Jump to content

Have 35mm f1.4, want 23mm f1.4, but are they to close focal length wise?

petergabriel

By petergabriel
in Fuji X Lenses

 Share

Recommended Posts

petergabriel Rising Star

petergabriel

Posted
Posted

I just bought the 35mm f1.4 used, and despite the noisy AF I just love the lens. Actually I find the AF quite decent on my x-pro 1. 

 

So, now I have the option of buying a used 23mm f1.4 to about half the price, and would really like to have it, but I wonder if the focal lengths are to close.

 

Would it be better to go for something wider or are there enough difference between the two to warrant a purchase?

 

 

As of now I have the 18-55 and the 35 f1.4 in my arsenal. The zoom only being used for snapshots. I like the rendering of primes better even though the 18-55 actually is quite good.

 

Look forward to your opinions/advice :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
ejm8 Newbie

ejm8

Posted
Posted

I have both and the difference is noticeable, if you see what I mean.

 

With the 23, I tend to take pictures of places and people in context. You have to get up close if you're photographing people. So you'd have to be comfortable with that. The 23 tends to be people and people with context. Not so much places.

 

The main difference is the depth of field when you're up "close". Clearly more depth with the 23.

 

The 23 is pretty sick. Super detailed and amazing rendering.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites
Phil Community Regular

Phil

Posted
Posted

For portraiture, I notice a pretty big difference. The perspective distortion on the 23mm can make things look very dramatic. For walking around/every day stuff, I find it's not a big a deal, and the ease of framing is the biggest factor. The 23mm is a lot closer to how I see things, so I don't have to think about framing much; with the 35mm, I always find myself having to step back because the field of view is tighter than I was expecting.

 

If you're getting a great price I'd say try it and see how you like it - if you don't use it much, you can always resell it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
dentharg Newbie

dentharg

Posted
Posted

You could also filter/check all your images based on focal length (Lr, Corel AfterShot, etc.). If you're using your 18-55 closer to 18 than to 23 then I'd think of getting 23.. unjustifiable. There would be high probability you will not like that focal length ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
jlmphotos Experienced

jlmphotos

Posted
Posted

I own the 23 and the 35, as well as the 16.  I find myself reaching for the 35, or the 16 much more than the 23 1.4  It does have it's uses, but for some reason it is not my go-to lens.  

My "never leave home without" kit always includes my 18-55, and my 16mm when I know I'll be shooting landscapes.

 

Family and portraits, it'll be the 35 1.4

Link to post
Share on other sites
olli Community Regular

olli

Posted
Posted

I also have both and like most other posters consider them sufficiently distinct to keep both. You might also consider waiting for the mourned but fairly cerain arrival of the 23 f2 which will presumably be significantly cheaper than the current f1.4 model. I say this because for me the one downside to the 23 1.4 is that it is a bit bigger and heavier than the 35 1.4.  I might trade it for the 23 f2 when the latter finally arrives.

Link to post
Share on other sites
petergabriel Rising Star

petergabriel

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I also have both and like most other posters consider them sufficiently distinct to keep both. You might also consider waiting for the mourned but fairly cerain arrival of the 23 f2 which will presumably be significantly cheaper than the current f1.4 model. I say this because for me the one downside to the 23 1.4 is that it is a bit bigger and heavier than the 35 1.4.  I might trade it for the 23 f2 when the latter finally arrives.

 

I would too, but so far I don't like that Fujifilm's cheaper lenses are not optically corrected when it comes to distortion. I know they do it via software, but I don't like that. The 35 f1.4 and 23 f1.4 and 14mm f2.8 are optically corrected and actually rather well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
AshtonStan Newbie

AshtonStan

Posted
Posted

Have had the 23 and 56 in my bag for a couple of years now and always felt like I was missing something in not having the 50mm FOV.

 

I shot a Canon body with a 50/1.2 bolted on it for several years, so I always framed things with that FOV in mind. Ultimately, when selling my Canon kit and moving entirely to Fuji I felt like having a prime that was a little bit wider wouldn't hurt especially when paired with the 56mm for portrait work. It's a gorgeous piece of glass.

 

That said, I recently caved and picked up the 35. The way it renders is really something special and IMO different enough to warrant having a space in the gear bag.

Link to post
Share on other sites
petergabriel Rising Star

petergabriel

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Have had the 23 and 56 in my bag for a couple of years now and always felt like I was missing something in not having the 50mm FOV.

 

I shot a Canon body with a 50/1.2 bolted on it for several years, so I always framed things with that FOV in mind. Ultimately, when selling my Canon kit and moving entirely to Fuji I felt like having a prime that was a little bit wider wouldn't hurt especially when paired with the 56mm for portrait work. It's a gorgeous piece of glass.

 

That said, I recently caved and picked up the 35. The way it renders is really something special and IMO different enough to warrant having a space in the gear bag.

 

 

I think I will get the 23mm. Does any of the other Fujinon lenses render like the 35mm f1.4? I find it quite unique. Would love if the 23mm rendered the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites
sir_c Contributor

sir_c

Posted
Posted

I think I will get the 23mm. Does any of the other Fujinon lenses render like the 35mm f1.4? I find it quite unique. Would love if the 23mm rendered the same.

 

The 35/1.4 is very cinematic in its rendering, I really like it for exactly that. I think the 60/2.4 is of the same breed. Was it not the first generation of Fuji X-lenses that give a similar image (i.e. 18, 35, 60)?

The 23 is closer to the 56 in its rendering I think, more analytical (for lack of a better word), just like the 14.

Link to post
Share on other sites
gordonrussell76 Collaborator

gordonrussell76

Posted
Posted

The 90mm is the closest in rendering to the 35mm imo. In my experience of the primes the lens fall into groupings where the rendering seems to match up.

 

Group 1 - 16/23/35 F2/56mm All seem to have similar rendering

 

Group 2 - 27/60 seems to be very similar in rendering.

 

Group 3 - 18/35/90 very similar (some may be surprised to see the 18 in there, but while is has sharpness issues corner to corner, those very issues give is a character and rendering that means in character I find it closest to the 35mm F1.4, the 90mm bokeh is very creamy and has that cinematic feel like the 35mm. All 3 of these lens seem to do nice things at high iso as well where the grain inherent with high ISO's looks filmic rather than noisy.

 

14mm is a little out on its own, its sort of halfway between group 1 and 3 in my opinion.

 

Full disclosure take comments on the 14/16/35 F2 with a pinch of salt as i have not owned those lenses only played in a shop and studied assiduously on Flickr.

 

G

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • Don Barar
      LUT doesn't works on resolve

      By Don Barar · Posted

      The backslashes you are referring are just symbols denoting path.  Once you import into these LUTS into Davinci Resolve those backslashes are removed by default and you only see is the true file name which has no backslashes.  Convince yourself of this by opening the LUT folder from the Davinci Resolve Project Settings.  Do you see any backslashes in those LUT names? Of course not.  The only name you see is the one that has the underscores and the periods. These LUTS work as designed without having to change any path names.  However, they need to be set up properly through CSTs and by what is supported in Davinci Resolve.  Hence, the FLog2C film simulation LUTS cannot be used because Davinci Resolve does not support Fuji Gamut color space and the FLog2C gamut. Alternatively, Davinci Resolve does support Flog2 film simulation LUTS because the color space for FLog2 is Rec 2020 and there is an FLog2 gamut. If all you are doing is changing the path names then you are not getting the correct results.
    • PoorAlchemist
      LUT doesn't works on resolve

      By PoorAlchemist · Posted

      I found the reddit topic i refere to :  https://www.reddit.com/r/davinciresolve/comments/1pc3f1e/cant_apply_new_fujifilm_gfx_55_lut/ "Update for y'all, It's just like what @ExpBalSat said, it's because of the backslashes in the names break them. I changed the file name and it works now. "   For me it was the solution. Realy annoying if it doesn’t work for you 😕  
    • Don Barar
      LUT doesn't works on resolve

      By Don Barar · Posted

      Here is the solution to using the Eterna 55 file simulation LUTs in Davinci Resolve.   In general, do not use the FLog2C to film simulation LUTs as they are not supported by Davinci Resolve for two reasons: 1) Davinci Resolve does not support Fuji Gamut Color Space and 2) Davinci Resolve does not support FLog2C gamma.  Instead, use Flog2 which is supported by Davinci Resolve.  Here is an example.  Let's say that you want to use Classic Chrome simulation.  Do the following: Complete your color grade and use a CST to get to Rec 709. Add a node.  Use a CST to convert from Rec 709 to FLog2.  Output Color space is Rec 2020 and Outout Gamut is FLog2. Add a node.  Apply the FLog2 to Classic Chrome LUT Create a combination node from node in steps 2 and 3. Apply a Key to the combination node and adjust the Key Output Gain to get the amount of the combination node that you want applied. So that you do not have to do this over and over again, generate a LUT for the combination node.  Remember to turn off all other nodes before generating the LUT. Hope this helps others. Don  
    • crazyfields
      Please save me from insanity 23mm f2 vs F1.4r

      By crazyfields · Posted

      Thanks for the insights. I think it's really hard to make a decision without having the two side by side! 
    • George_P
      Please save me from insanity 23mm f2 vs F1.4r

      By George_P · Posted

      I don’t have the 23 f2 but I have read several times that it is considered a little soft at close distance, compared to the 23 f1.4 lenses. These will also focus at shorter distance from the subject, esp. the new one. So that might make a difference. The new 23 f1.4 LM WR  has better resolution, esp. in regard to the 40Mpix sensors, which you don’t have on the X-T2. What practical difference that makes for the value of the pictures one makes is disputable and subjective.  f1.4 will gather more light but with a smaller DOF, which may be desirable in some situations but not so in others, depends. If you like to shoot close ups, you will probably use higher f numbers to get a bigger DOF. Same for landscapes. If you are a bokeh fan, yes the f1.4 lens are better.  The older 23 f1.4 lens that you are considering is a very good and respected lens. The f1.4 vs f2 aperture per se is perhaps not so important. The 23 f2 is very small, light and practical and a great lens for travel and landscapes. So, go figure. I am afraid I just sent you further down the road to insanity !
×
×
  • Create New...