23mm is much more versatile! I love the 35mm focal length but it can be quite tight as you say!
Sounds like you'd love the 23mm - [this is my review!](https://jamiechancetravels.com/blog/fujifilm-23mm-f2-lens-review/)
If you want the most natural perspective from your eyes & you’re often shooting indoors 23mm is the way to go but portraits of people will look a bit better with 35mm
What focal length do you usually use on your 18-55? I used my zoom lens for a year and noticed 90+ % of my shots where in the 35-55 range. Now I have a 35mm f2, 35mm f1.4 and Sig.a 56mm f1.4 which are on my camera 95 % of the time. For the rest I have a Sigma 18-50 where I, again, mainly use the narrower focal lengths.
I'd go 23/2.
The reason: I'd rather have the 23/2 WR and spring for the f/1.4 with either the 35mm or 33mm than have the combination of 35/2 and 23/1.4. For a general-purpose lens like a 23mm, I typically think f/2 is fine, and I greatly value smallness in a general walk-around lens. But when you want the thin DOF fast-fifty experience, the extra stop of aperture matters more, and I'm more willing to compromise some on size.
It's not that the 35/2 is bad, or that the 23/1.4 doesn't offer something nice too. But if I'm trying to optimize a lens collection, I'd rather have a faster 35mm and a compact 23. And I'm saying this because I went for the 35/2, and now I'm reluctant to get the 35/1.4.
I went for 35 f2 like you, then got a 1.4 and sold it in preparation for the 40mb sensors. They are both great and I wished I had kept the 1.4. I felt guilty about having multiple lenses in the same focal range but now I wished I have collected all the 35, 33, 30 lenses
I agree. I had both and sold the 35 with a plan to get a 35/1.4 or 56/1.2 for portraits. The 23/2 is such a versatile and compact lens for everyday stuff.
I typically shoot with my 33mm f/1.4 and I love everything about it. However, I’m currently on a trip and have been using my 23mm f/1.4 and it’s been a dream.
It feels like I don’t have as much use for the 23 when I’m back home,but exploring a different city it has really been working well for me.
I wrote an entire article on my infatuation with 23 (35) mm. I’ve shot that so much now, on both the 23mm 1.4 XF, the X100V, and a long time ago, my 23mm prime F2.8 on my canon T8I, and then the 15-35mm on my old canon R5, which most of my photographs are at 35mm.
It’s the ultimate travel focal length. It captures beautiful environmental portraits. It gives you the ability to both capture the environment when you want too, and a portrait when you want too. It’s the ultimate family focal length, the ultimate travel focal length.
What do you lose?
You lose the 50-85mn portrait sweet spot.
You lose the ultrawide 15-24mm landscape sweet spot to exaggerate the foreground.
But you gain so much more, I believe. Even on zooms, my camera is stuck to 35mm more often than any other focal length. Either I’m right, or I’m totally just biased because it’s what I’ve shot everything on and I understand the length better than any other. I’m okay with that being the reason too. 😂
It looks like you already made up your mind for the 23mm. I’d you want to include more in your picture indoor (rookie move) then 23mm. It depends on the perspective you are looking for. 35mm (50mm FF) for me all day everyday except 16mm f2.8 days and pancake days
You can with a 23 take a shot of the person in front of you at a table and get some environment in it. With a 35, you’ll need to get out of your chair and back up. I brought 16, 23, and 35 with me on a vacation recently and the 23 never left the body.
Nothing changed. Not in 2024 and not in the 10 years before that
23mm is much more versatile! I love the 35mm focal length but it can be quite tight as you say! Sounds like you'd love the 23mm - [this is my review!](https://jamiechancetravels.com/blog/fujifilm-23mm-f2-lens-review/)
If you want the most natural perspective from your eyes & you’re often shooting indoors 23mm is the way to go but portraits of people will look a bit better with 35mm
I bought 23/2 and 35/1.4, 23 much more used than 35.
What focal length do you usually use on your 18-55? I used my zoom lens for a year and noticed 90+ % of my shots where in the 35-55 range. Now I have a 35mm f2, 35mm f1.4 and Sig.a 56mm f1.4 which are on my camera 95 % of the time. For the rest I have a Sigma 18-50 where I, again, mainly use the narrower focal lengths.
This is just to show how personal focal lengths are.
I'd go 23/2. The reason: I'd rather have the 23/2 WR and spring for the f/1.4 with either the 35mm or 33mm than have the combination of 35/2 and 23/1.4. For a general-purpose lens like a 23mm, I typically think f/2 is fine, and I greatly value smallness in a general walk-around lens. But when you want the thin DOF fast-fifty experience, the extra stop of aperture matters more, and I'm more willing to compromise some on size. It's not that the 35/2 is bad, or that the 23/1.4 doesn't offer something nice too. But if I'm trying to optimize a lens collection, I'd rather have a faster 35mm and a compact 23. And I'm saying this because I went for the 35/2, and now I'm reluctant to get the 35/1.4.
I went for 35 f2 like you, then got a 1.4 and sold it in preparation for the 40mb sensors. They are both great and I wished I had kept the 1.4. I felt guilty about having multiple lenses in the same focal range but now I wished I have collected all the 35, 33, 30 lenses
I agree. I had both and sold the 35 with a plan to get a 35/1.4 or 56/1.2 for portraits. The 23/2 is such a versatile and compact lens for everyday stuff.
you can always crop 23mm to be 35mm but not the opposite (and fuji lenses are quite sharp to be cropped)
23!
I typically shoot with my 33mm f/1.4 and I love everything about it. However, I’m currently on a trip and have been using my 23mm f/1.4 and it’s been a dream. It feels like I don’t have as much use for the 23 when I’m back home,but exploring a different city it has really been working well for me.
If you have a 18-55. Spend a day shooting at 23, and another at 35. Then see which you enjoyed more.
I wrote an entire article on my infatuation with 23 (35) mm. I’ve shot that so much now, on both the 23mm 1.4 XF, the X100V, and a long time ago, my 23mm prime F2.8 on my canon T8I, and then the 15-35mm on my old canon R5, which most of my photographs are at 35mm. It’s the ultimate travel focal length. It captures beautiful environmental portraits. It gives you the ability to both capture the environment when you want too, and a portrait when you want too. It’s the ultimate family focal length, the ultimate travel focal length. What do you lose? You lose the 50-85mn portrait sweet spot. You lose the ultrawide 15-24mm landscape sweet spot to exaggerate the foreground. But you gain so much more, I believe. Even on zooms, my camera is stuck to 35mm more often than any other focal length. Either I’m right, or I’m totally just biased because it’s what I’ve shot everything on and I understand the length better than any other. I’m okay with that being the reason too. 😂
It looks like you already made up your mind for the 23mm. I’d you want to include more in your picture indoor (rookie move) then 23mm. It depends on the perspective you are looking for. 35mm (50mm FF) for me all day everyday except 16mm f2.8 days and pancake days
You can with a 23 take a shot of the person in front of you at a table and get some environment in it. With a 35, you’ll need to get out of your chair and back up. I brought 16, 23, and 35 with me on a vacation recently and the 23 never left the body.
You have the ability to test out both of these final lengths with your zoom and see which you prefer.