Thoughts on the EF 28 f/1.8 USM?

[TheBiles]

I love my nifty fifty, but it's a little long on a crop body, and I was thinking about getting some more fast glass. The wide-angle is definitely a must, and it seems like the best option without dropping a grand on the 35mm L. Does anyone have any experience with this lens? I especially need the speed for chasing my toddler around inside without using my flash and some nighttime landscapes to really get the stars without trails. Thoughts/opinions?

 

[table1349]

Best place for user reviews, the 28 f1.8: FM Reviews - Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM

4 times the price, but it is one sweet piece of glass, as is the 35mm. FM Reviews - Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM

 

[analog.universe]

I had this lens and it didn't impress me, so I eventually upgraded to a Zeiss 35 1.4. It was decently sharp, but not really great, and had noticeable barrel distortion. The corners wide open were not sharp at all. I also thought it would be a great lens to shoot the stars, and the center of it was, but the corners had lots of coma. The contrast/color rendition was alright, but not great. Overall it was very a mediocre lens to spend $500 on, didn't seem worth it to me. Aside from it being 1.8, I don't think it will offer you anything your 17-40 doesn't already get you. Unfortunately I don't have an alternative to offer you either. Sigma's 30mm 1.4 suffers from a very similar range of issues from what I've read. I initially chose it because it seemed like the best thing without going to a 24L or 35L, and perhaps it was, but it stayed in my bag a lot. If you can get one used for cheap, then it's probably worth it. It's not that it's a bad lens, far from it, I just really don't think it's a $500 lens.

 

[TheBiles]

I had this lens and it didn't impress me, so I eventually upgraded to a Zeiss 35 1.4. It was decently sharp, but not really great, and had noticeable barrel distortion. The corners wide open were not sharp at all. I also thought it would be a great lens to shoot the stars, and the center of it was, but the corners had lots of coma. The contrast/color rendition was alright, but not great. Overall it was very a mediocre lens to spend $500 on, didn't seem worth it to me. Aside from it being 1.8, I don't think it will offer you anything your 17-40 doesn't already get you. Unfortunately I don't have an alternative to offer you either. Sigma's 30mm 1.4 suffers from a very similar range of issues from what I've read. I initially chose it because it seemed like the best thing without going to a 24L or 35L, and perhaps it was, but it stayed in my bag a lot. If you can get one used for cheap, then it's probably worth it. It's not that it's a bad lens, far from it, I just really don't think it's a $500 lens.

Exactly the type of impression that I was looking for! Thank you very much. I only wish I could find a good lens for astrophotography on my 60D. I don't intend on moving to full-frame until the 5D MkIII is out, so I'm pretty limited in the noise performance department. Taking a camping trip to the middle of nowhere and spending the night doing landscapes is fairly high on my to-do list. Definitely looking for any impressions that anyone has in this area.

 

[analog.universe]

Just save your pennies and get a 24L, about as good as it gets for fast wide-angles. Or get the 35L (or the Zeiss 35), and it gets a little better at the expense of some width.

 

[penfolderoldo]

Yep, Analog's right on the money. Wide open it's horrendous at the edges, and given the 1.8 is probably the only reason to go for this particular lens it's kind of a pig in a poke, sadly. Both the 'L's mentioned (24 and 35) are great pieces of kit right thru the range, but then you tend to get what you pay for.