The Fujifilm 23 - the 2.0 or the 1.4?

Unaccustomed as I am to brevity, ha!! I will keep this one brief, or at least try to.

So briefly told: I recently acquired a Fujinon 23/1.4, bought privately at a good price from a friend who wanted to downsize to the lighter and smaller 23/2.0.

It's a gorgeous lens, and does almost everything I want it to for a '35' equivalent. I write "almost" as I'm basically a '28' equivalent photographer, and my 18/2.0 lives on my XE2 almost all the time, sharing the space about equally with the equally good (I dare not say "great" as I realize this lens has many detractors) Fujinon 18-55.

I've used the two lenses, and while I prefer the 1.4, it's a tad heavy for street work or the fairly long bush/jungle treks I do in Asia with a backpack and a supply of food and water, but not much space left over to carry too much gear.

In terms of quality, the 1.4 and 2.0 are, I've found, about equal. I haven't any great use for the extra 'speed' of the 1.4 as I tend to shoot at f/4 or f/5.6 anyway, so this added two-thirds stop isn't a great plus for me. To my eye the mid-tones look the same, ditto the shadows, but I reckon the latter are more about careful exposure anyway.

What are the advantages of the 1.4 over the 2.0? Or to reverse the question, of the 2.0 over the 1.4?

I ask as my budget has enough surplus in it to buy a 23/2.0 if I find a used one at a best price, or maybe to throw another iron in the fire (or as they say ihere n Australia, "another prawn on the barbie"), and after using my friend's lens on a couple of bush walks, I'm tempted. Very tempted. Even with the duplication of the two 23s...

Okay. enough. Brief, heh. Did I say "brief"? Do I contradict myself? Oh, well.

From DANN in Melbourne

From the outset I assume you are referring to the original 23mm f1.4 and not the new WR version? If I have assumed wrong then you can ignore everything I've written

I also struggle with such brevity - however I'll give it a go in the event it helps:
IF you don't need the 1.4 aperture then my vote goes to the f2.

Now for the non-brief part. I have been round the house with Fujifilm in search of the ideal 23mm and the only one that has so far eluded me is the new 23 f1.4. It's my favourite focal length for hobbyist usage and I have so far been unable to justify the cost of said lens - as much as I would love to own it. Some day...

Having owned the other two I would say the f2 is the better and more reliable lens. The only reason I don't still own it is because I DO require (or prefer) the 1.4 aperture.

The original 23mm f1.4 just had too many foibles for my liking - chief among them was the back focussing. I, of course, accept that not EVERY copy of the lens exhibits this flaw but it IS fairly common. As much as I loved the lens' rendering (and didn't find it too big or heavy) I grew tired of always having to second guess where the focus point landed.

The f2 also has its achilles heel of being soft at f2 when shooting close subjects. However at lower apertures it's a stellar lens.

As it is, I'm now currently using a Tokina 23mm f1.4.

"Relatively" speaking, neither lens is big (300g vs. 180g) though the f/1.4 has a larger profile.  W/only a 120g weight difference (@4.25oz), even on a weight sensitive expedition, 120g is unlikely to be an issue.

I'd go for the faster lens all else being equal.

I’ve had both and while there are times I enjoyed the extra stop on the 1.4 and little extra sharpness close up,  I decided to stick with the f2.

As per the poster above, I also find it more reliable for focussing (especially on the newer bodies), it’s also quicker and quieter to focus, and for me especially on an X-Pro body, the reduced size and weight makes a big difference.  WR is also a nice plus.

I just bought the original 23 1.4, on an incredible deal. It was a clearance sale so there are no more 23s available from that retailer. But my copy gives terribly soft results; wonder if this could be misalignment, or the back focus issue referred to above.

I’d like to keep the lens and send it in for warranty repair but don’t want to risk being stuck with it if the softness persists. Can Fuji normally fix lens softness, whether caused by misalignment or back focus?

How does the Tokina compare to the two Fuji?

One or the other? The answer is "yes" as they are both great. It is up to you to decide. I find it strange that what you list as downsides are things you knew from the beginning (larger, heavier).

If you do not need f/1.4, you should not buy a f/1.4 lens, 23mm or other focal length. As for the advantage of f/2 lenses, they will be smaller and lighter.

It holds its own that’s for sure. I did some testing a few months back, if you want to see the photos I will try my best and dig them up when I’m back at my computer.

In a nutshell (and from memory) the Tokina is sharper in the middle but tends to fall off ever so slightly in the corners. I also found the Fuji lenses to produce marginally better contrast but this purely down to my own judgement and knowing what I’m looking for. For all intents and purposes anyone would be hard pushed to easily spot any deficiencies in the Tokina over the Fuji lenses.

The other one is the Viltrox 23mm. It and the Tokina are basically the same lens with different branding. However, the Tokina overcame the one major issue I had with the Viltrox which was in-camera corrections. Since Tokina paid Fuji for the license they have access to such things whereas the Viltrox doesn’t.

The 23 f/1.4 is my fifth 23mm. I think it's safe to say I have a problem with the focal length.

First I bought the Viltrox. A fine lens, really, but it tended to misfocus kind of a lot, hat a bit of a color shift, and the bokeh varies quite widely from the center to the edge of the frame, which is a "swirly" look I do not enjoy.

Next up was an X100T. I found focusing surprisingly hard with its OVF, and was frankly disappointed by the lens, especially closeup (for the price!). At the end of the day, the camera wasn't compact enough to make me take it instead of an ILC.

At this point, I had more or less given up on 23mm as a concept. Not for me, or so I thought.

Then came a Sony RX1 that I found for a price too good to pass up, despite the focal length. And boy, did I enjoy that lens! What an utterly gorgeous rendering! A terribly smooth focus transition, wonderfully smooth and uniform bokeh across the frame; what can I say, perhaps 23mm was good after all. The RX1, however, was a bit too cumbersome a camera to earn its pay, and when someone offered me a ridiculous price for it I sold it. I still miss it sometimes.

By way of compensation came the 23 f/2. I bounced off that one very hard. Swirly bokeh, weirdly sterile rendering, and I didn't like the shape of the lens at all.

A few weeks ago I once again stumbled upon a few well-loved images from the RX1, and lo and behold, there popped up a used 23 f/1.4 for a reasonable price. Suffice it to say, it has not left my X-Pro2 yet. While not quite capturing the magic of the RX1, it is darned close, and a joy to shoot with. A smooth, uniform bokeh, a solid construction, and just small enough to be usable in the OVF. It may just be my favorite Fuji prime lens.

Looking back over the images I couldn’t really tell you which was taken with which lens but prefer the f2 on my x-pro cameras

I've owned both. In fact, two different 1.4's. I finally decided on the f2.0 for it's light weight, small form factor, quick/quiet/accurate focusing and WR.

I had random focusing problems with both 23/1.4 copies and they both also had pretty strong CA's which really annoyed me when I got the images  home and looked at them.

As previously mentioned, if you need 1.4 there are several options. I've given up on buying the super fast aperture lenses as I personally don't need anything faster than f2. But that's just me.

One of my favorite two lens kits is the XT30-II with 18-55 and either the 23/2 or 35/2. This covers me for outdoors and indoor/low light situations, and is very comfortable to carry all day long.

Regards,

Rob

Focal lengths, apertures, are really a subjective and personal decision.  It seems to me though if you're a "28mm guy" that 35mm is too close?  Maybe if you want a fast lens the 18mm f/1.4 would be better?

I like pairing a fast prime with a standard zoom.  I'm a "50mm guy" so I have the 33mm f/1.4 and the 16-80mm.

I've owned at one time or another all the "fujicrons" and I think they are all great, it's a matter of what focal length you prefer.   For me, the 35mm f/2 would pair better with the 18mm f/2.

Good luck with your decision.

Ozmoose wrote:

Unaccustomed as I am to brevity, ha!! I will keep this one brief, or at least try to.

So briefly told: I recently acquired a Fujinon 23/1.4, bought privately at a good price from a friend who wanted to downsize to the lighter and smaller 23/2.0.

It's a gorgeous lens, and does almost everything I want it to for a '35' equivalent. I write "almost" as I'm basically a '28' equivalent photographer, and my 18/2.0 lives on my XE2 almost all the time, sharing the space about equally with the equally good (I dare not say "great" as I realize this lens has many detractors) Fujinon 18-55.

I've used the two lenses, and while I prefer the 1.4, it's a tad heavy for street work or the fairly long bush/jungle treks I do in Asia with a backpack and a supply of food and water, but not much space left over to carry too much gear.

In terms of quality, the 1.4 and 2.0 are, I've found, about equal. I haven't any great use for the extra 'speed' of the 1.4 as I tend to shoot at f/4 or f/5.6 anyway, so this added two-thirds stop isn't a great plus for me. To my eye the mid-tones look the same, ditto the shadows, but I reckon the latter are more about careful exposure anyway.

What are the advantages of the 1.4 over the 2.0? Or to reverse the question, of the 2.0 over the 1.4?

I ask as my budget has enough surplus in it to buy a 23/2.0 if I find a used one at a best price, or maybe to throw another iron in the fire (or as they say ihere n Australia, "another prawn on the barbie"), and after using my friend's lens on a couple of bush walks, I'm tempted. Very tempted. Even with the duplication of the two 23s...

Okay. enough. Brief, heh. Did I say "brief"? Do I contradict myself? Oh, well.

From DANN in Melbourne

Ok, here's my take on throwing an iron in the fire (it's Winter here in the UK so I need warmth), but I was speaking to one of my team members in Perth today and he was all but throwing a prawn in the barbie and reaching for the cold beer as I reached for the hot tea! But I digress.

I have the 23/f2 and use it a lot. I find it has excellent IQ and a tactile feel in a small/light WR package. I have often thought of upgrading to the older, and now the newer 1.4 version, but I just like the f2, so have no real inclination to do so. If I did a lot of low light shooting, may be, but most of my 23 use is hiking in daylight. Hope that helps.

Ozmoose wrote:

..

What are the advantages of the 1.4 over the 2.0? Or to reverse the question, of the 2.0 over the 1.4?

..

Own the Viltrox 23/1.4 and the XF 23/2 but neither of the XF 23/1.4 lenses.

I just love the XF 23/2. I have the silver version.

• IQ is excellent.
• AF is super fast and silent
• Lens is small and lightweight

Regards,

Martin

Hi,

I too am a hiker, and interested in landscape and nature photography. I bought the original 16/1.4, 23/1.4 and 35/1.4 years ago, when they were the only 16, 23 and 35 available. To these I added the 60mm. The 23/1.4 gave me some great images at the landscape apertures I actually use. I've no use for f1.4 either - it's a redundant aperture for me that just adds weight and cost.

It all started to get a bit heavy for an overnight hiking kit with three fast lenses. When Fuji brought out the small lenses, I changed my 16 for the 16/2.8 and my 23 for the 23/2, keeping the 35/1.4 which is fairly small anyway. I banked the change and never looked back. I've just never missed f1.4 in either wide angle lens. No interest in it. If you can get a used 23/2 for a good price, buy it and compare your two 23's for yourself.

Small matters..... the 23/2 is slightly wider in FOV than the 23/1.4. I'm also aware that many people have reported the 23/2 to be soft wide open at MFD. I've never actually bothered to confirm it for myself. I have no understanding why anyone would use a WA lens wide open to take close-ups at MFD and actually expect good IQ.

Over time I added the 27WR and recently bought the XF30 macro. So I've now got a cluster of small lenses to choose from..... I usually hike with three.

Don't know if any of that helps.

Cheers, Rod

Belgarchi wrote:

How does the Tokina compare to the two Fuji?

Bad actually. Check my review:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66741284

Hi,

Old but still valid:

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

but at the end only you can decide what is important to you.