Fuji 35 f1.4 or 23 f1.4

Rosedale

Rosedale

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,585
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
Yes
OK, I am having a huge and agonizing issue with this - I have an XT-1 and an XE-2 with the 'kit' 18-55. I am considering a buying prime lens - why? you may well ask - I suppose I am looking for better IQ. I am tempted to buy a used 35 f1.4 but I am stalling because of the alleged slow autofocus and poor edge sharpness. Would I do better by putting that money towards a Fuji Refurb 23 f1.4. Any useful comments would be appreciated
Thanks
 
They're quite different FLs, you should let that be your guide!

If you like the 35mm (FF eqv) view point, you won't be that happy with the 50mm (FF eqv) and vice versa

The 35 1.4 isnt that soft when stopped down

Tbh... If edge to edge sharpness is your yardstick (and no harm in that) then the 18-55 is pretty much there already, no? (Below 35mm anyway, after that it likes to be stopped down to F5.6)

If you want a reportage lens the 23 is a popular length

If you want shallow DOF and subject isolation then the 35 might be a better bet
 
Have you also considered the 16-55mm, covers both focal lengths (which you seem undecided on) and should give an improvement in IQ
 
tijuana taxi said:
Have you also considered the 16-55mm, covers both focal lengths (which you seem undecided on) and should give an improvement in IQ
Click to expand...


No, I have not considered that - I'm having enough agony as it is!!! Thanks for the input though - I'll have a think:-)
 
Adzman808 said:
They're quite different FLs, you should let that be your guide!

If you like the 35mm (FF eqv) view point, you won't be that happy with the 50mm (FF eqv) and vice versa

The 35 1.4 isnt that soft when stopped down

Tbh... If edge to edge sharpness is your yardstick (and no harm in that) then the 18-55 is pretty much there already, no? (Below 35mm anyway, after that it likes to be stopped down to F5.6)

If you want a reportage lens the 23 is a popular length

If you want shallow DOF and subject isolation then the 35 might be a better bet
Click to expand...
This^
I'm always puzzled when an OP isn't aware what FL they are looking for, either/or 23/35 isn't really comparable.
 
Phil V said:
This^
I'm always puzzled when an OP isn't aware what FL they are looking for, either/or 23/35 isn't really comparable.
Click to expand...

Well TBH, I disagree - both are really '+ or - normal view' - the 23 is equiv to 35mm in real money and the 35 is just a bit more - there's not a lot in it
I am aware that there is a slight difference but both focal lengths would do the same job for me
 
I would class 35mm as the "standard" focal length for crop bodies and 23 as wide angle (on crop again). IMO quite different in use. Personally, I'd go for the zoom option unless you particularly want/need the shallow DoF the wider apertures will give. Actually, I'd stick with the "kit" zoom or the 18-135 unless GAS has really kicked in!
 
Rosedalelad said:
Well TBH, I disagree - both are really '+ or - normal view' - the 23 is equiv to 35mm in real money and the 35 is just a bit more - there's not a lot in it
I am aware that there is a slight difference but both focal lengths would do the same job for me
Click to expand...

They're both "normal view" in that give or take a particular 'togs personal preference s/he could use one of those focal lengths for a large percentage of their general photography.

But it's not quite as simple as 'well 50 is only a bit more than 35' firstly it's 30%, I mean if your rent/mortgage went up 30% you'd REALLY notice right? :)

Secondly and more importantly different FLs can offer different looks that come with the level of image compression provided by the FL

For example: shoot the moon behind a skyscraper with a wide, and the moon will look like it is, very far away - shoot the same scene with a tele and the moon will look a lot closer to the skyscraper (not just bigger, closer)

Also the '50' FL will offer more subject isolation, despite the shared aperture (because it's longer), conversely of course the '35' will offer greater DOF

Or put another way, if you took a shot with a 200mm lens, then the same shot with a 223, it wouldn't look so different... if you took a shot with a 8mm then with a 31mm you'd REALLY see a difference. Yet the mm increase in both of those scenarios is the same

You need to decide what you want.

I actually think you should get the 16-55!!!

1) you can flip your 18-55 to help pay for it :)
2) it's WR (splash proof) like the XT1
3) as well as offering you both 23/35 - it also offers you 16mm FL and a 55 2.8, neither of which are to be sniffed at IMHO
4) the 16-55 will have the best AF performance of all the mentioned lenses*
5) spend a bit more on a Fuji macro tube, and you've pretty much got a complete wide-mid tele + macro solution all in one lens


*Fuji have fairly recently updated their AF motors in their lenses to make them AF faster. IIRC... The only current lenses to offer these newer motors are the 35/f2, the 90, and the 16-55, 140, and 400 zooms. If you get one of these newer lenses, then when you flip your XT1 for a XT2 or X-Pro2 (or 3!), then you'll already have a lens that is compatible with whatever AF improvements Fuji brings to these bodies.
 
Last edited:
Nod said:
I would class 35mm as the "standard" focal length for crop bodies and 23 as wide angle (on crop again). IMO quite different in use. Personally, I'd go for the zoom option unless you particularly want/need the shallow DoF the wider apertures will give. Actually, I'd stick with the "kit" zoom or the 18-135 unless GAS has really kicked in!
Click to expand...

Thanks Nod, That is a constructive point of view and I am most appreciative for it.

I am just an amateur and to me the median between the two options is just 6mm - two steps forward or two steps back is all the difference - hence my dilemma. I think of 'wide angle' as 18mm or less (28mm in old money).

Anyway, thanks for your input :-)
 
Adzman808 said:
They're both "normal view" in that give or take a particular 'togs personal preference s/he could use one of those focal lengths for a large percentage of their general photography.

But it's not quite as simple as 'well 50 is only a bit more than 35' firstly it's 30%, I mean if your rent/mortgage went up 30% you'd REALLY notice right? :)

Secondly and more importantly different FLs can offer different looks that come with the level of image compression provided by the FL

For example: shoot the moon behind a skyscraper with a wide, and the moon will look like it is, very far away - shoot the same scene with a tele and the moon will look at lot closer to the skyscraper (not just bigger, closer)

Also the '50' FL will offer more subject isolation, despite the shared aperture (because it's longer), conversely of course the '35' will offer greater DOF

Or put another way, if you took a shot with a 200mm lens, then the same shot with a 223, it wouldn't look so different... if you took a shot with a 8mm then with a 31mm you'd REALLY see a difference. Yet the mm increase in both of those scenarios is the same

You need to decide what you want.

I actually think you should get the 16-55!!!

1) you can flip your 18-55 to help pay for it :)
2) it's WR (splash proof) like the XT1
3) as well as offering you both 23/35 - it also offers you 16mm FL and a 55 2.8, neither of which are to be sniffed at IMHO
4) the 16-55 will have the best AF performance of all the mentioned lenses*
5) spend a bit more on a Fuji macro tube, and you've pretty much got a complete wide-mid tele + macro solution all in one lens


*Fuji have fairly recently updated their AF motors in their lenses to make them AF faster. IIRC... The only current lenses to offer these newer motors are the 35/f2, the 90, and the 16-55, 140, and 400 zooms. If you get one of these newer lenses, then when you flip your XT1 for a XT2 or X-Pro2 (or 3!), then you'll already have a lens that is compatible with whatever AF improvements Fuji brings to these bodies.
Click to expand...


That's good info - many thanks
 
The 35 f1.4 is good but the 23 f1.4 is stellar. It's the lens thats most often on my X-T1 (and I have a lot of them!!! and an X100). It's super sharp, and the colour rendition is lovely. I remain convinced that the colour rendition of the 23/56/90 is better (nicer) than the other lenses.

If the focal length suits then as far as I'm concerned it's a no brainer.
 
The Autofocus on the 35mm is poor, I havne't used an XE2 but on an XE1 it's unbearable. It's manageable on the XT1 though, just painful. There's nothing wrong with it's sharpness and at comparable apertures you can clearly see an improvement over the 18-55. I would dearly love to add the 23mm to the fold but it is still very expensive after all these years on the market, testament to the quality and appeal of Fuji's lenses.
 
Mr Perceptive said:
The 35 f1.4 is good but the 23 f1.4 is stellar. It's the lens thats most often on my X-T1 (and I have a lot of them!!! and an X100). It's super sharp, and the colour rendition is lovely. I remain convinced that the colour rendition of the 23/56/90 is better (nicer) than the other lenses.

If the focal length suits then as far as I'm concerned it's a no brainer.
Click to expand...
Alan Clogwyn said:
The Autofocus on the 35mm is poor, I havne't used an XE2 but on an XE1 it's unbearable. It's manageable on the XT1 though, just painful. There's nothing wrong with it's sharpness and at comparable apertures you can clearly see an improvement over the 18-55. I would dearly love to add the 23mm to the fold but it is still very expensive after all these years on the market, testament to the quality and appeal of Fuji's lenses.
Click to expand...

It's good to hear this from users - you cannot pick up this sort of info from reading reviews. I will pass on the 35 f1.4 and put the cash towards the better option

Thanks to all
 
IMO, wider apertures become less useful the wider the angle of view. It's not often you'll want the shallow DoF (which won't really be that shallow at 23mm, even at f/1.4, although it'll obviously be shallower than a slower lens!)


Rosedalelad said:
the median between the two options is just 6mm - two steps forward or two steps back is all the difference
Click to expand...

Well... Yes but the difference between the 2 lenses under discussion is 12mm which at wide angles is a quite significant step - and one that is often not physically possible!

By the sound of it, the 35mm is the less strong performer of the 2 choices (let's face it, none of the Fuji lenses are really weak!) and images from the 23mm can be cropped to get the same AoV anyway.

Enjoy whichever option you decide on!
 
Imo, wider angles become more useful with wider lenses as you get more light yet still get to put your whole subject in focus, as well as slower shutter speeds into the bargain, so you don't need IS.
 
Depends if you like walking forwards or backwards to frame your shots
 
Rosedalelad said:
Well TBH, I disagree - both are really '+ or - normal view' - the 23 is equiv to 35mm in real money and the 35 is just a bit more - there's not a lot in it
I am aware that there is a slight difference but both focal lengths would do the same job for me
Click to expand...
It's the FF equivalent of 35 and 50 and they're really not interchangeable - not close at all.

Reminds me of the moronic 'zoom with your feet' only applicable to people who don't see apparent perspective.

They might 'do the same job for you' but that doesn't mean they're actually similar.

A bit like asking whether you should have rice or pasta with your bolognese then responding with 'well they're both fairly bland carbs so it makes no difference to me' They're very different things.
 
I've tried both, kept the 23mm. YMMV.

There's a big practical difference between the 23mm and 35mm FOV, writing it off as "both are really '+ or - normal view'" is dismissing the direct experience of those of us that have used both lenses. For me the 23mm matches the way I see the world, with the 35mm I was needing to take step or two backwards. Your view of the world may be different. But don't overlook the 27mm which is the standard lens for the x-system. What it loses in aperture it more than makes up for in discretion and portability. It won't match the gnats hair detail of the two faster primes, but tbh I've never seen an image that was made more interesting by sharpness.

Don't underestimate the improvements firmware have made to AF and usability, both body and lens firmware. Pay attention to the date of reviews and expressed views and whether or not firmware has been updated. And consider how lightning-fast you need your autofocus for the types of subject you'd shoot with a focal length 23-35mm.
 
I've gone through a similar process of choosing between the 23mm and the 35mm and in the end I prefer the focal length of the 35mm I just feel more comfortable using it every day.

Having said that I liked the 23mm flexibility when in a tight spot so I've covered this base by getting an x100t - yes it's f2 and not f1.4 and I'm still not quite at terms with that cos I do like the isolation of an f1.4 but I like the ability to just pick up the x100t and take pics, I wasn't doing that with the 23mm as often.

Yes the 35mm can be a bit quirky but I'm just really happy with it so I'd say to the OP just pick one and enjoy, you'll soon get used to it, you have to decide what kind of photography you do and is speed of focus critical, for me it isn't unless I'm using my 55-200 zoom.

The kit 18-55 is great but I would never replace my 35mm for it.

For my kind of just general shooting the difference in the focal lengths just means a few steps closer or further away from the subject!
 
Last edited:
Either way, you wouldn't be disappointed. I have both, I first purchased the 35mm, then more recently I purchased the 23mm. I love the 35mm as the Bokeh is great and frankly, easy. I use the 23mm more though, the AF is faster, but more importantly, I find it a better focal length for a general keep on the camera lens.

Both are great lenses and produce lovely images. Like I said, you won't be disappointed whichever you end up choosing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top