The Fujifilm 23 - the 2.0 or the 1.4?

I'm going to comment on two aspects of your post below.

Ozmoose wrote:

Admittedly, it's (the 23mm f/1.4) one of the older lenses. I've read all about the various problems with this lens, the softness in the corners, color shifts, wobblies et al. None of these apply to my baby - it works well, I've put it thru its paces at my usual f/5.6-f/8 settings, and all's good. Excellent results. Other than the extra weight, I'm happy with it.

Two points about this.

First, my assessment of this lens matches yours. I've been using it since about the time it was released, and it has been a consistently excellent performer. I'm confused and mystified by the bad mouthing it gets from some.

Actually, I'm not as mystified as I used to be. Some of that kind of stuff is hyperbole and posturing, and some of it is cover for believing that every new thing is miles ahead of every old thing and must therefore replace the old thing.

This is usually nonsense. A lens made in roughly the past decade is not an "old" lens. It is still a relatively new lens and generally will work just great. I've recently tested several of my "old" lenses against the claim that they "would not be up to the 40MP sensor" on my XT5. It simply isn't true. Every one of them I have tested has performed very well, and performed better on the 40MP sensor than on my earlier 24MP model.

Being me, I overthought the entire matter and decided what I really wanted was a 35. Now for the usual question: which 35? The lighter f/2 or the heavier f/1.4 which for all intents and purposes gets far better ratings.

I went though this same process a few years back. I got the XPro2 right when it came out, and there was a bundle that included the 35mm f/2 at a very low additional price. I already had the 35mm f/1.4 and liked it a lot, but wondered about the claimed AF advantages of the f/2 and whether IQ performance would be much different. I decided I would test the two... and give the "loser" to one of my sons with my old camera that the XPro2 would replace.

After several weeks of careful comparative testing including staring carefully at side-by-side 100% (and larger!) crops, in particular looking at the two elements that were said to be different (optical performance and AF speed), I decided that...

... they were pretty much equal. If you don't need f/1.4, the f/2 is a great choice. I do night street photography, so I kept the f/1.4 and my son got the f/2.

In the end I opted for light weight and went with the f/2. I've not yet tested it to my satisfaction, so for now I will say no more, other than it's a nice lens, it looks good on my XE2, and I like the focal length for "around the house" photos, mostly of our cats and various domestic close-ups.

It is an excellent lens!

A friend then kindly gave me her unused 18-55. So I have two of these. The new one appears to be much sharper than my old one. Oh, well.

We had the old one back with we got the original XE1, and its excellent performance took my by surprise. (I had some familiarity with kit zooms from there manufacturers, and it surpassed that standard easily.) We now also have a copy of the newest iteration of the lens, but I haven't tested it yet.

In the end, most of the hand-wringing about "New Lens X blows Old Lens Y OUT OF THE WATER!!!" is hyperbole.