Fuji's 23/2 color and contrast (comp. to Viltrox 23)

When I had X-Pro2, X-A5, I enjoeyd Viltrox 23/1.4 a lot. Later with X-S10 I decided that with IBIS I don't need fast aperture anymore and bought (once again) Fujinon 23 F2.

It is a lovely little lens, well-built, sharper at edges than Viltrox and even quiter (absolutely noiseless) for video. But I felt that I won't let my old friend (Viltrox) go

Looking at actual photos I found harsh contrast and unpleasant colors from Fuji lens:

Viltrox @f/8

Fujinon @f/8

Long story short I'm selling Fuji 23/2 once again

So what do you think about Fujinon 23/2 lens and its color rendition compared to other lenses for Fuji X mount? Do you see the difference in images above?

I cannot see a worthwhile difference.  Truly.

Atsel wrote:

Do you see the difference in images above?

There’s a slight hue difference, but (a) what’s to say that one is better, or more accurate, than the other? (b) with weather like that the colour of the light can change quickly and (c) you’ve not told us whether you’re using a fixed or auto white balance so all bets are off 😉

Neither of the shots seem to exhibit anything that suggests an inferior lens.

Jeff Biscuits wrote:

Atsel wrote:

Do you see the difference in images above?

There’s a slight hue difference, but (a) what’s to say that one is better, or more accurate, than the other? (b) with weather like that the colour of the light can change quickly and (c) you’ve not told us whether you’re using a fixed or auto white balance so all bets are off 😉

Neither of the shots seem to exhibit anything that suggests an inferior lens.

a) Viltrox is clearly inferior regarding sharpness,

bc) It is my subjective judgement

I guess that Fuji 23/2 would make image like this look harsher:

Viltrox @f/8

Atsel wrote:

Jeff Biscuits wrote:

Atsel wrote:

Do you see the difference in images above?

There’s a slight hue difference, but (a) what’s to say that one is better, or more accurate, than the other? (b) with weather like that the colour of the light can change quickly and (c) you’ve not told us whether you’re using a fixed or auto white balance so all bets are off 😉

Neither of the shots seem to exhibit anything that suggests an inferior lens.

a) Viltrox is clearly inferior regarding sharpness,

bc) It is my subjective judgement

I checked the Exif for the Fuji image. Auto white balance. You can’t assess a lens’s colour response if you’re using auto white balance. It doesn’t stay constant. Nor does the lighting: the shadows have clearly moved in the time between the two photos being taken, so the light will have changed as well as the white balance. There is simply no comparison that can be made here.

Jeff Biscuits wrote:

Atsel wrote:

Jeff Biscuits wrote:

Atsel wrote:

Do you see the difference in images above?

There’s a slight hue difference, but (a) what’s to say that one is better, or more accurate, than the other? (b) with weather like that the colour of the light can change quickly and (c) you’ve not told us whether you’re using a fixed or auto white balance so all bets are off 😉

Neither of the shots seem to exhibit anything that suggests an inferior lens.

a) Viltrox is clearly inferior regarding sharpness,

bc) It is my subjective judgement

I checked the Exif for the Fuji image. Auto white balance. You can’t assess a lens’s colour response if you’re using auto white balance. It doesn’t stay constant. Nor does the lighting: the shadows have clearly moved in the time between the two photos being taken, so the light will have changed as well as the white balance. There is simply no comparison that can be made here.

These images illustrate the difference

I have no purpose to convince anybody

More scientific approach with color charts and grayscale is welcome

This part of lens tests is almost non-existent nowadays

Atsel wrote:

These images illustrate the difference

All they illustrate is that if you take two photos at two different times in changing light with two different white balances, they end up with different colouration.

I have no purpose to convince anybody

That’s good, because none of this is remotely convincing 🙂

Jeff Biscuits wrote:

Atsel wrote:

These images illustrate the difference

All they illustrate is that if you take two photos at two different times in changing light with two different white balances, they end up with different colouration.

Thanks. You're great at making assumptions

I have no purpose to convince anybody

That’s good, because none of this is remotely convincing 🙂

Atsel wrote:

All they illustrate is that if you take two photos at two different times in changing light with two different white balances, they end up with different colouration.

Thanks. You're great at making assumptions

I’ve assumed nothing. The photos you’ve posted have evidence of all of the above.

Anyway, we’re going round in circles here 🙂 Whichever lens you prefer, use that one 😉

Jeff Biscuits wrote:

Atsel wrote:

All they illustrate is that if you take two photos at two different times in changing light with two different white balances, they end up with different colouration.

Thanks. You're great at making assumptions

I’ve assumed nothing. The photos you’ve posted have evidence of all of the above.

Anyway, we’re going round in circles here 🙂 Whichever lens you prefer, use that one 😉

You assumed that my words are wrong and made your own judgement from my photos, not your own photos

a_c_skinner wrote:

I cannot see a worthwhile difference. Truly.

Thank you for your opinion.

To be precise I see that Fuji 23/2 renders warmer colors and this is worse (IMHO) for pictures with sky in frame

I didn't try to match images from each lens in RAW converter though; maybe it is doable

I began to doubt myself

WB is pre-set

No filters on either lens here or in first post

Fuji @f/8

Viltrox @f/8

I prefer rendering from Viltrox

BTW I don't see obvious difference in rendering of the sky on screen of smartphone; on desktop monitor the difference is huge.

Let's give our opinions on lenses only attaching full-res images to every message we post here on dpreview?

I truly cannot see any difference worth commenting upon.  The second one has slightly denser shadows (I think) but that could easily just be difference in exposure as the aperture stops might not be spot on the same or the light transmission different for the two lenses.  As one is 1.4 and the other 2 it is likely their optics are very different.

My take home message would be that if you've got one fast 23mm lens there isn't any point in buying another.  Actually from reputable makers I think that applies to pretty much any focal length.

a_c_skinner wrote:

I truly cannot see any difference worth commenting upon. The second one has slightly denser shadows (I think) but that could easily just be difference in exposure as the aperture stops might not be spot on the same or the light transmission different for the two lenses. As one is 1.4 and the other 2 it is likely their optics are very different.

My take home message would be that if you've got one fast 23mm lens there isn't any point in buying another. Actually from reputable makers I think that applies to pretty much any focal length.

I apologize for incorrect question, what we see depends on our monitor; many people use their phones, so there is nothing to talk about other than personal experience with these lenses

I found another topic here about same question, but entirely different use case (all images processed in RAW converter first):

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4496073

There are reasons to prefer f/2 lens:

it is smaller;

it is quiter;

it is better built

it is sharper

Viltrox is obviously F/1.4 lens, it is its main advantage. It is spherical design (no aspherical elements), so it is more vintage

I prefer Viltrox due to its color and light transitions rendering