Lens recommendation: is 23mm a must-have?

Started Mar 13, 2014 | Questions thread
OP TravelLight Regular Member • Posts: 289
Re: Lens recommendation: is 23mm a must-have?

Wow, great shot and a splendid place! Thanks for sharing! I can see how 14mm and 23mm can get many things covered, esp. if you like to shoot wide (I do).

deednets wrote:

TravelLight wrote:

I have ordered X-T1 and the following lenses: 14mm, 18-55mm, 60mm, 55-200mm. So, with the lens sale ending soon, is there another lens I should buy?

I mainly do landscape, animals (my cat and wildlife encountered while hiking), street, and want to get into macro (mainly flowers and creatures on flowers/grass/leaves, etc.).

Is 23mm necessary if I already have the lenses above? Especially given that I don't really do street all that much, and already have 18-55? I really like 56mm but the price is so high that I definitely won't buy unless I have a real need (I don't do weddings or formal portraits -- not a pro).


The 18-55 is not a bad lens, in fact IMO one of the better zooms on the market right now - compared to other zooms that is!

The 23/1.4 is a completely different beast, it is not just the faster glass and separation but a rendering of light that sure is something special. Have only seen this in samples of the 56/1.2 there is something truly special about the effortlessness in which the lens renders light.

Here is one I took a couple of months ago in Melbourne, I had the 14, the 18-55 and the 23/1.4 with me and used the 14 and the 23 exclusively for the day, except 2 images I took with the zoom ...

After that trip I sold the 18-55. Harsh, because as I said not a bad lens, but the 23 just in a completely different league:

Here are some samples of the 23 (and below the 56) a similar rendering IMO:



Good luck!


Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow