cug

All of the above is very true, the two lenses are really different. The 23 is sharp, optically corrected, has the focus clutch. The XF35/2 is mostly sharp, digitally corrected, no focus clutch, has very fast AF and is a WR lens. 
 
Apart from that, handling the two is a world of difference. When I put the XF23 on my X-T1 I don't want to use it without the ArcaSwiss RRS place to I get more camera height to hold on to with my right hand. The combination feels like a small DSLR, not like a compact mirrorless setup anymore. Compared to the new 35, the 23 is just huge:
 
http://camerasize.com/compact/#520.422,520.498,ha,t
 
The weight difference is very significant as well even though it doesn't look like it on paper. When I put the 35 on, I also really WANT to remove the ArcaSwiss plate, because the package is so nice and light and compact. 
 
If I could have only one, there is no question, I'd have the 35. If budget allows for more than one lens, the two could complement each other depending on the shooting you do. But I'd rather have the 16 and the new 35 instead of 23 and 35. 

You know, that's better than most Americans which don't speak English at all ... ;-)

For the raw conversion in Lightroom: if you don't sharpen, you are leaving yourself at the mercy of some stupid defaults that Adobe has set for sharpening that often do not work for the xtrans sensor. 
 
The in-camera conversion does way more than just sharpening, it also adds clarity.
 
Try this for a test on your raw in Lightroom:
 
Sharpening:
Amount: pick a value between 25 and 45
Radius: 1
Detail: 100
Mask: 10
 
Then set clarity to about +10
 
You should get a result much closer to the out of camera JPEG. 

I went to London three times last year, X-T1 with XF35mm on two occasions (plus XF23 and XF56 which I only needed for a model shoot during one of the trips), X100T with TCL for the other.
 
I'm flying again in Feb to London, Frankfurt and Cologne (Germany), will either take X100T + TCL or just the X-T1 with XF35/2. If you are a worrier about "missed shots" (I'm not, I've never "missed" a shot) I'd take the X-T1 with 16-55 and be done with it.

I went to London three times last year, X-T1 with XF35mm on two occasions (plus XF23 and XF56 which I only needed for a model shoot during one of the trips), X100T with TCL for the other.
 
I'm flying again in Feb to London, Frankfurt and Cologne (Germany), will either take X100T + TCL or just the X-T1 with XF35/2. If you are a worrier about "missed shots" (I'm not, I've never "missed" a shot) I'd take the X-T1 with 16-55 and be done with it.

All of the above is very true, the two lenses are really different. The 23 is sharp, optically corrected, has the focus clutch. The XF35/2 is mostly sharp, digitally corrected, no focus clutch, has very fast AF and is a WR lens. 
 
Apart from that, handling the two is a world of difference. When I put the XF23 on my X-T1 I don't want to use it without the ArcaSwiss RRS place to I get more camera height to hold on to with my right hand. The combination feels like a small DSLR, not like a compact mirrorless setup anymore. Compared to the new 35, the 23 is just huge:
 
http://camerasize.com/compact/#520.422,520.498,ha,t
 
The weight difference is very significant as well even though it doesn't look like it on paper. When I put the 35 on, I also really WANT to remove the ArcaSwiss plate, because the package is so nice and light and compact. 
 
If I could have only one, there is no question, I'd have the 35. If budget allows for more than one lens, the two could complement each other depending on the shooting you do. But I'd rather have the 16 and the new 35 instead of 23 and 35. 

Keep in mind, that you already have a nice set up of lenses. You should only consider extra prime lenses if you need that extra background seperation and low light capability. At the beginning you should use your 18-55 for portraits. It's a georgous underated piece of a kit lens. Even at F4 you'll have a nice background seperation.
 
23mm F1.4?!
Nope, you have the 10-24 already. Or do you need that extra low light capability?!
 
56 F1.2?!
Nope, it's a portrait lens and not that versatile any more. Expensive as hell as well. You should only buy it if you are really into portraits or you have money to spend. And you mentioned that you have a nice Nikon set up for that kind of work already.
 
35 F1.4/F2
This would be my first prime lens suggestion for you. 35mm is still versatile and very nice for close up portrait work. The difference between F1.4 and F2.0 isn't that much. F1.4 has only a bit more blurry background. I wouldn't buy the old one anymore. I actually sold mine for the new one. The new one is a perfect fit for myX-T1. The AF is defintily faster, it's dead silent, at F2.0 it's as sharp as the F1.4 and it's smaller, cheaper and WR as well.

I use a very simplified approach to this whole comparison question:
For focal length comparison, find the crop multiplier and find the lenses that have the same field of view after applying that multiplier. For example, 50mm on a Canon 5D MkIII, 35mm on a Fuji X-T1, 25mm on an M4/3 camera.  For light gathering, take the f-stop and be done with it. Exposure setting should be the same when using f/1.4 on M4/3, APS-C or FF.  For depth of field, add one stop for each sensor size doubling, that would mean f/1.4 on M4/3 is similar to f/2 on APS-C which is similar to f/2.8 on FF. This isn't exact though, but it's close enough to be workable.  So, it's true that for DoF and rendering comparison the 56 f/1.2 should be compared to an 85 f/1.8 on a FF body, but that doesn't apply to light gathering. But because a lot of FF sensors have better ISO performance than a lot of APS-C sensors, you could argue that you can just use one stop higher ISO on the FF camera and still get equivalent results. 

I think the recommendation is crystal clear: get the 90mm if you want the 90mm field of view, get a 35mm if you want the 35mm field of view. Pick one of the Fuji 35mm based on how they look like and what you read about them.
 
Be happy afterwards. 

...and another.
 
Cafe

I know the 56mm and 90mm are supposed to be for portraiture but I bought them for other things.  Here is some examples of images shot with the 90mm.
 
Handrail 1.

Iron Railings

Handrail 2.

The D800 has roughly the same pixel density as a 16MP APS-C camera, so this has absolutely nothing to do with the high MP count - that only comes into play when you again go to 1:1 magnification, which is kind of ridiculous because if you do this on a typical large screen nowadays, it would mean you also look at a 2m wide print from a 50cm viewing distance, which of course is completely ridiculous. 
 
In the real world pixel peeping and 1:1 magnification has only one real use case: gauging the sharpening/masking/de-noise settings in your raw converter. Just think about the campaign Apple has going on where iPhone photos are printed on huge billboards and look absolutely stunning there:
 
http://time.com/3726913/apple-iphone-photo-campaign/
 
 
 
I am fully relaxed.
 
It's always a matter of how something comes across, but your post might have been considered offensive to people here, that's what I wanted to make really clear.
 
Regarding the rules for shutter speeds: all of these are basically estimates. Rule of thumb type helpers. If I recall correctly, the typical resolution of a very high res film is considered in the 16 to 20MP range (for 35mm film), therefore, today's sensors already surpass this by quite a margin (42MP on the A7R II, 50MP on a 5DS). 
 
The thing is, my monitor has a pixel pitch of roughly 100 pixel/inch. That means that a 1:1 magnification view of a photo from 16MP Fuji sensor would be 49 inches on the long end when printed to show the same 1:1 magnification and 100dpi. I have a faded memory that the typical viewing distance of photos is normally never less than the diagonal, so the typical viewing distance of 70cm to my cinema display is less than half of the typical viewing distance of the said print. And people  are obsessing whether a 16MP photo can be printed on 8x12" (20x30cm) size. I find this quite amusing.
 
Coming back to lens quality, I am the first to admit that I'm a sucker for sharpness. I love lenses that produce crisp results on the sensor at hand. I love lenses that basically out-resolve a 16MP sensor like the 23 (center) and 90mm (most of the frame) XF lenses. But in all reality, I can produce shots with an iPhone 4 that can be printed in 20x30 inches with satisfying quality for most people. Because most of people aren't pixel peeping.
 
Hell, I add grain to many of my photos, reducing the resolution and sharpness significantly. 

The D800 has roughly the same pixel density as a 16MP APS-C camera, so this has absolutely nothing to do with the high MP count - that only comes into play when you again go to 1:1 magnification, which is kind of ridiculous because if you do this on a typical large screen nowadays, it would mean you also look at a 2m wide print from a 50cm viewing distance, which of course is completely ridiculous. 
 
In the real world pixel peeping and 1:1 magnification has only one real use case: gauging the sharpening/masking/de-noise settings in your raw converter. Just think about the campaign Apple has going on where iPhone photos are printed on huge billboards and look absolutely stunning there:
 
http://time.com/3726913/apple-iphone-photo-campaign/
 
 
 
I am fully relaxed.
 
It's always a matter of how something comes across, but your post might have been considered offensive to people here, that's what I wanted to make really clear.
 
Regarding the rules for shutter speeds: all of these are basically estimates. Rule of thumb type helpers. If I recall correctly, the typical resolution of a very high res film is considered in the 16 to 20MP range (for 35mm film), therefore, today's sensors already surpass this by quite a margin (42MP on the A7R II, 50MP on a 5DS). 
 
The thing is, my monitor has a pixel pitch of roughly 100 pixel/inch. That means that a 1:1 magnification view of a photo from 16MP Fuji sensor would be 49 inches on the long end when printed to show the same 1:1 magnification and 100dpi. I have a faded memory that the typical viewing distance of photos is normally never less than the diagonal, so the typical viewing distance of 70cm to my cinema display is less than half of the typical viewing distance of the said print. And people  are obsessing whether a 16MP photo can be printed on 8x12" (20x30cm) size. I find this quite amusing.
 
Coming back to lens quality, I am the first to admit that I'm a sucker for sharpness. I love lenses that produce crisp results on the sensor at hand. I love lenses that basically out-resolve a 16MP sensor like the 23 (center) and 90mm (most of the frame) XF lenses. But in all reality, I can produce shots with an iPhone 4 that can be printed in 20x30 inches with satisfying quality for most people. Because most of people aren't pixel peeping.
 
Hell, I add grain to many of my photos, reducing the resolution and sharpness significantly. 

Damn there's where I go wrong
 
I shouldn't ever be using speeds of less than about 1/1000 with my XF35

Sorry to be very blunt, Jürgen, but I think your post is full of sh** regarding the reaction here. I apologize for the language right here, but that's the only adequate description I have.
 
People generally get agitated when someone stomps in the door, proclaims something as bad that has proven itself over and over as not bad in every single real life comparison that I have ever seen (and I saw a lot of them and can make my own here at home as well). There are so many comparisons around between XF23 and X100 series it's hard to count them and the result ALWAYS was "the XF23 is optically far superior, faster and better overall quality but it is just so frigging HUGE and it doesn't come with the other qualities of the X100 series". 
 
And just a quick disclaimer: I dislike the X100 series as well as the XF23 - but for much different reasons. I'd also like a 23 f/2 in smaller and digitally corrected, just like the XF35 f/2 - for my personal taste in small camera gear. 
 
The uproar has nothing to do with someone questioning the decisions made by the people here. It has everything to do with statements that are proven over and over to be false.
 
Regarding your non-sharp photos, here's an interesting read for you (German):
 
http://gwegner.de/know-how/schaerfe-unschaerfe/
 
Your "math" seems kind of personal to me as I don't need speeds this high to get 1:1 pixel sharpness, but that might be because I (luckily) have a very stable posture and no shake at all even after a coffee or two. Most people need to adjust their shutter speeds by something like "2x FL x Crop x Cups of Coffee" to get to sharp results. 
 
My personal opinion is that if you can't get a critically sharp shot of a typical slow or non-moving subject with an X-Pro1 + 18mm in decent light it's a problem of the photographer, not the camera/lens combination. As soon as things moves, either the photographer, trying to quickly grab a moment or the subject or the light is very low - all bets are off with ANY system in the world. The more pixel density you have the worse it will look at 1:1 magnification. Fact of life. 1:1 magnification is the bane of any reasonable discussion because it is mainly unnecessary.

Sorry to be very blunt, Jürgen, but I think your post is full of sh** regarding the reaction here. I apologize for the language right here, but that's the only adequate description I have.
 
People generally get agitated when someone stomps in the door, proclaims something as bad that has proven itself over and over as not bad in every single real life comparison that I have ever seen (and I saw a lot of them and can make my own here at home as well). There are so many comparisons around between XF23 and X100 series it's hard to count them and the result ALWAYS was "the XF23 is optically far superior, faster and better overall quality but it is just so frigging HUGE and it doesn't come with the other qualities of the X100 series". 
 
And just a quick disclaimer: I dislike the X100 series as well as the XF23 - but for much different reasons. I'd also like a 23 f/2 in smaller and digitally corrected, just like the XF35 f/2 - for my personal taste in small camera gear. 
 
The uproar has nothing to do with someone questioning the decisions made by the people here. It has everything to do with statements that are proven over and over to be false.
 
Regarding your non-sharp photos, here's an interesting read for you (German):
 
http://gwegner.de/know-how/schaerfe-unschaerfe/
 
Your "math" seems kind of personal to me as I don't need speeds this high to get 1:1 pixel sharpness, but that might be because I (luckily) have a very stable posture and no shake at all even after a coffee or two. Most people need to adjust their shutter speeds by something like "2x FL x Crop x Cups of Coffee" to get to sharp results. 
 
My personal opinion is that if you can't get a critically sharp shot of a typical slow or non-moving subject with an X-Pro1 + 18mm in decent light it's a problem of the photographer, not the camera/lens combination. As soon as things moves, either the photographer, trying to quickly grab a moment or the subject or the light is very low - all bets are off with ANY system in the world. The more pixel density you have the worse it will look at 1:1 magnification. Fact of life. 1:1 magnification is the bane of any reasonable discussion because it is mainly unnecessary.

The X100T is about one year old right now. If Fuji follows the same cycle from before, a new version is due in 6 to 10 months. That could go along with the rumors that the X-Pro2 is coming in January, I expect the next X100 series camera to have the same, hopefully new sensor and some other improvements. 
 
Although, if you like the X100 series, the X100T is a great camera, so if it's the right camera concept for you, go ahead and don't wait, current discounts are pretty good. 

To give you a little reference as to how good the 23mm is:
 
It is better than the 16mm (understandably so, as it is not as wide, so easier to correct optically), better than both 35's and as good as the 56 1.2.
 
You clearly didn't use the 23mm yourself. Trusting internet information over user information (and you're getting plenty of that here) is just plain stupid.
 
The constant ignoring of facts isn't helpful either. The XF 23 1.4 R doesn't leave a gap in the current lineup. Instead, it's one of the peaks. The 27 2.8, besides, isn't bad either. It's small, solidly built, sharp and focuses quite fast. It just doesn't offer f/1.4 or an aperture ring. Something I can forgive the lens which can be had for 191€ in Europe. Now, the 18mm is another story.
 
Also, the 23 balances quite well. After all, it is smaller and lighter than the 56 1.2, which also balances well with a camera like the X-T1. And I don't hear much whining from users of X-Pro or X-E cameras when it comes to the 56 1.2.
 
I had the X100 and X100s and still have the XF 23 1.4 R. While the XF is not my most favorite lens (just because 23mm isn't my most favorite focal length), it is M I L E S ahead of the 23mm f/2 of the X100 series, when it comes to sharpness wide open (& stopped down), optical correction for aberrations, close focus performance. The X100 series lens is clearly an optical compromise in many regards. Fuji didn't make that mistake twice and the XF 23 1.4 R is about as good as it gets in Fujis lens portfolio. The only lens to exceed everything else is the XF 90 f/2 R WR.

I use a very simplified approach to this whole comparison question:
For focal length comparison, find the crop multiplier and find the lenses that have the same field of view after applying that multiplier. For example, 50mm on a Canon 5D MkIII, 35mm on a Fuji X-T1, 25mm on an M4/3 camera.  For light gathering, take the f-stop and be done with it. Exposure setting should be the same when using f/1.4 on M4/3, APS-C or FF.  For depth of field, add one stop for each sensor size doubling, that would mean f/1.4 on M4/3 is similar to f/2 on APS-C which is similar to f/2.8 on FF. This isn't exact though, but it's close enough to be workable.  So, it's true that for DoF and rendering comparison the 56 f/1.2 should be compared to an 85 f/1.8 on a FF body, but that doesn't apply to light gathering. But because a lot of FF sensors have better ISO performance than a lot of APS-C sensors, you could argue that you can just use one stop higher ISO on the FF camera and still get equivalent results. 

FWIW I'll add one more practical point that can get lost in the shuffle: An 85mm f/1.8 on a FF sensor may be the closest FF comparison to what you get from the 56mm f/1.2 on Fuji, but that doesn't mean the Fuji 56mm f/1.2 and Canon 50mm f/1.2 lenses shouldn't be compared at all.
 
If you choose Canon but you want the size/cost benefits of their APS-C cameras (i.e. 7DII) then the FF lenses are your only choice for all but a couple of their cheapest primes. There's no way to get a small, cheap 35mm f/1.4 for Canon, you HAVE to buy the huge, expensive FF L lens even if it's going on your Rebel. This is because Canon treats their "crop sensor" lineup as a discount brand, rather than as a valid tradeoff of size/cost v. quality. 
 
Fuji on the other hand treats their APS-C cameras as top of the line, so their APS-C primes are smaller and lighter than what you'd have to carry to get the same effect on a Canon APS-C camera. 
 
The day Canon comes out with fast awesome primes in EF-S (crop sensor) or EF-M (their half-assed mirrorless format) this may change, but I doubt they'll ever come out with anything comparable to the 56mm f/1.2 or 16mm f/1.4 lenses designed specifically to take advantage of APS-C sensors. 

Arguing with the usefulness of a focal length for a lens is like arguing with a shoe size for shoes. Either it fits you or it doesn't. There is no "more useful" or "better". 

This is something that has surprised me a lot ever since I joined the ranks of the Fuji system.
 
One would have thought that for a camera system with no previous history,  practically starting anew, there would be the chance to start with one philosophy behind a range of lenses and that the range would express this in a way that the lenses have some sort of united look, feel, features... but they are really all very different to the point of being of some lenses being odd and incongruent. 
 
The weirdest ( to me, if you like the lens hood... good for you ) has to be the 60mm macro which has this enormously long and totally unnecessary ( the way it is) lens hood, simply because of the way the lens works and the front mount is.
 
Requires a very strange work around too to bypass what has to be a design flaw (in my opinion, again I love the lens but find it odd) implying using a filter as spacer because otherwise the majority of screw in lens hoods would interfere with the autofocus operations sending the lens and camera to an error ( being there done that).
 
Another thing that has puzzled me is the fact that all the footage shot at the lens plants, they show incredibly sterile conditions but there have been many reports (I had one too) of lenses new in the box ( and you know that it is almost impossible to open a fuji box without leaving some sort of trace that someone had been there) showing traces of particles inside the lens.
 
How does it get there and when?

I don't disagree with that. I was just giving my opinion that all Fuji lenses, except the ones with the focus clutch, are NOT really usable for manual focus. They are okay for back button focus and manual correction possibly, but not for manual focus. Just not workable. And I tried ...
 
The only thing the MF setting is good for is to set to MF, use back button to set a zone focus distance and leave it alone from there.
 
I wish there was more consistency in the whole Fuji range - lenses as well as bodies. Random lenses have WR, other have focus clutch, some have really whacky manual focus (way too much throw to be useful), others work different again. And don't get me started on the bodies. It shouldn't be so damn hard to get them to be more consistent in buttons, features and behavior. 

Such a minority group of of users simply form a market niche not large enough to absorb the cost of a dedicated production line.
 
My guess is that is never going to happen. 

Lifestyle shoot in London, basically walking around the Westminster area and taking photos ... ;-)
 
Most photos taken with the new XF35 f/2:
 

Farhanah by Guido Neitzer, on Flickr
 

Farhanah by Guido Neitzer, on Flickr
 

Farhanah by Guido Neitzer, on Flickr
 

Farhanah by Guido Neitzer, on Flickr
 

Farhanah by Guido Neitzer, on Flickr
 

Farhanah by Guido Neitzer, on Flickr
 

Farhanah by Guido Neitzer, on Flickr
 

Farhanah by Guido Neitzer, on Flickr


And one from the XF56:
 

Farhanah by Guido Neitzer, on Flickr