Do you need the "best" lens

I have my eyes on that one but I'm waiting to see how it performs with astro before making any decision, especially since it shares the same filter thread with the 70-300 which would be much more efficient for when I'm doing serious landscape work.

Gringostarr wrote:

• Excellent image quality
• Fast aperture
• Small and light
• Fast, accurate, and maybe silent auto-focus

In my experience, pick 2 and expect to pay a premium for 3. A lens with all 4 doesn't exist.

The 14/2.8 has it all but a fast aperture, and even then a 21mm equivilant having a 2.8 still makes it pretty great for astro work. It's a total sleeper lens in the lineup though since it's optically incredibly sharp while being small and light which makes it perfect when you want to travel light since not every vista is accessible with only a mile hike from a parking lot.

Another sleeper lens is the 60/2.4. Take away all the (deserved) criticism for it's autofocus and the aperture ring design and it's virtually impossible to complain about... unless you think every lens that's labeled "macro" needs a 1:1 reproduction. Optically it's pretty much flawless with an out of focus blur that rivals that of the 56/1.2 for things like portraits.

True. The Fuji f2 range is pretty good against your criteria, specifically the 50mm f2 and to a slightly lesser extent the 35mm f2. I would say they hit 3 of those criteria (only missing on the fast aperture, though f2 isn't too bad) but are relatively cheap to purchase.