Thoughts on 23mm

Erik Baumgartner said:

RWN Photo said:

Erik Baumgartner said:

RWN Photo said:

Erik Baumgartner said:

RWN Photo said:

millmeister said:

Viltrox are expected to announce a new 25mm 1.7 imminently (as part of the Air range). Could be worth a look

Click to expand...

Must be a FF lens... and if for Fuji, must be a FF lens with an APS-C mount on it.

Click to expand...

No, it's part of the "AIR" series, designed for APS-C. Small, lightweight, inexpensive, no aperture ring, but optically excellent.

Click to expand...

Seems like an odd length being 25mm then...

Click to expand...

For folks who don’t want to buy a 23 and a 27mm.

Click to expand...

So, in a few years we can expect a 24mm and a 26mm too, for those that can't stand a zoom, and can't move the walker a foot or 2 away from where it is, I guess.

Click to expand...

For those looking for the perfect single focal length walkabout option, 25mm might be it. I hate lugging a quiver of lenses about and swapping them out in the field (nobody needs a 23, 25, 27, 33 and a 35mm) ...and if I'm only carrying one lens, I've found the 27mm f/1.2 to be optimal for me - wide enough that I always seem to have just enough room to step back for the wider shot that a 23mm would be ideal for, and just long and fast enough for people photography and potential subject isolation that I would want a fast 35mm for. Smaller, lighter, less hassle, and much cheaper than going with a 23mm and a 33/35mm. A 25mm f/1.7 sounds like a good alternative that would fit much the same bill in a smaller/lighter weight package.

Click to expand...

If in doubt and if one body and lens these days I`d go out with a 16mm and let my feet do the zooming.

When I using M4/3 and I did for a good few years my go too lens was always a Sigma 19mm, that equates to about a 25mm on a fuji with the new viltrox.

Its a useful focal length if you don`t have a 23 or 27mm.



























--
Hoka Hey

Paulmorgan said:

Erik Baumgartner said:

RWN Photo said:

Erik Baumgartner said:

RWN Photo said:

Erik Baumgartner said:

RWN Photo said:

millmeister said:

Viltrox are expected to announce a new 25mm 1.7 imminently (as part of the Air range). Could be worth a look

Click to expand...

Must be a FF lens... and if for Fuji, must be a FF lens with an APS-C mount on it.

Click to expand...

No, it's part of the "AIR" series, designed for APS-C. Small, lightweight, inexpensive, no aperture ring, but optically excellent.

Click to expand...

Seems like an odd length being 25mm then...

Click to expand...

For folks who don’t want to buy a 23 and a 27mm.

Click to expand...

So, in a few years we can expect a 24mm and a 26mm too, for those that can't stand a zoom, and can't move the walker a foot or 2 away from where it is, I guess.

Click to expand...

For those looking for the perfect single focal length walkabout option, 25mm might be it. I hate lugging a quiver of lenses about and swapping them out in the field (nobody needs a 23, 25, 27, 33 and a 35mm) ...and if I'm only carrying one lens, I've found the 27mm f/1.2 to be optimal for me - wide enough that I always seem to have just enough room to step back for the wider shot that a 23mm would be ideal for, and just long and fast enough for people photography and potential subject isolation that I would want a fast 35mm for. Smaller, lighter, less hassle, and much cheaper than going with a 23mm and a 33/35mm. A 25mm f/1.7 sounds like a good alternative that would fit much the same bill in a smaller/lighter weight package.

Click to expand...

If in doubt and if one body and lens these days I`d go out with a 16mm and let my feet do the zooming.

When I using M4/3 and I did for a good few years my go too lens was always a Sigma 19mm, that equates to about a 25mm on a fuji with the new viltrox.

Its a useful focal length if you don`t have a 23 or 27mm.

Click to expand...

Yeah, and if you don't have a 23 or 27 by now, you been waiting patiently for someone to spit out a 25... Or is the 37 to 38mm focal length the one you have always dreamed of and now that person can be happy.

--
------------------
RWN Photo

RWN Photo said:

Paulmorgan said:

Erik Baumgartner said:

RWN Photo said:

Erik Baumgartner said:

RWN Photo said:

Erik Baumgartner said:

RWN Photo said:

millmeister said:

Viltrox are expected to announce a new 25mm 1.7 imminently (as part of the Air range). Could be worth a look

Click to expand...

Must be a FF lens... and if for Fuji, must be a FF lens with an APS-C mount on it.

Click to expand...

No, it's part of the "AIR" series, designed for APS-C. Small, lightweight, inexpensive, no aperture ring, but optically excellent.

Click to expand...

Seems like an odd length being 25mm then...

Click to expand...

For folks who don’t want to buy a 23 and a 27mm.

Click to expand...

So, in a few years we can expect a 24mm and a 26mm too, for those that can't stand a zoom, and can't move the walker a foot or 2 away from where it is, I guess.

Click to expand...

For those looking for the perfect single focal length walkabout option, 25mm might be it. I hate lugging a quiver of lenses about and swapping them out in the field (nobody needs a 23, 25, 27, 33 and a 35mm) ...and if I'm only carrying one lens, I've found the 27mm f/1.2 to be optimal for me - wide enough that I always seem to have just enough room to step back for the wider shot that a 23mm would be ideal for, and just long and fast enough for people photography and potential subject isolation that I would want a fast 35mm for. Smaller, lighter, less hassle, and much cheaper than going with a 23mm and a 33/35mm. A 25mm f/1.7 sounds like a good alternative that would fit much the same bill in a smaller/lighter weight package.

Click to expand...

If in doubt and if one body and lens these days I`d go out with a 16mm and let my feet do the zooming.

When I using M4/3 and I did for a good few years my go too lens was always a Sigma 19mm, that equates to about a 25mm on a fuji with the new viltrox.

Its a useful focal length if you don`t have a 23 or 27mm.

Click to expand...

Yeah, and if you don't have a 23 or 27 by now, you been waiting patiently for someone to spit out a 25... Or is the 37 to 38mm focal length the one you have always dreamed of and now that person can be happy.

Click to expand...

Actually I mentioned this in my last post, I always used a Sigma 19mm with my original OM5 from about 2012 and used those two paired up until quite recently.

I never felt the need for a 17mm.

--
Hoka Hey

Paulmorgan said:

Actually I mentioned this in my last post, I always used a Sigma 19mm with my original OM5 from about 2012 and used those two paired up until quite recently.

I never felt the need for a 17mm.

Click to expand...

I'm sure you'll be very happy with the Fuji 23 f/1.4 - a proven commodity. As someone who has the 27mm pancake and the 23 f/2 - a few millimeters difference is huge. This is especially so because the 23 f/2 is definitely wider angle than the f/1.4 - nearly as wide as my old Pentax DA 21mm Ltd.

As for the Viltrox yet to arrive - let the GAS folks try it out. Viltrox has a checkered past - some very good ones (generally oversized, honestly), and some that they couldn't figure out how to get the firmware right for Fuji - and simply dropped support. The work against light is always a concern, as well. Minimal coatings on the cheaper lenses.

--
JNR

JNR said:

JNR said:

Actually I mentioned this in my last post, I always used a Sigma 19mm with my original OM5 from about 2012 and used those two paired up until quite recently.

I never felt the need for a 17mm.

Click to expand...

I'm sure you'll be very happy with the Fuji 23 f/1.4 - a proven commodity. As someone who has the 27mm pancake and the 23 f/2 - a few millimeters difference is huge. This is especially so because the 23 f/2 is definitely wider angle than the f/1.4 - nearly as wide as my old Pentax DA 21mm Ltd.

As for the Viltrox yet to arrive - let the GAS folks try it out. Viltrox has a checkered past - some very good ones (generally oversized, honestly), and some that they couldn't figure out how to get the firmware right for Fuji - and simply dropped support. The work against light is always a concern, as well. Minimal coatings on the cheaper lenses.

Click to expand...

I`ve been so busy with decorating and build work I think I have missed its return window for my 27mm.

Bought it on a whim and its still un-opened in its box, cheap so not too bothered, it might see some use yet.

I’m looking for something roughly in the 23mm range for low light photography for when I don’t want to carry the larger 16-55 f/2.8 II, but the number of options is overwhelming. In an ideal world I’d get the Fuji 23mm f/1.4 WR, but I’m probably on a lower budget, at least until I find that I really like the focal length.

I can currently get the f/2 Fujicron for about £320 new, or the original f/1.4 in excellent used condition for pretty much the same price. Seems like the AF is better on the f/2 and it’s probably better on the 40MP sensor, but the old f/1.4 just looks great and I feel like f/2 is only 1 stop better than my f/2.8 zoom. I’d miss the WR but with my other lenses being WR, I just wouldn’t use it in poor weather.

Theres lots of information in this thread, I’m just struggling to decide which way to go. I actually looked at the Voigtlander f/1.2 manual focus, assuming for the price and lack of AF that it would be optically perfect, but it doesn’t seem that way.

Hi,

Here I compared the 23/1.4 and the 23/2 WR a long time ago.

https://www.littlebigtravelingcamera.com/?p=9869

I think in your case the 23/2 WR makes the most sense. Both 23/1.4 a hardly smaller and lighter than the 16-55/2.8 II. The 23/2 is a really compact lens and quality is excellent.

Joachim Gerstl said:

Hi,

Here I compared the 23/1.4 and the 23/2 WR a long time ago.

https://www.littlebigtravelingcamera.com/?p=9869

I think in your case the 23/2 WR makes the most sense. Both 23/1.4 a hardly smaller and lighter than the 16-55/2.8 II. The 23/2 is a really compact lens and quality is excellent.

Click to expand...

Joachim, that is a very fine comparison - helpful to anyone who comes across this thread. You might even want to post it on a new thread because we're pretty far down the posting list here.

I agree with your conclusion about bokeh - that the f/1.4 lens is much better than the f/2 bokeh - not only because of the one stop added, but inherent factors in the f/2's physically small design. Cat's eyes and a busy look do tend to show up more, but in so many other respects - AF speed, WR, build quality, and no need for software correction of distortion - I find the f/2 lens excellent.

I would add one important point for those who are thinking about low light shooting and might not be aware of the dynamics of sensor design. I've done research and been able to enumerate changes in sensors' ability to accept more light as the aperture opens to extremes. (This is not simple testing because all the major brands compensate for wide open apertures - essentially raising ISO - i.e. boosting signal without reporting the change in your VF/EXIF. You have to conduct these tests without the electronic connection to the body.) The limitation is known as "angle of acceptance" and it has to do with design of pixel microlens and channel architecture below it. Essentially, there is very little light loss from f/4 to f/2.8. From f/2.8 to f/2 you lose around 10-20%, and from F/2 to f/1.4 you lose around 25-35% (older sensors with deep channels tend to lose even more).

Add to that more complex lenses with larger numbers of elements lose light gathering capabilities, as well, typically around 2% per surface. The t-values shrink with the fast primes, and they shrink a lot more with those especially complex fast zooms.

Not to argue that there isn't a place for improving the bokeh via wider aperture lenses, but past about f/2 you aren't going to get anywhere near the added light the stated f-stop implies to those who are uninformed. You can see this spelled out for the lenses that are packaged two ways - stills version with f-stop, cine version with lower t-value.

--
JNR

Breamish said:

I’m looking for something roughly in the 23mm range for low light photography for when I don’t want to carry the larger 16-55 f/2.8 II, but the number of options is overwhelming. In an ideal world I’d get the Fuji 23mm f/1.4 WR, but I’m probably on a lower budget, at least until I find that I really like the focal length.

I can currently get the f/2 Fujicron for about £320 new, or the original f/1.4 in excellent used condition for pretty much the same price. Seems like the AF is better on the f/2 and it’s probably better on the 40MP sensor, but the old f/1.4 just looks great and I feel like f/2 is only 1 stop better than my f/2.8 zoom. I’d miss the WR but with my other lenses being WR, I just wouldn’t use it in poor weather.

Theres lots of information in this thread, I’m just struggling to decide which way to go. I actually looked at the Voigtlander f/1.2 manual focus, assuming for the price and lack of AF that it would be optically perfect, but it doesn’t seem that way.

Click to expand...

If you really want to save some size from the zoom, the 23mm f/2 WR is the way to go, and save a lot of weight over the zoom and the 23mm f/1.4 (original). But if you really need to wider aperture, and shallower DOF, then the 23mm f/1.4 is the way to go. Optically, I think they are different, both in sharpness and in "character".

The 23mm f/2, despite its kind of odd look (the Fujicron odd look anyway), is a great little piece of kit.

Breamish said:

I’m looking for something roughly in the 23mm range for low light photography for when I don’t want to carry the larger 16-55 f/2.8 II, but the number of options is overwhelming. In an ideal world I’d get the Fuji 23mm f/1.4 WR, but I’m probably on a lower budget, at least until I find that I really like the focal length.

I can currently get the f/2 Fujicron for about £320 new, or the original f/1.4 in excellent used condition for pretty much the same price. Seems like the AF is better on the f/2 and it’s probably better on the 40MP sensor, but the old f/1.4 just looks great and I feel like f/2 is only 1 stop better than my f/2.8 zoom. I’d miss the WR but with my other lenses being WR, I just wouldn’t use it in poor weather.

Theres lots of information in this thread, I’m just struggling to decide which way to go. I actually looked at the Voigtlander f/1.2 manual focus, assuming for the price and lack of AF that it would be optically perfect, but it doesn’t seem that way.

Click to expand...

I got the 23mm f1.4 for mostly wedding and portraiture with some SP as well. I`m not too bothered with lens size (I use a cage anyway)

If small size and weather sealing are important for you I`d go with the f2, its a pretty good lens and a safe choice.

But there are arguments for owning both, same goes for the 16mm.

--
Hoka Hey