Jump to content

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


petergabriel

Recommended Posts

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.

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • You do have some options. If you want to use Apple’s Photos to take care of storing, managing the files and lightweight editing but want to also use an raw converter / editor with more “oomph”, you can do that as well: https://support.apple.com/en-us/102259 scroll down to the part about “Install Mac apps …”. Affinity Photo comes to mind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2Zt1NDfC7E https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/photo/ DarkTable, a raw convertor also has a dam built into it, you might like it. This program has a steeper learning curve than Photos does, but it is very powerful: https://www.darktable.org If you are inclined to do a little more asset management yourself, RawTherapee or Fujifilm’s Raw Converter are pretty good: https://rawtherapee.com https://fujifilm-x.com/en-us/products/software/raw-file-converter-ex-powered-by-silkypix/ p.s. Welcome to the forum.
    • If you are using a Mac have you tried Photos?  You would have to use uncompressed raw for Apple support. I wouldn't say its the best raw processor for Fuji - but it comes for free with the Mac and it works as a DAM.
    • Hello,  This past weekend I shot a weekend-long event. I took the X-H2S and the X-T30II as a back up to the X-H2S. The latter never failed me once, even with the brutal heat (though I got the overheating warning literally in the last 15 seconds of the last day of shooting). One problem I did have is that I wasn't expecting to have such a flurry of events, so in documentary/press-style I had to shoot very fast in rapid succession at times at night. My Godox (which I am starting to hate) did fail me. The recycle time was hit or miss, sometimes fast sometimes up to 5 seconds. I changed batteries twice, yet I got the overheating warning a few times and had to turn it off and on. Eventually I took out the X-T30II and used the back up flash.  I am guessing for these evening events, I'll probably need to opt for a lithium battery-operated flash in the future/different brand. Does anyone have a recommendation? I don't usually shoot with flash, or at least I haven't since my Nikon DSLR days. 
    • i don't have my x-t5 yet, but what I do with timecode challenged cameras is record 10 seconds of timecode audio on the front of the recording from a tentacle using the microphone.  Davinci Resolve can read the first bit of video file and set the clip's timecode.  Worst case, use Tentacle studio to give you the timecode to adjust the clip's timecode by hand.
    • I tried to use the "Introduce Yourself" option but it won't open. Obviously I'm new. I'm Linda. A friend sent me his Fujifilm X-E4 camera to use as a travel camera. I've just started using it and really am enjoying the feel of it and learning how to use the system.  I understand by reading some posts that folks like to use Capture One. I'm retired and on a fixed income. It's not even close to possible for me to pay those monthly fees. I'm an old Aperture junkie hoping to find a DAM that's so easy and clear to use. Is that possible?  thanks for your time  
×
×
  • Create New...