Honestly? Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM

[traceywarbey]

I'm upgrading from a crop sensor to a full frame body and am looking for a wide angle lens with a wide aperture to fit my new camera (5D Mark 3).
I've read mixed reviews about the focus being soft wide open but would like some honest reviews from 28mm owners as to whether this lens is worth the punt.
I would like to buy the EF 24mm f/1.4 II USM but my budget doesn't cover it. Help!...

 

[DB_Cro]

inb4 Sigma ART series recommendations.

 

[KmH]

You might want to loo through the Canon Lenses | Photography Forum section.

 

[traceywarbey]

That's great, thank you very much

 

[Derrel]

I've heard some good things about this lens. I've also heard some not so flattering things about it "not being sharp", and I suspect, based on the people I've heard the not so sharp comments from, that they shot it at f/1.8 quite often; this lens design has a very prominent "haze" issue at f/1.8, which a LOT of lenses do, something called veiling glare, where the image is sort of sharp, with a veil of haziness over the top...that is a really,really,really common issue among many lenses when they are shot wide-open. Again, a LOT of lenses have veiling glare wide-open, and this is something that has been noted on many lenses for the past eight decades, but in this, the internet era, there are many people who are fricking clueless, and will often shoot everything at f/1.8, looking for "bokeh"...and they get on the internet and complain...

This review has a lot of practical information about the lens. Canon 28mm f/1.8

You need to keep in mind that this is a moderately-priced lens, which sells for around $300 on the used market, and the new retail price is under $500...in this, the 15th year of the 21st century this is NOT a high-grade lens, especially for a wide-angle lens. Wide-angle lenses that perform extremely well are often expensive. Wide-angle lenses often show very pronounced optical defects, compared against normal and telephoto lenses. The newer a wide-angle lens is, the more likely it will be a good performer on digital. FILM-ERA wide-angle lenses are often substandard on today's digital sensors, compared against older, 1990's-era wide-angle designs. At wide f/stops, wide-angle lenses that perform very well are typically new designs, and expensive. Newer designs are often better than higher-priced but old designs.

Bottom line is--this is an inexpensive lens. It is what it is.

 

[traceywarbey]

Many thanks for your reply Derrel and the link provided, a really useful review. I especially liked the comment regarding the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. A lens I have recently sold and I hoped the 28mm would be better!

 

[jaomul]

Is f2.8 to slow? Would a 24-70 f2.8 not suit?

 

[beagle100]

Is f2.8 to slow? Would a 24-70 f2.8 not suit?

the 24-70 f2.8 on a full frame would work fine but it may be beyond the OP's budget

 

[jaomul]

Is f2.8 to slow? Would a 24-70 f2.8 not suit?

the 24-70 f2.8 on a full frame would work fine but it may be beyond the OP's budget

I agree, but with the 28mm being 500 dollars and a doubt of quality, not much more may bag a (secondhand) quality 24-70mm from tamron for example

 

[traceywarbey]

Hi all! Yes f/2.8 is a bit too slow for me. I did look at the 24-70mm but I like to shoot prime lenses predominantly. Thank you for your replies!

 

[jaomul]

It seems wrong to buy a lens that you have doubts about before you even purchase.

 

[Derrel]

It seems wrong to buy a lens that you have doubts about before you even purchase.

Dude-she's a Canon owner...it's par for the course. wink,wink.

No, but really...it's never really a slam-dunk when buying a lens you've not actually owned! Unless you have rented or borrowed or previously owned a particular lens, there's quite often some real uncertainty, some doubt, about how well the doggone thing will actually work out in your situation. I've bought lenses that I thought would be great, be handy, but had them turn out to be kind of duds. I've also taken a few chances and been very surprised!

One I thought would be good: Tokina 28-80mm f/2.8 ATX-Pro. OMG...Derr Flaremeister. Whaaaat a dud! One I thought might not be that good: Nikkor 200mm f/4 Ai-S. Wow, wonderful little lightweight 200mm prime!

 

[jaomul]

It seems wrong to buy a lens that you have doubts about before you even purchase.

Dude-she's a Canon owner...it's par for the course. wink,wink.

No, but really...it's never really a slam-dunk when buying a lens you've not actually owned! Unless you have rented or borrowed or previously owned a particular lens, there's quite often some real uncertainty, some doubt, about how well the doggone thing will actually work out in your situation. I've bought lenses that I thought would be great, be handy, but had them turn out to be kind of duds. I've also taken a few chances and been very surprised!

One I thought would be good: Tokina 28-80mm f/2.8 ATX-Pro. OMG...Derr Flaremeister. Whaaaat a dud! One I thought might not be that good: Nikkor 200mm f/4 Ai-S. Wow, wonderful little lightweight 200mm prime!

That's true (especially the canon bit ) but at least in the states, or even UK or where there is a bigger shopping base you may get to see a lens before buying it, maybe even try it. Sometimes here, its a case of the popular stuff is in stock, but anything remotely off main stream is order in. The shops are good, but they wont order in just to look at, if you catch my drift.

OP- you seem set on primes but maybe a left of centre sigma 24-35 f2 might make you change your mind. 28/28/35 f2 at whats said to be almost prime quality, it's big though

 

[traceywarbey]

Canon haters... (Ha!)

I'll check out the Sigma, thanks Jaomul

 

[traceywarbey]

Looks interesting. Not one I had previously considered. It's still priced outside of my budget though.
As I've said previously, I considered the 28mm purely because I wanted the 24mm f/1.4 but couldn't afford the price tag. What would be your opinion of the Sigma equivalent 24mm? This is more within my price range...