Jump to content

35mm f/2 vs. 23mm f/1.4?


2.0

Recommended Posts

I have both and I like the 35 f2 much more than the 35 1.4 and I'm using it more than the 23mm 1.4, recently. I'm contemplating checking out the 16mm 1.4 but i can't seem to commit and the current price just yet. I tried it at B&H and though it was great just the size kind of put me off but it was smaller than what i thought it was going to be. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep the 23 f/1.4, it's a significantly better lens optically, and arguably a more useful focal length if you only have one lens - classic reportage focal length which can shoot landscapes, street, docu and, with the quality of the 23 1.4 and the 1.4 even portraits nicely. Also has the MF clutch.

 

Ideally, though, keep it and save for the 35.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep the 23 f/1.4, it's a significantly better lens optically, and arguably a more useful focal length if you only have one lens - classic reportage focal length which can shoot landscapes, street, docu and, with the quality of the 23 1.4 and the 1.4 even portraits nicely. Also has the MF clutch.

 

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". 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say that a 23mm lens (35mm full-frame equivalent) is a lot better and a lot more useful for a lot more things than, say, a 400mm lens. Or a fisheye. Unless you're into specialist areas of photography, you can use a 23mm pretty much anywhere for all sorts of subjects. Which is why, as Ektachrome says, it's a classic reportage focal length.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got the 35/1.4 and love it to bits but I'm seriously considering the f2 for the WR.

When the weather is inclement it would make a great companion to the X-T1 making it possible to just sling over your shoulder and not worry about it getting wet. I do this all the time with my Pentax WR gear and its a hard habit to break.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say that a 23mm lens (35mm full-frame equivalent) is a lot better and a lot more useful for a lot more things than, say, a 400mm lens.

 

Not if it doesn't fit your use case. Stating that a 35mm FL is more useful than a 50mm FL is just BS. Nothing else. Stating that a 35mm lens is more useful when you're trying to get a wildlife shot hundreds of meters away is also BS. 

 

It's all a matter of what a user prefers or needs for the shots he's trying to make.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But for general-purpose photography, rather than specialist applications, a field of view between 35mm and 50mm seems to be most useful and versatile, because it's close to what the human eye sees. A lot of classic photographers spent their whole careers using just those lenses - Cartier-Bresson, for example, with his 50mm.

 

There's a reason the X100 series has the lens it has, and not a telephoto or an ultra-wide.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites

Two completely different animals IMHO.  I have the 23 1.4 and the 35 1.4.  I love them both the same.  I don't think I'll switch to the 35 f2 as i don't want to lose a stop of light.  The 23 is a FF equivalent of 35mm, which is an excellent range for many things, and the 35 is FF equivalent to a 53mm or so.  

 

Doubt if that helps you much, but I was never a huge fan of the nifty fifty so th 23 1.4, AND the 16 1.4 are just perfect for me.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I use the 23mm 1.4 and the 35mm f/2 on my X-T10, and love them both. If you care about having a lighter, more conveniently sized lens then adding the 35mm f/2 makes sense, and if you hate the size and weight of the 23mm and prefer a longer focal length then selling it and buying the 35 f2 makes sense. But you're not going to be exactly sticking the camera in your pocket with either lens very easily, so it's possible to overstate the difference.

 

As an X-T10 user, putting the 23 on the camera right after the 35 certainly does add some significant weight and changes the balance of the camera. However if, like me, you tend to hold the camera with two hands when you take your shot, it is really not a big deal, and is still rather more comfortable, much smaller, and considerably more appealing than my old DSLR.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies. :) I know the difference between the 23mm vs the 35mm. And if i look at the price point on the 23mm it's more costly than the 35mm f2, and i guess that the 23mm is better optically than 35mm f2. But i feel that i need the WR on the 35mm! I live in the western parts of Norway.. well.. it's raining daily and heavily here..

 

I want to shoot in the rain without me having to worry about the lens or the camera is damaged by the rain.. That's why I want to switch to 35mm WR..

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I've been to Norway and Sweden this summer and it was raining a lot. And I mean a lot!!!

I bought some WR lenses after the trip because I wasn't able to take a lot of pictures due to the heavy rain. All my friends and family thought I had sunny weather all the time. But I basically took all the shots during the narrow dry windows.

It would have been nice to have some shots representing the real soaked wet feeling I had nearly all the time.

 

I'm happy that you like your new toy :) I'm impressed by this little fella as well. I sold my 23mm F1.4 and picked up a 16mm F1.4 WR. So next time in Norway I'll have no excuse anymore. ;)

I don't miss the 23mm range on my X-T1 at all. But I do own the X100t as well so the range is still covered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have both. As mentioned above, they are two completely different lenses for different purposes. 

 

The 23 f1.4 is VERY nice optically, and fast wide open. But it's also quite big with the lens hood on compared to the 35mm f2. 

So far I've used the 23 for everything from landscapes to sport and it's truly a fantastic lens in terms of optical quality, and the focus ring on it works beautifully especially with focus peaking. Generally though, I use it in situations where I can pre-focus on my subject and the photo is more slow and deliberate. 

 

The 35mm f2 has the added benefit of weather sealing, and very fast and silent autofocus, making it a great walkabout lens for shots like this or this. It works great with AF-C, and I almost never use manual focus on it. It's the kind of lens you keep in your bag at all times, as the nifty 50mm length combined with WR, good optical quality for the size, and fast AF, make it an extremely versatile prime. 

 

Definitely recommend trying the 35 f2 in a store and seeing which one makes the most sense for you. I really enjoy using both, but in different situations.

 

That being said, I would be interested in going from the 23 to the 16 just like Stonehorn above for the WR. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi there!

 

I have the 23mm f/1.4 today. But i'm thinking of swaping it out for the new 35mm f/2. Can anyone help me out here? Pro & cons? :)

This is an ancient debate.  In the days of 35mm film there were endless discussion about which was the more natural field of view, 50mm or 35mm (which were equivalent to what you are talking about). Going back to Fuji's, the 35mm corresponds more to the field of view you get from eyes when you don't swing them back and forth, while 23mm is more like what you see with your eyes when you move them around some what. (The previous statement is subject much argument!)

 

 It really comes down to individual preferences.  If you have the 16-50 or 18-55 try setting the focal length to 23mm for a few days and shoot as much as you have time for, then do the same for 35mm.  YUse a little square of duct tape to keep the focal length in place,  Compare results and your personal experience.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies. :) I know the difference between the 23mm vs the 35mm. And if i look at the price point on the 23mm it's more costly than the 35mm f2, and i guess that the 23mm is better optically than 35mm f2. But i feel that i need the WR on the 35mm! I live in the western parts of Norway.. well.. it's raining daily and heavily here..

 

I want to shoot in the rain without me having to worry about the lens or the camera is damaged by the rain.. That's why I want to switch to 35mm WR..

 

So why you're still considering? You just wrote down the answer! You need WR - the XF23 doesn't have it - so buy the XF35WR!

If WR wasn't a point for you I would've recommended you the XF23 cause of it's lens speed and the wider range.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies. :) I know the difference between the 23mm vs the 35mm. And if i look at the price point on the 23mm it's more costly than the 35mm f2, and i guess that the 23mm is better optically than 35mm f2. But i feel that i need the WR on the 35mm! I live in the western parts of Norway.. well.. it's raining daily and heavily here..

 

I want to shoot in the rain without me having to worry about the lens or the camera is damaged by the rain.. That's why I want to switch to 35mm WR..

 

I just put the camera in a plastic zip top bag, cut a hole for the front of lens...very effective "weather sealing" (sometimes you'll need to tape down the front where the plastic meets the lens). I do this with my phone too.  Also "WR" is not water proof, so I don't think you'll ever not worry 100%.

 

I bought the 35mm f2 and returned it.  I don't shoot 50mm FL very often on Fuji and don't need weather sealing or have any size concerns when purchasing a fast wide.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

[...] I am sure that the sensor of my X-T10 is nicely protected by using this wonderful tiny WR-lens. 

Regards Rieke

 

Technically, your X-T10 is not weather resistant, having a WR lens on top of it doesn't change that part at all.

 

So I would be rather careful with your gear if it starts raining or if you plan to go to a desert or tropical environment, please do not take your X-T10 without some form of external protections.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...