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

[petergabriel]

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 :-)

[johant]

Put the 18-55 on 23mm for a while, and you can answer the question for yourself.

[petergabriel]

Put the 18-55 on 23mm for a while, and you can answer the question for yourself.

 

Ha ha, why didn't I think of that :-)

[ejm8]

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

[Phil]

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.

[Nero]

I have both and they are easily my two most used lenses. I don't think they are too close at all. They complement each other very nicely.

[petergabriel]

Great. Thanks guys. A lot of great advice.

 

And now, ta dah, I have also found a cheap 14mm f2.8. Resist GAS :-)

[dentharg]

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

[jlmphotos]

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

[Tommyboy]

I can't see having both. I went for the 23mm and have never looked back. I always feel boxed in by a "standard" lens (50mm equiv).

[deva]

I consider the 23 a must have lens... 

[olli]

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.

[petergabriel]

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.

[deva]

There is no way I would trade the 23/1.4 for a 23/2... the 23/1.4 is a fantastic lens and it just does not feel big or heavy to me at all. I find the size on my X-T1 to be perfect... balanced, agile and a pleasure to use. Plus I love shooting at 1.4

[AshtonStan]

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.

[petergabriel]

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.

[sir_c]

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.

[petergabriel]

Actually I found the rendering of the x100s/t much the same as the 35mm.

[gordonrussell76]

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