I think the list that Fuji put out about lenses that won't resolve on the newer 40mp sensors has been misunderstood greatly contributing to much confusion. As I understand it, the list exists to say that the lenses that DO make the cut are supposed to bring about a perceivable boost in resolution and details when sitting on the newer 40mp sensors (vs being on the older 26mp sensors). So for example, take the XF16/1.4 lens (that didn't make the cut), what Fuji are trying to say is... that when you use this lens on one of the newer 40mp sensors don't expect to see MUCH of a difference in resolution or details compared to what it can do on the older 26mp sensors. Likewise, if you take a lens that DOES make the list (like the new 56/1.2WR) then comparing the same shot taken with this lens on both the 40mp and 26mp cameras, then expect to see quite a stark OBVIOUS difference in resolution on the 40mp sensor. (to which Gordon Laing demonstrated quite easily on YT). So comparing lenses that did make the cut and didn't, on the same 40mp sensor I don't think is quite the best way to go about it (kinda comparing apples with oranges). What you want to be doing is taking the lenses and running them both on two different cameras (26mp and 40mp) and seeing if you can see a big difference of those lenses on each sensor. It might be that 23/1.4R is the better lens, but that on the 40mp sensor it is not doing much differently than when sitting on the older 26mp sensor etc etc. In short, all lenses will work on the newer 40mp sensor, but some will show up a marked difference in resolution and details (comparing with the older 26mp sensor) where as others marginally so. That is all.
Well said. I have tried all my older lenses on the XT5, and you are quite right, they perform OK, but the newer lenses are markedly better in terms of resolution.
I love my 23mm F2. I hate some youtubers that saying the F2 lenses can't resolve 40 MP. If you don't photograph walls or scenes with very little useful depth like shelves with books, in real life you will never see the difference in 9 cases out of 10 and even more.
Timely video. Last week I stopped by a photography store in Bangkok and found several 23 mm f1.4 used lenses for sale. All seemed to be in VG condition. I have been considering the smaller 23 mm f2, but maybe I should consider the f1.4. I think the term you are looking for is _circle of confusion_ . That is the maximum blur spot size. I am thinking that the 23 mm f1.4 may have a better COC value than the f2 lens.
Nice test! I have the 1.4 and use it on my beloved xe2s. It‘s big but I love the results even wide open. What makes it also unique is the possibilty to switch from autofocus to real manual focus with hard stops for zone focusing!! Greetings from Germany!
Interesting results Kirk! I can tell you that for my photography, lens resolving capability is far down on the list of considerations as to whether I chose to use it or not. Keep up the great work!
I’ve long suspected that list of lenses suitable for the 40mb sensor was written by the marketing guys (ie the lenses Fuji wants to sell going forward) rather than the technical product guys!! 🤷♂️ Interesting video as always 👍😊
4:18 I've noticed with these side by side comparisons of the 23mm f2 with both 23mm f1.4 and the new 23mm f1.4 lm wr is that the 23mm f2 tends to show warmer shadows, sometimes a little bit warmer mid tones too. At 4:18 in your video you can see that the grey door appears a touch more red/orange, and you can see a moderate amount of warm on the deep shadows of the darker wood. I don't know if this would be an issue or not, just a thing that I've noticed. Sharp wise, the 23mm f2 at f2.8+ is very sharp and plenty enough for my taste. But I do care about color and tonality, so that's what i'm most concened about... those warmer tones perhaps don't seem to be a big deal in landscapes or whatnot, but it worries me a bit with portraits. The other thing that i've noticed is that the 23mm f2 shows a type of microcontrast that is a touch artificial. The f1.4's both appear to show a more nuanced, subtle microcontrast. I think that 5:32 exemplifies this well enough.
The 1.4 seems generally sharper especially in the center. Fuji not including it on that chart feels like marketing, trying to sell the newer model and dissuade people from buying the old 23 1.4 used.
Great video, confirming what i expected. I'm enjoying the 23mm F1.4 lens I bought yesterday, I've already shot a number of different scenarios and the results are impressive. The one I bought has a bit of dust in it but that doesn't affect the image quality at all. Do you use UV filters on your lenses Kirk ?
well, thats because the F2 lens body are shorter phyiscally comparing to the F1.4. Therefore, the view will be wider if shooting the same scene at the same spot.
Great comparison, exactly what I was looking for. I am currently seeking for reasons to go for the Fuji 23 F2 WR or to stay with the Sigma 18-50 2.8. Mainly for travel to do street, landscape & portraits. Since I got the Fuji 35 F2, I kinda feel in love with the feel & pictures that I get with it. I do have the Ricoh GRIII as well, so that's why it's so difficult to make up my mind, if the 23 F2 is beneficial. Thx for any opinion. 🙂
Thanks for great video! First time on the channel. By the way, I can’t believe the intro section was shot on dji pocket. The quality is freaking stunning, as for me.
I have been translating the comments with the translator and I would like your choice of the two lenses, for the XT4 and XH2, I like the sharpness, mostly I like the monuments, landscapes, streets, etc., Awaiting your help on the 23mm f1.4 and the 23mm f2
As user of the Fuji X-pro2 and the 23mm F2 unless i am realy close to the subject it is hard to bring shallow depth of field. And if i stop down to F2 it beggins to look a little "mushier" / softer but still in focus.
Interesting results! I have both lenses, but I think my 23/2 is a bit of a lemon - it's distinctly soft (almost blurry) along the left edge, and looks nowhere near as good as yours at f/2; even at f/4 it's not great. My 23/1.4, though, matches up with what you show in this video - a great lens that you can use at pretty much any aperture and not worry about it.
There's a guy on my Facebook Fuji group shooting a lot of tripod nighttime stuff with a 23mm 2.0. The stuff is nothing short of fabulous. He posts all his settings. Edge to edge the stuff is world class. I have the lens.
Great comparison but if you shoot the 23mm f1.4 wide open it won’t make the cut, it’s soft. From f1.4 to 1.8 it gets progressively less soft by f2 it’s good. For portraits or more filmic look it’s great….sort of like having 2 lens in one. But technically for some people it’s not good enough depending on subject matter.
Thanks I’ve been looking around for this exact video. It was weird to me seeing the original 23 1.4 not being on that 40 megapixel chart, because I’ve always seen it as sharper than the f2, especially at f2 or smaller. At 1.4 I imagine it probably resolves somewhere between 26 and 40 megapixels of detail but, stopped down slightly it’s sharper than the f2.
It was clarified by Fuji that the lenses on the list could resolve 40MP wide open edge to edge, but at F/1.4 unless you are shooting a flat test chart DOF will make resolution pointless in our of focus areas. I also have doubts as looking at sharpness on MTF charts most of the lenses on the list are not sharp wide open as you move away from the centre (granted sharpness and resolution are not the same, but if it is soft it doesn't matter) . What I would like to see is which lenses improve as you change sensor Does the 23mm F/1.4 R or 23mm F/2 R WR get significantly better moving from the 26MP to the 40MP, there may be a noticeable jump in resolution on the 23mm F/2? I think once you have stopped any lens down a few stops at it's peak there is zero issues regardless of sensor. And if you are shooting wide open (e.g. for portraiture) as long as it is sharp enough it is good enough, since most of photo will probably be out of focus anyway
I don't have the 23mm F/2 but can do the test with the 35mm F/2 since that is on the 40MP list (I have the X-T3 and T5), I doubt on a screen I can tell the difference, may do some 18" x 12" prints and see if there is any difference (in the name of science) @@KirkWilliamsonphotography
The issue with the 23 f2 might be it focuses more on the middle of your intended focus rather than in the background, that's why the foreground are more sharper while the f1.4 focus on the background and get the foreground blur. You said you focus first then switch to manual. I think to test it right you need to use the autofocus mechanism for each lens to refocus on each test photo and not switch to manual.
I focused each lens separately on the same spot then switched to manual. When I looked at them after shooting I thought that might be the case but the focus square was in the exact same place for each lens. To me that seemed like the only explanation that the focus moved further back but I can’t see how that could happen by more than a foot which would explain it.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography "I focused each lens separately on the same spot then switched to manual" Yes, this is what I understand. Maybe since you are already in focused, switched to manual, then changing aperture for each test. The changing of aperture might need to be refocus. I don't know, Im just guessing, maybe there's really an issue
I’ve had both these lenses and have made shots with them that I really like however, the 23 f/1.4, does have a certain magic about it, especially wide open or nearly wide open.
Wow, this is very timely for me. I have the 35mm f2 for my X-T3 and love it. (Light weight/great zoom and aperture ring damping) I was thinking of asking my Santa Claus for its 23mm sibling for the same reasons. I know I don't have a 40mp Fuji body but I'm bypassing Santa Claus when that time comes. Thanks for the evaluation!!. Happy Thanksgiving!
I thought I could see more detail in the highlights in almost all the fstops for the f1.4. I have both lens and emotionally, I always liked the f1.4 better. I just couldn't express why. I love the f2.0 on my Xe2 that was converted to infrared. I have no interest in getting any of the newer versions.
I have been using the 1.4 r. It's beautiful with no issues on my x t3 but on my new xt 5 shooting at 1.4 is almost unusable. It's not soft it's blurry big time. Clears up completely by f2. Still works fine on the t3 at 1.4. Anyone experience this?
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography Six years ago, I performed an angle-of-view comparison test on the following lenses: 16-55mm f/2.8 Fujinon 23mm f/1.4 Fujinon 23mm f/2 Fujinon 24mm f/2 Nikon The 16-55mm set at 23mm and the 23mm f/1.4 had an identical horizontal angle-of-view. The 23mm f/2 had an angle-of-view more like a 22mm lens.
Would have been interesting to see in dark settings, e.g., evening/light. It is about the widest opening. Also look at noise next time in low light conditions.
Question, did you have the camera fixed to a tripod? In the initial test process images, the side-by-side comparison, the f/2 lens has a wider field of view... look at how much more is showing in the upper right side. As for difference in apparent DOF, if a lens is well corrected for flatness of field and another lens has field curvature, then the foreground elements can appear to be rendered differently at the same aperture. The true flat field at wide apertures will keep the depth of focus flat against the wall, while a curved field is like a slight bowl shape, bowing to the front of the wall as you get away from dead center. I suspect the f/2 lens has more of a curved field than the more expensive f/1.4 lens, which is why those foreground traps "appear" more in focus. While the f/2 is a great lens, the weakness that is always mentioned in reviews is at full aperture and in close, the image is not great. The f/1.4 lens beats the Fujicron in this scenario, even at f/1.4, and if you stop the fast lens down to f/2, then it is not even close... the fast lens wins outright. I have both lenses, and will keep both lenses for their strengths. At moderate apertures, you can't pick one over the other, so size or weather sealing would be the deciding factor. In low light shooting at it near wide-open, the choice narrows to the fast lens. If I'm doing deep field focused shots, I still go with the fast lens... that DOF scale that is exposed when you pull the clutch back make hyperfocal settings fast and precise. Fortunately, I never jumped to the 40mp sensor. I more that happy with the 26mp on my X-T3, so resolution never was an issue for me.
Hi Albert - The camera was on a tripod. Believe it or not it is a known factor that the f2 version has a wider field of view than the 1.4. Your explanation of why the f2 is sharper in the foreground than the 1.4 makes sense. Because of a lack of time I decided not to do it again and try and see if it was indeed a missed focus issue which makes more sense to me.
How the hell would YOU know, Kirk Williamson? Have YOU found a lens which reveals much more detail when used on the same exact camera? Let's take a guess about how big an enlargement needs to be in order to actually witness obvious difference in lens quality, or how perfect your computer monitor needs to be, or how about what ordinary people who know nothing of photography. What would their opinion be following an examination of a few different sample images? Other things are much more noticeable with lens quality, such as the actual build quality, the auto-focus technology used, etc. Most modern lenses are pretty darn good, and there's NO shortage of not so modern lenses which are also excellent - One modern lens which is NOT so good is any Sigma lens. Generally speaking ... the after-market lenses just don't measure up quite as well as the name brand lenses. But even among those, there are surely a few good exceptions here and there.
@@KirkWilliamsonphotography - Wedding photography, both digital and medium format film. But not 45 years. I dare say that, more often than not, most people would not notice a difference, whether amateur or professional photographer, unless they happen to be the pixel peeper sorts of people. I've also learned that some sorts of lenses lend themselves more favorably to film photography than to digital, and vice versa, with regard to their optical formulations. Digital surely seems to demand a much higher quality lens in order to get the best advantages which may be available with digital. Some lenses lack good color and contrast when used with digital, but they might generally be perfectly OK with film.
The thing is the only sharp lenses for the X mount aren't made by Fuji. So basically you are comparing lenses that don't fully resolve the 40mp sensor amongst each other. If Fuji was honest the high res list would be empty. That said. if you don't crop in - who cares?
That's totally okay. I like the rendering of Fuji's lenses very much. At least for my copies though I stand by my observation. That said, I don't own ALL focal lengths, but those supposed to resolve best.
