I've been reading about the reviews about these two lenses... [Canon 28mm f2.8 and Canon 35mm f2 ] most reviews shows that the 28mm is sharper compared to 35mm... and also went canon's MTF data, the 28mm has slightly better contrast and sharpness..
any experiences with 35mm?
I just need a sharp normal lens.... not too wide and
not too narrow...
I had both but not at the same time. Both were sharp enough for me wide open (i.e. I didn't hesitate using any wide open) and very sharp one stop down. I think that the main difference is FL and max aperture, not sharpness. And of course, price.
FWIW, I sold both mainly as I found AF speed to be a PITA. Bokeh and BQ are also nothing to write home about.
I have a 24/2.8 and i'm a bit disapointed with the sharpeness. I took some photos from the empire state building at night and i couldn't focus properly. I took best photos with my 24-105L.
I had both the Canon 28 f2.8 and the Canon 35 f2. I sold the 35 and now use the Canon 28 only when I must have autofocus. I also sold my Canon 24 f2.8, but found it almost identical to the Canon 28 f2.8, that is, very sharp when stopped down.
On full frame 5D, the Canon 28 f2.8 is sharp all the way to the corners at f8 or even f5.6. The Canon 35 was sharp in the center at any aperture, but rather soft in the edges of full frame, until stopped down to f8. Many subjects don't require sharp edges, but in scenics or architecture, I would not use the Canon 35 at any aperture more open than f8. I guess I am just too critical.
My main 28 and 35 are Zeiss 28 f2.8 and Zeiss 35 f2.8. I prefer the Zeiss mainly for the micro-contrast and better color, although they are very slightly sharper than the Canons when all are stopped down. I tend to use them mainly for scenics and architecture, at f8 and infinity focus.
Wide open, the Zeiss 28 is much sharper than the Canon 28 or the Canon 35. When all are stopped down to f8, I don't think sharpness is an issue with any of these four lenses.
Seth Tower wrote:
My 35 2.0 (with the same AF as the 28) focuses instantly. Buzzy yes, but as fast as any of my other USM lenses.
My 35 2.0 lens is blisteringly sharp wide open. I never ever hesitate to shoot at 2.0 because the sharpness is all there. Fast focusing too. The noise is never an issue. This lens is so good that upgrading to the 35L is pretty tough to think about. Only the 1.4 aperture is desirable. The 2.0 is far smaller, much lighter, and waaay cheaper.
Have you considered a Sigma 28mm f/1.8? It seems to be quite an unkown one! With it you get a fast lens with good IQ and great bokeh at a very reasonable cost.
The Sigma 28/1.8 I got was so soft that I immediately returned it... and I am not a sharpness freak... thought is was very cheezy feeling too...
Allan Bruce wrote:
Have you considered a Sigma 28mm f/1.8? It seems to be quite an unkown one! With it you get a fast lens with good IQ and great bokeh at a very reasonable cost.
mh2000 wrote:
The Sigma 28/1.8 I got was so soft that I immediately returned it... and I am not a sharpness freak... thought is was very cheezy feeling too...
Sigma are known for their QC issues however if you get it from a store you can usually check a few before comitting to one. Sigma UK are pretty good at servicing the lenses too - cant speak about other countries tho...
rattymouse wrote:
My 35 2.0 lens is blisteringly sharp wide open. I never ever hesitate to shoot at 2.0 because the sharpness is all there. Fast focusing too. The noise is never an issue. This lens is so good that upgrading to the 35L is pretty tough to think about. Only the 1.4 aperture is desirable. The 2.0 is far smaller, much lighter, and waaay cheaper.
I'm guessing you don't use full frame. As you approach the corners on the 35 f2, the image turns to sludge, at almost any aperture. It's great on APS-C, but there it's effectively a 56mm lens.
brainiac wrote:
I'm guessing you don't use full frame. As you approach the corners on the 35 f2, the image turns to sludge, at almost any aperture. It's great on APS-C, but there it's effectively a 56mm lens.
You are correct in your guess. However, if on full frame this lens were to produce "sludge" as you put it, the resolution loss would have to be greater than 25%. I have never seen a lens loose that kind of resolution going from center to edge.
