Excellent review, Dustin. This is my favorite lens on X-mount so far! Incredibly versatile prime lens - clean images in low light, great magnification, and sharp enough for cropping at any aperture. I use the older XF 35mm f/1.4 when I want more character and smoother bokeh in my images, while reducing weight (it is about half the size/weight as the newer 1.4 primes).
Thanks for another excellent review, Dustin. I've been using the 23/1.4 and the 33/1.4 Fujis on my X-H2 for about 6 months now, and share your positive assessments. At least for photography, I find them equally sharp and responsive, and certainly superior to their Viltrox equivalents (although I do like and use the Viltrox 13/1.4 and 75/1.2). Consistent with your conclusion, my choice between them is based almost exclusively on use-case/preferred focal length. I use the 23 mostly for street photography, and the 33 mostly for portraits. They complement very well my default mid-range zoom (the Fuji 16-80/4) when I am shooting in lower light and/or want a narrow DOF for bokke.
The latter two Viltrox lenses you mention are definitely head and shoulders above the 23 and 33mm Viltrox lenses. But 23mm and 33mm from Fuji are among the few lenses that really shine on the X-H2.
Fantastic stuff, Dustin 👌 I do have this 23mm and it's been practically glued to the X-T5 ever since. You mentioned the Viltrox 75mm again, and I do have some GAS for it. However, as I already have the 90mm f/2, which I do find stunning, I think the 56mm WR would make more sense to me. Despite it being more than double the price in the UK - gulp! Hopefully you will get to test that one someday. Thanks again for some of, if not the, best camera/lens reviews on RUclips!
If I had the 90mm already I'd 100% get the 56mm over the 75. 56mm is a good focal length for use indoors or out. 75mm will push it in terms of indoor use, unless the venue is huge. Also The 56 has a 20 inch minimum focus with better magnification vs. 35 inch on the 75, once again adding to versatility. Both have 11 aperture blades but the Fuji is smaller, lighter. In a nutshell, the 56mm is better in pretty much every way and the IQ is incredible. The AF performance on both is similar, so I've heard, but in my experience the 56, while noisy, can have a very good speed and accuracy. It took me a lot of practice to learn what I could and could not get away with, as it is usually a "step behind me" in much lower light settings, or when working close to the MFD, if that makes sense. The 56mm is pricey, yes, but used ones are showing up and I think it offers a better value for general photography. I love the new Viltrox lenses and especially their price, but they are also big to the point where I'm not sure it would be comfy on an XT5 with no battery grip available. If I had to choose just 1 lens between the 56, 90, and the 75mm, it would be a tougher call. Then I would end up with the 56mm anyway since the focal length alone is so versatile (even if that means giving up amazing compression). 😁
This lens is legendary. I have shot a great deal with it and concur it combines fast and accurate (and near silent) AF with impeccable image quality. It is also very travel friendly - not much bigger or heavier feeling than the kit lens. The close focusing is both fun and a good quality of life booster. Definitely pricey but I think it has been worth every penny (especially as I bought used). I am 90-100% certain you will find that the new 56mm WR lens is both a gorgeous optic and ready for 40mps. Unfortunately the AF of that lens is topic all by itself - it has both impressed me (with its speed and accuracy) and frustrated me (with its failure to keep up in some scenarios). Hope you get to play with that one soon too!
@@fotografalexandernikolis It may help you to know that the new 56 does, IMO, have a better hit rate than, say, the 18-55mm which has a quiet linear motor. Hit rate is more important to me than absolute speed or noise levels. The 18-55mm always surprises me in two ways - one is its occasionally outstanding image quality, the other is the quantity of shots that missed focus a little or a lot when dealing with a moving subject. Static shooting its fine of course - usually.
@@matt88169 I have never had that problem with my 18-55, but my friend has one that has strange and erratic AF. See if you can find another one and try it.
This lens gets close (compared to other Fuji lenses) to my Sony 35mm f1.4 GM when viewed at 100% and the Sony is known as one of the sharpest 35mm lenses.
Hello. How can I find the card with the banknotes on it that you examine the sharpness and contrast of the lens at minute 11:40. I want to test my new lens.
As they are very close in focal point, this or the Viltrox 27 1.2 is recommended in practical terms of travel or professional work (environmental portraits)?
Hi Dustin, will you re-review some old XF lenses in the 40MP sensor? Would be awesome to see those red badge lenses in under the most demanding sensor. Regardless, thank you for all the good work you do!
@@DustinAbbottTWI yeah, I meant if you will keep doing it as like a series, covering some of the most popular lenses that you have already tested in years prior (would love to see some old primes like the 50 f1). Anyways I'll keep watching your reviews, thank you!
I can't make too many promises. The biggest challenge is that I have 5 other lenses, two cameras, and other gear to review with more on the way. It is hard to fit in the oldies.
I'm not familiar with Fuji lenses, but on other platforms (Canon, Nikon, Sony), such a rendering would be considered "poor", and one you would get with a cheap lens, like half the price of that one. The lens might be sharp and able to resolve a lot of details, and kudos for that, but to me, the most important quality of a lens is its rendering. The background doesn't have a smooth transition, and always looks busy / nervous.
If you used this lens you would understand why you are wrong, for many reasons. One being, this thing is resolving the equivalent of about 90-100 megapixels on full frame - with no meaningful flaws. Which cheap lens beats that? I've shot the crap out of this lens and can assure you - it has plenty of pop and produces stunning renders. How you approach a composition in the first place influences the "bokeh", but as a wide-ish angle lens, I don't see that as the main attraction here.
I take your point in that I don't think the rendering is amazing, but at the same time the performance is far from a cheap lens. The Fuji 40MP sensors are pretty much the most demanding mainstream platforms, and this lens handles that resolution point very well.
Have you ever tested to see if reducing the image size setting on the 40mp sensors help out the lenses that can't handle the sensor as well? Says medium 3:2 is about 20mp on the camera, so I kinda wondered if I'm better off doing that on say my 10-24 vs just leaving it at full resolution and deal with the early diffraction, sharpness issues, etc.
This video is sponsored by Fantom Wallet. Visit store.fantomwallet.com and use code DUSTIN15 to get 15% off
Thanks Dustin. I own that lens paired with my XH-2 and cannot be happier. Your review confirm my impression. Highly recommended!
Glad I could help!
Thank you very much for your full assessment illustrated with examples.
Glad it was helpful!
Excellent review, Dustin. This is my favorite lens on X-mount so far! Incredibly versatile prime lens - clean images in low light, great magnification, and sharp enough for cropping at any aperture. I use the older XF 35mm f/1.4 when I want more character and smoother bokeh in my images, while reducing weight (it is about half the size/weight as the newer 1.4 primes).
Sounds fair.
Thanks for another excellent review, Dustin. I've been using the 23/1.4 and the 33/1.4 Fujis on my X-H2 for about 6 months now, and share your positive assessments. At least for photography, I find them equally sharp and responsive, and certainly superior to their Viltrox equivalents (although I do like and use the Viltrox 13/1.4 and 75/1.2). Consistent with your conclusion, my choice between them is based almost exclusively on use-case/preferred focal length. I use the 23 mostly for street photography, and the 33 mostly for portraits. They complement very well my default mid-range zoom (the Fuji 16-80/4) when I am shooting in lower light and/or want a narrow DOF for bokke.
The latter two Viltrox lenses you mention are definitely head and shoulders above the 23 and 33mm Viltrox lenses. But 23mm and 33mm from Fuji are among the few lenses that really shine on the X-H2.
Fantastic stuff, Dustin 👌
I do have this 23mm and it's been practically glued to the X-T5 ever since. You mentioned the Viltrox 75mm again, and I do have some GAS for it. However, as I already have the 90mm f/2, which I do find stunning, I think the 56mm WR would make more sense to me. Despite it being more than double the price in the UK - gulp! Hopefully you will get to test that one someday.
Thanks again for some of, if not the, best camera/lens reviews on RUclips!
If I had the 90mm already I'd 100% get the 56mm over the 75. 56mm is a good focal length for use indoors or out. 75mm will push it in terms of indoor use, unless the venue is huge. Also The 56 has a 20 inch minimum focus with better magnification vs. 35 inch on the 75, once again adding to versatility. Both have 11 aperture blades but the Fuji is smaller, lighter. In a nutshell, the 56mm is better in pretty much every way and the IQ is incredible. The AF performance on both is similar, so I've heard, but in my experience the 56, while noisy, can have a very good speed and accuracy. It took me a lot of practice to learn what I could and could not get away with, as it is usually a "step behind me" in much lower light settings, or when working close to the MFD, if that makes sense. The 56mm is pricey, yes, but used ones are showing up and I think it offers a better value for general photography. I love the new Viltrox lenses and especially their price, but they are also big to the point where I'm not sure it would be comfy on an XT5 with no battery grip available. If I had to choose just 1 lens between the 56, 90, and the 75mm, it would be a tougher call. Then I would end up with the 56mm anyway since the focal length alone is so versatile (even if that means giving up amazing compression). 😁
I'm glad to help out. As far as focal lengths, I get what you mean regarding the 56mm.
Always great reviews
Thank you very much.
Great review Dustin! Looking forward to your review of the upcoming Viltrox 27 1.2 Pro.
I'm working away on it right now.
This lens is legendary. I have shot a great deal with it and concur it combines fast and accurate (and near silent) AF with impeccable image quality. It is also very travel friendly - not much bigger or heavier feeling than the kit lens. The close focusing is both fun and a good quality of life booster. Definitely pricey but I think it has been worth every penny (especially as I bought used). I am 90-100% certain you will find that the new 56mm WR lens is both a gorgeous optic and ready for 40mps. Unfortunately the AF of that lens is topic all by itself - it has both impressed me (with its speed and accuracy) and frustrated me (with its failure to keep up in some scenarios). Hope you get to play with that one soon too!
I will give both the 18mm F1.4 and the 56mm WR a review sometime this fall.
A real shame that the new 56 WR didn't get linear motors since the slow AF was one of the main complaints of the old one :(
@@fotografalexandernikolis It may help you to know that the new 56 does, IMO, have a better hit rate than, say, the 18-55mm which has a quiet linear motor. Hit rate is more important to me than absolute speed or noise levels. The 18-55mm always surprises me in two ways - one is its occasionally outstanding image quality, the other is the quantity of shots that missed focus a little or a lot when dealing with a moving subject. Static shooting its fine of course - usually.
@@matt88169 I have never had that problem with my 18-55, but my friend has one that has strange and erratic AF. See if you can find another one and try it.
Looks like a great lens. Nice review!
My pleasure.
Be still my beating heart, finally a semi wide with good cf.
Exactly
This lens gets close (compared to other Fuji lenses) to my Sony 35mm f1.4 GM when viewed at 100% and the Sony is known as one of the sharpest 35mm lenses.
And it is incredibly good. Both lenses are really sharp, though the Sony wins for overall rendering and the quality of the bokeh.
Hello. How can I find the card with the banknotes on it that you examine the sharpness and contrast of the lens at minute 11:40. I want to test my new lens.
My test chart is custom made.
As they are very close in focal point, this or the Viltrox 27 1.2 is recommended in practical terms of travel or professional work (environmental portraits)?
I've just started the Viltrox review today, but I'll definitely do some comparisons of the two lenses.
Any update on this lens vs the Viltrox? @DustinAbbottTWI
Hi, Dustin. What is the tripod you are using? Thank you
Oben Tabletop Tripod shown in video: bhpho.to/3vL8YWy
have you reviewed xf18mm f/1.4? It's of similar quality as the 23mm and 33mm, I'd imagine.
It's on my list.
@@DustinAbbottTWI keep up the good work. i'll eagerly await new fuji content!
this review is about the newer 23mm lens or the older version? When was it released?
The newer lens. The older lens did not have LM or WR
@@DustinAbbottTWI oh got it cool thanks
Hi Dustin, will you re-review some old XF lenses in the 40MP sensor?
Would be awesome to see those red badge lenses in under the most demanding sensor.
Regardless, thank you for all the good work you do!
I've just covered the 16-55mm F2.8, and will follow it up with the 18-55mm kit lens.
@@DustinAbbottTWI yeah, I meant if you will keep doing it as like a series, covering some of the most popular lenses that you have already tested in years prior (would love to see some old primes like the 50 f1).
Anyways I'll keep watching your reviews, thank you!
I can't make too many promises. The biggest challenge is that I have 5 other lenses, two cameras, and other gear to review with more on the way. It is hard to fit in the oldies.
@@DustinAbbottTWI yeah, it makes sense. Good to know there is more content coming up! Keep it up.
Dustin! Thank you. You and yore wife, Jazz, are a grate insperation to mee end my LIFE!
Jazz is actually my daughter, but thank you.
Dustin Robot🙃
Ummm, thank you?
I'm not familiar with Fuji lenses, but on other platforms (Canon, Nikon, Sony), such a rendering would be considered "poor", and one you would get with a cheap lens, like half the price of that one. The lens might be sharp and able to resolve a lot of details, and kudos for that, but to me, the most important quality of a lens is its rendering. The background doesn't have a smooth transition, and always looks busy / nervous.
If you used this lens you would understand why you are wrong, for many reasons. One being, this thing is resolving the equivalent of about 90-100 megapixels on full frame - with no meaningful flaws. Which cheap lens beats that? I've shot the crap out of this lens and can assure you - it has plenty of pop and produces stunning renders. How you approach a composition in the first place influences the "bokeh", but as a wide-ish angle lens, I don't see that as the main attraction here.
🤦🏼♂️
I take your point in that I don't think the rendering is amazing, but at the same time the performance is far from a cheap lens. The Fuji 40MP sensors are pretty much the most demanding mainstream platforms, and this lens handles that resolution point very well.
Have you ever tested to see if reducing the image size setting on the 40mp sensors help out the lenses that can't handle the sensor as well? Says medium 3:2 is about 20mp on the camera, so I kinda wondered if I'm better off doing that on say my 10-24 vs just leaving it at full resolution and deal with the early diffraction, sharpness issues, etc.
I haven't done that test, but it would be worth a trial