Anyone got both the original XF 23mm f1.4 and the newer f2 version ?

[Marco Cinnirella]

I have the original 23 1.4 and it's nice but it's a bit big and the AF a bit slow for my street photography. Contemplating adding the 23 f2 Fuji with its smaller form factor, weather sealing and faster AF, but am I mad? Is it a big downgrade in IQ? Or have you found you absolutely CAN rock the original 23 1.4 for street ?

 

[roberthd12]

Hi. I've used both extensively. The only output difference that anyone will notice, unless they are a total pixel peeper, is the wider aperture of the 1.4.

--
Roberthd12
https://www.flickr.com/photos/robertdicks2/

 

[Marco Cinnirella]

Hi. I've used both extensively. The only output difference that anyone will notice, unless they are a total pixel peeper, is the wider aperture of the 1.4.

Thanks. Is the 1.4 usable for street photography in terms of AF do you think ?

 

[JNR]

I don't have both, but when reading about the comparisons I found it notable that the f/2 is definitely wider in perspective - probably around 21-22mm in reality. This has worked out well for me because I really notice that the 23 f/2 is a wide angle and the 27mm is a "normal" lens.

Beyond that, the 23mm truly is quick and silent. I've grown to like it more over time compared to my first impressions - when I had noticed a tendency toward busy bokeh in some backgrounds. If I'm shooting where the background is likely to have a busy look, I'll take the 27mm instead.

 

[Gringostarr]

Hi. I've used both extensively. The only output difference that anyone will notice, unless they are a total pixel peeper, is the wider aperture of the 1.4.

Thanks. Is the 1.4 usable for street photography in terms of AF do you think ?

AF performance with older lenses has more to do with the frame than the lens and the 23/1.4 will absolutely be useable on any of the 26 and especially 40 MP frames.

 

[Erik Baumgartner]

I have the original 23 1.4 and it's nice but it's a bit big and the AF a bit slow for my street photography. Contemplating adding the 23 f2 Fuji with its smaller form factor, weather sealing and faster AF, but am I mad? Is it a big downgrade in IQ? Or have you found you absolutely CAN rock the original 23 1.4 for street ?

The three crummy 23mm f/1.4s I've used were all worse than the f/2 version. If you have a stellar version of the old f/1.4, the f/2 might be a bit of a step down, but not probably by much in the mid aperture range. The f/2 isn't the greatest at very close range at wide apertures, but is very good otherwise and will have a noticeably wider field of view than the f/1.4.

 

[RangerPhotog]

You can use any lens on the street. I bought the 35/2 even though I already had 33/1.4. Why do I have the f2 lenses? I use them alot on my XE4 for a nice small setup for casual shooting.

 

[Joachim Gerstl]

Hi,

I have both. I got the 23/1.4 first but as soon as the 23/2 came out I got it for exactly the reasons you mentioned: AF speed and reliability and size and weight. Here I wrote how they compare:

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

Forget about the IQ difference. It is there but it is not massive. As long as you don't focus on environmental portraits you should be fine. The 23/2 is a sharp lens as long as we are not talking about very short distance. Hope that helps.

 

[Robmas4229]

I've tried two of the original 23mm f1.4 lenses. Both were returned. Both had really bad CA's and focused inconsistently much of the time. I ended up keeping the 23mm f2.0 as it focuses accurately, quickly, and quietly. Also little to no CA, it's more compact and it's WR (FWIW).

I was tempted by the new version but I've decided to keep my primes small and let my zooms be the larger/heavier lenses in my kit.

-Rob

 

[Marco Cinnirella]

Hi,

I have both. I got the 23/1.4 first but as soon as the 23/2 came out I got it for exactly the reasons you mentioned: AF speed and reliability and size and weight. Here I wrote how they compare:

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

Forget about the IQ difference. It is there but it is not massive. As long as you don't focus on environmental portraits you should be fine. The 23/2 is a sharp lens as long as we are not talking about very short distance. Hope that helps.

 

[bienenbernd]

The XF23/2 has a fast AF and is very good and maybe better if you don't have the luck to get your hands on a good specimen of the XF23/1.4. (I did.)

IMO the XF23/2 has a slightly more contrasty output. Therefore I would prefer it for street photography whereas the old XF23/1.4 is lovely for people shots.

 

[RivkiLocker]

I have both. One observation is that in my experience there are wide differences in models of the 23 f1.4 version. I owned and sold THREE till I found an exceptional one. Now that I found it, I do prefer the iq to the 23 f2. Not leaps and bounds better,but marginally so. Plus I like the extra light.

 

[Pocket Lint]

The 23mm f/2 is wonderful to use on the streets. All the things people have said on here are pretty accurate too. The f/2 is a little wider than 23mm to compensate for software corrections like barrel distortion but you will never see this because the camera automatically applies it.



I use my 23mm f/2 a lot of the streets and I’ve taken some great photos with it. I’ve been using it for two years straight now and unfortunately I’m getting a little bored with the focal length and looking for a 18mm option

 

[Rod McD]

Hi,

I've owned both. I bought the 23/1.4 years ago when it was the only 23mm available. It gave me many great images. I bought the 23/2 when it came out and it too has given me some great images. I kept both for quite a while but recently sold the 23/1.4 to keep the 23/2 only. I sold the heavier lens because as a hiker I value light weight gear and usually stop well down for landscapes anyway. I have no need for f1.4. It's far from the lens's best aperture and on the few occasions I used it, I found AF prone to minor errors. I'm happy with my decision. Someone else might make a different decision. Good for them.

In terms of IQ, the most noticeable difference is that the 23/2 is a tad wider in FOV than the 23/1.4. And of course it has the extra stop. Other than that, the IQ is very similar - I would defy anyone to tell which lens any two images came from if they were shot at the same aperture. Both have low distortion. The old 23/1.4 has the lowest distortion of any of Fuji's lenses @ 0.18% barrel distortion. The 23/2 is also well corrected in an optical sense with 0.25% barrel. (Figures from OL.) It's nothing like the 35/2 in that sense. Any in-camera corrections are minor. The 23/2 focuses a tad faster and is sealed, if either matter to you.

I'm aware of the conventional wisdom here that the 23/2 is poor wide open at MFD. I haven't bothered to test this out. I don't really know why anyone would shoot wide open at MFD and expect brilliant results anyway. NB that the 23/1.4 has a longer MFD. I don't know how well the f2 performs at the MFD of the 23/1.4. In comparing the two, it might be interesting to compare whether there's any shortfall in the IQ of the 23/2 at the longer MFD of the 23/1.4. I can't be bothered - if I'm going to shoot close, I'll just use a different lens.

Hope that helps....

Cheers, Rod

 

[Marco Cinnirella]

Thanks everyone, lots of useful insights. I am tempted to add the 23 F2 to my gear bag. But someone through a spanner in the works on a facebook group and mentioned the Viltrox 23 1.4, which can be had new for the same price as a mint used 23 f2. Hmm, decisions, decisions....

 

[Threaded]

I have both, slightly by accident, and seem to have ended up keeping both for different reasons. The f2 is great and has obvious advantages, being lighter, smaller, faster (and more silent) to focus, and weather resistant. Optically it’s fine, although a little soft close up at f2.

I still really like the 1.4 though and in certain situations it’s worth the extra weight etc. Sharper close up, less clinical, and of course a whole extra stop of light. Certainly indoors it’s my go to.

One thing about the 1.4 though - when I was first using it on my X-Pro3 I was seeing a lot of misfocus, where I’d have a green box and it would claim to be focussed but the resulting image was a little off - this was always in well lit situations where the PDAF would definitely have been active. For a while I thought I had one of the “bad” copies people talk about. Then I switched back to an X-Pro2 and suddenly it was focussing perfectly every time, and I’ve since had no problem with it. I don’t know whether that’s just the XP3 or all the later 26mp+ bodies, but there definitely seems to be some incompatibility there, presumably fixable in firmware if Fuji ever get around to it.

 

[Marco Cinnirella]

I have both, slightly by accident, and seem to have ended up keeping both for different reasons. The f2 is great and has obvious advantages, being lighter, smaller, faster (and more silent) to focus, and weather resistant. Optically it’s fine, although a little soft close up at f2.

I still really like the 1.4 though and in certain situations it’s worth the extra weight etc. Sharper close up, less clinical, and of course a whole extra stop of light. Certainly indoors it’s my go to.

One thing about the 1.4 though - when I was first using it on my X-Pro3 I was seeing a lot of misfocus, where I’d have a green box and it would claim to be focussed but the resulting image was a little off - this was always in well lit situations where the PDAF would definitely have been active. For a while I thought I had one of the “bad” copies people talk about. Then I switched back to an X-Pro2 and suddenly it was focussing perfectly every time, and I’ve since had no problem with it. I don’t know whether that’s just the XP3 or all the later 26mp+ bodies, but there definitely seems to be some incompatibility there, presumably fixable in firmware if Fuji ever get around to it.

That's a worry, however I have an X-Pro 1, X-T1, X-H1 and T3 so I can use the earlier bodies I guess if need be with the 23 1.4

 

[Holden75]

I've had both and spent ages working out the similarities and differences. My conclusion was if you have the f1.4 you do not need the f2, unless you want to take it out in the rain.

There maybe a slight difference in AF in tests but in real world shooting there was no difference for me. There was never a shot I couldn't get with the f1.4 that I could have with the f2. In the end I was disappointed with the af of the f2 given how everyone said how good it was. It is good, but so is the f1.4, it is just noisier.

Yes there is a slight difference in size and weight but in the real world it makes little difference. I never had a problem carrying the f1.4 lens in my hand, on a strap or a bag. I couldn't get a smaller bag for the camera and an f2 that I couldn't also get the camera and f1.4 in so in practical terms there was no difference to me. The only time there would be a benefit for using the f2 is if you had all 3 in comparison to having all 3 of the f1.4/1.2 comparable lenses, then the weight adds up. If size and weight are an issue just get an x100v, I had one of those too and I used it way more than I ever did the f2 and a body because why take the f2 when you have the f1.4 as there just isn't the benefit (for me).

The f1.4 goes to f1.4. I mainly shoot people and that is way handier than I thought it would be. It helps with low light. It helps with nicer bokeh.

I'm not saying the f1.4 is perfect but in comparison to the f2, if you have the f1.4 you won't get anything from getting an f2 unless you want to use the WR!

 

[Marco Cinnirella]

I've had both and spent ages working out the similarities and differences. My conclusion was if you have the f1.4 you do not need the f2, unless you want to take it out in the rain.

There maybe a slight difference in AF in tests but in real world shooting there was no difference for me. There was never a shot I couldn't get with the f1.4 that I could have with the f2. In the end I was disappointed with the af of the f2 given how everyone said how good it was. It is good, but so is the f1.4, it is just noisier.

Yes there is a slight difference in size and weight but in the real world it makes little difference. I never had a problem carrying the f1.4 lens in my hand, on a strap or a bag. I couldn't get a smaller bag for the camera and an f2 that I couldn't also get the camera and f1.4 in so in practical terms there was no difference to me. The only time there would be a benefit for using the f2 is if you had all 3 in comparison to having all 3 of the f1.4/1.2 comparable lenses, then the weight adds up. If size and weight are an issue just get an x100v, I had one of those too and I used it way more than I ever did the f2 and a body because why take the f2 when you have the f1.4 as there just isn't the benefit (for me).

The f1.4 goes to f1.4. I mainly shoot people and that is way handier than I thought it would be. It helps with low light. It helps with nicer bokeh.

I'm not saying the f1.4 is perfect but in comparison to the f2, if you have the f1.4 you won't get anything from getting an f2 unless you want to use the WR!

So you find the 1.4 can track in AF-C people OK ? Eye AF OK ?

 

[Justin Cider]

I have both. I use the 23f2 for video and the 23 1.4 for photos. Fyi the viltrox 23 1.4 isn't really worth getting even at the same price point as the 23f2. It's a decent lens but in my opinion nowhere near as good as either of the Fuji 23's. The only viltrox lens that I was really wowed by is the 13mm 1.4, that lens is brilliant. You should be able to find a used copy of the Fuji 23 1.4 for around $400 in decent shape. At least I think so.