Is the 23mm F2 a bad lens?

jor23 wrote:

My main system is Sony.

I have tried Fuji a few times - XE1, XT10, X100 and X100T are the bodies that I used in the past. All for a brief period of time though.

Got an XT20 with 18-55mm and want to try using it along side my Sony. Just for fun.

For family photos, I am considering the 23mm F2. The only Fuji lens that I used were the 18-55mm, if you don't count the 23mm in the X100/T.

Is the XF 23mm F2 a bad lens? I read that it's the same as X100 series where pictures are blurry when the objects are close.

It might have that weakness. It's not that they're blurry up close, it's that they're a bit soft if wide open at near minimum focus distance which is a very specific condition that most lenses are not used for. A stop or two and it sharpens up.

The 23mm F1.4 looks nice, but it costs more than I can spare.

Should I consider the 35mm? On my Sony, I find the 55mm f1.8 too long.

It's a killer lens. No question that within it's range of f/2 - f/16 (or whatever it's min), it is at least an equal of the 1.4 if not a bit sharper and more contrasty.

I've worked directly with both of them but own the 1.4. If I were doing it again, I would skip the f/1.4 and get the f/2. The maximum of 1.4 on 23mm doesn't turn out to be all that useful for me. It might be for others, that's just my feeling on it.

IE, I own the 35 f/2 and the 23 f/1.4. If doing it again, I would swap that. I think the 35 f/1.4 is a better lens and has better subject separation and is more appropriate for that kind of shallow DOF work. It makes nice images.

Actually, I might even skip that and get the Zeiss 32mm 1.8. I used one that my friend had and I really liked it.

So no, NOT a bad lens by any measurable stretch. Killer lens, great image quality, small, weather resistant, quiet, etc.