# Canon 28 1.8



## Stevo2008 (Jun 23, 2012)

Yesterday I impulse bought a 28 1.8 from B&H. Now I am reading these terrible reviews of this lens, especially photozone.de which gave 2 stars for optical quality. I bought mainly for its f/1.8 and normal view on crop factor. Most reviews points out poor contrast/color, CA, and not being tack sharp from 1.8-2.2. Is this lens that bad? Why would canon sell lens with that many issues at relatively higher price point? Anybody have experience using it? Thanks!


----------



## risc32 (Jun 23, 2012)

I had it for a while but sold it. I felt that it's IQ just wasn't very good. Otherwise it's build and handling are very good, just like the 85mm1.8, and 100mmf2. You will come across some people who are fans of this lens, i'm just not one of them. That said i'd still rather have it than the sigma 30mm 1.4.


----------



## Stevo2008 (Jun 23, 2012)

risc32 said:


> I had it for a while but sold it. I felt that it's IQ just wasn't very good. Otherwise it's build and handling are very good, just like the 85mm1.8, and 100mmf2. You will come across some people who are fans of this lens, i'm just not one of them. That said i'd still rather have it than the sigma 30mm 1.4.



I better wait and test it myself then. I hope my copy is a good one. I am travelling abroad next month and wanted to use it for street photography.


----------



## ChrisAnderson (Jun 23, 2012)

I've had this lens for about 8 months or so - it's perfect for street photography and indoor event photos.
Yes, there's really bad CA until you stop it down a bit, but even at its worst you only need to click a check box in Lightroom to eliminate it.

Contrast and bokeh are good, for such a wide lens. The thing is, i dont think there's another prime in this focal length with an aperture this large, especially for the price point! Some of the ultra-nice wide primes (like Zeiss) are in a whole different class when it comes to sharpness and contrast, but they're at least 4 times the cost. 
I initially bought the lens to get a ~50mm equivalent on my T2i, and it worked really nicely for that. Are you on crop or FF? 

Here's a shot i took with it at f/2.2 . Keep in mind, this lens flares like crazy when shooting into the sun. Unless i'm trying purposely to take a landscape style image, it doesn't bother me. Probably not the best for long exposure at night (with bright lights in the scene, at least).

There's nothing done in lightroom on this image aside from default RAW conversion, crop, and removal of CA


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 23, 2012)

The IQ obviously isn't as good as the 24L, but for the price, and knowing it's limitations, you'll be a-ok.


----------



## elflord (Jun 23, 2012)

Stevo2008 said:


> Yesterday I impulse bought a 28 1.8 from B&H. Now I am reading these terrible reviews of this lens, especially photozone.de which gave 2 stars for optical quality. I bought mainly for its f/1.8 and normal view on crop factor. Most reviews points out poor contrast/color, CA, and not being tack sharp from 1.8-2.2. Is this lens that bad? Why would canon sell lens with that many issues at relatively higher price point? Anybody have experience using it? Thanks!



I rented it, used it on a crop. Image quality was terrible wide open. I got some good shots from it at f/4. The higher price point is because it's a (relatively) new lens -- some of the cheaper primes are much older and have various quirks (e.g. 5 aperture blades, dated AF systems). I would recommend the 35mm f/2 or a third party f/2.8 zoom over the 28mm f/1.8.


----------



## whatta (Jun 23, 2012)

I really wanted a normal lens on crop, so I did consider this lens, but then I went for the sigma (30 f1.4). I cannot compare, but the sigma became by far my favourite lens (mainly event photography). The canon has the advantage of CA and vignetting correction in camera.


----------



## Stevo2008 (Jul 11, 2012)

Thanks for your comments. I have used it for about a week now. I love its size, and focusing - USM is smooth and super-quick. Colors are amazing. There is quite a bit of CA at wide open in contrasty situation, which goes away after 2.2. I think I have found a keeper!


----------



## Mika (Jul 11, 2012)

Hello Stevo,

I'm glad you decided yourself, this is what I did too. In my use, the 28/1.8 has not really been that bad as some of the reviews made me think it could be. Of course, using it wide open requires paying attention to high contrast differences (the same thing with 50/1.4). As somebody mentioned at 2.2 it is already much better, but I think that when I have needed 1.8, the blurriness has not been that apparent in the photos. But I typically view pictures at A3 size, so I don't know how this lens works with larger prints.

It works well with both crop sensors and full frame sensors, but the nature of the lens changes quite radically. The lens is actually pretty good in (very) low light indoor photography. And it is nice to carry around as it doesn't weight that much - and isn't that expensive that I would be afraid of breaking it.

This was taken last winter with 28/1.8 (F/3.5, 8 seconds, ISO800, 40D)


----------



## robbymack (Jul 12, 2012)

no it's not that bad. I pulled the same manuver, bought the 28 1.8 on an impluse. The most important question isn't what others think of it, but what you think of it and what images you create with it? I generally don't put a lot of stock in review sites who spend hours looking at pictures at pixel level, shooting brick walls, or flat grey panels. No "real" person does that, and if they do they are missing all of the great shooting opportunities happening around them. I assume you wanted a Canon brand lens at around the "normal" fov on crop with USM and decent build quality. As such this was pretty much your only choice.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 12, 2012)

Professional reviews to me, are rather useless. They are looking at things that just aren't noticed or matter to most of us. The 20, 24, and 28 non-L lenses are just fine for normal, everyday use, yes even on FF cameras. If you have some money, get a few of 'em


----------



## AdamJ (Jul 12, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> Professional reviews to me, are rather useless. They are looking at things that just aren't noticed or matter to most of us. The 20, 24, and 28 non-L lenses are just fine for normal, everyday use, yes even on FF cameras. If you have some money, get a few of 'em



+1.

People are too quick to dismiss a lens based on its lab-tested corner performance wide open. But, as I've said many times before, how many real-world shots demand corner sharpness AND a wide-open aperture?


----------



## Mika (Jul 12, 2012)

AdamJ said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > Professional reviews to me, are rather useless. They are looking at things that just aren't noticed or matter to most of us. The 20, 24, and 28 non-L lenses are just fine for normal, everyday use, yes even on FF cameras. If you have some money, get a few of 'em
> ...



+1.

I'd like to add that different visual cortices process the picture literally in different ways. Some people will notice burnt out areas, some people jump quickly on softness, while some people don't like vignetting at all. 

Sigma 20/1.8 might be an interesting lens too, given that how much flak it has received in the reviews, while photos taken with it tell a different story to me.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Jul 12, 2012)

The real question is this: Why has Canon left crop users in the cold by not releasing a "normal" prime in an ef-s mount? Buying an ef 24, 28, or 35mm lens to substitute a "normal" on a crop body is stupid. You'll have a close to normal focal length, but you'll have a wide angle perspective. 

Fail.


----------



## AdamJ (Jul 13, 2012)

Daniel Flather said:


> The real question is this: Why has Canon left crop users in the cold by not releasing a "normal" prime in an ef-s mount? Buying an ef 24, 28, or 35mm lens to substitute a "normal" on a crop body is stupid. You'll have a close to normal focal length, but you'll have a wide angle perspective.
> 
> Fail.


Wouldn't that be equally true of a crop-sensor prime like the Sigma 30mm?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 14, 2012)

Daniel Flather said:


> The real question is this: Why has Canon left crop users in the cold by not releasing a "normal" prime in an ef-s mount? Buying an ef 24, 28, or 35mm lens to substitute a "normal" on a crop body is stupid. You'll have a close to normal focal length, but you'll have a wide angle perspective.
> 
> Fail.



The Canon EF-S 31.25mm f/2.8 8)


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Jul 14, 2012)

Daniel Flather said:


> The real question is this: Why has Canon left crop users in the cold by not releasing a "normal" prime in an ef-s mount? Buying an ef 24, 28, or 35mm lens to substitute a "normal" on a crop body is stupid. You'll have a close to normal focal length, but you'll have a wide angle perspective.
> 
> Fail.



I am not sure if I understand this correctly. What would constitute a "normal" prime in an EF-S mount? As I understand it would have to be in the 28-33mm focal length. That would give a "field of view" on APS-C close to what 45-50mm focal length gives on FF, but the focal length will still remain 28-33mm. Moreover, given that perspective is a function of focal length and not field of view (at least between FF and APS-C), the so called "normal EF-S" will still have a "wide angle" perspective. Is not that the case? Technically minded photogs please help to clarify my doubt.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 14, 2012)

So you are saying an EF 30mm lens will be the same as an EF-S 30mm lens?


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Jul 14, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> So you are saying an EF 30mm lens will be the same as an EF-S 30mm lens?



The focal length will remain the same.

The image circle created at the image plane will be definitely small and as a result a smaller sized "field of view" will be captured at the image plane.

And as Canon builds them, the EF-S one cannot be mounted on an FF body (unlike some third party manufactureres). 

Are you saying these are wrong? On top of that I need to clarify whether the perspective of a lens is a function of focal length or field of view?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 14, 2012)

RAKAMRAK said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > So you are saying an EF 30mm lens will be the same as an EF-S 30mm lens?
> ...



Please don't read more into my post than I posted. It was a simple question and not a trick question at that. Which part of my question made you infer that I was saying you were incorrect? I believe all the guy wants is an EF-S lens with a FOV-equivalent of 50mm but with a smaller sized field of view capture at the image plane. That seems like a simple request. Why read so much more into it? Will the two images taken result in the exact same view, one with an EF 30mm vs. EF-S 30mm lens? I don't really know.


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Jul 14, 2012)

I am sorry if from my RE: post it seemed that I took your post to be offensive. Not at all. I was just curious to know whether what I know about EF and EF-s (and focal length) is correct or not.

Coming to my original post, what I tried to mean is that even if canon comes out with a, say, EF-S 30mm, would not the perspective remain the same as that of EF 30mm on an APS-C? The EF-S will probably just "optimized" (smaller glass elements probably) for cropped sensor. Therefore, for us APS-C photogs, it won't make any difference (probably) whether canon brings out an EF 30mm or EF-S 30mm. With APS-C both will capture the exact same picutre (FOV equivalent to something close to 50mm). Is there any difference in the FOV of EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 set at 50mm on APS-C and EF 50mm (any of the three/four) on APS-C? I think not. But I do not have the 17-55 so cannot do the experiment right now. The request for EF-S 30mm is also similar I believe, EF 30mm will also serve the exact same purpose.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 14, 2012)

RAKAMRAK said:


> I am sorry if from my RE: post it seemed that I took your post to be offensive. Not at all. I was just curious to know whether what I know about EF and EF-s (and focal length) is correct or not.
> 
> Coming to my original post, what I tried to mean is that even if canon comes out with a, say, EF-S 30mm, would not the perspective remain the same as that of EF 30mm on an APS-C? The EF-S will probably just "optimized" (smaller glass elements probably) for cropped sensor. Therefore, for us APS-C photogs, it won't make any difference (probably) whether canon brings out an EF 30mm or EF-S 30mm.



No no, your assessment is correct. You're absolutely right. Will Canon make an EF-S lens at that focal length? No way. Even if the photos were slightly different with the two lenses, it makes not a lick of difference in reality and therefore Canon will not make the lens. When was the last release date for an EF-S lens?


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Jul 14, 2012)

yeah true. The last "presentable" EF-S zoom was in 2009 and except for the 60mm macro there is not a single EF-S prime (probably does not make business sense either).

I wish may be someday canon will bring out EF-S 55-135/150mm f/2.8.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 14, 2012)

RAKAMRAK said:


> yeah true. The last "presentable" EF-S zoom was in 2009 and except for the 60mm macro there is not a single EF-S prime (probably does not make business sense either).
> 
> I wish may be someday canon will bring out EF-S 55-135/150mm f/2.8.



That's actually excellent. Now that you mention it, does someone have a 7D and a 60mm lens, and a FF camera with a 100mm lens. Then we could do subtle comparisons regarding view and prespective. That would be a great test (only an effective 4mm difference).


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Jul 14, 2012)

or even any APS-C zoom at 24/25mm on APS-C and new canon shorty forty on a full frame..


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 14, 2012)

Can you do the test?


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 14, 2012)

Why would Canon make a new EF-S lens when they have shown that they can make a cheap and compact EF lens? As their direction is ff, the introduction of ef-s lens would send the wrong message to potential ff users


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 14, 2012)

RAKAMRAK said:


> yeah true. The last "presentable" EF-S zoom was in 2009 and except for the 60mm macro there is not a single EF-S prime (probably does not make business sense either).
> 
> I wish may be someday canon will bring out EF-S 55-135/150mm f/2.8.



I don't think a 55-150 would be that much lighter/smaller/cheaper than the already excellent and available 70-200s. At 150mm and f/2.8, the effective aperture is already much larger than the sensor, so a smaller sensor does would not help reduce lens size. Sigma came out with a 50-150mm F2.8 APO EX DC OS. It weighs about 100g less than the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 APO EX DG HSM OS and costs only about 100 less (1200 vs. 1300 on Amazon). If that is similar to what Canon could do, then I'd opt for the 70-200 instead because Sigma's 50-150 is for the crop camera only and the FF version is longer, weighs only about 0.25 lb more and is longer.


----------



## BXL (Jul 14, 2012)

Daniel Flather said:


> The real question is this: Why has Canon left crop users in the cold by not releasing a "normal" prime in an ef-s mount? Buying an ef 24, 28, or 35mm lens to substitute a "normal" on a crop body is stupid. You'll have a close to normal focal length, but you'll have a wide angle perspective.
> 
> Fail.


First of all, primes with an ef-mount work very well on APS-C cameras. The 50mm is a very nice portrait prime on a crop camera. Secondly, I would love special primes for aps-c, for example an ef-s 15mm f/2.8. The question is, how big is the market for such a prime?


----------



## DJL329 (Jul 14, 2012)

Stevo,

I've been using that lens for a few years now and love it; it's my go-to lens when I need something wider than 50mm. Lens flare has *not* been a problem with it, though I sometimes remove the UV filter when shooting into the sun. I included some sun shots to show how flare resistant it is. I also have the original EF 14mm f/2.8L, so I *know* what a problem lens flare can be! I especially like using it during Autumn, while hiking.

Like most wide-angle lenses, it's not good for portraits (the heads bulge out), but IMO the colors are very good.






http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/7335203604/#





http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/7335205586/#





http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/7168092714/#





http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/5055249807/#


----------



## mathino (Jul 14, 2012)

Those shots are taken with 28 f/1.8 USM, both on 2.8 I think. Little tweaked in LR 4.


----------



## elflord (Jul 15, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Why would Canon make a new EF-S lens when they have shown that they can make a cheap and compact EF lens? As their direction is ff, the introduction of ef-s lens would send the wrong message to potential ff users



They can't make a cheap, fast, 30mm lens that performs well on full frame. Nikon have a DX 35mm lens. It's one of their top sellers.


----------



## bakker (Jul 15, 2012)

I've also got this lens as my "standard" lens. It's on my camera all the time and I really love it.
Some samples:




Home by sjoukebakker, on Flickr




Clear Cut by sjoukebakker, on Flickr

I bought it for the f/1.8 since I often shoot indoor events like meetings. Now I'm saving up for the 24-70mm f/2.8 since a little flexibility in zooming also comes in handy and for my landscape work the extra few wide mm would be welcome.


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 15, 2012)

elflord said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > Why would Canon make a new EF-S lens when they have shown that they can make a cheap and compact EF lens? As their direction is ff, the introduction of ef-s lens would send the wrong message to potential ff users
> ...



The 28mm f/2.8 IS is a good pointer ....


----------



## elflord (Jul 15, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> elflord said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



The Nikon is $200 and is the 4th best selling lens on Amazon at the time of writing. The reason it's this cheap is that it's a DX lens. The 28mm f/2.8 IS is too expensive to serve as a budget walkaround prime. There's a reason it's expensive -- it's wide on a full frame, and good wide angle lenses aren't cheap.


----------



## LostArk (Jul 16, 2012)

The 28 1.8 flirts with unusable softness wide open, and even then is only 1.3 stops faster than a 2.8 zoom. Those considering 28 1.8 as a "standard" prime on crop camera would be better served by the Sigma 30 1.4, unless they plan on moving to FF soon or use both FF and APS-C bodies. However, the 28 1.8 is cheap, compact, and has fast & accurate AF. The 28 1.8 is for FF street photographers who want a small & light wide angle, FF low light whores on a budget (such as myself), or APS-C users afraid of Sigma quality control. For any other application there is a better or more cost effective option. I'm saving up for a 24 1.4 II as I write this.


----------



## studio1972 (Jul 16, 2012)

Daniel Flather said:


> The real question is this: Why has Canon left crop users in the cold by not releasing a "normal" prime in an ef-s mount? Buying an ef 24, 28, or 35mm lens to substitute a "normal" on a crop body is stupid. You'll have a close to normal focal length, but you'll have a wide angle perspective.
> 
> Fail.



Your concept of perspective is flawed I'm afraid. A 30mm EF lens would have exactly the same perspective as a 30mm EF-S lens if they were both mounted on crop sensor cameras.


----------

