Hands on first thoughts: Fuji 23mm f1.4

[fer_fdi]

Gotta remember the x100 lens unit is actually a lot bigger than it looks - it goes into the body of the camera a fair way.

Distance from sensor should be the same as in X-Pro1, X-E1, etc
Is the X100/s much thicker than an X-E1?

I think adapting that lens really worth, can't be larger than the 18/2 and it renders beautifully, which is the most important.
It's also light and small
And it is already designed, it just needs a mount

 

[Spyro]

Distance from sensor should be the same as in X-Pro1, X-E1, etc

nowhere near... the biggest optical element of the x100 lens is actually inside the camera and only 5.6mm from the sensor. There is almost as much lens inside the camera as there is outside it, and the sensor has customised microlenses to accommodate it. No other xe-1/xpro1 lens or sensor are designed like that. Read more here (para 4)
http://www.finepix-x100.com/en/story

 

[fer_fdi]

Very interesting info, I stand corrected and joyfully illustrated, thank you Spyro

Now I see that is not a matter of just adding a mount to it, I was being very naïve : )

Anyhow, even being twice the size, because of how it renders and being a 23/2, it would be very successful if adapted...

 

[flysurfer]

I have a Flickr set with a bunch of 23mm sample shots (http://www.flickr.com/photos/25805910@N05/sets/72157635417877616/) and a First Look article covering the lens (http://www.fujirumors.com/first-look-fujinon-xf23mmf1-4-r/). Hope this helps a bit.

 

[Avotius]

Update on this rolling impression semi review:

My friend ended up buying the 23mm lens. After I have used it a few more times on my XE1 I want to say that it really does not fit this camera well as I am more holding the setup by the lens like I would with a full frame Canon and 24-70 or the like. I dont have any accessory bits on my camera and the lens feels massive on this thing. My friend dislikes using the X Pro 1's optical finder with this lens because he feels the lens even without hood cuts in a bit too much. I find that without the hood it seems to cut in a bit more than a 35 f2 on a Leica but seems pretty typical for those of us used to RF photography. The lens feels much better on the X Pro 1 with its thicker body and extra support.

Image quality wise I think there is nothing to leave you wanting. It has that nice Fuji illuminated character and is sharp wide open and gets a little better stopped down, but its already pretty darn good. Flare does not seem to be a problem much for us but we have not had many sunny days here and plenty of PM2.5 counts well north of 150.

Fuji did a good job here. This lens is a serious piece of equipment that fits the high quality of the X system as a whole.

 

[gavinlg]

Very interesting info, I stand corrected and joyfully illustrated, thank you Spyro

Now I see that is not a matter of just adding a mount to it, I was being very naïve : )

Anyhow, even being twice the size, because of how it renders and being a 23/2, it would be very successful if adapted...

Just got my 23mm f1.4 today, and on first impressions it is a nicer optic than the x100s 23mm f2 for sure. Even at f2, it is noticeably nicer in rendition (to me). And I really liked the x100s 23mm.

 

[gavinlg]

Fuji did a good job here. This lens is a serious piece of equipment that fits the high quality of the X system as a whole.

Indeed - I was suprised by how nicely it is built. Aperture ring feels lovely and the entire feel of the lens is a step up from the kit 35mm.

Also the af/mf clutch mechanism is significantly more solid feeling than the zuiko equivalent for m4/3s which has like 2cm of lateral slop between the two positions. Fuji 23mm feels tight and mechanical.

 

[willie_901]

Just got my 23mm f1.4 today, and on first impressions it is a nicer optic than the x100s 23mm f2 for sure. Even at f2, it is noticeably nicer in rendition (to me). And I really liked the x100s 23mm.

I started using the 23/1.4 this week.

I agree completely with gavinlg's comments. The non-rigorous testing regime I do on all my new lenses indicates even the corners are quite nice at F 1.4. In fact my ad-hoc comparisons show it is at sharper at minimum aperture (center and frame edges) as any Nikkor lens I've owned at 35 mm (35/2 AIS, 17-35/2.8 AF-S and 16-35/4 G). Some of the difference is probably due to the increased sensor resolution compared to my D700's sensor. The longitudinal chromic aberration is leaps and bounds better than the fast Nikkor primes I own.

I consider the 23/1.4 is equal or better than the 14/2.8 in terms of sharpness and rendering. It is almost too long for me (without the hood). But it is not too heavy. I use a third-party, vented. screw-on hood. With this hood, when the sun is just out of the frame there is a bit of flare that compromises contrast.

On my copy the aperture ring firmness is similar to the 35/1.4 XF and much firmer than the 14/2.8. I am very pleased with this lens.

 

[Shade]

Despite loving large aperture lenses, the size of the 23/1.4 just gets bigger than the other lenses. They should've made it 1.8 and I think they can make it smaller and everyone could be happy.

But then I can imagine if they released an 1.8, everyone would've said they wanted 1.4 despite slightly bigger.

 

[gavinlg]

Despite loving large aperture lenses, the size of the 23/1.4 just gets bigger than the other lenses. They should've made it 1.8 and I think they can make it smaller and everyone could be happy.

But then I can imagine if they released an 1.8, everyone would've said they wanted 1.4 despite slightly bigger.

It really isn't big at all. its under half the weight of equivalent full frame 35mm f1.4s from nikon/canon/sigma, and about half the size. Balances perfectly on the xpro1 - better than the 35mm f1.4 in my opinion.

If they had released a 23mm f1.8 instead I wouldn't have bought into the system. aps-c needs f1.4 or faster lenses.

 

[back alley]

the 23 actually feels pretty good on the xe-1.

 

[fer_fdi]

I still think the system needs a small high quality lens in the 32 to 40 mm equivalent FOV, f1.8 or f2.
There is the 27/2.8 now but , imho, it should be at least one stop faster and way sharper to serve as a one-lens solution as the 20/1.7 is within micro 4/3 system.
The 20/1.7 is very sharp, fast and pretty interesting optically and it is still tiny and light (100gr) I was hoping for such a "key" lens within the Fuji X system.

 

[gavinlg]

I still think the system needs a small high quality lens in the 32 to 40 mm equivalent FOV, f1.8 or f2.
There is the 27/2.8 now but , imho, it should be at least one stop faster and way sharper to serve as a one-lens solution as the 20/1.7 is within micro 4/3 system.
The 20/1.7 is very sharp, fast and pretty interesting optically and it is still tiny and light (100gr) I was hoping for such a "key" lens within the Fuji X system.

There is always the x100s which bass a fantastic 35mm f2 and the wonderful xtrans apse sensor

 

[fer_fdi]

of course but I have the camera always with me, that would mean to bring two cameras always with me... can't
The X100s is great, I'm talking about a similar lens for the interchangeable lens system

 

[gavinlg]

of course but I have the camera always with me, that would mean to bring two cameras always with me... can't
The X100s is great, I'm talking about a similar lens for the interchangeable lens system

Well you can't always have your cake and eat it too… As someone who initially bought into the Olympus m4/3 system with the e-p1 only to be disappointed by super zoom after super zoom and crappy kit lens, the fuji system which is only 2 years old has a pretty incredible spread of choice for quality lenses. And i will dare say the fuji lenses crap all over the zuiko digital lenses in pretty much every criteria too.

The 23 is about the same size as the leica 35mm f1.4 asph, and it is much lighter. Honestly, its not big 😉

 

[jsrockit]

I still think the system needs a small high quality lens in the 32 to 40 mm equivalent FOV, f1.8 or f2.
There is the 27/2.8 now but , imho, it should be at least one stop faster and way sharper to serve as a one-lens solution as the 20/1.7 is within micro 4/3 system.

I'm not so sure you really need one stop faster when a camera has usuable ISO 6400. And the lens is sharper than most people give it credit for... complaints are usually from those who have never used it.

 

[fer_fdi]

all interesting points, I just miss the fact that with a lens like 20/1.7 I had all... (except fast AF which I don't mind) small size, light, very sharp, close focus, 3D-like feel...! an amazing lens, I could go for days just with that lens taking very different kind of pictures.
Now I have to take both the 18/2 and the 35/1.4 which means 4x size and 3x weight.

Happy to hear the 27 is sharp. In fact I don't look for just sharpness but for it being "optically interesting" providing a special way of drawing and/or some 3D-like look in the right conditions, etc.


It is true also that Fuji lenses are very good and that are not so big when compared to similar characteristic lenses in other systems.
The 14/2.8 is amazing in that respect; very interesting optically and small being such a great 21 eq. FOV lens.

But hey now I also can see how amazingly good the 20/1.7 is considering it's size and characteristics and miss something similar for the Fuji system that let you go with just one system lens and then a couple of small manual lenses...
Then maybe the 27 could do that being a 40mm eq. FOV and sharp as you said but I then miss some more DOF shallowness (if using higher ISO for speed)

So yes, it's always a compromise. What I ask for is a small and stellar lens for this system, as the 20/1.7 is imho

 

[noimmunity]

What I ask for is a small and stellar lens for this system.

If "small and stellar" are the defining parameters, then Fuji nailed that one from the get go with their XF 35/1.4, the very first lens for this system. But maybe you meant "small stellar and 35efov"?

Overall the XF lenses are amazingly attractive.