gdanmitchell wrote: bencaju wrote:
+1 the 27mm is known as a noisy lens, but in real situations you won't really care about that noise unles you are doing video with camera audio.
I bought the 27mm WR about two months ago and I would change it to the 23mm if the IQ is the same... And if it wasn't $600 right now . I have a Viltrox 23mm f/1.4 which I love, but the compactness of the 27mm makes it so convenient to carry it everywhere.
The 27mm lens is “known as a noisy lens” not because it actually is a noisy lens, but because some have falsely described it that way and then it caught on as a meme. (It is possible that this slight sound could be picked up when. shooting video. I don’t do that with my camera, so I have no way to know.)
I literally cannot hear it unless I’m in a completely silent situation AND remembering to try to listen to it, at which point I can, if I listen carefully, barely hear a very slight sound. It is less loud than the shutter…
It will be interesting to see if the 23mm f/2.8 has the same optical performance as the 27mm f/2.8. The 27mm focal length works perfectly for me as my “always on the camera” lens, being approximately angle-of-view-equivalent to the 40mm, a focal length found on some of the old-school film bodies. (I once had such a lens that I used on an old Pentax film camera.) It sort of splits the difference between the so-called “normal” 50mm FF lenses and the common 35mm FF lenses.
It is probably too soon to know for sure, but I’ve seen a few positive reports.
Just loaded a couple of files from last weekend although I mostly had the 18 on it. Thge 23 looks pretty reasoble in the shots I do have with it. Let me know if you want me to sends you some raws/jpegs I live in a brick building sure I could find a way to torture it.
. I have a Viltrox 23mm f/1.4 which I love, but the compactness of the 27mm makes it so convenient to carry it everywhere.