Is the 23mm F2 a bad lens?

deednets wrote:

akjos wrote:

deednets wrote:

Bob Tullis wrote:

akjos wrote:

Bob Tullis wrote:

If you shoot subjects at about 12" or closer, you get the softness that the lens was designed to provide.

Really?!? The lens was " designed " to provide softness. Lmao ...

Its not a bad lens but definitely underwhelming for what most people might use it for. It is pretty bad below about 4 feet from the subject like kids dogs etc which is a shame because that's how most 35s are probably used.

[chuckle]

All taken with the 23/2 - and below 4 feet (is that 1.20m??)

You were joking of course! Right??

Deed

No not really. Every lens shooting up close like this i had performed better then 23 f2. Stopping down to F4 helped some but then i might as well used the kit zoom with IS ( 18-55) which was sharper still .

Longer distances like 10+ feet the 23 was stunningly sharp even at F2.

For what OP wants to use the lens Id almost suggest 27mm pancake. That lens is amazingly sharp at any distance and provides very nice FOV for " environmental portraits "

Was that a response to my post?? If so you felt like the examples I posted were "soft"??

Deed

Only a couple were/are at a distance where one would expect to see the phenomenon. I know the 35 f/2 has demonstrated softness around minimum focus distance when wide open. I don't know if others have just assumed the 23mm would be the same, but would would help here is to see some photos at or near minimum focus distance at f/2 and then at f/5.6 and compare them to another lens like the 23 1.4.

I think the 23 f/2 is optically an excellent lens - low distortion, low CA, high resolution. It may have a weakness or two, but not like the 35 f/2 which is probably Fuji's weakest lens overall. Not that it's terribly weak, but it has some very noticeable ones.