jcomer82 Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
I know the 28mm f/1.8 isn't widely popular, but I really do like it. There are "sharper" lenses out there, but I find it to be good enough. Since I prefer 28mm to 35mm, I'd go for the 28mm. That's me, though. Plus, if you're sticking to a 1.6x body, the 28mm f/1.8 is more than enough. Most "issues" I've had with the lens were in the corner on a FF (and they weren't even issues to me).
With that said, I'm sure the 35mm f/2 IS is a better performer. Plus it has IS, if that's something you like. I've personally never used the 35mm IS. I've used the older EF version, and found that lens to be just fine. (Just for fun, the Yongnuo 35mm is a surprising lens. Honestly, it's mostly identical to the EF version. I would never use it for a paid shoot, though. Just in case it denigrates while shooting.) Then there is the Sigma 35mm A, which beats all of these lenses. But at the end of the day, you're the only one that can tell the difference between a cheap and expensive lens. Unless you're taking pictures of test charts and brick walls, the viewer has no idea. They all do what they're supposed to, and the two lenses you are debating are more than adequate.
Here are two shot with the 28mm f/1.8 @ f/1.8. They look plenty sharp to me:
http://www.photosbyjohnathan.com/img/s5/v130/p2153917015-4.jpg
http://www.photosbyjohnathan.com/img/s7/v161/p2153917016-4.jpg
|