Fuji 18mm f1.4 or 23mm f1.4 LM WR and why?

Hi, I am trying to decide between the two amazing lenses. I know both are great optically. 18mm may be a bit sharper in the center and has a bit of a drop in the corners with zero distortion and smooth bokeh. On the other hand 23mm has a bit of distortion and has more uniform sharpness across the frame with a bokeh that has kind of character on the medium to long distances subjects (still much smoother than older 23). 23 has also more stiff apertur ring. May I ask you what lens of the two do you prefer and why?

I haven’t shot with the new 23 yet. I’m sure it’s excellent, but I really can’t imagine a lens performing better than the 18 f/1.4 does, mine is tack sharp across the entire frame even wide open with no CA/fringing issues to speak of. I think it really comes down to focal length preference. The 18 pairs nicely with other lenses, but if I could only have one lens, it would probably be a 23 (I have an X100V for that).

For me answer is simple: 23/1.4 (just because 35mm is my fav focal length). XF 23/1.4 R LM WR is way more versatile prime, than 18/1.4

In my opinion Fujinon 18/1.4 rather requires one more lens for combo (usually it goes like: 24(28)mm+50mm)

With 23/1.4 You can do basically every type of photo. If I could have only one lens, it would be 35mm prime for sure. But then again, there is lots of folks for whom 28mm lens is one and only.

So at the end it all comes for personal preferences (as always in life haha). You should ask Yourself what is focal length You prefer most, instead of asking forum folks what are their preferences and why

For me answer is simple: 18/1.4 (just because 35mm is my fav focal length). XF 18/1.4 R LM WR is way more versatile prime, than 23/1.4

I use it for travel,street,landscape ,portrait ...

I had a 23mm f2 on fuji and 35 f1.8 on Z6, they were too narrow for my taste

23mm is just better for portrait and some street, but you can forget about it for landscape and tight places like inside a cathedral

18mm (28mm FF) was used in many smartphones as the only camera because it fits many subjects

--
My shutterstock https://www.shutterstock.com/g/jeffmerheb
My Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/147690104@N02/

Had both and sold the 18mm.

There both as good as each other and are excellent. It's just down the the focal, the 18mm didn't match how I shoot and I always had to crop which annoyed me. 23mm (35mm in FF) is how I see the world when I want a walk about travel lens, it's also got a great minimum focus distance which works great for pets.

I think they've both got very different use cases.

If you're going for out-and-out reportage photography, I'd go for the 23mm.

For me however, the 18mm is perfect. I basically wanted a lens that's a "phone replacement" focal length. With my most used iPhone lens being equivalent to 26mm, the 18mm is as near perfect as I'll get.

I know it sounds counter productive, but it gives me that "phone snap" look for family & vacation stuff, but I get to use my camera!

skalsa1 said:

Hi, I am trying to decide between the two amazing lenses. I know both are great optically. 18mm may be a bit sharper in the center and has a bit of a drop in the corners with zero distortion and smooth bokeh. On the other hand 23mm has a bit of distortion and has more uniform sharpness across the frame with a bokeh that has kind of character on the medium to long distances subjects (still much smoother than older 23). 23 has also more stiff apertur ring. May I ask you what lens of the two do you prefer and why?

Click to expand...

Both are exceptional lenses. I wouldn't split hairs over zero distortion vs corner sharpness, just pick the focal length you are likely to use more.

I'd pick the 23, because I've got the wonderful 16/1.4 for when I want to go wide (and I don’t see me parting with it any time soon).

Both of them are exceptional lenses with great optics and af motors. I'd say the decision should be made based simply on focal length that you prefer. I love 28mm (FF) field of view hence the 18mm f1.4 is perfect lens for me.

Cheers

Thomas

Forget about the sharpness, both plenty sharp enough. Total different focal lengths. This should be the criteria. For me 23mm is way more universal.

--
Heinz
http://flickr.com/photos/55025133@N02
http://500px.com/hejakma

Well I am actually asking because I own 18mm f1.4 but as a long 35mm full frame shooter I am just not sure about the FOV. I really like how smooth bokeh is and that 18mm can serve as a one lens solution that do it all if you are careful with framing your subjects. But to me it is a bit more hard to take pictures with. I am not feeling that comfortable as I used to be with 35mm full frame. But 35mm can be a bit tight as a one lens solution for example if you go on a vacation. Also as I saw to samples from new 23mm f1.4, this 18mm seems to render a bit more modern images with bokeh smooth as from Sony rx1. 23mm f1.4 has a bit of character as seen in Kevin Mullis review. As a character lens I own Fuji 35mm f1.4 that produces low contrast images with bit old school bokeh... Therefore it is not an easy decision.

skalsa1 said:

Also as I saw to samples from new 23mm f1.4, this 18mm seems to render a bit more modern images with bokeh smooth as from Sony rx1. 23mm f1.4 has a bit of character as seen in Kevin Mullis review. As a character lens I own Fuji 35mm f1.4 that produces low contrast images with bit old school bokeh... Therefore it is not an easy decision.

Click to expand...

Nah, new XF 23/1.4 R LM WR renders in very modern way, almost too clinical for my taste haha (but 100x times nicer than my previous cheap rendering Tokina/Viltrox 23/1.4)
Here, one ordinary picture taken on todays walk - this type of shots are stress test for any kind of lens:



So You can see clearly, that because of almost perfect optical correction, new XF 23/1.4 has basically no character.

Nice set of pictures btw. Very in "my way of documenting things". Seeing those now Im even more sure that 28mm FL is not my thing. Imho 35mm would do much, much better job in your hands in moments when You were taking these pictures. Just saying

--
My gallery: https://flickr.com/photos/193816559@N05/

I chose the 18f1.4 route and have no regrets. To me, it’s the perfect wide lens that can be used for nearly anything, including groups of people without distorting. It’s more versatile than the 23, IMHO. I used to have the Mighty 16f1.4 and was compelled to buy the 23f1.4 because it was unkind to people, particularly family shots around a table. With the 18f1.4, I’ve had no need/urge for a 23 FL.

The IQ on the 18f1.4 is incredible.

skalsa1 said:

Hi, I am trying to decide between the two amazing lenses. I know both are great optically. 18mm may be a bit sharper in the center and has a bit of a drop in the corners with zero distortion and smooth bokeh. On the other hand 23mm has a bit of distortion and has more uniform sharpness across the frame with a bokeh that has kind of character on the medium to long distances subjects (still much smoother than older 23). 23 has also more stiff apertur ring. May I ask you what lens of the two do you prefer and why?

Click to expand...

What you say about sharpness is on benchmarks. In real life all these lenses are excellent even wide open.

My recommandation is to choose your preferred focal lenght.

skalsa1 said:

Hi, I am trying to decide between the two amazing lenses. I know both are great optically. 18mm may be a bit sharper in the center and has a bit of a drop in the corners with zero distortion and smooth bokeh. On the other hand 23mm has a bit of distortion and has more uniform sharpness across the frame with a bokeh that has kind of character on the medium to long distances subjects (still much smoother than older 23). 23 has also more stiff apertur ring. May I ask you what lens of the two do you prefer and why?

Click to expand...

I think for arguments sake you can consider both of these lenses on par with each other in image quality and performance. It really comes down to focal length.

The first question to ask, will this be the widest lens in your arsenal? If so, get the 18.

What are your uses for this lens? More environmental, landscape? Both of these point to the 18.

Shooting indoors a lot? 18 because you can't back up always

Need a tighter look? 23

Pairing it with a 56 as your only two lenses? 23

Pairing it with a 33 or 35? 18


There are more questions, and only you know the answers to these. I for one used to swear by the 23 (and the 35 on full frame) but purchasing the 18 has really shifted my view on this focal length, and I won't be going back. I'm very happy with the additional width, which is really just wide enough for some things where the 23 used to be too tight for some things.

To give you an idea of my own use case, I am frequently photographing my kid, who is usally pretty close to me, or my dog, who is always on a leash (very close). 23 wasn't really enough for these, but the 18 is just perfect. I also appreciate the extra width for architecture.

Finally, a very small consideration but maybe important to some: I do own the 33 f1.4 and I love how the 23 matches it almost perfectly in size, and has the stiffer aperture ring. I wish the 18 did this, but alas it is just a touch larger, and the aperture ring a touch looser. Not the biggest deal in the world, but I would consider these two things as a nice bonus in favor of the 23- not to be a factor that would sway a decision but it is icing on the cake if you go with the 23.

Do you prefer 18mm 1.4 + 23mm 2.0, or 23mm + 35mm 20? I always treat each prime as two lenses because I know I can get a good (center) crop to simulate the next tighter focal length. (I primarily carry 35mm 1.4 so I can get a 50mm 2.0 crop. I use my phone for wider stuff.)

I love 35mm eq but I have 18 1.4. I was in your exact situation and I bought 18 1.4 because it was available at my favorite shop, then I have other two 23s. Probably I could swap it for 23, but it's my widest focal lenght (I sold 16) and until Fuji doesn't produce 18 f2 (why not 1.8?) mk II I'll keep it. These lenses are excellent but lack of character, they are too similar to Sony/Sigma and with 23 on the street I need of character (and a smaller lens).

Well I also own Viltrox 13mm f1.4 and my brother has 16mm f1.4. He lives about 5km from my house so I can borrow 16mm if needed. What I was thinking is that 13mm could pair well with 23mm and 16mm with 35mm f1.4. For portraits I own 90mm and 50mm. If I would keep 18mm I would have possibility to take pictures with 13,16 (sometimes) and 18. Than with 35,50 and 90. So 13, 16 and 18 are 20, 24 and 28 equivalents of full frame - a but too much wide angle lenses. Problem is that I don't consider 18mm as a wide lens. The l ne is different than 16 as I have tried. Also 13mm is wide so it distorts people and 16mm also. My brother wants to keep 16mm as he likes dramatic 24mm fov, though the lens has a bit ugly bokeh in normal distances (no macro) while compared to 18mm. While compared 16 to 18 you can see that the lens has its age but it is a fun to take pictures with. In addition 18mm has almost no distortion (except of extreme corners) if you are careful while taking pictures. So it can serve as a one lens solution. 23mm must be used with another lenses. But since I own 13mm which I really like a lot, I think it could pair well with 23mm. Because 13 and 18 are not that wastly different - don't take me wrong - they are different but it is not that dramatic to me as 16 and 23. Or for example as extreme Laowa 9mm and 13 or 16mm. I have to think about that a bit more. I was also thinking to keep 18mm and to buy cheap Viltrox 23mm that I also used to own. Though the lens has a bit strange rendering and a lot of CA I kind of liked it's charakter. But at the same time it's nothing like new 23mm wr

Hi,

There's no right answer- lens selection is personal.

Both lenses are excellent in IQ and BQ, so I think your decision comes down to FL preference and, importantly, a) what you're going to shoot and b) what lens(es) you're going to pair it with in your kit (if anything).

A large number of historic camera models with a fixed prime have been offered with a 23mm (35mm FF eq). And rather fewer have been offered with an 18mmm (28mm equivalent). It's more important to note that both have been offered, but in this case its you that's making the decision for your own usage. You're not selling it to anyone else.

If your interests tend toward landscapes and architecture, I would suggest the 18mm to get the foreground detail in that classic near-far landscape look and a better capability to take in buildings. If you're more into people, family, environmental portraits, and reportage, I'd lean to the 23mm.

In terms of pairing, what else is in your kit now? And what do you propose to get? Eg, If you have a 14mm, an 18mm or 23mm would work. OTOH, if you have 16mm, I couldn't see much point in carrying a 16mm and an 18mm together. A 16mm and a 23mm work nicely together. And what about on the longer side? - A 30mm macro? A 33/1.4 fast standard, a 35mm? Food for thought - which depends on your preferences for the FL steps in your kit.

Don't know if any of that helps.... Enjoy whatever you decide.

Cheers, Rod

skalsa1 said:

Well I also own Viltrox 13mm f1.4 and my brother has 16mm f1.4. He lives about 5km from my house so I can borrow 16mm if needed. What I was thinking is that 13mm could pair well with 23mm and 16mm with 35mm f1.4. For portraits I own 90mm and 50mm. If I would keep 18mm I would have possibility to take pictures with 13,16 (sometimes) and 18. Than with 35,50 and 90. So 13, 16 and 18 are 20, 24 and 28 equivalents of full frame - a but too much wide angle lenses. Problem is that I don't consider 18mm as a wide lens. The l ne is different than 16 as I have tried. Also 13mm is wide so it distorts people and 16mm also. My brother wants to keep 16mm as he likes dramatic 24mm fov, though the lens has a bit ugly bokeh in normal distances (no macro) while compared to 18mm. While compared 16 to 18 you can see that the lens has its age but it is a fun to take pictures with. In addition 18mm has almost no distortion (except of extreme corners) if you are careful while taking pictures. So it can serve as a one lens solution. 23mm must be used with another lenses. But since I own 13mm which I really like a lot, I think it could pair well with 23mm. Because 13 and 18 are not that wastly different - don't take me wrong - they are different but it is not that dramatic to me as 16 and 23. Or for example as extreme Laowa 9mm and 13 or 16mm. I have to think about that a bit more. I was also thinking to keep 18mm and to buy cheap Viltrox 23mm that I also used to own. Though the lens has a bit strange rendering and a lot of CA I kind of liked it's charakter. But at the same time it's nothing like new 23mm wr

Click to expand...

The 23mm f1.4 R was the first lens I bought for my Fuji X-T3 (ignoring the 16-80 it came with). I loved it and used it a lot.

When the 18mm f1.4 was released, the GAS was superior to me and I ended selling the 23mm f1.4 and buying the 18mm. The les is outstanding with incredible IQ, but I dind't liked it. The FoV is not for me. Wider than the 23mm but not enough to shoot different things and too wide for everyday pictures IMO.

I ended selling it and getting the 23mm f1.4 R again (the old one, another reason to go back was the size). Now I'm a lot happier. I'm more a 35+85mm kind of person than a 28+50mm, I guess.

At the end, between these 2 lenses the deciding point is clearly the FoV, not the IQ.

For what you are describing, I think the 18mm as a lonely lens is not that different from the 23mm: when you want wide is not wide enough (for churches and interiors, for example). It's wider than the 23mm, of course, but if you are going to do that kind of photography you'd end taking another lens anyway, I think. And the 23mm would pair more nicely with your 13mm IMO, but the decision is yours.

I have both and optically they are both good, so you have to decide based on the field of view.

The 23mm is a better general purpose lens that can do a bit of everything, but the 18mm gets more into frame and can be more dramatic.

I find myself using the 18mm far more often. If I need something slightly longer, I find the 35mm fills the need better, then the 56mm.

The 23mm isn't quite wide enough and isn't quite long enough. It is good if you don't plan on changing the lens very often, which is a valid choice as well.