Yes 86% recommended is very good and I think many of those who are unhappy simply bought the wrong lens for their needs. If applied in the correct situations I do honestly believe that this is a very very good lens!
Snopchenko wrote:
Thanks Trevor! Very interesting to read (and see).
By the way, Ken Rockwell is enthusiastic about 28/1.8
I have an acquaintance who is using this lens as well, might ask again for a test ride and then tell how it went in case of success.
From Trevor's article: "The lens improves dramatically at f/2 and I use this aperture a lot."
Yes, exactly my experience. I just consider it an f/2 lens, fast enough for a wide angle in most circumstances.
The 'L' wides have better bokeh and contrast near wide open, and better corners especially on full frame, but for the price the 28 is nice. Just don't expect it to be a miracle lens.
Yakim Peled wrote:
Quite possibly but I really didn't like mine. Soft corners and flares way too easily.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
That is why in my review I mention that it may not be the best lens for landscape shooters. The photos I take never have anything in the corners that are in focus anyway so it is a moot point. It has other stellar qualities that make it the best lens for some purposes.
I find it focuses fast and accurately in low light making it ideal for street photography and wedding receptions etc. It is the only lens I use at wedding receptions. It produces awesome light stars and you only need to stop down to 5.6 to get them!
To make a long story short I think it is a very good lens but the buyer needs to be aware of what it can and can't do to ensure that it fits their needs. In fact this is the case for all lens purchases!!
I rarely shoot landscapes and it flared all the time unless the sun was right behind me. In a sunny country like Israel this was a major handicap. Candle lights also flared. Yikes!
Except in macro I rarely shoot stopped down. I mostly shoot wide open to get shallow DoF so IQ at 1.8-2 was what most important to me.
I can agree with the flare. it can be extreme, though I've played with it to my advantage in a couple of shots. As long as you use it in the right conditions, it's perfect, and yes, f/2 is slightly better than 1.8 on this lens. If people can't get into it for some reason, it's probably because of the FL, and those need to look elsewhere. If you have deep pockets, don't waste your time with this lens and get the 24 1.4, or 35 1.4 if you need either of those two FL's.
Yakim Peled wrote:
I rarely shoot landscapes and it flared all the time unless the sun was right behind me. In a sunny country like Israel this was a major handicap. Candle lights also flared. Yikes!
Except in macro I rarely shoot stopped down. I mostly shoot wide open to get shallow DoF so IQ at 1.8-2 was what most important to me.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Yes it does flare but it hasn't been too much of an issue for me. I am dying to know what kind of images you photograph where something in the corner of the frame would be in focus at f/2?
With my experience in subjects any time I am shooting at f/2 there would only be one tiny part of the photo in focus in the central part of the frame and the only time I would expect to see something in a corner is when a lens is stopped way down f/8 or smaller.
I'm not questioning your experience Yakim but rather I am very curious as it seems you must use your lenses in a very different way than I do..
Well, I can see more than one scenario when the subject is off-center, including shooting at large apertures. Then, of course, the off-center IQ does matter. But probably not all the way into the corners.
Certainly don't want a lens with the sharpness profile like the 50/1.4 or Sigma 28/1.8 (per SLRgear.com reviews) with tiny sharp spot in the center (if any) wide open, and softness everywhere else. The Canon 28/1.8 seems a bit better behaved in this regard (http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/83/cat/10) but these are test chart shootings. Would be more interested in first hand experience - how wide is the area of (relative) sharpness at f/2 to f/2.8?
Yes I agree. I have no issues with the sharpness of the canon 28mm in off centre shots at f/2 but I was more curious about the reference to corner sharpness. It's just hard for me to imagine a picture where that would matter at f/2.
Like I said, sharpness all the way out into the corner hardly matters, at least because there are no AF points anywhere near the borders. Not even on my 1D Mark II N, and on the 30D I had they were even more crammed near the center. But the "Zone B" sharpness as some sites put it does matter. Especially since the lenses we're discussing are more or less "wide angle" and I think that for them the sharpness does matter a lot unless it's a very close focus shot with the subject in the very center and everything else grossly out of DOF. Well, if you say it's OK then I'm relieved.
Trevor Sowers wrote:
Yes it does flare but it hasn't been too much of an issue for me. I am dying to know what kind of images you photograph where something in the corner of the frame would be in focus at f/2?
With my experience in subjects any time I am shooting at f/2 there would only be one tiny part of the photo in focus in the central part of the frame and the only time I would expect to see something in a corner is when a lens is stopped way down f/8 or smaller.
I'm not questioning your experience Yakim but rather I am very curious as it seems you must use your lenses in a very different way than I do..
Generally speaking, the AF points I use most are the rightmost and leftmost. I do this because I generally prefer to put my subject away from the center, thus creating a more interesting composition.
Of course, these AF points are not located in the absolute corners of the frame.
I wonder how the Zeiss 24/1.8 compares to this. Almost feel like foregoing this niche in Canon mount altogether and beef up the NEX lineup instead, since the next best offering for Canon is north of $1200 anyways (24/1.4 L non-II). SLRGear reviews seem to indicate that the 24 and 28 Sigmas aren't too hot either, possibly worse than EF 28/1.8 in most regards.
Lenstip.com have utterly trashed the Sigma 28/1.8 in their review (and EF 28/1.8 got only a slightly less acrid review).
OK - I just picked one of these up off the board. It is a little soft at 1.8, but useable. By 2.0/2.8 it sharpens up very nicely (though I processed my quick test shots with some from my 135L - not up to that standard). Focus is fast and accurate. For the money, it will serve in my opinion. In any even, I won't be rushing out to pick up the 35L for a while.
Focus issues - Absolutely not. In general I find lenses with IF design and ring USM to be very accurate.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
I agree that it is soft at 1.8 but at f/2 it is much better as shown in photo 2 on my blog on a 40D and here is a link to a photo that I quickly added to show you how it looks on a 5D MKII at f/2.2 near the edge. In my opinion it is more than sharp enough!
