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

It can be quite dark in the jungle. 1.4 would not hurt. Why not get the 18/1.4 and the tiny lightweigt 27/2.8 as combo. Never had the 23/2 but some reported it's not very sharp wide open for close ups.