18/2 vs 23/2 and FL difference

[Kyle Logan]

I find the difference between a true 28 and a true 35 to be noticeable. However, I’ve heard the 23 is more like a 21 which would make it more like a 31.5. For those that own both lenses, do you find the difference to be so slight as to make the 18 redundant? I own the 23 and was considering the 18, but have reservations.

 

[Foskito]

I find the difference between a true 28 and a true 35 to be noticeable. However, I’ve heard the 23 is more like a 21 which would make it more like a 31.5. For those that own both lenses, do you find the difference to be so slight as to make the 18 redundant? I own the 23 and was considering the 18, but have reservations.

I have both lenses but never made a direct comparison. You will see a difference between the 2, not extreme of course. I prefer the 18mm, I love its form factor, and its rendering is very nice. Here a few from both 18mm and 23mm so you can have an idea of the FoV...

 

[woody23]

For me, the 18mm and 23mm lenses are too close in focal length to justify both. I do own the 23mm f/2; it is a handy lens and a useful, all-around focal length. If I wanted a wider lens to pair with a 23mm, I'd suggest going with the 14mm (which I own) or one of the XF 16mm lenses. Both are good choices for a wide lens.

A problem that the 18mm has is that it noticeably distorts noses in portraits; with the 23mm lens, this isn't a problem.

 

[Kyle Logan]

Thx

 

[Kyle Logan]

Thx.

 

[dccberry]

I went with the 23 as my go-to lens for most editorial work, and then the Sigma 16mm f/1.4 if I need to go wide. I have the 14 f/2.8 Fuji, but it has never blown my socks off for some reason. The 16mm is a more useful focal length for me.

 

[Mateus1]

I find the difference between a true 28 and a true 35 to be noticeable. However, I’ve heard the 23 is more like a 21 which would make it more like a 31.5. For those that own both lenses, do you find the difference to be so slight as to make the 18 redundant? I own the 23 and was considering the 18, but have reservations.

I used both and can confirm the 23/2 is more like 31-32mm FF equiv. I like Fuji's 18/2 FL and warm colour and wonderful background rendering much more then "clinical" 23/2. Me, I would choice 18/2 over it and would consider 35/1.4 or 27/2.8.

Sigma is rumored to bring X-mount small 23/1.4 prime with 52mm filter size.

I find 18/2, 35/1.4 and 60/2.4 - the first Fujis - primes having the nicest rendering.

 

[PeterLeyssens]

I find the difference between a true 28 and a true 35 to be noticeable. However, I’ve heard the 23 is more like a 21 which would make it more like a 31.5. For those that own both lenses, do you find the difference to be so slight as to make the 18 redundant? I own the 23 and was considering the 18, but have reservations.

I used both and can confirm the 23/2 is more like 31-32mm FF equiv. I like Fuji's 18/2 FL and warm colour and wonderful background rendering much more then "clinical" 23/2. Me, I would choice 18/2 over it and would consider 35/1.4 or 27/2.8.

I have a 12mm and I'm adding an 18mm/f2. I felt it would be too near the 12 to get a 16, and I really wanted the small size of the 18/f2 (particularly length of the lens). So instead of the 23/f2, I ordered a TTArtisan 25/f2. Obviously it's MF, but it's also less close to the 18mm.

Then again, I also have a 35mm (XF f2, and 7Artisans 35/f1.2 on the way) and it's getting close to that territory ;-) But it's three pancakes, basically (18/f2, 25/f2, 35/f1.2) and I want to try if I can find 1 that I can leave semi-permanently attached to my camera.

28-31,5mm is too close together. But I agree on having both 28 and 35 being OK. I used to work with a 28-50-90 combo and there was always something missing.

 

[Mateus1]

I find the difference between a true 28 and a true 35 to be noticeable. However, I’ve heard the 23 is more like a 21 which would make it more like a 31.5. For those that own both lenses, do you find the difference to be so slight as to make the 18 redundant? I own the 23 and was considering the 18, but have reservations.

I used both and can confirm the 23/2 is more like 31-32mm FF equiv. I like Fuji's 18/2 FL and warm colour and wonderful background rendering much more then "clinical" 23/2. Me, I would choice 18/2 over it and would consider 35/1.4 or 27/2.8.

I used to work with a 28-50-90 combo and there was always something missing.

My best combo would be in FF equiv.: 24-40-80mm f2.

 

[Felice62]

Never been a fan of the 28mm (in FF jargon) fov. I do much prefer the 24mn. On the contrary I have always appreciated the 40mm doc over the more standard 50mm.

That said I love the 18mm form factor and I find it renders so nicely. To cut it short: thumbs up for the 18mm in conjunction with the 28