The Fujifilm 23 - the 2.0 or the 1.4?

Ozmoose wrote:

Unaccustomed as I am to brevity, ha!! I will keep this one brief, or at least try to.

So briefly told: I recently acquired a Fujinon 23/1.4, bought privately at a good price from a friend who wanted to downsize to the lighter and smaller 23/2.0.

It's a gorgeous lens, and does almost everything I want it to for a '35' equivalent. I write "almost" as I'm basically a '28' equivalent photographer, and my 18/2.0 lives on my XE2 almost all the time, sharing the space about equally with the equally good (I dare not say "great" as I realize this lens has many detractors) Fujinon 18-55.

I've used the two lenses, and while I prefer the 1.4, it's a tad heavy for street work or the fairly long bush/jungle treks I do in Asia with a backpack and a supply of food and water, but not much space left over to carry too much gear.

In terms of quality, the 1.4 and 2.0 are, I've found, about equal. I haven't any great use for the extra 'speed' of the 1.4 as I tend to shoot at f/4 or f/5.6 anyway, so this added two-thirds stop isn't a great plus for me. To my eye the mid-tones look the same, ditto the shadows, but I reckon the latter are more about careful exposure anyway.

What are the advantages of the 1.4 over the 2.0? Or to reverse the question, of the 2.0 over the 1.4?

I ask as my budget has enough surplus in it to buy a 23/2.0 if I find a used one at a best price, or maybe to throw another iron in the fire (or as they say ihere n Australia, "another prawn on the barbie"), and after using my friend's lens on a couple of bush walks, I'm tempted. Very tempted. Even with the duplication of the two 23s...

Okay. enough. Brief, heh. Did I say "brief"? Do I contradict myself? Oh, well.

From DANN in Melbourne

Since I have the 23mm f/1.4 but NOT the f/2, I can only respond "philosophically" to the actual comparison, though...

... I do like my (original) 23mm f/1.4 a lot. I tend to use it when doing handheld night street photography in urban areas, where the extra stop is arguably useful. I'm not thrilled by the size of the lens for street, but that isn't totally a deal killer.

While I haven't compared the f/1.4 and f/2 23mm lenses, I did carefully compare over a period of week the f/2 and f/1.4 35mm lenses. I already owned the f/1.4 (for about a decade!) and love it, but I was considering the f/2 for its smaller size  and weight. Since I had the opportunity to use the f/2 for several weeks I did a bunch of comparative testing of the two lenses. I don't know how it extrapolates to the 23mm options, but in the end, the differences in actual performance were so tiny as to be meaningless — despite all of the earnest online proclamations that one or the other was miles better. (I kept the f/1.4.)

Assuming that the f/2 23mm lens is optically in the same league as the f/1.4 and is functionally on the same level, in my view it comes down to the very practical question of whether or not the f/1.4 aperture is worth the extra weight/bulk (and cost!) to you or not. If I weren't doing a lot of night street photography I would gravitate to the f/2.

Even if you do shoot in low light, with today's cameras working much better at higher ISOs and with new bodies including IBIS to extend the ability to hand hold the camera in low light, f/2 lenses aren't necessarily even that much of a liability in low-ish light.

Good luck.