Jump to content
2.0

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

Recommended Posts

I know what Internal Focusing mean, and I still warn you that your sensor is not protected because of that. If you pour water on it, it will seep in from the mount. 

 

Same thing for dust and other humid/wet weather conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so, if I ever buy one I’ll follow my doctor’s advise and stay out of the rain

 

Why do people always think that WR is about rain? I couldn't care less about rain. I care about dust. It's not that much of a problem with the 23 due to internal focusing, but for example the 18-55 sucks in more dust than a vacuum cleaner. This lens is on my X-E2 and my wife uses it a lot and I can't even count how often I had to clean out the camera and sensor from dust specs. Never ever had so much problems with it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The double whammy of no mirror to protect the sensor and no adhesive area under the sensor to catch dust during sensor self cleaning mean mirrorless is a bit more exposed to dust sadly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 23 is definitely a beautiful lens and if I only had one, would prefer it over the 35 WR. However, I took a different approach and went with the 16 WR in lieu of the 23 and kept the 35. This gave me two great focal lengths with WR. I'm considering selling the 56 for the 90 for a full WR trio.  To be honest I have never used an Xf prime lens I did not enjoy so you really can't go wrong either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I have the 14 2.8 which I love, and had the 35 1.4, a really terrific lens, when the 35 f2 came out, I sold the 35 1.4 and got the 35 f2. To me the IQ of both 35's were very similar but the big difference was the focus speed and almost silent 35 f2. It is also a little more compact than the 1.4. Would I like to shoot with the 23? Probably, but for now, the 14 and 35 are great, small, high quality lenses. I have one on my X-E1 and the other on my XP1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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". 

 

There is a reason Fuji put the 23 on the X100

Share this post


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..

 

 

Shooting in the rain is challenging regardless of the lens being WR... raindrops easily get on the front element... particularly when windy. And a WR designation does not mean the gear is immune to water... you still should be careful.

 

I've shot in drizzly light rain, mist etc with my X-T1 and it was fine. I've also shot many times in the rain in the past without WR camera or lens. A little rain jacket/cover works well and feels more secure to me than the WR designation. Sometimes I've just used an umbrella. 

 

I suppose for me, shooting with the lens I want is more important than a WR designation. If there was a 23 1.4 MkII that was WR, I'd likely sell my current 23 to get it. But to switch to a different lens?? Not for me... but then I am biased in this case since if I could have 1 lens, I would much rather have a 23 than 35.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. But a 23mm lens on a Fuji is close to what the human eye sees, so as a photographer you have no hiding-place. You can't rely on lens effects to create an interesting shot - no extreme shallowness of field, no weird wide angle distortion - it forces you to learn good composition to avoid being stinking boring

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it forces you to learn good composition to avoid being stinking boring

 

I don't think that's fully true. The focal length is pretty much good for nothing and at the same time not terrible for anything. You need much more compositional creativity with a wide angle than with the more forgiving 35mm FoV, but that aside, because it is close to human eye (btw: that is said for 35, 40 as well as 50mm equivalents) it is stinking boring, I haven't said the results are boring, but using the thing is. It really comes down to the fact for me that this focal length that people call good for everything does absolutely nothing for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry for my very late update in this thread. I did get the 35mm WR!! BTW i have now the almost full Fuji lens lineup.. I have; 23mm, 35mm WR, 56mm, 50-140mm, 100-400mm WR & TC 1,4x WR :) I did get rid of my Nikon gear, so now i'm a Fuji shooter.. :) 

Share this post


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.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...