Indiscreetness aside, would this be worth the extra $ as a walk around lens over the 27mm 2.8?
2048244
If you need the extra stops of last get, yes. For night or low light shooting, it's perfect. I own both and enjoy using each for different situations. The 27mm is great for a compact kit, the 23 is just amazing for sharpness and the extra width to the field of view can be quite useful. Only you can decide if it's worth it. Best way to determine which one- rent them and compare with your own eyes.
2048245
Depends on what you're looking for? This lens has two stops more light gathering ability and thus much shallower DOF It is much heavier though, but not by any amount that means you can't carry it around all day easily.
2048246
They are both excellent lenses, and I own both. The 27 usually gets the nod for walk-around shooting for compactness and light weight. I use the 23 for work. The 27 renders beautiful images on the Fuji sensor, nothing at all wrong with its image quality. I do think that the regular price is high for this lens, as it's often on rebate so I waited to buy it.
2048247
You have what you pay for. The 23 is superb and fast. The 27 is not a bad lens, but the main point of it is not IQ, it's portability.
2048248
Fujinon XF 23mm F1.4 R is an extraordinary lens for masterful photography in wide range of light/color conditions. Less expensive lens can be used for "just a pic" applications.
2048249
Depends on what you're looking for?This lens has two stops more light gathering ability and thus much shallower DOFIt is much heavier though, but not by any amount that means you can't carry it around all day easily.
1150129
Thanks for your thoughts, Ken; I own the 24-105mm f/4L, but am looking for the best option for the extra focal length that makes portraits and candids really pop! As far as I can tell, even though the 200mm f/2.8 is well-built, people seem to have an almost religious zeal for the 135mm, making it all the more attractive.
501122
Thanks for the feedback. I ended up getting the Canon 17-55/2.8IS. It was more expensive, but I had come across some extra money. I've had that lens for several month now and it's awesome. The zoom range is excellent, it's great having f2.8 through the whole range, and the IS adds probably at least 3 stops. It's very sharp when I do my part, especially when it's stopped down a couple clicks. I would still love to get a lens like I described in my OP, but I'm looking at a wide angle zoom and a better telephoto lens before that one.
1451391
Matthew, Sigma has released information of a replacement lens which will hit the market towards the end of March. the lens is priced at $499 and boasts significant upgrades to almost every aspect of the lens. With that being said the price of this version of the lens has been slashed (lucky people like me found it for $289). I would consider your need for this type of lens. Most of the bad reviews come from earlier models of this particular version (matted black Vs smooth black). The defective lens's rightfully so get poor reviews, however the functioning models get high praise. I have tested the sharpness and autofocus and my unit is perfectly fine. I decided that $500 was too much for a new lens and $289 was a bargain for its older brother. If you look around you may still find that clearance price. I hope this helped!
462700
I agree with this wholeheartedly. The difference could pay for the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS - A quick lens is very versatile.
1196709
I suppose it also really depends on what you budget is now vs later down the line. You really cannot go wrong with a kit lens - especially if you don't have any MAJOR plans for upgrading or spending too much more money down the line. However, I will forever speak highly of the 50mm and the 35mm. They're prime lenses, so they're not as user-friendly to somebody, if just starting - but in reality, that also teaches you more manual-techniques, while still being an amazing lens, in general. I might be bias, though, as I no long have a kit lens, and only primarily use my prime lenses. But, maybe that means something? That I've sold most of my other lenses, and truly use my 50mm & 35mm on a daily-basis, and more frequently than my other four lenses, combined. The Tamron Tom mentioned - it's a great lens. And with the price where it currently is, it's most cost-efficient, as well; considering all the GREAT use you'd get out of it. He also mentioned the 85mm - this is another lens I have, and I love it very much. I just do not have as much wiggle-room when it comes to distance-from-subject very often. If you do have that wiggle-room - I would also very much recommend the 85mm. So really, it depends on what you're wanting to do and spend; both now and in the long-run.
356779
If you don't want to change lenses throughout the zoom range, then it may be worth it. You will have more distortion at the extremes with the 108mm too.
1780601
One other option for you might be the 50mm 1.2L. It's just as superb (and erratic) as the 85mm 1.2.
1810953
either the 200 2.8L or 70-200 2.8L are excellent for that purpose. They are significantly better than the lenses you own. In that focal length they are top of the line.
1526809
I am a professional photographer and I considered both before buying the Canon. I plan to use the lens regularly and for a long time and I need my images to be the best they can be. That uptick in quality is worth far more than $800, especially when spread out over years of ownership.
735069
It definitely has a far superior build quality. I feel more confident with it on my camera. I have taken quite a few shots wide open at 2.8 and have been very pleased. The focusing motor is also a lot quieter than the nifty fifty. I would like the extra stops but i feel i picked the right starter prime lens and plan on a 30 mm sigma 1.4 in the future. (my brother owns the 50 1.8 and this is what i base my opinions on as I have shot some with his lens on my camera.)
357725
To my understanding it is usually believed that 2470 is a better version than this one in the same focal length range. But there are other things to consider. How important is it for you to have the extra versatility, that is, the focal length of 70 to 120? How much do you care about the lost of aperture range? (And that depends on what you plan to shoot most often.) How important is the price difference to you? And weight differs, too. Actually, I envy the newest 750 model so much! lol. It certainly deserves good lenses.
575775
If you can afford it I would definitely keep both. First, the 85 1.8 gives you the wide aperture that you do not get with the 70-200 f/4. It is also much more compact and allows you to be less noticeable when shooting. The size and color of the 70-200 make stealth next to impossible. If you are indoors in low light you will definitely be reaching for the 85 1.8.
385957
I really enjoyed my Sigma 30mm, but the 24L is something different. $1100 is worth different things to different people. I found it to be a better focal length on a crop sensor (7D) for general indoor low light shooting.
1966947
This is no easy call. Both lenses are said to perform similarly in terms of IQ. I've owned the EF 28mm f/1.8 and was never happy with it due to innacuracy of AF and image softness. Some folks like it quite a bit. Not my case. I wouldn't recommend this lens. I've read good reviews about the Sigma 30 mm, but I lack first hand experience. My two cents worth...
1130016
I have both. The f/4 has only two advantages: it's much more portable, and it's much cheaper. But if you can afford the f/2.8, and if you can bring it where you want to use it (it's big, and you will probably want at least a monopod)--well, it's an amazing lens. Haven't regretted buying mine for an instant.
357728
It's the only lens I use for my 800. With occasional hiccups trying to focus through car window glass. It's sharp enough for my varied uses. I was sold on the lens by tests performed and published on the blog Photography Life and you'll also find info on the 24-70, but the 2.8 will give you a softer background.