Trevor Sowers wrote:
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!
I just ordered the Sigma 30 1.4 as I wanted a low light lens first and a landscape lens second. Will see how the soft corners affect the image quality if I decide to do some landscapes with it.
The Sigma has significantly better flare resistance which is another bonus over the Canon.
My Canon EF 50 1.8 is soft until 2.0 so hoping the Sigma will be sharp at 1.4 or 1.8.
I added some test shots showing this lens at 1.8 - 4.0. All taken at fairly close to MFD so factor that in and forgive the bland test subject. Test images are at http://gc5.smugmug.com/Other/28-18-tests/19350564_JsPKNH.
Also threw in a quick one of my son so you can see it in real world use. It's pretty much replaced the 50 for my 60D. Haven't used it much on the 5d2 yet, though that was my original intention.
Always amused at those who are upset with corners of a fast prime when shot wide open. What are you shooting wide open that requires critical in-focus corners?
Yakim Peled wrote:
I also found it good at 2.8 (I don't use half stops much) but I don't buy fast lenses to shoot closed down. Just a personal itch of course.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
That's just a slippery argument and not a strong one. So if a 1.8 lens wide open is not satisfactory it automatically becomes a 2.8-max-aperture lens? Then quite a few lenses must automatically lose a full stop in your hands. As others have demonstrated, stepping down by just a third of a stop already makes the lens very useable.
I rented the 28mm f/1.8, the 35mm f/2 and the 35mm f/1.4 (on a crop) to decide which one to buy.
I ended up buying the 35mm f/2. The image quality was very good. I didn't find the "loud" autofocus motor to be a problem for realistic usage scenarios. The AF does make a lot of noise if the focal distance changes rapidly (e.g. if you're shooting action in low light) but for real world usage I didn't find this to be a problem. Online tests are consistent with my experience -- it performed very well in the photozone review, and it also seems to do very well within the APS-C frame in thedigitalpicture's test chart shots. It's fashionable to complain about the supposed "bad bokeh" mostly because it has 5 aperture blades -- less than most other lenses. Same deal -- it's just never been a problem for me in day to day use.
The 28mm was very soft at f/1.8 but good at f/4. I can't remember where the turning point was.
The 35mm f/1.4 was of course very nice, but I didn't feel I was missing out on much by getting the 35mm f/2.
Chengdu Nanhai wrote:
That's just a slippery argument and not a strong one. So if a 1.8 lens wide open is not satisfactory it automatically becomes a 2.8-max-aperture lens? Then quite a few lenses must automatically lose a full stop in your hands. As others have demonstrated, stepping down by just a third of a stop already makes the lens very useable.
But contrary to others, I did not find my lens very usable at f/2.0. On the contrary. I found it very similar to f/1.8. Thus, for me it was - practically - an f/2.8 lens.
Yakim - makes sense. Most lenses are not very usable wide open (among my stable the only one that IS usable is the 70-200/2.8 L IS) so I shoot slightly stopped down most of the time, reserving wide open aperture for emergency. Just as my 16-35 is basically used as an f/3.5-f/4ish lens, the 28 would be a "f/2.2" lens.
GC5 - nice sample gallery. The lens really does seem to become noticeably better when going from f/1.8 (hazy) to f/2-f/2.5 (pretty good). I wonder if this haze wide open can be mitigated by using Levels / Contrast adjustment in post?
Yakim Peled wrote:
I also found it good at 2.8 (I don't use half stops much) but I don't buy fast lenses to shoot closed down. Just a personal itch of course.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Like I said try a Sigma 24/28 f/1.8, as my 24 is sharp wide open on my 5D II. AF is slowish, but I don't use it for action
Snopchenko wrote:
Yakim - makes sense. Most lenses are not very usable wide open (among my stable the only one that IS usable is the 70-200/2.8 L IS) so I shoot slightly stopped down most of the time, reserving wide open aperture for emergency. Just as my 16-35 is basically used as an f/3.5-f/4ish lens, the 28 would be a "f/2.2" lens.
Usability is in the eye of the beholder, but if photozone are to believed, most of Canon's L primes are very sharp in the center wide open. The wide angle lenses generally have softer corners wide open.
The 28mm f/1.8 is pretty soft wide open. That doesn't necessarily make it unusable, just not all that sharp. Here's a recent wide open shot from the flickr photo stream that I think nicely showcases "the look" that one can achieve with this lens http://www.flickr.com/photos/nickanderson33/6206866240/in/pool-canonef28mmf18usm
elflord1973 wrote:
Usability is in the eye of the beholder, but if photozone are to believed, most of Canon's L primes are very sharp in the center wide open. The wide angle lenses generally have softer corners wide open.
The 28mm f/1.8 is pretty soft wide open. That doesn't necessarily make it unusable, just not all that sharp. Here's a recent wide open shot from the flickr photo stream that I think nicely showcases "the look" that one can achieve with this lens http://www.flickr.com/photos/nickanderson33/6206866240/in/pool-canonef28mmf18usm
It's perfectly usable wide open--if you treat it as an f/2 lens.
I just figure the extra 1/3 stop is there to make the viewfinder brighter.
elflord1973 wrote:
The 28mm f/1.8 is pretty soft wide open. That doesn't necessarily make it unusable, just not all that sharp. Here's a recent wide open shot from the flickr photo stream that I think nicely showcases "the look" that one can achieve with this lens http://www.flickr.com/photos/nickanderson33/6206866240/in/pool-canonef28mmf18usm
Ouch. For starters, the shot looks misfocused to me - I get them like this all the time but they don't live long.
Snopchenko wrote:
Ouch. For starters, the shot looks misfocused to me - I get them like this all the time but they don't live long.
Judging by the detail in her hair, I think the focus is fine.
At 100% there seems to be no detail remaining. Heavily resized down for web, this almost looks fine however. Certainly wouldn't make it past the photo editor in my paper though.
Snopchenko wrote:
Ouch. For starters, the shot looks misfocused to me - I get them like this all the time but they don't live long.
dof is about 6 inches for that shot. To get all of the subject in focus, it would have been be necessary to stop down. Stopping down to f/4 or so certainly would certainly produce a sharper picture but not necessarily a better one.
Snopchenko wrote:
At 100% there seems to be no detail remaining. Heavily resized down for web, this almost looks fine however. Certainly wouldn't make it past the photo editor in my paper though.
yeah, my view on this is that wide open with this lens only works if you're shooting for a kind of dreamy arty look. If your editor wants sharp pictures, you would need to stop down.
I don't completely buy the comments that the lens is transformed when you go from 1.8 to 2.0. One can compare the different apertures with. the test chart on thedigitalpicture.com
I see a big difference from f/2 to f/2.8. Besides less vignetting, f/2 and f/1.8 look much the same to me.
elflord1973 wrote:
I don't completely buy the comments that the lens is transformed when you go from 1.8 to 2.0. One can compare the different apertures with. the test chart on thedigitalpicture.com
I see a big difference from f/2 to f/2.8. Besides less vignetting, f/2 and f/1.8 look much the same to me.
I read somewhere once that it is halation that causes the dreamy look at f/1.8 rather than a lack of sharpness and using f/2 decreases the halation. I am no expert on the inner workings of lenses but I have shot a ton of pics with this lens at larger apertures and I can assure you that f/2 looks better than f/1.8 in real world use. Test charts don't reveal everything. I would post an example but I don't have access to upload here.
elflord1973 wrote:
dof is about 6 inches for that shot. To get all of the subject in focus, it would have been be necessary to stop down. Stopping down to f/4 or so certainly would certainly produce a sharper picture but not necessarily a better one.
That's not the case - I did not seem to find sharpness ANYWHERE in that pic. I brought a ton of pictures like this from yesterday's concert - look (almost) fine at screen resolution but when checking for sharpness it's nowhere to be found. My recycled bin is swelling with such pics, therefore GC5's examples are a little bit more telling (and yes, my usability threshold seems to be crossed at 2.0 already, with visible improvement on further stopping down - every 1/3 stop makes the picture somewhat better)
