I am hoping to move to primes for the wide->med telephoto range in order to try and think more about my photography. However, I dont want to spend an arm and a leg until I think this is the best route for me. I currently own the 50mm f/1.8 and have already decided to get the 85mm f/1.8. I cannot decide on whether to get the 28mm f/1.8 or the 35mm f/2. As far as I can tell the 28 is slightly softer with more CA but has USM whereas the 35mm is sharper with more vignetting.
I want to ask peoples opinions who have used both. Which did you prefer and why? What is the bokeh like with either, and AF speed, accuracy?
Thanks
Allan
Update
This setup is going to be primarily used on FF once I get my 5DII.
I think basically the 28/1.8 and the 100/2 gets most votes however it seems pretty close. I think I will see what is the best deal between the 28/1.8 and 35/2 and go for that and similarly for the 85/1.8 100/2.
Thanks to those who recommended the Sigma 30/1.4 as well however this is for crop and wont work on FF and is out of my budget too.
For some other recommendations, I should have specified that I want a fast lens i.e. <=f/2.
Judging by your post I'm guessing you are using full frame. Canon's 35 f2 is great on a crop camera as it's superb through 85% of the frame but has such ugly corners on full frame that it's a deal breaker. The 28 f1.8 is also fairly unimpressive. I would avoid both of them.
If you are looking for a cheap lens in that range, now is the time to look at alternatives from Zeiss, Olympus, and Sigma. Skip over to the alt gear forum where there is a wealth of knowledge. For starters, an Olympus 28 f3.5 is an admirable performer. You should pay about $40 for one on ebay, or possibly less. An adaptor with focus confirmation is essential, not because focus confirmation is as accurate as using your eyes, but because it helps the camera to meter properly. It should cost about $30 from big_is on ebay. When you order it, be sure to ask him to set the eprom to the focal length and wide aperture of the lens you will use it with. Also essential is a Canon manual focus screen so that you can focus, as the standard screens are woful for manual focus. That'll cost about $35 too. Be sure to set your cameras focus screen custom function so that the camera meters correctly.
You will get better results than with either of the Canon lenses you mention. Other affordable options worth looking at in that range are Contax C/Y 28mm f2.8, 35mm f2.8, Nikkor 35mm f2, and Olympus 28mm f2, 24mm f2.8.
Thanks for the reply brainiac. I will be using this for the meantime on crop but I do plan to upgrade to FF soon (probably the 5DII once the price starts to drop). One of the things I would like is to have a wide aperture so the f/3.5 is not ideal. The Nikkor 35 f/2 and Oly 28 f/2 sound interesting though...
Oct 13, 2008 at 04:33 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
To that list you might also want to add the Oly 35mm f/2 which is a pretty nice lens as well and if you are willing to spend a bit more my choice for this focal length would be the Leica 35mm summicron (f/2) and the latest non-ROM version, but it is a bit more money probably costing between $500 and $600.
michael49 wrote:
on 1.6X crop I would go with the 35 f/2. I think its a better choice than the 28 1.8.
I would say the opposite.
Also, if you aren't opposed to crop only lenses, the Sigma 30 f/1.4 is exceptional optically. You may need to send it to Sigma for calibration, as there seems to be about a 35% chance of getting focus problems out of box (took me to my third lens), but optically, it's exceptional. Beautiful bokeh, very sharp, even at f/1.4, and very nice colors.
I have owned both and think that optically the 35/2 is better across the board, much sharper, better contrast and much more flare resistant. I've never noticed any corner problems, but I don't shoot wide open if I'm after corner sharpness. The 35 is also much closer focusing if that is something you find useful.
I've had both several years ago and I remember the 35 was the better lens but lacked character. The 28 is quite sharp in the center, the corners are very soft, but in my opinion it makes more interesting pictures.
I dont want to go for the Sigma 30 f/1.4 as I will be wanting to use this on FF at some point very soon. Also, I think it is a good bit over my budget...
I've had both of these. I liked them both. I stuck with the 28 because it was wider on my 20D, and the focus was much better in low light. The 35 is quite a lens though. It definitely has a love or hate signature on FF and Film. I really liked it, I like the smaller size of it, the optics, the look, the feel. Great lens that is dying for an update. I also wouldn't call the 28 unimpressive. My copy anyway, is tack sharp on a 20D and beautiful on a FF with the slightest, smallest softening of the corners, and thats only at 1.8 and only noticeable if you are looking for it. But I don't use this lens for landscapes, and could therefore careless. This is my lowlight bar lens on my 20D and sometimes walk around lens on the 20D and an old Elan body. And CA and flare Never seen it on my copy, and I don't even own a lens hood for the thing.
The 35 gets a bad wrap because its a gem of a lens trapped inside a walmart housing. But it renders colors wonderfully. It's look on FF probably won't appeal to most, but in the right hands can be beautiful. The 28, not sure why it gets a bad wrap. I think its just one of those internet things.
Allan Bruce wrote:
What advantage does the 100/2 have over the 85/1.8?
I dont fancy going for the 24/2.8 since the 2.8 isnt that fast - thats why I am interested in the 28/1.8...
I think the 100 benefits from it's extra length in that it gives a fraction more flattening that in conjunction with a really wide aperture looks better than the 85 1.8
This was just a quick mess about but you can see I have managed a pleasing out-of-focusness which I think looks better than the 85
I can't comment on the 28 1.8, never used it, but I always think 28 isn't wide enough on FF and as I said, I prefer to double the FL with primes. How often are you really going to shoot a 28mm at f1.8? I have never done so in 30 years.(and I had a 28mm f2 FD lens). My 24mm 2.8 was cheap and is VERY sharp
I shoot the 28 wide open a lot. It's my party lens. And your right, its definitely not wide enough on FF, if your looking for wide. But on Film or a crop, it makes a great general purpose lens.
I also agree with you 100% on the 100 vs 85 comparison, though I feel we are in the minority on that one.
I reckon I will shoot wide open quite a lot. I have the 17-55/2.8 and use it all the time at 2.8. I find that my wide shots at f/2.8 have too large a depth of field hence one of the reasons I want a wide aperture.
Personally: 35mm is great, but the focus is a **tch, and the lens is prone to damage to the focus drive. 28 is killer, just shot with it for two weddings, and now I ordered my own. I would never get the 100, it has nice bokeh, but it is not "better" than 85, just more compressed, and wide open, the CA is FAR worse when shot on 1.6. The 85 is outstanding. And yes, just look at the reviews and previous postings, I must have typed this dozens of times.
Allan Bruce wrote:
I reckon I will shoot wide open quite a lot. I have the 17-55/2.8 and use it all the time at 2.8. I find that my wide shots at f/2.8 have too large a depth of field hence one of the reasons I want a wide aperture.
I've heard good things about the Sigma 30mm, or is that just for crop cameras?
The other thing you could do is just go two-lens - 28 f1.8 & 85 f1.8 so you have semi-wide and semi-tele.
If you want to go prime IMHO you need a good bit of difference between them
Never seen it on my copy, and I don't even own a lens hood for the thing.