Lens Help..EF 28mm f1.8 any good?

[SPL]

Hello,…always looking for people’s opinions, especially when it comes to buying new gear.
For a long time I have had an itch to pick up a Canon 24mm f1.4L II for my FF, but it is a pricey one. I would like to do some static star shots and trails also, as well as have a nice fast wide prime for indoor and landscape. Until the funds materialize,does anyone have any positive experiences with the 28mm f1.8?

 

[spot]

my 28mm seems OK,..a bit of CA sometimes,...have not used it for stars though..

 

[robbymack]

I liked mine more on ff than on crop, I never used it much so I did end up selling it. I think the lens gets a bad rap on line, which is good because you can generally pick one up used for a good price. I think it's more than acceptable for the price, especially when you compare it to the prices of the L's of similar length.

 

[The Bad Duck]

My copy is great! I feel it is as sharp as my 35 /1.4 L. If not sharper (or perhaps it is just more contrasty wide open than the 35 L is). However, I don´t really like the 28mm focal length as much as 35 so I don´t use it very much. That said, I knew I wanted the 35 /1.4 L when I got the 28 /1.8 and I really should just have bought the 35 right away. It was a waste of money to get the 28 that I seldom use though it is great.

But it is really good and has a bad reputation that it does not deserve. A theory is that f/1.8 is so shallow DoF that it is easy to mistake an out of focus photo with an unsharp lens. Also you should be aware that 28mm is a "boring" focal length (but that can also be seen as a challange!)

Have not used it for startrails.

So my advice is... although it is a good lens, DON´T buy it. Save for the 24 L that you really want - substitutes will not make you happy and you will end up loosing money. Or buy a used 28.

 

[RS2021]

I agree...this lens has unfairly gained a bad rep...typically from those who have read the reviews and haven't used it. Or have tried it, but with a biased view and an unrealistic expectation of L-quality. The CA issue is true but is overblown and is easily corrected. Even wide open the center is sharp and gets sharper still stopped down just to f2 orf2.8.

As for corners, if one is fair, some softness is to be expected with wide angles and my 35L is soft in the corners! And 28mm is even wider and this lens is not even an L.

The build is better than the other consumer lenses, while not as heavy as say 24II or 35L, this lens will feel solid if you handle it...it doesn't feel cheap. Again, some expect it to be the L build without paying for the L.

Ironically, "mood wise", this lens comes into its own on full frame, corner issues notwithstanding. And you can't beat f1.8 at this wide a focal length.

Canon keeps this lens in production for a reason. In spite of all the armchair punditry, this lens is a steady seller and a good performer on FF and doubles as a normal lens on crop bodies.

Not perfect, but highly underrated.

 

[ablearcher]

I was always happy with my copy when I used it. Very sharp, light, small. Makes a crop or a ff body more portable and less noticeable. I do have a 35L now, so the 28 does not get as much use anymore. But every time I mount it on a body, I get doubts regarding selling it. I'm not sure about your application for this lens, but it is a great take-along prime for indoor and poor light shooting.

 

[KyleSTL]

I've been searching around for a good used deal on one to replace my 35mm f/2. The 35mm f/2 is kinda mediocre, and the 28mm f/1.8 USM seems like a good-sized step up (without a skyrocket in purchase price). The CA issue is mitigated with the Canon lens profile in DPP, and the corners appear to be considerably sharper than the 35mm f/2, so the upgrade path is a no-brainer (you can always correct CA with PP, but you can't add detail or sharpness that just isn't there).

 

[SPL]

thanks everyone! great info to think about, thanks for your help!

 

[Trevor Sowers Photography]

I have had this lens ( 28 f/1.8) for several years and it is my most used lens! I really like it and I simply don't understand all the bad reviews it gets. I find that if I stop it down to f/2.2 that it really delivers nice crisp images for the most usable part of the frame. If you are shooting something that needs good corners use f/8

I love this lens and it does not have any peers in it's price range in my opinion.

 

[mwh1964]

Just got the 28 f1.8 yesterday for a bargain on CL. Wanted it since it first came out in the mid 90ties. The colors look a lot like my similarly old 20-35. Sharpness seem ok and much better than the test on photozone.de suggests. Build quality much better than the 50 f1.4 and thus more comparable to the 85 f1.8 as I recall. MFD is only 25 cm which does give some unique opportunities not available on a zoom lens well except for the 20-35 that is. Add to that the light weight and super quick and silent USM AF and you have a winner. I am still considering the new 35 f2 IS to replace both the 28 and the 50. But as of now I am really pleased with my bargain purchase.

 

[sjp010]

I will echo a lot of what has been said. The 28/1.8 is a lot better in real-world use than various internet reviewers would have you believe. I use it indoors and out with good results in both areas. In my estimation it is moderately soft wide open, then only slightly soft from f/2.2 to maybe f/2.8. Above that, it is as sharp as I would ever need - f/4 to f/8 are really excellent.

I will also echo what others say about the 28mm focal length. It is perfect for some, but for me, I'd prefer something that is a little longer on FF, and a little wider on APS-C. After a year and a half using the 28mm, I think I would prefer a 35mm better on my 5D. Trying to decide whether than should be the Sigma 35/1.4 or the new Canon 35/2 IS - or whether I should save my pennies and just enjoy the 28mm for what it is. It's a tough choice.

Build is excellent - on par with 85/1.8 and way better than 50/1.4.

 

[stipotle]

@sjp010 - side note: for what it's worth I can to vouch for the 35/2 IS - depending on what you use it for - I found it to be really sharp even wide open, great bokeh, and a very nice size. It's what I'm saving my money for (I rented it previously).
Also nice to hear that the 28/1.8 is in fact better than the internet reviews out there - great topic.

I will echo a lot of what has been said. The 28/1.8 is a lot better in real-world use than various internet reviewers would have you believe. I use it indoors and out with good results in both areas. In my estimation it is moderately soft wide open, then only slightly soft from f/2.2 to maybe f/2.8. Above that, it is as sharp as I would ever need - f/4 to f/8 are really excellent.

I will also echo what others say about the 28mm focal length. It is perfect for some, but for me, I'd prefer something that is a little longer on FF, and a little wider on APS-C. After a year and a half using the 28mm, I think I would prefer a 35mm better on my 5D. Trying to decide whether than should be the Sigma 35/1.4 or the new Canon 35/2 IS - or whether I should save my pennies and just enjoy the 28mm for what it is. It's a tough choice.

Build is excellent - on par with 85/1.8 and way better than 50/1.4.

 

[fotografiasi]

I use the 28 1.8 together with 85 1.8 and 70-200 2.8 is II on a 5D3 for weddings. I could not afford the 35 and the new 28 and 35 were not released yet. I do not like the 50 1.4 and it's semi-usm. I needed something wide and this is what fit the bill.

Now that I used the 28 1.8 for some time now, I can say that I am very, very happy with it, especially for the price. I use it 2.0 to 2.8 usually and it produces good photos, from my perspective

After a few years, when I will afford it I will get a 35 1.4 and a 14 2.8, but until then I am very happy with the 28 1.8 and 85 1.8

 

[sdsr]

Like so many fast wide primes (the new Sigma 35mm is an honorable exception), it has terrible coma until you stop it down a fair amount. This, along with the relatively soft corners, means that if you want to use it hand-held in very low light wide open, small points of bright light against a dark background become increasingly distorted as you head for the corners, which themselves end up looking rather mushy. E.g. I used it inside Notre Dame Cathedral for this purpose a year ago (tripods are verboten and would be trampled by the crowds anyway); flames on the candles in the hanging candelabras quickly become triangular blobs as you move away from the center of the image, and stained glass windows in the corners turn to mush. I got far better results with the 85mm 1.8 and 70-200 f/4 IS (thanks to the IS).

But if you won't be taking photos in situations where coma makes a nuisance of itself, sure; it's a perfectly decent lens otherwise. I would take the 28mm 2.8 IS any day, however (easy for me to say, having benefited from the adorama/ebay one day sale mentioned here on Monday).

 

[bseitz234]

I have been considering this lens as a normal lens for my 7d: love hearing all these good reviews! Thanks all for sharing your real-world experiences, they're very helpful and I'll probably pick one up tonight!

 

[cellomaster27]

Hi!
Besides the two kit lenses that I got with my t2i, I only bought the nifty fifty before the 28mm 1.8 so I don't really have any good comparisons to make but I love my copy. I got it off ebay with filter and hood for 395 about 9months ago.. I love the USM and its ability to focus in low light. The 50 really hunts at times. Again, I can't compare it to much but it's a good lens for the price and its really sharp. I did read a lot of reviews before making the purchase and I'm glad I bought it. Better than the 35mm f2 at least in build quality... Don't know about IQ. like others have already said, it gets sharper at 2.2-2.8. It's okay as a landscape but i like it for street photography (on a crop).

I won't recommend it too much but I am a very happy owner of one. I've gotten some very very nice portraits with it.

 

[CharlieB]

I have it. No complaints.

 

[skfla]

I shot quite a bit with the 35mm f/2 & found it wanting just like some of the previous posters. Colors were blah (we can fix that, right?), corners weren't very sharp, blah, blah, blah.

I thought I'd get the 28mm 1.8 to upgrade. And it was better. But after a week or two it was buried in my bag & seldom made an appearance. I eventually sold it.

BUT, I just picked up the 28mm f2.8 is. I've taken maybe 400-500 photos so far, in various situations, and although I wouldn't say I've throughly tested it- I love it! I heard a lot of "too slow for a prime", "don't need the IS", "why did Canon even make this lens?" And I agreed with those thoughts (at least the 1st two). But I found shooting with it much different than what I thought. Sharp wide open, very good colors (a lot less post work) & the IS does come in handy given the relatively slow speed for a prime. Honestly, I can't think of a situation where I'd rather go back to 28 1.8. And of course the fact that I paid about the same or less for the 2.8 ($400 brand new) than the 1.8 is currently going for on a number of sites certainly helped.

Since you seem to be sold on the focal length my advice, go to you local shop and test both lens. Take some test pattern shots with both lens. Shoot some inside, lower light photos. Be sure to shoot some test shots with bright colors & some outdoors shots (if you and your camera guy are on good terms).

After you get home and compare the shots I think you'll know which one you'd prefer. Or just buy both when you find a good enough deal. Shoot for a few weeks with each and sell the one you don't want. I found that almost always makes the decision easier, and often cheaper, than renting..

Good luck & happy shooting with whichever lens you end up with, take care.