Looking for advice - Fuji X Wide prime for landscape portraiture.

HappySnappy1977

HappySnappy1977

Messages
692
Name
Dean
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi,

Long time no post! Looking for recommendations for a wide prime for landscape portraiture.

I am used to Nikon Full frame and my "go to" used to be the 24-70 or the 35mm as I loved the bokeh.

I'm mainly looking for something for people pics with a landscape around them but one that could also be used for the odd wedding and possibly a bit of street too.

Can't wait to hear your recommendations.
 
The 23/1.4 would be the direct equivalent of your 35mm, and it's still one of the best lenses in the Fuji line-up. Worth having the 27/2.8 too, it's discrete and gets results well above it's price point.
 
Thank you for your reply Alastair.

Would you massively recommend the 1.4 over the 2 WR?

Also - I know I said primes but - thoughts on the 16-55 2.8 compared to a fast prime? Again - mainly interested in Bokeh and quality.
 
I've not tried the f/2 so can't offer an opinion on that. But there's no chance I'd give up my 23/1.4.. ..

 
HappySnappy1977 said:
Would you massively recommend the 1.4 over the 2 WR?
Click to expand...


If you feel you might need the WR, it's a no brainer. If you particularly want/need the shallower DoF that an f/1.4 lens can give you, again, it's a no brainer (especially if it's a NEED rather than just a WANT!). The £329 (using WEX's prices) difference could be a decider (and would be for me!)
 
I had the 23mm 1.4 for quite a while and sold it to get the 16-55.

I originally bought it for street photography but it's big and heavy and I didn't get on with the AF and the clutch focus never seemed to fix where I wanted it. The 16-55 is obviously bigger and heavier, but more versatile for me as a landscape lens as well as a myriad of other uses. For dedicated street photography I intend to pick up the 23mm f2 as it has better AF (from what I've read) and is much lighter/more discreet than the 1.4. I'm hoping I can rely on the AF rather than zone focussing which I've only had success with on my M42 lenses...

If you're after quality, the 23mm f1.4 is a superb lens. For me though it wasn't versatile enough and the 16-55 strikes the right balance for 90% of my needs with the 23mm f2 filling the last 10% of my street photography.
 
Harlequin565 said:
I had the 23mm 1.4 for quite a while and sold it to get the 16-55.

I originally bought it for street photography but it's big and heavy and I didn't get on with the AF and the clutch focus never seemed to fix where I wanted it. The 16-55 is obviously bigger and heavier, but more versatile for me as a landscape lens as well as a myriad of other uses. For dedicated street photography I intend to pick up the 23mm f2 as it has better AF (from what I've read) and is much lighter/more discreet than the 1.4. I'm hoping I can rely on the AF rather than zone focussing which I've only had success with on my M42 lenses...

If you're after quality, the 23mm f1.4 is a superb lens. For me though it wasn't versatile enough and the 16-55 strikes the right balance for 90% of my needs with the 23mm f2 filling the last 10% of my street photography.
Click to expand...

I think I've made my mind up that this is the lens for me :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top