Which 23mm?

[Ektachrome]

Having trouble deciding between the good old 23mm f/1.4 and the newer 23 f/2 for my new Fuji setup. I've owned the 1.4 before, and found it nothing short of stellar optically. I did notice the AF speed and noise occasionally, though, and it used to annoy me sometimes.

 

The f/2, when I tried it in a shop, had much, much better AF speed/silence and smoother MF. It's also a fair bit smaller and lighter of course. I heard some reports that it can be a little soft wide-open on closer subjects, but not sure how true this is in real-world use(?).

 

I'm tempted by the f/2 in that my other lenses will very likely be the 35 f/2 and the 50 f/2, so it would be nice to have the set, as it were. However, I'm worrying I'll miss that extra stop, and the excellent sharpness of the 1.4...

 

Anyone BTDT and formed any conclusions?

 

Use is landscape, street, travel (the latter two involving casual environmental and 'grab' portraits) I do open the lens up for portraits and used to find the 1.4 was just nice in terms of separation and a nice-ish bokeh.

[lleo]

You can have nice separation and bokeh also at f/2.

I own a f/2, I owned a f/1.4 for a couple days, resold it almost istantly. It had a bad colour fringe and it wasn's sharp at all. My f/2 is way better.

Having said so, you should try more samples of the same lens, having the chance.

Not 2 lenses are the same and my ex F/1.4 was probably one of the few? Many? not being well built.

Edited June 28, 2018 by lleo

[Ektachrome]

Thanks, that’s interesting you preferred your f/2 even optically. Yes, I think it sounds like you were a bit unlucky though, as my 1.4 is very nice. It does have a little CA wide open at high contrast edges, but I’ve never noticed any more than a tiny amount (and nothing which ruined any good shots) and it’s super sharp.

 

I think in every respect I would get the f/2, except that I have had some nice environmental grab portraits at f/1.4 and I’m not sure if they would have been as nice with the f/2 - hard to tell, or course, without having shot the same photo side by side! Having said that, the nicest of these was cropped to the extent that the best lens for the shot would have actually been the 35mm, but of course in the moment one doesn’t always have time to swap lenses. There is the real strength of the 23 f/1.4 I guess - you have room to crop and as much isolation as the 35 f/2...

 

It depends so much on subject and background distance that it would be hard to quantify it except in careful side by side tests, I guess.

[lleo]

You also have to put on the dish the different prices. How much one does worth the difference?

I had the chance to make a comparison between the 35mm and the f/2 is a little wider, talking about fow, than the other. However in this case the f/1,4 is much more detailed and sharp.

Maybe is the same for the 23mm though I haven't made the same comparison when I had both.