Jump to content

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


petergabriel
 Share

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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...

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

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

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

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

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...
 Share

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • I don’t have it as I went for the literal bag of primes (16, 23, 35 & 50) but the XF 16-55 f2.8 is well regarded as a “bagful of primes”. 16mm is a 24mm equivalent on the wide end and 55mm is close to an 85mm equivalent. F2.8 gives a good level subject separation/bokeh. Not small or light but plenty of folks sing it’s praises. Dave
    • Not really, unless you want to limit yourself a lot on the image quality. For portraits I would recommend at least an 85mm F/1.4 lens. For landscape photography it depends on whether you want to make panoramas and then the question is which focal length or image effect you want to achieve. There is a lack of more precise information on your part.
    • Does the aperture ring have whole, half or a third gradations?
    • Hi When I was researching impressions of the new Fujinon XF 23mm f/1.4 R LM WR and how it pairs with different bodies I found very little info and/or images of the lens together with an X-E4 body. I therefore figured I should make a post about it so other people researching the same thing can find these picture and info. I have attached some pictures showcasing the lens on my X-E4 body. One very interesting/sad thing to note is that if the aperture ring is left at the 1.4 mark the auto lock knob/button will actually touch the flat surface on which the camera is placed which is not ideal. This is however not an issue when having the lens hood mounted, if a Peak Design style screw mount is attached or if moving the aperture ring to the 2.0 mark. All these pictures are taken with my phone so they are not really of stellar quality but are probably useful anyway  My overall impression of the lens thus far is really good, it produces very sharp images even fully open. It balances quite well with the X-E4; when actually shooting it feels really good but when carrying it around it is a bit front heavy. I found that there is a dramatic change in carrying comfort if the strap is mounted on the body in a diagonal fashion so to speak, i.e. with one anchor at either side of the body and one at the bottom screw mount. Using this configuration really offsets the balance point when carrying your camera diagonally, sling style.   Also, this is my first post at the forum so ... Hi all  
×
×
  • Create New...