEG upload from LR. My Wifi sucks....

Impromptu Shot at night in Rome w the 56 wide open.

Hi Greg,

I think we may have misunderstood one and other.

The OP assumed that the XF 23mm f/2.0 was a bad lens because in his view the lens in the the X100T was bad and he also assumed the two lenses were the same.

And to me, this discussion is about  the XF23mm.

To start with, the XF 23mm is not the same lens as that used in the X100T (or F for that matter), accordingly how the lens in the X100T performs has no bearing on the performance of the XF 23mm.

I am not qualified to comment on the the performance of the lens in the X100T, because I know nothing about it.

If you do feel like testing the X100F of course, please go ahead, but to most users performance wide open at the closest focus distance (220 mm or just under 9") will be largely irrelevant anyway.

As far as the XF 23mm f2.0 is concerned, if it is soft wide open at the same closest focusing distance, it is not a bad lens, but a bad lens choice. If you want to shoot that way then get a macro lens, not a general purpose travel lens.

In any event, enjoy your travels and using your gear.