is there an appreciable difference in image sharpness when comparing this lens to the kit lens (18-55mm) at the latter's 55mm setting?
809688
The 56 mm is a sharper lens, especially stopped slightly down from its maximum f/1.2) but you are really buying the 56 mm for the gorgeous results when it is shot wide open - something that the 18-55 (while still an excellent lens) just cannot do.
809689
I would suggest reading this review: http://www.kenrockwell.com/fuji/x-mount-lenses/18-55mm.htm as well as this one http://www.kenrockwell.com/fuji/x-mount-lenses/56mm-f12.htm and seeing what you think.
809690
There is definitely a noticeable difference. The 56 has most definitely been my go to for portraits. On top of the sharpness there is also a creamy character to the bokeh. Overall this lens brings a magical quality to the images.
809691
In my experience, the 56mm 1.2 is every bit as sharp as the 18-55 at it's 55mm minimum aperture of f4, which is saying something. With the loss of depth of field in the crop vs. FF sesnor, I wouldn't care to own the 56mm 1.2 if I had to stop it down for sharpness and, fortunately, I do not have to. I use it frequently for wedding and commercial work and especially for the former, I am shooting wide open 80% of the time, and it is quite sharp. I find it to be the equal of my former Canon 85mm 1.2 II for sharpness wide open, while it, of course, behaves more like a 1.8 in terms of DOF.
1239592
Mindy, so far the pictures I've taken have been good, crisp and clear pictures. I'm sure it would depend a lot on various factors especially light and distance. I have this lens on my Nikon 5000 all the time. It has replaced my 18-55 kit lens. I brought it with me walking around in a recent vacation to Maine and when we went sailing. It is a little heavier than the kit 18-55 lens but not as heavy as the 55-200 lens. It is so much more versatile. It has a wide angle and zoom. I'm no pro. Just an amateur who takes pictures of family and sights when on vacation. I love this lens. I hope this helps. Good luck.
1287308
Mine works perfectly and I have no issues with sharpness. It's a very good walk-around lens when I don't want to carry a lot of gear.
1163547
Fixed lens are ALWAYS sharper and the 1.8 is great in low light situation. Kit lens are not as sharp and usually slower (3.5 or 5.6) and therefore limit ur shooting possibilites. If u want a zoom spend the money for a fast one (2.8). I never buy kit lens. I bought d3200 body and 50mm 1.8vs and i have used it very often for newspaper gigs recently in a variety of lighting situations. The extra sharpness and speed payed off. My shots were crisp and clear when printed in the newspaper.
254306
I'm new to photography scene. Nikon D5000 with a kit 18-55 was my setup for some time. I picked up a 50mm 1.8 2 years ago and shot as much as I could with that lens instead of the 18-55... didn't like using the 18-55, wasn't fast enough for me. I bought this lens a couple of months ago and have been VERY pleased with it. It is now the go to lens on the camera because of its versatility. Its much faster than the 18-55. Not as fast as the 50, though. But I've loved using this lens so far...
306198
All of these are on the low-end of lenses and so I don't know if you'll see an appreciable difference in image quality, especially on a budget (D)SLR. The most direct comparison that can be made is to the kit lens. Assuming you've already decided that a zoom lens is necessary, both will have similar image quality, but the advantage of this model is that the widest aperture does not change with zoom - it will stay at f/2.8 over the entire length. Moreover, this has a wider maximum aperture than the kit, enabling for shallower depth of field and more light reaching the sensor. The question becomes, are these aspects necessary/important to you? If image quality is more important than the ability to zoom, then, in general, prime lenses tend to produce sharper images than budget zoom lenses.
1664836
This is generally seen as a direct upgrade from the 18-55 Kit lens. It covers almost the same focal lengths, but with wider aperture (more possible light), better autofocus, and better overall image quality. If you like the zoom range on the kit lens but are unsatisfied with the images that come from it, this is a lens you should consider.
1974651
I've had the 50mm 1.8 and the kit lens, and I can definitely say this will blow both of them away! This is essentially a high-quality upgrade from the kit lens, and in my opinion gives at least as good an image result as the 50mm prime - but with the range of a zoom. The 35mm I don't have experience with, but I would still bet that the Sigma would compete just fine :)
1838717
This lens is quite shart at it's focal length. Not take away from this lens but I have actually started to favor the 135L prime lens in terms of sharpness. It obviously requires much more room to get your subject in range (outdoors generally) but the picture come out sharp with a nice Bokeh.As you mentioned, the 35mm is a must have focal length and the sharpness of this lens won't disappoint. I would post an example but I am responding by mobile. You can probably find examples with a quick google image search.
848892
Yes, I own and use both the 15-85mm IS and 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM lenses. The 17-55 produces excellent image quality while the 15-85mm offers very, very good image quality. While the 17-55 is optically superior, IMHO, the differences in IQ produced by the two lenses can be relatively small - virtually unnoticeable in small to medium-large prints - so I feel perhaps IQ shouldn't be THE deciding factor when choosing between the two lenses, rather, your intended use. For example, I use these lenses for very different purposes: the 17-55 is a fantastic standard zoom for low light situations and the 15-85 excels for travel. Yes, I own and use both the 15-85mm IS and 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM lenses. The 17-55 produces excellent image quality while the 15-85mm offers very, very good image quality. While the 17-55 is optically superior, IMHO, the differences in IQ produced by the two lenses can be relatively small - virtually unnoticeable in small to medium-large prints - so I feel perhaps IQ shouldn't be THE deciding factor when choosing between the two lenses, rather, your intended use. For example, I use these lenses for very different purposes: the 17-55 is a fantastic standard zoom for low light situations and... » Read More Yes, I own and use both the 15-85mm IS and 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM lenses. The 17-55 produces excellent image quality while the 15-85mm offers very, very good image quality. While the 17-55 is optically superior, IMHO, the differences in IQ produced by the two lenses can be relatively small - virtually unnoticeable in small to medium-large prints - so I feel perhaps IQ shouldn't be THE deciding factor when choosing between the two lenses, rather, your intended use. For example, I use these lenses for very different purposes: the 17-55 is a fantastic standard zoom for low light situations and the 15-85 excels for travel. « Show Less
1796675
It is a slight bit better than the 50mm 1.4...way better than the 18-55. It's not up to an L lens quality but it does slightly beat out the build of my 50mm 1.4
910326
I think it makes a drastic difference! I I'm pretty impressed with the clarity as well. Of course it will all depend on your original lens.
1324618
Yeah, I'd say their elements are in the same class. Both use ultra-low dispersion glass and produce superb images. I think the main difference is that the 17-55 has to use larger elements. Which increases the relative aperture and the price tag.
767675
This lens and the Pentax 18-55 II are not really comparable. The 18-55 is a zoom, and the DA 50mm f1.8 is a prime, meaning, of course, no zoom. It's fixed at 50mm. Also, the 18-55 II will only open up to f3.5, so you really won't get the lovely narrow depth of field that you get with the 50mm f1.8, which is what makes this lens so attractive and seductive. So I guess it depends on what you want. The 18-55 would make a better walk-around utility lens. The 50mm f1.8 is a specialized, portrait lens that will give you a fantastically blurred background when shooting subjects up close. Personally, I think you should have both in your lens collection. This lens and the Pentax 18-55 II are not really comparable. The 18-55 is a zoom, and the DA 50mm f1.8 is a prime, meaning, of course, no zoom. It's fixed at 50mm. Also, the 18-55 II will only open up to f3.5, so you really won't get the lovely narrow depth of field that you get with the 50mm f1.8, which is what makes this lens so attractive and seductive. So I guess it depends on what you want. The 18-55 would make a better walk-around utility lens. The 50mm f1.8 is a specialized, portrait lens that will give you a fantastically blurred background when shooting subjects up close.... » Read More This lens and the Pentax 18-55 II are not really comparable. The 18-55 is a zoom, and the DA 50mm f1.8 is a prime, meaning, of course, no zoom. It's fixed at 50mm. Also, the 18-55 II will only open up to f3.5, so you really won't get the lovely narrow depth of field that you get with the 50mm f1.8, which is what makes this lens so attractive and seductive. So I guess it depends on what you want. The 18-55 would make a better walk-around utility lens. The 50mm f1.8 is a specialized, portrait lens that will give you a fantastically blurred background when shooting subjects up close. Personally, I think you should have both in your lens collection. « Show Less
1732814
Not sure what kit you have. I have Pentax. From what I read, and judging by the price, the 18-35 1.8 may be better, but the 17-70 has a longer reach which comes in handy for a walkaround lens. I have the Pentax FA 50 1.4 prime, and the Sigma can match it at 50mm, so long as there is enough light and you can shoot faster than say 1/20. I have almost retired my 35mm 2.4, 40mm2.8 and 50mm 1.4 primes since I got the sigma, since I have on the Pentax K3 most of the time. Of course I will use the primes under certain conditions, but for a walkaround, the sigma does an excellent job. I considered the 18-35mm, but since I already have this one, I will be interested if the improve IQ is worth the extra money, since the 17-70 has the extra reach.
763550
Hi, actaually I have this lens and had the 16-50. I got the nex 6 last year and sold the 16-50 lens because I felt the pics came out better in the 18-55. The focus was better and pics seems crisp to me in 18-55. Yes it's much heavier and the smaller to travel with. 16-50 made it really nice to go our the city with.... But I just couldn't take a good pic with the 16-50. I got the 18-55 for about $100 used. So I'm happy.
1800633
The 18-55mm lens has the image stabilizer feature but the 75-300mm lens in the kit does NOT.