23mm f/2 vs 35mm f/2

Hello,

I'm excited that I'm getting back into photography after a hiatus.  I'm kind of a newbie.  I'm going to be purchasing the new Fujifilm X-T30 with the XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 lens.  However, I've realized that many sellers are offering a bundle with this lens and either the XF 35mm F/2 or the XF 23mm F/2.  The 35mm is bundled for an additional $100, and the 23mm is bundled for an additional $150.  So--my question is this:   Given that I'll have the 18-55mm lens, which one would you recommend getting?    
My uses will include travel (upcoming trip to Israel!), taking pictures of my kids, and other general use shooting.  Thanks in advance for your help!  Any other suggestions to a Fuji newb would be appreciated! 

This exact thread came up in the last few days. Have a search because you’ll find all the useful info there.

Sorry, here is the thread. Perhaps it’s not that useful after all https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4376995

eRaCer001 wrote:

Hello,

I'm excited that I'm getting back into photography after a hiatus. I'm kind of a newbie. I'm going to be purchasing the new Fujifilm X-T30 with the XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 lens. However, I've realized that many sellers are offering a bundle with this lens and either the XF 35mm F/2 or the XF 23mm F/2. The 35mm is bundled for an additional $100, and the 23mm is bundled for an additional $150. So--my question is this: Given that I'll have the 18-55mm lens, which one would you recommend getting?
My uses will include travel (upcoming trip to Israel!), taking pictures of my kids, and other general use shooting. Thanks in advance for your help! Any other suggestions to a Fuji newb would be appreciated!

Heh, nice problem to have

I have the three lenses you are contemplating, and I don't suppose it's helpful to recommend all three? I voted for the 35mm, not because I think it's a better lens than the 23, but because I suspect it might be more useful to you for isolating elements in a larger scene, obtaining more dramatic/intimate pictures of your children, etc. The 23mm is a fantastic lens too, but I suspect you'll notice more clear blue water between the 35mm and the 18-55mm zoom at the same focal length than between the 18-55mm @23mm and the 23mm prime. Of course, this is based on my own subjective evaluations, with due nod to sample variation. In other words, your M may V

This is a bit controversial around these parts, but the 18-55mm is not my favourite lens for people shots. Some of my most breathtaking landscape and environmental shots have been with that zoom, but I feel obliged to say that some of my most disappointing shots of people have been with the same lens. It's probably just my lack of skill and experience, but I just don't use it for people any more (unless the light levels are really high). Another reason why I think you should go for the 35mm as a companion lens.

notchy wrote:

eRaCer001 wrote:

Hello,

I'm excited that I'm getting back into photography after a hiatus. I'm kind of a newbie. I'm going to be purchasing the new Fujifilm X-T30 with the XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 lens. However, I've realized that many sellers are offering a bundle with this lens and either the XF 35mm F/2 or the XF 23mm F/2. The 35mm is bundled for an additional $100, and the 23mm is bundled for an additional $150. So--my question is this: Given that I'll have the 18-55mm lens, which one would you recommend getting?
My uses will include travel (upcoming trip to Israel!), taking pictures of my kids, and other general use shooting. Thanks in advance for your help! Any other suggestions to a Fuji newb would be appreciated!

Heh, nice problem to have

I have the three lenses you are contemplating, and I don't suppose it's helpful to recommend all three? I voted for the 35mm, not because I think it's a better lens than the 23, but because I suspect it might be more useful to you for isolating elements in a larger scene, obtaining more dramatic/intimate pictures of your children, etc. The 23mm is a fantastic lens too, but I suspect you'll notice more clear blue water between the 35mm and the 18-55mm zoom at the same focal length than between the 18-55mm @23mm and the 23mm prime. Of course, this is based on my own subjective evaluations, with due nod to sample variation. In other words, your M may V

This is a bit controversial around these parts, but the 18-55mm is not my favourite lens for people shots. Some of my most breathtaking landscape and environmental shots have been with that zoom, but I feel obliged to say that some of my most disappointing shots of people have been with the same lens. It's probably just my lack of skill and experience, but I just don't use it for people any more (unless the light levels are really high). Another reason why I think you should go for the 35mm as a companion lens.

Just to clarify, by "people" I mean specifically "faces". I find the 18-55mm's ability to render skin tones and texture in pleasing fashion drops off alarmingly with increasing distance (or with shrinking subject size). More so than any of my other Fuji lenses.

Get whichever will be the better deal! Wait, can you buy both and get the discounted price at the same time? If so, do that if you can. Basically, if you think you will use them (I have both a 23 and 35 1.4s and they are different enough for me to warrant having both.) get them both at however cheapest you can if it's available to you and you can afford it. At some point you'll probably end up with both focal lengths. Also budget in another bag. That there is a thread going for right now. 

The 23 is a little wider angle and therefor more versatile for me.

The 35mm prime provides more benefit bringing in light than the 23mm, when both are compared to the 18-55 wide open at the respective focal lengths.  Therefore ==> get the 35mm (that's what I did, cannot get it off my Xpro2..great lens).

Every single thread on this is always on the 23mm side.

I owned an RX1 (35mm Full frame to 23mm Fuji) and I hated the focal length.

Couldn't get too close enough for portraits and a little wide when I spotted something I liked.

Now I have the Fuji 35mm and it's way too tight... so I need a 40mm?

I do really like the 35mm, it's a good portrait lens and it's really small. Also I've used it for some tighter landscapes because my 16mm 1.4 was a little too wide.

I'm happy with my choice. Now I was wondering if I should own both but I think it's better to spread around. I have the 16mm 1.4 35mm 2 and 90mm

By the way the 90mm is the best lens I've ever used.

Now get the 23/2, later you could get 35/1.4 or 50/2.

here taken with 23/2

I have the 35 F2, I love that lens. Takes really great shots.  I truly enjoyed going out to shoot with that lens. Now I’ve debated the 23 mm for a long time. I think that’s a very useful focal length but not as good as the 35 mm for portraiture. I have reservations about the 23 mm F2. I read practically every single review of the lens on the Internet and it disturbs me about the close focusing issues. Also many many reviews that I have read say that the 23 mm 1.4 renders slightly better (nicer bokeh, more shallow dof, better micro contrast ). So as soon as the 23 1.4 is on sale I’m going to buy it.

I voted 23mm as it let you shoot variety of subjects.  
If you want  to shoot every thing 23mm

If you want to shoot portraits and flattering subjects then get 35mm but 50mm is even better for that.

I would go with that one for portraits, unless you’re going to pick up the 56 (or 90) later down the line

I was out a few months back, and I had all the lenses you mentioned and a few more in my camera bag. The 23mm f/2 and the 35mm f/2 do a good job, just depends on how wide you want to shoot. I have a Zeiss Touit 12mm f/2.8 if I want to go wider. I had just picked up a Fujifilm 50mm f/2 and shot with only that lens on my X-T2 the whole day. What an outstanding lens. Makes a fine portrait lens, especially if the space you are shooting in is small. Happy hunting.

Hi, I voted for the 23/f2. Looking at the replies, our community is fairly evenly split between the two, thus proving that everyone has their own needs and you will have to judge which focal length suits your type of photography and subjects best.

For me, the 23/f2 delivers sharp images, is very useful as lower light travel lens to team with my 18-55 and I like the focal length in urban settings. By all accounts, both deliver similar, that's to say excellent, image quality, which is sufficiently close to make the choice based on focal length. Both are small, light, tactile and weather resistant.

When I opt solely to a prime set up I use it and the 50/f2 (and 18/f2). I skipped the 35/f2 as I can crop a bit from the 23/f2 to compensate (and I don't want to juggle four lenses) and I have on order the 16/f2.8 (to replace the 18) to make a trio that suits me.

Good luck with your choice.

What focal length you prefer?

Great shots, givepixachance.

eRaCer001 wrote:

Hello,

I'm excited that I'm getting back into photography after a hiatus. I'm kind of a newbie. I'm going to be purchasing the new Fujifilm X-T30 with the XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 lens. However, I've realized that many sellers are offering a bundle with this lens and either the XF 35mm F/2 or the XF 23mm F/2. The 35mm is bundled for an additional $100, and the 23mm is bundled for an additional $150. So--my question is this: Given that I'll have the 18-55mm lens, which one would you recommend getting?
My uses will include travel (upcoming trip to Israel!), taking pictures of my kids, and other general use shooting. Thanks in advance for your help! Any other suggestions to a Fuji newb would be appreciated!

Hi there!

I actually have the 23 f2 but voted for the 35 f2 in your case.

I love the 23 f2 for almost everything, except portraits. I knew it wasnt meant to be for that, so i plan to get the 56 f1.2 (maybe even the 50 f2).

For a newbie (as you said) i would allways recommend the 35 f2 as a complement prime to the kit lens. To "start out" and have and all around lens. The 35 is good for portraits and everything else too.

If you plan to get the 50 (or 56) ill go with the 23, if you just want one lens for now, i would say the 35 is a better option.