Fuji 23mm Vs Fujifilm Xf 35mm F/2 R Wr Lens Review
Fujifilm XF 23mm f/2 R WR
Truth or dare?
Estimated reading time: 10 minutes.
February/2018 – The XF 23mm f/ii R WR is the second lens on Fujifilm'southward "f/2 R WR" lineup for the X-Mount. Practically a "premium intermediary" line fabricated for street photography, introduced in 2016 with the X-Pro two, the idea is to keep its size to a minimum paired with Fuji'south near exclusive tactile operation; all with the high-performance expected from the APS-C market. Information technology was done on the showtime XF 35mm f/2 R WR. It was done on the tertiary XF 50mm f/2 R WR. At present the widest focal length of all, will the 23mm be able to keep i'due south performance comparable to the f/2 R WR line, afterwards the lackluster review of the 18mm f/2 R (first generation)? Let's find out! Nice reading.
BUILD QUALITY
At 5.2 x 5.9cm of 180g, once again a "f/ii R WR" review is redundant; identical to both 35mm and 50mm we've already seen. Despite the widest focal length, the 23mm is not the shortest in size: the 35mm f/2 is about 1cm smaller at 4.5cm, and physically we can encounter Fuji won't make the same mistake it did on the 18mm f/2 R; 1 of the smallest lens always tested, with a pancake design, only with a poor optical performance. Long, relatively heavy and very solid, with no internal wobbling or noises, the XF f/two R WR closely reminds the states of Leica's G-mountain precision, despite the low-toll, cheers to the X-Mountain APS-C format. Made in resilient polycarbonate protected past an anodized aluminum outer shell, this United states$449 23mm f/ii is far from cheap and definitely a premium product, as aspired by the Ten-Mount. This is non a "plastic fantastic" prime for the entry-level marketplace.
In your hands the XF 23mm f/2 R WR once again "disappears" in forepart of the camera, as it's so compact and light. Here shown with the entry-level X-A3 camera, it's interesting to see how the grip is about all on the camera's right-hand side, and the left-hand index finger sits on the lens ring. Closer to the camera sits the f/end ring, electronically setting the lens discontinuity (information technology's not mechanically coupled), with stronger clicks at the total stops (f/ii, f/two.eight, f/iv″¦) and lighter at the thirds (f/ii.ii, f/two.5″¦). We can also feel this ring sits on top of a condom gasket, given it well damped feedback, from the lens "weather resistance" (WR). Fuji declares up-to 10 sealing points and it works: to shoot Nevada'south deserts or Yellowstone'due south caldeiras, I had no problems with dust or moisture.
At the front the transmission focusing ring is also electronic and indicates the internal focusing group. Completely made of metal and without a safe comprehend, this ring's usability is also smooth due to weather sealing, completely silent. At nearly 1cm wide, it'due south generous and secure to employ, feeling somewhat sticky, more the first XF 35mm f/2 R WR that could sideslip nether sweaty easily. However the focusing adjustment, as any other Fuji XF/90 lens tested so far, is very imprecise: in that location's a noticeable lag between the band'south move and the internal motor response, and the turning angle from minimum focusing distance to infinity is too long; impossible to quickly focus. On the other hand the auto-focus motor is fast and declared as a stepping motor by Fuji and, during my review with the X-T20, it was all practically instantaneous. Also during video recording information technology is pretty condom at not aimlessly changing altitude all the time, and it works every bit expected.
An internal stabilizer? Nop. Zoom ring? There isn't ane. Finally like any mod prime, the XF 23mm f/two R WR simplicity ends on the ø43mm front filter thread that'southward the same size as the 35mm f/ii. Made out of metal, this tread is smooth, preventing the glass piece to driblet by accident. Over the filters a secondary lens hood tread fix the included-in-the-box "23″slice, thin and simple, not to interfere with the wide bending framing. And at the rear, the metallic mountain is also protected by a condom gasket; uniform with the Ten-Pro 2 and T2 weather sealing. However another gem from Fujinon'southward APS-C XF lineup, the 23mm usability is the same as every "new" f/2 R WR; all in the correct place, all uncomplicated to utilise, all with tactile feedback despite the electronic controls. Information technology's the perfect mix of the digital market and Fujinon's 84 years heritage, distinct on the APS-C mirrorless market place; well-nigh without any peers. But can information technology deliver optically? All I desire to do is to forget the XF 18mm f/two R.
IMAGE QUALITY
"Foliage" at f/8 1/60 ISO200.
With a 10 elements in 6 groups optical formula, 2 aspherical pieces and Super EBC coating, Fujifilm had to go head-over-heels to deliver good functioning on the XF 23mm f/2 R WR wide-angle; depression-cost; portable lens. Information technology'south non a undercover how complicated a wide-angle design can be on a mirrorless mountain; physically demanding longer, heavier and bigger lenses; opposites to a meaty organisation. Too for just United states of america$449 gone are the 35mm/50mm f/two R WR costly depression-dispersion glass, with clearly (no pun-intended) more aberrations than usual. The resolution is practiced, yes, thank you to its aspherical pieces; simply it drops under the 2 meters focusing distance. Sony suffers the same on its wide-angle zoom E PZ 16-50mm f/3.5-five.half dozen OSS. Sigma shows similar issues with the 19mm f/2.8 DP1M. Canon doesn't do information technology any better on its EF-Thou 22mm f/two STM pancake. And Fujinon offers the worst lens ever tested here, the XF 18mm f/2 R. Just the XF 23mm f/ii R WR is the better of all, despite no really comparison to a proper 35mm (equiv.) lens on a full-frame camera. Then at that place'southward a paradox: to recommend the "best of the worse" wide-angle lens; or to make articulate its limitations?
"Morning" at f/iv 1/fifty ISO800.
That's not the say that broad-open, the XF 23mm f/2 R WR is useless. The pair of aspherical pieces makes a brilliant job at keeping astigmatism and saggital coma flare to a minimum, with stronger highlights around the frame. Information technology's easy to render landscapes from 10m and in a higher place, with plenty of resolution for 10-Mount cameras (now at 24MP), and certainly a giant step ahead whatever smartphone. But from 3m to the 22cm minimum focusing distance, the APS-C shallow depth-of-field and broad bending makes it nearly impossible to render a sharp epitome plane; and the details are smooth overall; also without the all-time out-of-focus quality. The images simply await "cheap" despite the Usa$449 price, filled with low-cal leaks on high-contrast motifs; obvious axial aberrations; and repetitive background lines. So any creative usage is impacted, and this lens is good merely at infinity.
"Pinos" at f/2 1/1000 ISO200.
Ingather 100%, the details are there simply not with the best sharpness.
"Green" at f/2 ane/600 ISO200.
Crop 100%, close-ups are never abrupt given the shallow depth of field and lack of optical resolution.
"LFL" at f/ii 1/250 ISO200; cluttered bokeh.
Crop 100%, lack of sharpness on finer details, with loss of contrast and magenta shadows.
"Yellow" at f/2 1/1800 ISO200.
Crop 100%, once again the details aren't sharp.
Stopping down the aperture to f/iv-f/5.vi greatly enhances sharpness, rivaling some of the 135-format 35mm prime lenses; for high-precision shots. Here tested in Montana with the intermediary X-T20, it's hard to distinguish the US$499 lens resolution from the aforementioned images shot with the 50MP EOS 5DS full-frame; all set for high-quality, large-format printing. One time again every details on leafs, trees textures and high dissimilarity edges are perfectly rendered, no matter the APS-C format; justifying the defended camera instead of a smartphone. Likewise nearly every low-cal reflection (flaring) are fixed, and the 9-blade arrangement renders strong 18-points stars from f/viii-f/11; perfect for creative shots including the scene's lite source. It's a large boy'due south operation on a small photographic camera, and the best use of the XF 23mm f/2 R WR: long depth-of-field images at smaller apertures.
"Motel" at f/5.6 1/160 ISO200.
Crop 100%, fine dissimilarity enhanced by the stopped downwards aperture.
"Foro" at f/5.half-dozen 1/160 ISO200.
Crop 100%, Fuji's 10-Trans III APS-C 24MP sharpness.
"Lake" at f/8 1/70 ISO200.
Crop 100%, distant details with slight chromatic aberrations.
"Apgar" at f/8 one/420 ISO200.
Ingather 100%, big format prints from so much particular.
The chromatic aberrations are besides curious on this formula, once information technology demands a mandatory software correction contour even on raw files; standard behavior on the Sony's and Fuji's mirrorless cameras (Canon doesn't force it on its EF-Grand lenses). A warning indicates the correction on Adobe's Camera Raw or Lightroom, incommunicable to be turned off; some level of processing must be applied. Fifty-fifty still, a fine purple line dominates well-nigh high-contrast edges, visible on mountains against the brilliant heaven; tree branches; and strong architectural lines; all better handled by larger optical systems. The out-of-focus image plane also gets its share of axial aberrations on high-contrast elements, with green and magenta blobs; no matter the mandatory electronic profile. So it's not off-white from Fujifilm: the pixels must exist interpolated to fix optical aberrations, dropping the file's resolution. Once again these are the limitations of the APS-C format, and likewise the mirrorless wide-bending lens; nevertheless not an alternative to the large 135-format total frame; specially with a dedicated wide-angle prime.
"Pass" at f/8 1/250 ISO200.
Crop 100%, chromatic aberrations against bright background like mountains and the heaven.
"Wild fire" com a XF 23mm f/2 R WR at f/iv 1/950 ISO200.
Ingather 100%, colored border on high-contrast element despite the mandatory electronic compensation profile.
"Polebridge" at f/8 1/750 ISO200.
Ingather 100%, minimum lateral aberrations.
"Stickers" at f/four i/550 ISO200.
Crop 100%, fine lines on the lateral chromatic aberrations.
The vignetting and geometric distortions are likewise part of the mandatory electronic compensations despite, one time over again, not being completely stock-still. The vignetting is discreet: we practice notice some border concealment at f/2, forcing the frame'southward attention to the image middle; but non equally stiff as Canon's EF 24mm f/1.4 L II USM; nor the EF-M 22mm f/ii STM. While there'due south definitely some level of compensation existence applied, it'south non clinical like virtually smartphones. The same can be said about its geometry: sometimes the images lack depth as perfect as they look; but sometimes they burl under the 2m focusing and infinity. Under this value, the software compensation is stronger, making the prototype look even flatter. So information technology's not perfect for landscapes, but perfect for compages, given the variable software compensation; weird. Again, you better trust a larger optical system.
"Geometria" at f/4 13s ISO800; straight horizon.
"O grande" at f/7.1 0.6s ISO200; somewhat bent horizon.
"Lago 2" at f/8 1/210 ISO200; invisible distortion.
"Ladeira" at f/eight 1/threescore ISO320.
Internal reflections are also interesting, sometimes pretty, great for artistic effects; sometimes ugly, ruining the shots. It's not rare for the light source to exist present on the broad-angle frame, specially shooting landscapes; and nosotros ordinarily demand information technology be neutral; not distorting the overall colors and exposure. And Fuji's Super EBC coating promises up-to 99,viii% of light transmission, simply that's not ever true. In one shot, I only wanted to transform the sun into a 18-stars highlight, to creatively use the ix-blade aperture, and it worked; no cross-light leaks nor weird color blobs. Simply other times I needed the lord's day to exist as neutral as possible, mostly behind trees, and information technology just didn't work: an explosion of colors reduced the quality. In one of my examples information technology'south only cluttered: the strong lord's day light almost reflect on every unmarried lens of the ten elements formula, worse than Yongnuo's United states$60 35mm f/2 lens; that's as barebones every bit it gets. And then carefully programme your shot if the light source is a creative element: information technology may not expect as desired and further adjustments are required.
"Folhagem" at f/viii i/60 ISO200; the sun on the lower-correct corner.
"O caos" at f/nine ane/sixty ISO320; worst example scenario! O_o
"Fino" at f/8 ane/250 ISO200; notice the magenta line on the center frame.
"Sol" at f/xi i/90 ISO200; xviii-points stars from the 9-blade aperture.
Finally the colors and the bokeh (out-of-focus qualities) become against what we've seen from Fujinon'due south XF lenses so far: very strong but not neutral. The background can exist equally chaotic as the internal reflections, thank you to its two aspherical glass, made to keep the overall frame resolution under control; any stronger contrast line on the background gets repeated indefinitely; even giving some vertigo to longer focusing distances. Every bit a affair of a fact, the inferior XF 18mm f/2 R rendered a smoother bokeh, non seen on this 23mm. And the colors are Fujifilm'southward samba: too vivid, from dusk till dawn, far from reality; but overnice to use, depending on your taste. Nigh brands actually melody their wide-bending images for that: every 35mm lens feels more than saturated than longer 50mm and above. So they're easier to post-procedure with fewer saturation adjustments, but likewise easier to get tiring.
"De perto" at f/2 1/1400 ISO200; lack of smoothness on the groundwork.
"Bolhas" at f/two 1/800 ISO200; discover the frame's upper edge.
"Later" at f/5.6 1/110 ISO200; Fujifilm's always interesting colors.
"Valley" at f/8 9s ISO200.
VERDICT
The XF 23mm f/ii R WR is the first f/2 R WR Fujinon lens that left something to be desired; so here is a hint: advisedly consider it prior to purchase. While mechanically it is identical to the 35mm and 50mm, and superior to the non-WR 18mm, optically Fuji couldn't really push button it's formula to deliver a high-performance lens like the other two. It's a claiming: a compact lens with fewer glass elements, and the choice of either more expensive pieces (low-dispersion or aspherical); or the reasonable toll-point. And Fuji's remainder was conspicuously the best 23mm mirrorless lens I've used, with enough of resolution to take the place of a dedicated 35mm 135-format prime. But anywhere closer in focus, and the eyes can't deliver; neither good shallow-depth-of-field, nor perfect geometry on tighter frames. The bokeh is ugly. The aberrations, fifty-fifty electronically compensated, are visible. And the edge's resolution is cipher to praise about. And then this isn't a "35mm killer" we're expecting and that'due south a problem. So I'll definitely keep my big EOS 5DS to shoot at these shorter focal lengths, and recommend it. We can't bend the laws of Physics. Good luck and overnice shooting!
campbellantom1966.blogspot.com
Source: http://blogdozack.com.br/index.php/portfolio/fujifilm-xf-23mm-f2-r-wr-eng/
0 Response to "Fuji 23mm Vs Fujifilm Xf 35mm F/2 R Wr Lens Review"
Enregistrer un commentaire