Jump to content

Fujinon 23mm f1.4 vs f2 character

petergabriel

By petergabriel
in Fuji X Lenses

 Share

Recommended Posts

petergabriel Rising Star

petergabriel

Posted
Posted (edited)

I own the f1.4 and love the image quality. But what are the differences between the two lenses if only judged by image characteristics? I find the f1.4 very neutral. What is the image character of the f2. Warm, cold, neutral, magical?

Edited by petergabriel
Link to post
Share on other sites
jlmphotos Experienced

jlmphotos

Posted
Posted

Or I could rephrase, which of the two has the most soul? As a reference I find the 35mm f1.4 to have more soul than the f2 version which apparently blows the f1.4 away in MTF charts, but sharpness isn't everything.

 

Agreed the 35 1.4 is oh so much nicer.  I feel good shooting with my 23 1.4  It feels solid, it's fast, and it's heavy which I enjoy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
GateCityRadio Newbie

GateCityRadio

Posted
Posted

The f2 lenses are not bad or lacking of character...I wouldn't call them ugly, but I guess that is subjective. They look very good on the rangefinder style bodies, not so sure about the slr style ones though. The Size and AF speed are also a plus. Aperture isn't the end all be all of lens quality.

Link to post
Share on other sites
renes Contributor

renes

Posted
Posted

Or I could rephrase, which of the two has the most soul? As a reference I find the 35mm f1.4 to have more soul than the f2 version which apparently blows the f1.4 away in MTF charts, but sharpness isn't everything.

 

Both 23mm do not have that "sould" 35/1.4, 60/2.4 and 18/2 have (+ 90/2). I found all new f2 WR primes bring ordinary rendering (excluding sharpness) to boring regarding character and "soul". I am selling my 35/2 and buying again 35/1.4. I am also affraid future 35/1.4 mk2 will lose "soul" of the mk1.     

Link to post
Share on other sites
GateCityRadio Newbie

GateCityRadio

Posted
Posted

The 35/2 I have is one of the best lenses I've ever owned. Better than the Pentax limiteds I had (which if you don't know about the FA Limiteds, they are up there with Zeiss and Leica in their rendering) and better than some of the Zeiss lenses I had when I shot sony (only the 55/1.8 being better). 

 

A lens isn't the only thing that gives a picture character or soul, the photographer has to know what they are doing as well. I for one find the rendering of the f2 primes very pleasing. Sharp, but great character, especially in the bokeh.

 

To each their own.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • Giampaolo Masserano
      Looking for Full Frame lenses to adapt to GFX

      By Giampaolo Masserano · Posted

      I use a TECHART ring to mount Canon EF lenses on the GFX 50S-II and 100S-II, maintaining image stabilization and autofocus. The only limitation are lenses with a small rear element diameter that make it impossible to cover medium format. Fast lenses like the EF 85/1.2L or the 100-400L, however, work great.
    • thelostkiwi
      Looking for Full Frame lenses to adapt to GFX

      By thelostkiwi · Posted

      I also use a Nikon to GFX Fringer and it works very well.  24mm f/1.8 vignettes so best used on 35mm mode.  50mm f/1.8 covers the entire frame very well with no issues and is a superb little lens. 105mm Sigma vignettes slightly but is perfectly usable. 300 f/4 likewise the 105.  I have a 70-200 f/20+.8 incoming to test so will report back but I'm expecting a little vignetting.  Even in 35mm mode the image is still 60MP and if you're prepared to manually crop and correct you can get 80-90 MP images.  I also have a C/Y to GFX adapter.  The 24mm Sigma Superwide vignettes strongly. Ditto 28-80 Zeiss Sonnar. 80-200 f/4 Sonnar is perfectly usable. All work fine as 35mm mode lenses.  I also have an M42 adapter which I tried with the Carl Zeiss Jena 135mm f/3.5 with good results. 
    • Trevor R
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By Trevor R · Posted

      Thank you. I will research it.
    • jerryy
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By jerryy · Posted

      Ahh, the infamous brick wall photos… 😀 According to internet lore, if the dng converter does not properly apply the corrections, you can have it apply custom profiles that should work for you. How to do that is waaaaaay outside of this comment’s scope, but there are plenty of sites listed in the search engines that step you through the processes. Best wishes.
    • Trevor R
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By Trevor R · Posted

      Jerry Thank you very much. That is extremely helpful. It seems that the camera and the lens have the latest firmware update, so it appears that the corrections should be applied automatically. The lens arrived this afternoon and I took some quick test shots, in which the correct lens information appeared in the EXIF files, so that sounds good. I used Adobe DNG converter to convert the Raw (RAF) files, and then opened the DNG files and saved them in PSD format. However, with a beautiful, clear, cloudless blue sky, there were no lines near the edges to check if distortion had been corrected. Another day I plan to photograph a brick wall. Thank you for your help.
×
×
  • Create New...