Fujifilm XF 23mm f2 lens - REVIEWS HERE

[renes]

> dkojevnikov

 

Did you take this shots on a tripod?

I can't believe such a big difference in fl between 23/1.4 & 23/2 - it looks like 23/2 is rather a 20mm lens.

 

EDIT:

Looking at many shots at close distances with f2-2.8 I decided to pass with it. Too much softness for me (never seen in other primes, even in 18/2). Maybe it has something with production issues of this lens and Fuji will fix it. Hope.

Edited October 18, 2016 by renes

[Scratchen]

I returned my new 23/2 WR today. Have been testing it for 2 days, and I was actually really disappointed. I shoot almost everything wide open, and so the performance at f2 is critical. Unfortunately the 23/2 WR is a very poor performer wide open... Its soft, almost to the degree where you start to wonder if it actually front/back focuses. At close distances it produces a lot of ghosting/halos/softness.

 

Im glad I didn't sell my 23/1.4!  Was really looking forward to replace it with something smaller and lighter - I love the 35/2 WR!

[bjorke]

Not a review, but some samples. People on Some Other Forum have been madly fretting over close-focus wide-open performance. So I took a couple of snaps to test this out. 

 

I think it looks fine for realistic purposes. Sorry if it's not a $400 match to the $3K 35mm Summicron, but it ain't nearsome as bad as the fearful online hand-wringing might have you believe. But see for yourself: pix and comps and PSD all here.

 

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ngaod90cyy8knpd/AADFi-qjdv7B8i6Qf0uDIm9Va?dl=0

 

Yes, I shoot JPG. I know this will leave wriggle room for the people whose standards of quality are much much higher than mine to exploit. That's okay.

Edited October 22, 2016 by bjorke

[mdm]

I'm ok with this lens. Will keep it for sure.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Sluw]

Not a review, but some samples. People on Some Other Forum have been madly fretting over close-focus wide-open performance. So I took a couple of snaps to test this out. 

 

I think it looks fine for realistic purposes. Sorry if it's not a $400 match to the $3K 35mm Summicron, but it ain't nearsome as bad as the fearful online hand-wringing might have you believe. But see for yourself: pix and comps and PSD all here.

 

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ngaod90cyy8knpd/AADFi-qjdv7B8i6Qf0uDIm9Va?dl=0

 

Yes, I shoot JPG. I know this will leave wriggle room for the people whose standards of quality are much much higher than mine to exploit. That's okay.

 

When shooting jpeg with the latest firmware installed you should have way less problems since a lot is corrected by the camera. The problems should occur mostly in RAW.

[bjorke]

When shooting jpeg with the latest firmware installed you should have way less problems since a lot is corrected by the camera. The problems should occur mostly in RAW.

One more reason not to shoot RAW

[Sluw]

One more reason not to shoot RAW

You're only limiting your possibilities when not shooting RAW (+jpeg). Even if you don't like to edit images now, you don't know what happens in the future But loads of people can live with the little lowe performance some can't, it's a size price trade-off.

[bjorke]

You're only limiting your possibilities when not shooting RAW (+jpeg). Even if you don't like to edit images now, you don't know what happens in the future But loads of people can live with the little lowe performance some can't, it's a size price trade-off.

You'll have to take my word for it, but: I shot raw for many years and quit very intentionally.