I've heard/read a lot of both good and bad things about this lens, but I'm interested in some more opinions, and am looking for a cheaper fast, wide primer than the 24 1.4. I know Samyang has the 24 1.4 offering but I want AF, as I'll probably be using this for more street work, maybe some wedding work, and the occasional newspaper assignment (though more likely I'll stick with my 24-70). Bodies I use are a 1D4 and 5d2.

Mainly interested in how the AF, say, compared to the Canon 50 1.4 (my only prime aside from my 300 2.8) and general quality.

It's more like the 85 in focusing. I think there is more sample variation, as many say their copies aren't sharp at 1.8, though the one I had was certainly useable wide open.

Haven't used the 85mm before... How's the AF on it vs the 50? And yeah, it really does seem to be down to sample variation I guess. Hope I'll get lucky if I get one. Also open to any other suggestions if there are any.

Edit: Just came across the Sigma 28mm 1.8 as well. Any opinions on that would be great.

I have had both the 28 1.8 and the 85 1.8 for years. Focus on both is very fast and works really well for me on the 5D cameras. The bokeh on the 28 can get a little crazy at 1.8-2.0. I usually try and keep that lens at 2.0 and above. The 28 is built very well and I have been very happy with it. I did get rid of a 24-70, due to the size and weight, it is nice to throw the 28 on and go shoot.

Good to hear. I want something that wide and fast primarily for the shallow DOF. Its a cool perspective to use for street, and on assignment too (I've seen a share of 24 1.4s and 50 1.2s and even a 135 f2 at some of the Romney and Obama campaign coverage I've done, which is a bit unusual for photojournalists, but when they're traveling press it's cool to mix things up).

I had the 28 1.8 and AF is definitely better than the 50 1.4. build quality is better as well.

I sold it because I just never got comfortable with it. it just wasn't right for me for some reason.

I'm still waiting for a wide, fast prime that doesn't cost me an arm and a leg. want something I can be comfortable with at f2. just can't afford the 24 1.4 though :P

The AF I always though was fine and much better than the 50 1.4. I've had a couple copies, and all were good wide open. Yea, it's not razor sharp wide open, but its great if it's stopped down a toch. The lens has a lot of haters, but I think it's a good deal for the $375-400 that they go for used. And hey, if you don't like it, sell it for what you paid for it. They always sell quick on the B/S board.

Also, it's really the only option if you want a EF mount in that range and don't want to drop the money on a L.

goosemang wrote:
I had the 28 1.8 and AF is definitely better than the 50 1.4. build quality is better as well.

I had a 28 1.8 for a while and I'll second this. My particular copy wasn't too bad at f/1.8 but was definitely better at f/2. I basically considered it an f/2 lens and only sold it because I bought the 35L.

I use the 28 f1.8 extensively on my 1D Mark III. It's great combo because it gives me 35 POV at f1.8 w/o the cost of a L lens. I paid full price and have no regret. I just make sure to focus with center point when using f1.8 and the sharpness is more than adequate for me. I also have the 40 f2.8 and the both of them are so small and light, I like taking them both over the 28-70L.

Thats good to hear. So does anyone have the Sigma copy? Curious about it too.

I use mine on a 7D, and have liked it. Of course, I'm not using the corners, but for me sharpness is good even wide open. I use it mostly for indoor low-light people shots, as well as some indoor basketball from under the rim. Build quality is better than the 50 1.4, particularly in the smoothness of the focus ring, which is kind of gritty on the 50. AF is probably a bit faster than the 50 also. Plus, the lens somehow just looks right on a 7D/5D size camera...

i bought one and dont like it, going to end up using it for video.

its fine, nice and sharp within a close focus range, but at soon as you get to the far end near infinite (15ft?), it cant autofocus worth shit. its horrible

i wouldnt buy it again.

Photozone impressions
EF 28/1.8 FF...
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/726-canon28f18eos5d
APS-C 15 MP...
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/725-canon28f18apsc
and older test on APS-C 8 MP:
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/155-canon-ef-28mm-f18-usm-test-report--review
Sigma 28/1.8 FF:
http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/754-sigmaex2818fx
Sigma 24/1.8 FF:
http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/756-sigmaex2418fx

And a few more reviews of the EF 28/1.8 by other sites:
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/83/cat/10
http://slrlensreview.com/web/reviews/canon-lenses/canon-wide-angle/86-canon-ef-28mm-f18-usm-lens-review
http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-28mm-f-1.8-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
http://www.lenstip.com/253.1-Lens_review-Canon_EF_28_mm_f_1.8_USM-Introduction.html

I have and love the canon 28mm 1.8. I like that it has very low vignetting even wide open, and if you stop down to 2.8 the vignetting is virtually gone! It works incredible in low light and sharpness is OK wide open but just nudge it down to f/2.2 and Wow the sharpness is great! I have f/2.2 shots that I am going to enlarge to 16x24 and I know they will have ample detail.

Too many people focus on the sharpness which is a shame because there is soooo much more to a lens than just sharpness. It's affordable, light, small, low vignetting, large aperture for low light good colours and contrast. I'm happy! Yes the 24L is better but it's a bit more money, actually like 3x the price FFS!

Here is a sample at f/2.2

Jkovack wrote:
i bought one and dont like it, going to end up using it for video.

its fine, nice and sharp within a close focus range, but at soon as you get to the far end near infinite (15ft?), it cant autofocus worth shit. its horrible

i wouldnt buy it again.

You talking about the siggy or the canon?

canon 28 1.8

I had the 28 for a couple of years. I felt it was a great lens, when not in low light. But low light performance wasn't great. It hunted a lot, and didn't handle low contrast scenes very well. I ended up selling it to fund a 16-35 2.8, which for me, had more versatility for what I needed to shoot.

For video though, I hear good things.

It'd be nice if they made a new version of this guy, but until then, it's still a great lens. Mine was sharp at f/2 on up.