Actual FOV 23 f2 not 35mm equivalent?

I've read multiple conflicting posts on the issue - can anyone confirm once and for all if the 23 f2 is actually 35mm equivalent? Some are saying the lens is as short as 31mm equivalent.

Hi,

Most of us don't own both 23mm lenses, but side by side pix posted online have allowed us to observe that the XF23/2 is slightly but noticeably wider than the XF23/1.4.  I've never seen a lab test or post which has actually measured its FL to confirm.  (It may be that the 23/1.4 is slightly longer than 23mm.)  There's also little point in comparing the FOV with an FF 35mm because their FLs often vary a bit each way too.

Personally, I wouldn't worry too much about it.  The difference is small and it's 'in the ball park'.  Choose the lens that best meets your preferences on all the other information.

Cheers, Rod

It is not a 35mm equivalent (whatever that really is from brand to brand).

If you do the math 23 * 1.5 = 34.5. So it appears it is wider than a 35mm FF camera 35mm lens.

But nothing moving closer or farther away from your subject can't fix.

The problem here is Fuji does not make a 135 format camera.  This whole business of "equivalence" is nothing more that to give talking heads opportunities to sell advertising on YouTube.  Lets carry this to the logical extreme to see how ridiculous it is. The more or less equivalent to a 135 format 35 mm on a 4x5 is 124 mm.  Oh wait the 4x5 is not the same aspect ratio as the 135 format, now does equivalence that make any sense.  It doesn't.  It also doesn't make much sense since there are other optical parameters, such as axial magnification that are dependent on absolute - not relative - focus length.

Each format has its pluses and each format has its minuses.  However, across the board, there is no true total optical "equivalence."

The 23 on the APS-C is what it is.  Either enjoy it or not.  Stop worrying about what it means in FF.  That is at best an approximation and it is at best a first order approximation.

I'm sorry but for me your statement above makes no sense.

I grew up using a 35MM camera. I know, I got use to seeing with my minds eye, what a 21, 24, 28, 35, 50, 75, 90, 135 and 200mm lens FOV looks like.

So when I'm choosing a lens for a particular shot I think it 35mm FF terms. So If I want slightly wider than a standard 50mm lens I go to the 35. Which for Fuji is the 23. If I want a 50mm FOV I grab the Fuji 35.

If I grew up using a camera that used a smaller film size and the whole camera and film industry was based around that smaller film size then I wouldn't need to convert to FF equivalent.

Even when I used larger format camera I converted back down to 35mm FF terms as that is the way I see the shot.

Let me ask you this.

If you switched tomorrow to a FF camera would you convert UP from the cropped Fuji sensor size?

Just Shoot Me wrote:

Let me ask you this.

If you switched tomorrow to a FF camera would you convert UP from the cropped Fuji sensor size?

Well maybe we should demand that everyone using 35mm, aka full frame, convert up to medium format. Or, maybe it's time that we should just ignore equivalence. There are enough people out there shooting with APS-C,  Micro 4/3, and smaller sensor sizes that have never used a 35mm camera in their life and could care less.

Just Shoot Me wrote:

I'm sorry but for me your statement above makes no sense.

I grew up using a 35MM camera. I know, I got use to seeing with my minds eye, what a 21, 24, 28, 35, 50, 75, 90, 135 and 200mm lens FOV looks like.

So when I'm choosing a lens for a particular shot I think it 35mm FF terms. So If I want slightly wider than a standard 50mm lens I go to the 35. Which for Fuji is the 23. If I want a 50mm FOV I grab the Fuji 35.

If I grew up using a camera that used a smaller film size and the whole camera and film industry was based around that smaller film size then I wouldn't need to convert to FF equivalent.

Even when I used larger format camera I converted back down to 35mm FF terms as that is the way I see the shot.

However, you are only “seeing” one optical prosperity - the acceptance angle which is important but only one optical prosperity. Sure you stand at the same location and get the same acceptance  angle or field of view on a 35 mm strip of film with a 35 mm lens as you do with a 125 mm on a 4x5 inch sheet of film or a 56 mm on 6 cm x 6 cm frame defined by the diagonal of the frame. However, you will not get the same image since the aspect ratio of a 35 mm frame is 1x1.5 and the 4x5 is well 1x1.25 and 1x1 on the 6x6. In fact the images are often quite different although the are the same framing as defined be the diagonal. It is further different when the axial magnification is considered (compression along the lens axis).

Conversion to one format is gives a coarse rule of thumb on how far we need to stand for a lateral framing as defined by the film/sensor diagonal.

bayswater1100 wrote:

I've read multiple conflicting posts on the issue - can anyone confirm once and for all if the 23 f2 is actually 35mm equivalent? Some are saying the lens is as short as 31mm equivalent.

It's wider than the 1.4 -- not sure how much, but it's noticeable. I've used them side by side and you can tell the difference. My sense is that the 1.4 is true and the 2.0 is wide, but I have nothing scientific to base that on.

Why are you worried by equivalence?

Just use your lens for what it is.

I believe the 23/2 has a slightly wider field of view than a 35mm full-frame lens, but I don’t think it’s equivalent to 31mm. When I mount my Pentax FA31 on my full-frame K-1 and then compare it to the XF35/2 on my X-T20, the Pentax 31 is still a little bit wider. I estimate the 23/2 to be closer to 32 or33mm equivalent. That’s really negligible for me.

Matt

FOV of 23mm F2 is wider than 23mm on my 18-55. I recall seeing some reviews mentioned that it is about 21.5mm.

Gilbert D wrote:

FOV of 23mm F2 is wider than 23mm on my 18-55. I recall seeing some reviews mentioned that it is about 21.5mm.

You're probably right, but how can you be sure that you're actually shooting at 23mm on the 18-55?

Rod McD wrote:

Hi,

Most of us don't own both 23mm lenses, but side by side pix posted online have allowed us to observe that the XF23/2 is slightly but noticeably wider than the XF23/1.4. I've never seen a lab test or post which has actually measured its FL to confirm. (It may be that the 23/1.4 is slightly longer than 23mm.) There's also little point in comparing the FOV with an FF 35mm because their FLs often vary a bit each way too.

Personally, I wouldn't worry too much about it. The difference is small and it's 'in the ball park'. Choose the lens that best meets your preferences on all the other information.

Cheers, Rod

People did the same test with a 23mm f2 vs 18-55mm and they came to the conclusion that the 23mm f2 is somehow 21.5mm.

Which is a good slight advantage for landscape shooters like me, sometimes this slight 1.5mm can embody an additional subject like a tree

Edit: Found the original comparison photos of 23 f2 vs 18-55 at 22.8mm

Photo 1 : 23 f2 lens

Photo 2 : 18-55 lens

Rand 47 wrote:

The Fuji 23 f/2 AND 23 f/1.4 are both = 63.4 degrees angle of view.

Rand

Maybe according to the manufacturer's specifications, but they're not both the same in actuality.

Mateus1 wrote:

For me it's much wider then calssic 35mm FF. I mean if 35mm was your main lens that you shooted like me 85% of the images and you love this fl, you do notice it imiedietly that it's much wider fl. I can't get used to it. I would say it's about 31-32mm.

In this case "much" is subjective. I don't find it so.

If you can't get used to it I don't know quite what to say...stop thinking about it and just use it - you will likely re-calibrate your own perception and no longer notice. Otherwise get a zoom & set it to where you can stand it...not really much of an answer. I suppose you could crop after the fact.

Good luck.

Overall I would say there's a lot of speaking in the pedant tense in this thread. Or are folks just doing a lot of scientific photography? Now I'm certainly not denying that working by feel is essential, but really?