Canon 28 1.8

[Stevo2008]

Yesterday I impulse bought a 28 1.8 from B&H. Now I am reading these terrible reviews of this lens, especially photozone.de which gave 2 stars for optical quality. I bought mainly for its f/1.8 and normal view on crop factor. Most reviews points out poor contrast/color, CA, and not being tack sharp from 1.8-2.2. Is this lens that bad? Why would canon sell lens with that many issues at relatively higher price point? Anybody have experience using it? Thanks!

 

[risc32]

I had it for a while but sold it. I felt that it's IQ just wasn't very good. Otherwise it's build and handling are very good, just like the 85mm1.8, and 100mmf2. You will come across some people who are fans of this lens, i'm just not one of them. That said i'd still rather have it than the sigma 30mm 1.4.

 

[Stevo2008]

I had it for a while but sold it. I felt that it's IQ just wasn't very good. Otherwise it's build and handling are very good, just like the 85mm1.8, and 100mmf2. You will come across some people who are fans of this lens, i'm just not one of them. That said i'd still rather have it than the sigma 30mm 1.4.

I better wait and test it myself then. I hope my copy is a good one. I am travelling abroad next month and wanted to use it for street photography.

 

[ChrisAnderson]

I've had this lens for about 8 months or so - it's perfect for street photography and indoor event photos.
Yes, there's really bad CA until you stop it down a bit, but even at its worst you only need to click a check box in Lightroom to eliminate it.

Contrast and bokeh are good, for such a wide lens. The thing is, i dont think there's another prime in this focal length with an aperture this large, especially for the price point! Some of the ultra-nice wide primes (like Zeiss) are in a whole different class when it comes to sharpness and contrast, but they're at least 4 times the cost.
I initially bought the lens to get a ~50mm equivalent on my T2i, and it worked really nicely for that. Are you on crop or FF?

Here's a shot i took with it at f/2.2 . Keep in mind, this lens flares like crazy when shooting into the sun. Unless i'm trying purposely to take a landscape style image, it doesn't bother me. Probably not the best for long exposure at night (with bright lights in the scene, at least).

There's nothing done in lightroom on this image aside from default RAW conversion, crop, and removal of CA

 

[bdunbar79]

The IQ obviously isn't as good as the 24L, but for the price, and knowing it's limitations, you'll be a-ok.

 

[elflord]

Yesterday I impulse bought a 28 1.8 from B&H. Now I am reading these terrible reviews of this lens, especially photozone.de which gave 2 stars for optical quality. I bought mainly for its f/1.8 and normal view on crop factor. Most reviews points out poor contrast/color, CA, and not being tack sharp from 1.8-2.2. Is this lens that bad? Why would canon sell lens with that many issues at relatively higher price point? Anybody have experience using it? Thanks!

I rented it, used it on a crop. Image quality was terrible wide open. I got some good shots from it at f/4. The higher price point is because it's a (relatively) new lens -- some of the cheaper primes are much older and have various quirks (e.g. 5 aperture blades, dated AF systems). I would recommend the 35mm f/2 or a third party f/2.8 zoom over the 28mm f/1.8.

 

[whatta]

I really wanted a normal lens on crop, so I did consider this lens, but then I went for the sigma (30 f1.4). I cannot compare, but the sigma became by far my favourite lens (mainly event photography). The canon has the advantage of CA and vignetting correction in camera.

 

[Stevo2008]

Thanks for your comments. I have used it for about a week now. I love its size, and focusing - USM is smooth and super-quick. Colors are amazing. There is quite a bit of CA at wide open in contrasty situation, which goes away after 2.2. I think I have found a keeper!

 

[Mika]

Hello Stevo,

I'm glad you decided yourself, this is what I did too. In my use, the 28/1.8 has not really been that bad as some of the reviews made me think it could be. Of course, using it wide open requires paying attention to high contrast differences (the same thing with 50/1.4). As somebody mentioned at 2.2 it is already much better, but I think that when I have needed 1.8, the blurriness has not been that apparent in the photos. But I typically view pictures at A3 size, so I don't know how this lens works with larger prints.

It works well with both crop sensors and full frame sensors, but the nature of the lens changes quite radically. The lens is actually pretty good in (very) low light indoor photography. And it is nice to carry around as it doesn't weight that much - and isn't that expensive that I would be afraid of breaking it.

This was taken last winter with 28/1.8 (F/3.5, 8 seconds, ISO800, 40D)

 

[robbymack]

no it's not that bad. I pulled the same manuver, bought the 28 1.8 on an impluse. The most important question isn't what others think of it, but what you think of it and what images you create with it? I generally don't put a lot of stock in review sites who spend hours looking at pictures at pixel level, shooting brick walls, or flat grey panels. No "real" person does that, and if they do they are missing all of the great shooting opportunities happening around them. I assume you wanted a Canon brand lens at around the "normal" fov on crop with USM and decent build quality. As such this was pretty much your only choice.

 

[bdunbar79]

Professional reviews to me, are rather useless. They are looking at things that just aren't noticed or matter to most of us. The 20, 24, and 28 non-L lenses are just fine for normal, everyday use, yes even on FF cameras. If you have some money, get a few of 'em

 

[AdamJ]

Professional reviews to me, are rather useless. They are looking at things that just aren't noticed or matter to most of us. The 20, 24, and 28 non-L lenses are just fine for normal, everyday use, yes even on FF cameras. If you have some money, get a few of 'em

+1.

People are too quick to dismiss a lens based on its lab-tested corner performance wide open. But, as I've said many times before, how many real-world shots demand corner sharpness AND a wide-open aperture?

 

[Mika]

Professional reviews to me, are rather useless. They are looking at things that just aren't noticed or matter to most of us. The 20, 24, and 28 non-L lenses are just fine for normal, everyday use, yes even on FF cameras. If you have some money, get a few of 'em

+1.

People are too quick to dismiss a lens based on its lab-tested corner performance wide open. But, as I've said many times before, how many real-world shots demand corner sharpness AND a wide-open aperture?

+1.

I'd like to add that different visual cortices process the picture literally in different ways. Some people will notice burnt out areas, some people jump quickly on softness, while some people don't like vignetting at all.

Sigma 20/1.8 might be an interesting lens too, given that how much flak it has received in the reviews, while photos taken with it tell a different story to me.

 

[Daniel Flather]

The real question is this: Why has Canon left crop users in the cold by not releasing a "normal" prime in an ef-s mount? Buying an ef 24, 28, or 35mm lens to substitute a "normal" on a crop body is stupid. You'll have a close to normal focal length, but you'll have a wide angle perspective.

Fail.

 

[AdamJ]

The real question is this: Why has Canon left crop users in the cold by not releasing a "normal" prime in an ef-s mount? Buying an ef 24, 28, or 35mm lens to substitute a "normal" on a crop body is stupid. You'll have a close to normal focal length, but you'll have a wide angle perspective.

Fail.

Wouldn't that be equally true of a crop-sensor prime like the Sigma 30mm?

 

[bdunbar79]

The real question is this: Why has Canon left crop users in the cold by not releasing a "normal" prime in an ef-s mount? Buying an ef 24, 28, or 35mm lens to substitute a "normal" on a crop body is stupid. You'll have a close to normal focal length, but you'll have a wide angle perspective.

Fail.

The Canon EF-S 31.25mm f/2.8 8)

 

[RAKAMRAK]

The real question is this: Why has Canon left crop users in the cold by not releasing a "normal" prime in an ef-s mount? Buying an ef 24, 28, or 35mm lens to substitute a "normal" on a crop body is stupid. You'll have a close to normal focal length, but you'll have a wide angle perspective.

Fail.

I am not sure if I understand this correctly. What would constitute a "normal" prime in an EF-S mount? As I understand it would have to be in the 28-33mm focal length. That would give a "field of view" on APS-C close to what 45-50mm focal length gives on FF, but the focal length will still remain 28-33mm. Moreover, given that perspective is a function of focal length and not field of view (at least between FF and APS-C), the so called "normal EF-S" will still have a "wide angle" perspective. Is not that the case? Technically minded photogs please help to clarify my doubt.

 

[bdunbar79]

So you are saying an EF 30mm lens will be the same as an EF-S 30mm lens?

 

[RAKAMRAK]

So you are saying an EF 30mm lens will be the same as an EF-S 30mm lens?

The focal length will remain the same.

The image circle created at the image plane will be definitely small and as a result a smaller sized "field of view" will be captured at the image plane.

And as Canon builds them, the EF-S one cannot be mounted on an FF body (unlike some third party manufactureres).

Are you saying these are wrong? On top of that I need to clarify whether the perspective of a lens is a function of focal length or field of view?

 

[bdunbar79]

So you are saying an EF 30mm lens will be the same as an EF-S 30mm lens?

The focal length will remain the same.

The image circle created at the image plane will be definitely small and as a result a smaller sized "field of view" will be captured at the image plane.

And as Canon builds them, the EF-S one cannot be mounted on an FF body (unlike some third party manufactureres).

Are you saying these are wrong? On top of that I need to clarify whether the perspective of a lens is a function of focal length or field of view?

Please don't read more into my post than I posted. It was a simple question and not a trick question at that. Which part of my question made you infer that I was saying you were incorrect? I believe all the guy wants is an EF-S lens with a FOV-equivalent of 50mm but with a smaller sized field of view capture at the image plane. That seems like a simple request. Why read so much more into it? Will the two images taken result in the exact same view, one with an EF 30mm vs. EF-S 30mm lens? I don't really know.