Canon 28mm 2.8

[jimmy156]

Hi all, whats the general consensus on this the 28mm 2.8.

I'm on a seriously tight budget and need something wider. When i bought my camera (50d) a few years ago i was only interested in wildlife photography so i bought the body, sigma 120-400 and 50mm 1.8 II for "general use." I have since acquired the excellent 60mm 2.8 macro as well.

Up until now when i have needed a more general purpose lens i have been able to borrow a 18-55 kit lens, which is pretty dire as far as sharpness is concerned. Even stopped down its still soft! However i will no longer have the use of this lens shortly so need to cover the wider focal lengths.

TBH my budget is under £200, and i must buy from Calumet (because i have vouchers i can use), so second hand is out of the question. It looks like my choice is between the 28mm 2.8 and the Sigma 18-50 2.8-4.5. I was just going to go for the sigma but i worry that i will be disappointed with its quality, which got me thinking about the 28mm.

Opinions?

[dr croubie]

Which 18-55 lens have you used? The newer 18-55 IS models are a *lot* better than the non-IS versions, although there's still a fair bit of barrel distortion and vignetting at the wider end, and CA gets a bit worse when you stop down.
But on the plus side, it's damn cheap, even cheaper than the 50/1.8ii, and overall IQ looks better than the sigma 18-50 f/3.5-5.6. (I can't find much on the 2.8-4.5)

Compare that to the 28/2.8, the prime is actually softer than the 18-55 IS at 28mm, has more CA, and barrels more than the zoom. But then the prime is a stop faster.
There's not much else around this extreme budget end of the market, unless you like Lensbabies.
So without scoring some extra money, i'd be getting the 18-55 (*with* IS, I or II) kit lens.

(The only other option is to save a bit more for the much-better efs 15-85, canon/tamron 17-55 f/2.8, ef 35/2, sigma 35/1.4 etc. Probably depends on how long your vouchers last).

[jimmy156]

Hi dr croubie,

The 18-55 i have used is the older, no IS model, i had heard the newer ones were better!

Here's a link to the 2.8-4.5|http://www.ephotozine.com/article/sigma-18-50mm-f-2-8-4-5-dc-os-hsm-interchangeable-lens-review-12753

hmm i didn't realise the prime was lousy optically, i will strike that one off the list then!

The reason for the ultra low budget is a have just bought my first house! So all my funds for the foreseeable future are tied up. The lens that i want is the Canon 17-55 2.8, but it may be a long long time before i can justify £800ish on a new lens.

Another lens i'm quite keen on is the tamron 17-50 2.8 (non IS) but for some reason Calumet charge so much more for this then other sellers, i would have to spend more even with £80 vouchers then buying it from somewhere else. If they sold it for a £290, as its sold elsewhere, i might just be able to stretch to is, but they want around £450!

The trouble with waiting is that i will be without a lens wider then 50mm (on a crop body) for quite a while!

[bainsybike]

I agree with Dr Croubie.  I think the 18-55 IS is often underestimated - it's a good lens.  It won't cost you much, and you can always upgrade to something more exotic later on.

[Mendolera]

I have a few lenses that cost 10X the cost of the 18-55 and honestly out of my 6 or 7 favorites pictures Ive taken since I started photography I know of 2 have them have been with the 18-55 IS