The Fujifilm 23 - the 2.0 or the 1.4?

Threaded wrote:

gdanmitchell wrote:

Threaded wrote:

Whatever it was it wasn’t an isolated issue, I had similar AF unreliability with this lens on various occasions also, particularly on my X-Pro3 (as opposed to earlier bodies), and I’ve seen it mentioned by others too.

I’ve used plenty of Fuji lenses (including the 35 f1.4 and the 23 f2) and this was the only one I saw repeatedly “focus” with a green box in the viewfinder, on a stationary object, but then turn out to be slightly out in the final image. Most odd but definitely a bug somewhere.

I've never encountered it or heard of it before. I've used this lens for a long time, largely for small-aperture night photography done handheld.

I assume that you contacted Fujifilm about your defective lens and after they repaired it the problem remained?

It was a used lens, and a difficult problem to demonstrate, and I found enough mention of it online (there’s at least two other mentions in this thread) to suggest it was par for the course with certain copies at least. Ultimately it went back into the used market again…

So, if I understand correctly...

1. The lens was damaged but you never had Fujifilm look at it or repair it.

2. You sold the damaged lens to someone else. Did you let them know about the problem when you sold it?

Threaded wrote:

It’s great you’ve never had this problem with the 23R 1.4. Well done. It’s still a commonly reported issue, however.

Might be some source bias. I just did a really quick search on "Fujifilm 23mm f/1.4 back focus" and there were a couple of mentions of this as an issue in the first set of returns... all in DPReview threads.

Not much else comes up.

I decided to take a close look at a few of my images made with the lens to see if perhaps I hadn't been noticing this problem. Here's one that should be a bit of torture test — shot handheld at night, pushing the ISO/aperture/shutter triangle in order to make it work. (I do night street photography — this is from Vienna, obviously.)

Full image, downsized for the web. XPro2 w/23mm f/1.4. f/2, 1/100, ISO 1600.

Here's a screenshot of a 100% crop...

Screenshot of 100% magnification crop of image in Photoshop at 100%.

Seems pretty well in focus.

I'll have to go back and look at more of them.

One thing to keep in mind on the web: With the literally billions of people using and posting on the web, someone, somewhere, sometime is going to post about a problem with virtually anything. So the existence of some complaints — and there are some — doesn't prove a lot in and of itself. It is true that the reports might reflect a real problem that occasionally crops up, but they also might be due to a bad copy, technique problems, incorrect settings, unrealistic expectations, and so on.

And, of course, once people start reporting their problem, carefully searching out those other few inevitable reports, extrapolating to "widespread problem," and posting about it...

... we're off and running.

Anyway, while my experience with this lens is that it is a great performer and that I haven't seen a back focus problem with it, despite using in for years in situations where that should reveal itself... it isn't going to be the ideal lens for everyone.

Take care,

Dan

A well written, well considered post. Well worth reading. (= three "wells", hey!)

On considering all this, and having read some positive reviews of the excellent performance of the 23/2, I've decided I will go for one of these, at such time as I have amassed a sufficient number of Aussie $1 and $2 coins to help fun the purchase. I may also sell the 23/1.4 to fund this, tho' my SO uses the lens on our XE2 and if I were to suggest it I may lose a valued part of my anatomy...

So as much as I dislike owning two of the same lenses, I will most likely keep the 23/1.4 and add the 23/2 to the XE2's kit. Along the pair of 18-55s I currently have. One bought, the other gifted by a friend who sold out of Fujifilm.

Oh, well. If this brands me as inconsistent, then I'm inconsistent.