Once I sell a few things, I'm going to pick one of these up. I've been looking through the forum and there aren't any threads on this.
Is it worth spending a little more for the 24? I watched a video (digitalrev) about the 28 1.8 and they loved it and that's what got me thinking.
I've considered the 28 1.8 as a back up to the wide end of my 24-79, in the affordable end, also giving me a slight f/stop advantage when I cannot use my 24/70.
I've also considered the 24 2.8, but I gain nothing there.
The other option is the 24L. I've read mk2 is much better than mk1.
That said, I don't know if the price premium over the 1.8 is worth it, if considering the mk1 L lens.
I've had both, and if you get a good copy of the 28 f1.8, it can serve you well, but it is rather soft wide open. However, the 24 is also somewhat soft wide open also. I guess you really have to try and see which one meets your expectations for the types of things you shoot.
I would suggest the 24 over the 28. It's a bit quicker light wise and has better build quality and sharpness. The 28 needs to be stopped down a bit to get decently sharp.
I had a very good 28 F/1.8, good wide open, very sharp at F/2. I had this as a set of 3 F/1.8 lenses for low light shooting (28 F/1.8, 50 F/1.8 Mk I, 85 F/1.8).
I upgraded these all to Ls, because one never has enough light when shooting low light scenes . Since there is no 28L, I got the 24L Mk I to replace it, and was very worried, because of comments on the internet at the time, despite it being tested as a world class lens in its category.
I sold the 28 F/1.8 a few months later, even if a little reluctantly. That says it all.
When the 24L II arrived on the scene, I wasn't going to get one, I was very happy with the Mk I. This only changed when someone offered me new price for my Mk I, so I used that as a down payment for the II.
Differences, yes. Big ones? Not that much. A little sharper in the corners, less field curvature, less CA, although I never really noticed any with the Mk I anyway. All stuff you really only see in very large prints from close up. The main difference, I find, is that the Mk II is slightly better at focusing.
Othe rthan that, both have great rendering, and amazingly good bokeh for a WA.
In short, the 28 is good, but the 24 Mk I is better, and the Mk II slightly better again.
I have owned both and the 28 1.8 is great for the money. The 24 1.4 is a much better lens, and quite sharp in the center wide open. If you can afford the 24 get it, if not the 28 is a solid performer.
saneproduction wrote:
Another note is that 24 is much wider than 28. It is a big difference (I am sure you are aware) about half the FOV between 28 and 35mm.
Thank God someone finally said it.
There are also different levels of distortion too.
You'd think the only thing that mattered was sharpness...
Sigma is rumored to be releasing new 24/1.8 & 35/1.8 lenses... sometime.
Of course that's still a rumor. I'd love to see them update the whole trio of 20-24-28 f/1.8 lenses, making the 24 a f/1.4 lens in the process.
Not sure what that graph represents, but based on real world shooting it's a good lens. Yes it would be nice if it had HSM, but for what I use this lens for, the AF is perfectly adequate. I'd like to see if the Canon 28 f/1.8 is sharp wide open on the 5D II say.
Check the link to see the sharpness profile of Sigma 24/1.8 - it's not radically better at f/2.8 either.
28/1.8 has its issues as well (tested by a few sites as well). But I'd rather wait for the new Sigma in order not to pay for noisy and slow AF.
Not sure if the Canon is better than the sigma as I don't have the sigma. What I can say is that in low light 1.8 looks fine and f/2 looks good in any light and f/2.2 looks really good! So it is a lens that improves quickly with stopping down.
. Since there is no 28L, I got the 24L Mk I to replace it, and was very worried, because of comments on the internet at the time, despite it being tested as a world class lens in its category.
