XF23mmF1.4 or XF23mmF2 WR - POLL

[Patrick FR]

Just curious about it

[darknj]

I have no personal use of a 23 F1.4, the 35 F1.4 is useful enough for me when light goes away, but the WR on the F2 is a lot more interesting for me.

 

Went over to Japan this summer and it was both hot and humid, the 35 F2 was a trooper in these conditions. I am expecting no less from that 23 F2.

[Hermelin]

I have no personal use of a 23 F1.4, the 35 F1.4 is useful enough for me when light goes away, but the WR on the F2 is a lot more interesting for me.

 

Went over to Japan this summer and it was both hot and humid, the 35 F2 was a trooper in these conditions. I am expecting no less from that 23 F2.

I wonder how much the WR makes a difference though. I've been to Hong Kong, China, Thailand which are all very hot and humid places with 3 different no weather resistant lenses canon lenses and I never had a problem. Where will the WR make a difference? Or have I've just been lucky?

 

 

 

[Hermelin]

To answer the question, I'd probably go with the f/2 for 3 reasons

1. Smaller (one of the biggest reason I switch to Fuji from Canon is to have a compact more discreet, lighter)

2. Cheaper (I'm a hobby photographer and have to be somewhat reasonable when I buy gear )

3. Faster AF 

 

But, if you told me I could only have one lens and only could chose between these 2 I'd go with the 1.4

Edited August 26, 2016 by Hermelin

[darknj]

I wonder how much the WR makes a difference though. I've been to Hong Kong, China, Thailand which are all very hot and humid places with 3 different no weather resistant lenses canon lenses and I never had a problem. Where will the WR make a difference? Or have I've just been lucky?

 

It is mostly to stay extra safe, with those weather conditions getting in and out of building with airco turned on full blast, it can deter the camera from taking a correct picture.

 

That plus the occasional sudden rain that appears out of nowhere, I know that if I have a WR lens out when it starts raining, I don't have to rush for cover immediately, the camera is able to take some water on it and be fine about it.

[mdm]

plus WR lenses can operate in low temperature conditions.

[mdm]

To answer the question, I'd probably go with the f/2 for 3 reasons

...

But, if you told me I could only have one lens and only could chose between these 2 I'd go with the 1.4

 

for me it's absolutely illogical.

[Hermelin]

for me it's absolutely illogical.

Why?

[mdm]

As I see it so far the only advantage old 23 has is one f-stop of light. We don't know about IQ yet but it hardly will vary, and there are more then 3 reasons why new lens should be better. Anyway you might prefer 1.4. That's why.

[Hermelin]

As I see it so far the only advantage old 23 has is one f-stop of light. We don't know about IQ yet but it hardly will vary, and there are more then 3 reasons why new lens should be better. Anyway you might prefer 1.4. That's why.

Yeap, my reason would be that if I only get 1 lens I would want as a wide aperture lens as possible.

Edited August 26, 2016 by Hermelin

[mdm]

Oh, that's fair enough. Hope it never happened to us though.

[jlmphotos]

I think there is way too much emphasis placed on the WR of lenses.  I have used "regular" non WR lenses for 40+years of photography from the Alaskan north, to the tropics, and have never, ever had any issues with ANY lens.

 

Last september I spent 10 days shooting in, literally in tropical, humid, 90+ degree weather, including in the water with my X-T1, and the 18-55, Zeiss 12, 16 1.4 (yes, WR) and I had no issues with any of the equipment other than some minor sand-related stuff getting underneath the X-T1 on/off switch that made turning the camera on and off a two finger operation.  I have no rubber peeling, no distorted doors, nothing to this point and I'm well over 100,000 images (I would guess) with my X-T1.  

 

The WR means absolutely nothing to me. I have found ALL lenses to be extremely resilient when it comes to weather resistance as long as some common sense is exercised.

[jlmphotos]

It is mostly to stay extra safe, with those weather conditions getting in and out of building with airco turned on full blast, it can deter the camera from taking a correct picture.

 

That plus the occasional sudden rain that appears out of nowhere, I know that if I have a WR lens out when it starts raining, I don't have to rush for cover immediately, the camera is able to take some water on it and be fine about it.

Simple solution which I use ALL THE TIME:  I keep large Zip-lock bags on every trip i make.  When I'm going in to a cool car, or room, or exiting an A/C'd car or hotel room, I place the camera and lens(es) in zip lock bags.  Presto:  zero condensation/fogging

 

I've used the non-WR lenses in freezing rain, snow, and literally had them covered in wet sand and salt water  (from my wet and sandy hands) and to this day, no problems.  

 

Maybe many of you guys are new to photography, but back in the day, when dinosaurs roamed the earth, I used Minolta cameras and glass and shot, a lot, in Alaska (where I lived)  I never, ever had a lens or body damaged by snow, ice, sleet, fog, or cold.  Ever.  As a matter of fact, less than a year ago I sold all my Minolta glass on fleabay and it was still all perfect and I'm not a person to baby equipment.  To me, they are just tools, like a car mechanic uses his/her wrenches.  Nothing else.

Edited August 26, 2016 by jlmphotos

[mdm]

When I'm going in to a cool car, or room, or exiting an A/C'd car or hotel room, I place the camera and lens(es) in zip lock bags.  Presto:  zero condensation/fogging

 

... and keep them in the bags until you are back in a hotel room? Seriously, how long does it take to cool them befor you unzip this protection?

[darknj]

Simple solution which I use ALL THE TIME:  I keep large Zip-lock bags on every trip i make.  When I'm going in to a cool car, or room, or exiting an A/C'd car or hotel room, I place the camera and lens(es) in zip lock bags.  Presto:  zero condensation/fogging

 

I've used the non-WR lenses in freezing rain, snow, and literally had them covered in wet sand and salt water  (from my wet and sandy hands) and to this day, no problems.  

 

Maybe many of you guys are new to photography, but back in the day, when dinosaurs roamed the earth[...]

 

I still have a working Pentax Spotmatic II camera that I use from time to time for a roll of either Acros or HP5. But those were camera that had only mechanical parts, weather conditions could hardly affect it unless there was water inside that froze the shutter solid or had foreign particules to block the moving parts.

 

Electronic based device are a lot better in many fields but they are also a lot more sensitive than old film camera. My step father still has an old Leica M3 that just plain works even after close of 40 years.

 

As for the zip bags, I tried that for a time but it became quickly cumbersome, plus I really dislike juggling lenses in a bag, so I would need really large bags for larger lenses plus their own padded carrying bags.

Also in such conditions I would put the lens on the camera and not change it before I am certain I am safe to do so, or if there is a really good reason for me do it, like a broken lens or something like that.

[Tommyboy]

WR is not a feature I need. For those that do, I'm sure it's really important. Some of my gear is WR, but I bought in spite of that fact, not because of it. 

 

I need an aperture range that will let me maximally manipulate my images. Granted, the difference between 1.4 and 2.0 is not that great. The silky backgrounds I can achieve with my 23mm astound me and create beautiful, eye-grabbing images. 

 

If I were looking for a cool retro camera, thought I needed faster/quieter AF, or were seeking the lightest weight possible, I might be interested in the 35 and 23 f/2s, but I prefer a larger lens opening. I shoot a 16 1.4, 23 1.4, 56 1.2 and 90 2.0. It's so much lighter than my DSLR system that it's hard for me to find objectionable. 

 

Speed of AF has never been an issue for me. 

[Snodge]

The 23 f/1.4 is next on my list to get; I like the low light capability and I know it works perfectly with infrared...

[CRAusmus]

Which ever one I can get cheaper.  If I can find a used 1.4 for less then the cost of a new 2.0, I'll get the 1.4...

[jlmphotos]

I wonder how much the WR makes a difference though. I've been to Hong Kong, China, Thailand which are all very hot and humid places with 3 different no weather resistant lenses canon lenses and I never had a problem. Where will the WR make a difference? Or have I've just been lucky?

 

 

 

 

I have to say once again that we make too much of the weather sealing on these and other brands.  back in the day, I shot Minolta glass from up in the Alaska Pipeline camps north of Fairbanks, Alaska to the humid, tropical weather in the Dry Tortugas. ZERO problems with camera or lenses.  Same with my X-E1 and X-T1.  I've had no issues in and around saltwater, sand, cold, heat, rain, drizzle, ice.  I will say if my lens(es) gave me any difficulties in hot or humid places the manufacturer of said lens(es) would have to deal with one irate consumer.  

[jlmphotos]

I still have a working Pentax Spotmatic II camera that I use from time to time for a roll of either Acros or HP5. But those were camera that had only mechanical parts, weather conditions could hardly affect it unless there was water inside that froze the shutter solid or had foreign particules to block the moving parts.

 

Electronic based device are a lot better in many fields but they are also a lot more sensitive than old film camera. My step father still has an old Leica M3 that just plain works even after close of 40 years.

 

As for the zip bags, I tried that for a time but it became quickly cumbersome, plus I really dislike juggling lenses in a bag, so I would need really large bags for larger lenses plus their own padded carrying bags.

Also in such conditions I would put the lens on the camera and not change it before I am certain I am safe to do so, or if there is a really good reason for me do it, like a broken lens or something like that.

I keep one or two bags.  Yes, it could be somewhat cumbersome depending on the size of bag.  For example the largest of the ziplock holds my D800e, with the Powergrip, and my 50mm lens and barely zips up.  But it does.  The smaller sandwich size holds my Fuji lenses -- no problems..  I only use the ziplocks when I know I'll be entering and exiting hot/humid to cold and vice-versa.  I am not patient enough to do this all the time.   I am also not afraid to swap lenses in ANY weather short of a monsoon, or a raging sandstorm.  I've changed lenses pretty much everywhere and other than some dirt or dust on a sensor here and there it has not been much of an issue including dropping my D700 and 24-70 on a sandy beach in Puerto Rico while shooting a wedding there.  This coming from the guy that dropped a Minolta SR-T101 in a shallow lake while photographing beavers in Alaska.  Lens was destroyed but the camera: I pre-heated my oven to 200-250 degrees and placed the camera in for 20-30 seconds then out for a few minutes  Did this for a while and the camera still worked when I sold it to my sister in 2004. Albeit dirty viewfinder and all.  

[Chayelle]

I have to agree with Hermelin...

smaller and lighter is why I bought my XT-1 to use along with my Nikons...  

 

 

To answer the question, I'd probably go with the f/2 for 3 reasons

1. Smaller (one of the biggest reason I switch to Fuji from Canon is to have a compact more discreet, lighter)

2. Cheaper (I'm a hobby photographer and have to be somewhat reasonable when I buy gear )

3. Faster AF 

 

Edited August 30, 2016 by Chayelle

[Tikcus]

If money was no object, or you had the 1.4 in your left hand the 2.0 in your right and you said, "you can have either for free"

 

I'd take the 1.4

 

If I was in the market for a 23mm lens to compliment my current lenses and where budget does matter I'd buy the 2.0.

 

However, unless I get a really good deal, I'm just not in the market for a 23mm.

 

35mm is my go to lens, if I need wider I grab the 18mm, never really feel the need to use anything inbetween

[Warwick]

I sold my 23mm f1.4 - loved the images but found it a bit big/bulky to slip into my pocket. I'm really looking forward to the 23mm f2, especially with the weather resistance

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Phil]

I chose the 1.4, because my other main lenses (16mm and 56mm) have similar maximum apertures, and once you get used to 1.4, it's hard to go back.

[renes]

I have never been tempted by 23/1.4 because of it size, so 23/2 will be my next prime.

 

Hope Fuji will also bring 16/2 - 16/1.4 was huge on my X-E2.