Any owners of 18-55 f/2.8-4 AND 23mm f/2?

[Pete Holland]

Short intro: I've been using the 18-55 extensively as my (only) X-T2 lens and it's a great lens indeed - versatile zoom range, OIS and compact. Nothing to complain as a first lens, really. But.. despite the general possibilities of this lens for family-day-outs and everyday situations, I sometimes I miss that creative 'pop' in my images - and it seems the 23mm f/2 can deliver just that.

The reason why I'm looking into this particular prime is that I would like to develop and explore (black & white) street photography this year, and the primes seem much more suitable for unobtrusive and fast street photography.

I would like to avoid having to use flash when photographing on the street (duh!), so the extra aperture stops of the 23mm + high ISO capabilities of the X-T2 + manual focus + RAW shooting should provide plenty of evening possibilities.

Am I suffering from G.A.S. or is the 23mm f/2 a good first addition to my kit (e.g. before I look into wide + tele)? If any owners of both these lenses can share their experiences in a comment below, I'd highly appreciate it!

Thanks!

[rhanga]

I've taken the plunge on the XF23 f/2 for similar reasons to the ones you have picked out. So far so good, the 23mm is great lens, in fact it now sits on the camera most of the time and the 18-55 is in the bag. I thought about the 18mm and the 27mm but the 23mm some how felt the right choice.  I should say I'm new to the XT-2 and XF lenses (though not Fuji Cameras)  so you should bear that in mind in the reading the above. Good luck with what ever you decide to do. Regards

[Warwick]

I had the 18-55. I now have the 18, 23 and 35 f2. With the little F2 lenses I take my camera to more places and use it more often, because it's smaller and less conspicuous. Also, not being able to zoom in on my subject makes me think more about framing and composition. This was taken with the 23

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mdm]

The same. Don't use 18-55 any longer preferring 23f2 - 27f2.8 - 35f2. If I need wider or longer I have 14mm and 55-200.

[Pete Holland]

The same. Don't use 18-55 any longer preferring 23f2 - 27f2.8 - 35f2. If I need wider or longer I have 14mm and 55-200.

 

14mm+35mm seems like a perfect 2-lens combo for most situations. However, I think 23mm f2 is more suitable as a standard lens compared to the 35mm. What are your experiences/preferences?

[mdm]

However, I think 23mm f2 is more suitable as a standard lens compared to the 35mm. What are your experiences/preferences?

 

Both lenses a equally great. But as a street photography is my main interest these days I use 23mm a lot more often then 35mm.

 

I've just spent a week on a diving boat and before the trip I'd seriously considered 18-55mm as a lens to go however I took with me another single lens - 14mm and was absolutely happy with my choice. 14mm provided me with uncut and dynamic images in that quite limited space.

Edited May 9, 2017 by mdm

[Hermelin]

18-55 is a terrific lens and it's everything I expected it to be. 

HOWEVER, I am thinking of selling it to get the upcoming new 18 f/2 MKII. 

 

Why? Because I believe that I take better shots with primes as I get less lazy when composing. Also, one of the big reasons that I switch from Canon to Fuji is because I wanted a smaller and more discreet system.

 

But I have a feeling that I would miss the 18-55, especially when I travel with my family.

[jlmphotos]

I'm going to be the contrarian here I suppose.  The 18-55 is my "don't leave home without it lens"  period.  I also own a bunch of primes (as you may note in my signature)  including the 23 1.4 which is amazing!

 

As a matter of fact I'm headed out for a four day long, out of state job this weekend and I'm packing the 16 1.4, the 35 1.4, and the 60mm 2.4.  And, just in case, the 18-55 will be in my bag.

 

I truly will try not to pull the 18-55 out of the bag as I'm trying to use my primes more.  We shall see.

[Nero]

I love the 23mm focal length, but I'd say it's a toss up depending on what your personal preferences are. 35mm could be an excellent option as well. Either of those two will probably be an ideal prime to complement the zoom. I probably do 90% of my photography with either the 23 or 35 and the remainder is a mix of the 16mm and 55-200mm. The 23mm and 35mm may seem fairly close in focal length, but there is a huge difference between them when you're actually out shooting. I'd get as close to each of those as possible on your zoom and try shooting at only one focal length for a bit. Try at 23 first, then 35. You very well may end up owning both of those primes eventually, but that will help you decide which to buy first. The other question is how comfortable are you getting close to people in your street photography? If you're very comfortable with that, then the 23 makes a lot of sense. If you're not that comfortable with getting close to people, the 35 might help then you can get the 23 as you get more comfortable.

[jlmphotos]

I love the 23mm focal length, but I'd say it's a toss up depending on what your personal preferences are. 35mm could be an excellent option as well. Either of those two will probably be an ideal prime to complement the zoom. I probably do 90% of my photography with either the 23 or 35 and the remainder is a mix of the 16mm and 55-200mm. The 23mm and 35mm may seem fairly close in focal length, but there is a huge difference between them when you're actually out shooting. I'd get as close to each of those as possible on your zoom and try shooting at only one focal length for a bit. Try at 23 first, then 35. You very well may end up owning both of those primes eventually, but that will help you decide which to buy first. The other question is how comfortable are you getting close to people in your street photography? If you're very comfortable with that, then the 23 makes a lot of sense. If you're not that comfortable with getting close to people, the 35 might help then you can get the 23 as you get more comfortable.

 

Good point about getting close to people or not.  I hate people, so that issue is not relevant to me.  Other than shooting immediate family I don't point my camera at humans -- Id rather point it at anything else.  I can't begin to mention how many requests for individual, family, wedding, or new born photography I get.  My answer is always the same: no.     Street photography?  Lord why anyone does that is beyond me.  I won't be able to sell any without releases, and most of the images I see online just suck == B&W, too much contrast, too dark, no subject, blurry, I can go on and on.    I'm by no means tootin' my own horn but still. Anyway, RANT OVER.  My apologies to all who read this.  

[mdm]

Street photography?  Lord why anyone does that is beyond me.

 

For me shooting strangers is the most challenging kind of photography. Not from the technical point but when you are on the street you are out of comfort zone and every single moment you should to overcome yourself just to rise the camera and release the shutter. It's more then just taking pictures, it;s a kind of competition with yourself.

[Nero]

For me shooting strangers is the most challenging kind of photography. Not from the technical point but when you are on the street you are out of comfort zone and every single moment you should to overcome yourself just to rise the camera and release the shutter. It's more then just taking pictures, it;s a kind of competition with yourself.

 

Agreed. And using a slightly longer focal length can help overcome that a little bit, but also presents its own challenges and tends to be less instinctive or impulsive in terms of composition. That's why I really liked the 35mm when I was just starting to try street photography. It was still close enough to the 23mm that I couldn't just park myself somewhere at a distance, but it did demand enough space from my subject to feel more comfortable.

 

One thing that helped me get more comfortable with taking photos of strangers was to start by trying to tell a story in a photo where the subject is facing away from me. If you get stuck on taking photos of people from behind, you're missing out on most of what street photography has to offer, but I did find that it's a good exercise to help get comfortable at first. And I still like taking photos from that perspective sometimes. 

 

Here are a couple examples with the 23mm f/1.4 lens. Sorry for having to hyperlink to them instead of embedding, I haven't updated my Flickr account in a while.

 

http://orendarling.com/post/155460184947/new-orleans-louisiana-december-2016-oren-darling

http://orendarling.com/post/151358460221/budapest-hungary-september-2016-oren-darling

http://orendarling.com/post/155552615897/new-orleans-louisiana-december-2016-oren

 

Foggy nights can also be a nice time to go out and shoot some street photos while you're adjusting to the idea of photographing strangers.

 

http://orendarling.com/post/155649872776/new-orleans-louisiana-december-2016-oren-darling

 

This is with the 35mm f/1.4, but it's a similar strategy. 

 

http://orendarling.com/post/151403665492/budapest-hungary-september-2016-oren-darling

http://orendarling.com/post/155273031645/oakland-california-november-2016-oren-darling

 

Street musicians can be another great way to practice without feeling uncomfortable. Just toss a dollar or two in their jar and fire away with a few portraits:

 

http://orendarling.com/post/155602089980/view-from-cafe-du-monde-new-orleans-louisiana

http://orendarling.com/post/155696255002/bourbon-street-new-orleans-louisiana-december

[MonGoose]

I have both and enjoy the 23mm much more. The zoom is more convenient for landscapes but otherwise the 23mm is more fun.

 

An f4 zoom in this range is very mundane. It doesn't go very wide, it doesn't go very long, it doesn't focus  very close, it can't track focus very fast and neither does it isolate much at all. Very utilitarian but uninspiring. 

 

If you get the 23mm f2, consider also 50mm f2. A very capable duo. 

 

 

 

Edited June 19, 2019 by MonGoose

[mma2]

I have both the 18-55 (a known sharp copy) and 23/2 and have used both on several X-bodies. 

I prefer the 23mm because it's images simply look better to me.  Cannot say exactly why this is, but I repeatedly prefer its images over the zoom.  So much so, that my traveling kit is now all primes (14/2, 23/2, 50/2) and I prefer all of them to the zoom at similar FLs.

My $0.02

[tiggyboo]

I have the 23mm F2 and like it so far - with one reservation, and this is that it tends to get a little soft wide open at F2.  It otherwise strikes me as quite sharp.  Possibly not a big deal if you're not the type to shoot wide open very often, but maybe a consideration.  Incidentally, my motivation was also a prime lens for street photography.