Fuji 23/2 Or 27/2.8? - FujiX-Forum

• Home
• What's new Unread posts New media New media comments Latest activity
• Forums Latest posts Forum list Search forums
• Media New media New comments Search media
• Buy/Sell

Log in Register Back What's new Search

Search

Everywhere Threads This forum This thread Search titles only By: Search Advanced search…

• Latest posts
• Forum list
• Search forums

Menu Log in Register Install the app Install

• Forums
• X Camera Gear & Lens discussions
• Native X-Mount Lens Forum

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.You should upgrade or use an alternative browser. fuji 23/2 or 27/2.8?

• Thread starter joe aka back alley
• Start date Mar 25, 2017

joe aka back alley

Well-Known Member

what would you rather shoot with and why...the new fuji 23 or the older 27?

mnhoj

Well-Known Member

Most of the things I shoot nowadays are at f4 or smaller and in good lighting. 23 vs 27 is a toss for me. So it makes sense to take the smaller cheaper lens. A few years ago I had the 23 1.4. I had the extra speed just in case but never really used it. I think I would've preferred the f2 back then.

Cher

Well-Known Member

Definitely the 23. I found the 27 a challenging focal length plus the look of the files from the 27 never resonated with me.

liggy

Incurable GAS Sufferer

Cher said: Definitely the 23. I found the 27 a challenging focal length plus the look of the files from the 27 never resonated with me. Click to expand...

Agreed. The 27 is the only Fuji lens I've bought and subsequently sold. The 18mm is probably next on the chopping block. Just never really loved the 27mm except for the size. Hated the lack of an aperture ring. The 23mm F2 is a really nice match for the X-Pro2.

mnhoj

Well-Known Member

Cher said: Definitely the 23. I found the 27 a challenging focal length plus the look of the files from the 27 never resonated with me. Click to expand...

The look of the files? Too sterile maybe? I don't think it's a case of sharpness, contrast or color?

streetsntravel

Well-Known Member

Any chance you can actually compare the angle of view between the two lenses - on camera, not paper? The reason I ask is that I have both the 23mm f/1.4 and the 23mm f/2. While both are designated 23mm, the 23mm f/2 has a wider angle of view. The difference is noticeable in the results. I've also compared both to the 23mm marking on the 18-55mm zoom and it confirms my statement above. In my estimation the 23mm f/2 is about 21-22mm but I don't have any calibration means. So now what to do.... The 27mm fov equivalent (i.e. ~40mm FOV in full frame terms) was a favorite angle of view for some in previous generations. It was a very common focal length in "consumer" rangefinders; especially in the 1970s. I find that angle of view to be a very nice walk about lens, right in the middle of the 23 and 50mm choices. It's a nice travel, street and environmental portrait photography choice. For a very long time I used a 28mm f/2 lens on my Nikon crop sensor DSLRs for just those roles. I find the 23mm f/1.4 to be an extremely nice lens. I'm trying to get used to the 23mm f/2 because it's a bit nicer footprint on my XPro2 and I like the WR aspects because I often photograph in dry/dusty climates. For whatever reason, I just prefer the f/1.4 version. Last evening I was photographing a group of friends at a birthday party with the 23mm f/2 and that little bit extra FOV was a distraction. I have a 23mm (equiv) lens in several different cameras, spread over different systems and formats. I know the focal length well and the Fuji 23mm f/2 is just a bit of it's own beast. I like the lens with only this one caveat, it's just a tad wider and if you are used to a standard 23mm in terms of camera to subject distances, the f/2 gives you a bit more field of view. In a day and age where wider is better, the iPhone has certainly redefined "normal" field of view, the 23mm f/2 is likely a very good choice for many. As you can see, I'm still on the fence. The why of choosing between them would be simply put for me. If I were a people person, I'd pick the tighter lens. If I were a travel/scenic/things person, I'd take the wider choice. That said, I prefer the 35mm f/2 over either. That's better for me for head/shoulder/couples interaction. I leave the 23mm to an only one lens solution, often on my camera all day during travel and use a 14mm for "purely things" in travel/landscape/scenic studies. Good luck with your choice.... Roger

kevistopheles

Well-Known Member

I like the 27mm. It's small, sharp and cheap...what's not to like? I hardly ever shoot wide open so the difference between an f2 and f2.8 is negligible. I think it just depends on what FL you prefer.

Primes4ever

Enthusiast

I have both, love both. The 27 is the same effective field of view as my old 40mm Pentax. It is small and I am happy with the pictures it produces. It is the smallest lens for carrying. What's not to love? The 23 f2 is also a great lens.

Narsuitus

Well-Known Member

joe aka back alley said: what would you rather shoot with and why...the new fuji 23 or the older 27? Click to expand...

I currently shoot with a Fuji 23mm f/1.4. It was the first lens I purchased for my Fuji X mirrorless. I have never used a Fuji 27mm f/2.8. When I feel the need for a 27mm focal length, I have a number of adapted 28mm lenses from which to choose. My personal favorite is the 28mm f/2 Zeiss. If I had to choose between the new 23mm f/2 or the 27mm f/2.8, I would select the 23mm because it is the focal length I prefer on an APS-C body.

Jan Hordijk

Active Member

I have both. The 23mm F2.0 WR is the lens I prefer, but the 27mm F2.8 is the smallest.

Cher

Well-Known Member

mnhoj said: The look of the files? Too sterile maybe? I don't think it's a case of sharpness, contrast or color? Click to expand...

Yes, all of the above. It's a personal thing, hard to describe, but the files just lack sole to me. Others may disagree and that's ok. C

Csmithstack

Active Member

Cher said: Yes, all of the above. It's a personal thing, hard to describe, but the files just lack sole to me. Others may disagree and that's ok. Click to expand...

I thought the 27/2.8's rendering was good on my old X-Pro1, but it never knocked my socks off. I'm *loving* it now, though, on my X-Pro2. It seems to pair really well with the new sensor. Clarity and depth have both benefited, at least to my eyes. Beyond that, AF speed is now fast enough for my needs, and I've always appreciated how small and unobtrusive it is. (Concerns over its AF noise seem overblown to me, unless you're planning on shooting, e.g., during a ceremony in a church.) The 23/2 has definitely caught my attention, as well. I was even considering selling the 27/2.8 to help finance purchasing it. But now that I've used the 27/2.8 on my X-Pro2 more, I wouldn't trade the one for the other.

mnhoj

Well-Known Member

From a physical viewpoint considering output it's really hard to get excited about a normal slow aperture prime. It's about as vanilla as you can get. Good at recording life as it is, cheap, small, good performance. Kind of like the 16-50XC. Last edited: Mar 26, 2017

mnhoj

Well-Known Member

Cher said: Yes, all of the above. It's a personal thing, hard to describe, but the files just lack sole to me. Others may disagree and that's ok. Click to expand...

Perfectly understandable. I've tried all the versions of the X100 and have experienced my interpretation of what I think you are describing.

bent_toe

Got beard?

joe aka back alley said: what would you rather shoot with and why...the new fuji 23 or the older 27? Click to expand...

I bought the 23mm f/2 and absolutly love it. Get it. C

Csmithstack

Active Member

mnhoj said: From a physical viewpoint considering output it's really hard to get excited about a normal slow aperture prime. It's about as vanilla as you can get. Good at recording life as it is, cheap, small, good performance. Click to expand...

If you can create a good image with a vanilla lens, then you really must be doing something right!

SausalitoDog

Well-Known Member

I like them both, but would most often take off for a walk with the 27. Smaller is good !!! quality at 5.6-8.0 is fantastic and that is where I shoot most shots. I know you do a lot of street shots and this is a very nice change from the 23 (when I want 23mm, I will use one of the x100 series that really really fits in my pockets...

mnhoj

Well-Known Member

Csmithstack said: If you can create a good image with a vanilla lens, then you really must be doing something right! Click to expand...

Haha. Actually its my images that are like vanilla. Even with Fujis best. Might as well match.

johant

Well-Known Member

I like the FOV that the 27mm gives me, and it is a very neutral and sharp lens. Add the small size, and it is a great combination on the X-E1 for me. I don't like it as much on the X-Pro1 because the OVF frame is too small to my liking (or too large with the other magnification setting). T

ttpi

New Member

If you must have the smallest possible lens: the XF 27. Otherwise the XF 23 f2. I have had/tried the XF 27 three times. What I don’t like are lack of an aperture ring and noisy AF motor. Also it does hunting often and doesn’t focus as close as many other Fuji lenses. Now I have the XF 23 f2. It's better in every way except the size. Image quality in both is very good.

kenbennett

Well-Known Member

In theory the 27mm is perfect for me: I love the 40mm-equivalent field of view going way back. So I have owned the Fuji 27mm lens. Twice. Sold them both after a few months of trying. Just could not get on with that lens. I got the 23/2 several months ago and it's almost always on one of my cameras, usually paired with the new 50/2 on the other.

wrenhunter

Active Member

27mm on my X-M1. Great small lens, this combo really does fit in my jacket pocket. 23mm f/2 on my X-Pro2. Love the 35 FOV, from film through the X100's.

Juan Andres Tovar

Well-Known Member

I have not used the 23mm as of yet, but the 27mm lens is:

• Extremely sharp between f/5.6 and f/8. Below the LensTip resolution chart as a reference:
• Very discreet street photography due to its size.
• Reliable for zone focusing (6m@f/8 will get 3m-infinity in apparent focus).

In my case it has been good for walking around and shooting relatively close subjects with some environment around them (not as much as a 18mm which is almost way too much environment and just a little bit of subject). For "across the street" subjects I have used the 35mm f/1.4 but now that I've got the 50mm f/2 in the mail I'll give it a try. Cheers. [Edit: Added LensTip resolution chart] Last edited: Mar 30, 2017

JeffLiban

Well-Known Member

The 27mm is a real pancake if you like discretion, it also has a very good image quality but the 23mm f2 has a better corner to corner sharpness and you win a bit more wideness for street and indoor photos. Dunno about the 27mm but on the 23mm f2 the microcontrast is excellent

johant

Well-Known Member

The 27mm is not bad for indoor though ... and I love the small size.

Juan Andres Tovar

Well-Known Member

JeffLiban said: Dunno about the 27mm but on the 23mm f2 the microcontrast is excellent Click to expand...

I just read this microcontrast term in the last few days in a couple reviews -- one of them is @JonasRask 's XF 90mm review -- Do you know if LensTip or others are measuring this microcontrast in any way? or even going further back, what is a simple definition of microcontrast?

JeffLiban

Well-Known Member

Juan Andres Tovar said: I just read this microcontrast term in the last few days in a couple reviews -- one of them is @JonasRask 's XF 90mm review -- Do you know if LensTip or others are measuring this microcontrast in any way? or even going further back, what is a simple definition of microcontrast? Click to expand...

There are some different definitions on the internet, for me it's the hidden details that are in the shadows but also on some edges like snow curves. You can easily see them using the Clarity tool in Capture One on Raf photos. Before Clarity With clarity to the Max just to show you the difference, see the 3D effect and volume it gives for both snow and clouds? Snow curves look deeper too, I just used the clarity tool to 100 nothing else was touched, you can still work on shadows and highlights as Clarity has an impact on them

Juan Andres Tovar

Well-Known Member

JeffLiban said: There are some different definitions on the internet, for me it's the hidden details that are in the shadows but also on some edges like snow curves. You can easily see them using the Clarity tool in Capture One on Raf photos. Click to expand...

Great way to exemplify. I will try and run a non-scientific comparison myself with a couple different lenses and see how it goes. Precisely this morning I was noticing how much more detail came out using the clarity tool in LR when fine tuning a photo I made with the XF 35/1.4 to taste, then that's the microcontrast. I wish I had a 23/2 around to compare against the 27/2.8 Thanks.

joe aka back alley

Well-Known Member

Thread starter update... i wound up buying the new 23 & 50 (already had the 27). the 27 has become my daily carry in my daybag...using the 23/50 as a combo and i think i'll add the 16 for some wide zing! i love that lens. Post reply Insert quotes… Share: Facebook Twitter Email Share Link

• Forums
• X Camera Gear & Lens discussions
• Native X-Mount Lens Forum

Top Bottom