also 1.8

Ah, yes, recompose, DUH. I feel the center focus shot is very sharp, but the thing is you have to recompose to find out if the lens is sharper further away from the center or if its an AF point problem. Some lenses just need to be stopped down in order to get sharpness through out the frame, center sharpness is easy to obtain in most lenses (even the 18-55 IS is known to be sharp wide open at the center). Thats why you have to recompose. Lets see a shot that way, yeah?

Dudewithoutape wrote:
Ah, yes, recompose, DUH. I feel the center focus shot is very sharp, but the thing is you have to recompose to find out if the lens is sharper further away from the center or if its an AF point problem. Some lenses just need to be stopped down in order to get sharpness through out the frame, center sharpness is easy to obtain in most lenses (even the 18-55 IS is known to be sharp wide open at the center). Thats why you have to recompose. Lets see a shot that way, yeah?

I'll try some "in the field" tests with MA set to 0. Having an idea of your nice pictures at 1.8, it will be easier to know if mine is at least acceptable.

Thanks !

So I couldn't go out so decided to run some more tests in my christmas decor.
Again, all those straight out of the body with MA set to 0 and the focus in the Post Office.

@1.8

wow, you can definitely see a jump from f/1.8 to 2.0. Fascinating. It seems like once you get to 2.0 it gets decently sharp, and 2.2 seems pretty darn good.

Do the exposures and the bokeh at f/1.8 and f/2.0 differ that much? I've pushed and pulled many times with film and with the digital cameras as well, so I can't really see why someone would want to shoot at 1.8 if the sharpness is that much greater at 2.0...if the shutter speed doesn't really change much.

My copy of EF 28/1.8 was very soft indeed. No matter if stopped down to f5.6 and focused from tethered computer. Even with relatively 'low resolution sensor' like in 1DMKIII the result was very disappointing.

As a background I have owned the following Canon lenses: 17-40/4L (twice), 28/2.8, 35/2 (twice), 50/1.8II, 50/2.5 Macro, TS-E 90/2.8, 300/L IS (twice) and 500/4L -> they all have been miles better with image quality than my EF 28/1.8 was.

Ivor Karabatko wrote:
wow, you can definitely see a jump from f/1.8 to 2.0. Fascinating. It seems like once you get to 2.0 it gets decently sharp, and 2.2 seems pretty darn good.

Do the exposures and the bokeh at f/1.8 and f/2.0 differ that much? I've pushed and pulled many times with film and with the digital cameras as well, so I can't really see why someone would want to shoot at 1.8 if the sharpness is that much greater at 2.0...if the shutter speed doesn't really change much.

True... big difference between 1.8 and 2.0.
And the exposure changes 1/3, so, I can consider no changes at all...
As for shooting at 1.8, it's really to see its limits, and for me, I think my copy is acceptable.

Thanks !

I have a 28mm f/1.8 as well. Mine seems not-so-good compared to the christmas still life examples here. Also, mine is loaded in CA when used to take landscape shots. It's been a nice paper weight for about 2 years now.