The Fujifilm 23 - the 2.0 or the 1.4?

gdanmitchell wrote:

bienenbernd wrote:

I throw my two cents in here:

I have owned the 23/2 which I thought would replace my (old) 23/1.4 (a quite good version of it).

After using both parallel I meant to notice subtle differences in the rendering.
That led me to the opinion that the lens families are best suited to each other.

That means: IMO the 16/1.4, 23/1.4, 18-55 and 90/2 are a great combo, I use them together and I try to avoid a mix with those "fujicrons". (Therefore I mostly went back from the 35/2 to the Zeiss 32/1.8 which matches well).

On the other side when size is critical the "fujicrons" are great.
And they are weather sealed.

In short: I seems to me that you would be best served with the XF23/2.
And I would throw in the XF16/2.8 in addition.

The "lens families" idea is a new one to me, and I've been shooting with Fujfilm x-trans cameras and lenses for about a decade.

When I go back and look at prints of images I've made with various lenses (four large prints are on the review rack next to me as I type this) I can't tell which lenses I used, at least in cases where it isn't obvious that it was a very long or very short lens. (The prints I'm looking range from 20" to 24" wide.)

So, what do I use? My core set of prime lenses includes 14mm f/2.8, 23mm f/1.4 (original), 27mm f/2.8, 35mm f/1.4, and 90mm f/2. Notice that I do combine the large aperture lenses (at 23, 35, and 90mm) with compact, small aperture lenses (14mm, 27mm) without issues.

So... from my perspective, I don't feel that there is a need to use lenses from one or the other "family," and that there are actually some advantages to combining them.

YMMV.

The XF14 and XF27 are not new designs. I think the XF16/2.8, XF23/2, XF35/2 and XF50/2 lenses are a group designed a little more for contrast. Most pronounced in the XF23/2, less in the XF35/2.