28 mm 1.8

[Uffe]

Hi everybody,

just a quick question:

I've seen people referring to the 28 mm 2.8 as their choise for 'normal prime lens' equivalent for the D30. But I've never come across anyone referring to the 28 1.8... Why?

My roots are in available-light BW photography, making wide-open shots with shutter speeds normally falling between 1/30 and 1/4. Handheld... :), so the diff between 2.8 and 1.8 really means something to me...

I've been meaning to ask you gurus this question for some time, but as fate would have it one of my local stores had a second hand 1.8 in good condition for about $200 off the new price, so I bought it before someone else could beat me to it.

I am happy with the pictures, so that's not the point. My question is really if I would have been happier with the cheaper 2.8? Or isn't it the cheaper lens people are referring to?

Hmm, questions, questions...

/Uffe.

[KHogan]

Hi Uffe,

Interesting question. I've been wondering the same thing as I've been debating between the 28 f/1.8 and the 35 f/2 to replace my 50 f/1.8 as a "normal" lens. I've seen the 28 f/2.8 but for similar reasons as yours, have not been interested in that lens. It's cheaper but not as fast. I'd think that the extra speed on the 1.8 would make a difference. How do you find the 28 f/1.8 in terms of sharpness, contrast, and focusing speed?

Kharim

[Uffe]

Hi Kharim,

as I said in my original post, I am quite happy with the lens... Meaning sharpness, contrast, focusing speed and all.

Unfortunately I live in Sweden, so I haven't been able to get any decent daylight sessions with it yet...

Focusing speed is pretty good. I haven't done any scientific testing, but it always focus faster than I can say the word 'focus'... :) Of course it hunts, and even fails to focus, when there isn't enough light. I suppose that you could express that in lumen or something, but I'll express it like this: When shutter speeds exceeds 0.5 seconds at f 1.8 and ISO 400... :)

(As I said, I'm an 'available light'-kind of guy...)

That said, here's a sample picture taken indoors with the main lightsource being the overcast weather outside. (It still was dark enough for us to have the lights on). (It's not a very good picture, but it serves this purpose.)

Shot at 1/60, f 2.5, iso 400. The image has been converted to JPG by doombrowser, no other processing whatsoever has been applied. I resized it for you to get a feel for the colour, and cropped the eye out so you can see the sharpness/contrast. Then of course it was saved as JPG again. Here goes:

http://www.zetterlund.com/28sample.jpg

Br,

/Uffe

[KHogan]

Hi Uffe,

Thanks for the sample and extra info. I'd say that lens did very well for the lighting conditions! I would suspect that the extra speed is definitely helping then with your lens. The other lens I've considered is Sigma's version of the 28 f/1.8. It's cheaper than Canon's. Have you looked at that one as well? My take would be that if you're happy with the lens' performance, no sense in bothering to change it. :)

BTW, you might find some comments on the difference between the 2.8 and 1.8 on the dpreview forums. They tend to go on at length about lenses over there.

Regards,
Kharim

[Uffe]

Hi Kharim,

I am well aware of the discussions at dpreview... But since you wrote it, I figured that I had do do a more in-depth search. (I had searched before but only came up with 'I have the 2.8 and its good enough for me'-kind of answers... ;) )

Anyway, as I said I went back and did a more thorough search. (Trying lots of different combinations of search words.) I came up with one answer referring to Photodo (should have thought of that!) and went there. They have MTF-tested both lenses, and given the 2.8 a higher rating.

I guess that answers my original question.

Anyway, for me the lens has a single purpose: available light shots in very little available light. That said, whatever sharpness I would gain in lens quality, I would lose in camera shake, since the shutter speeds would be 4 times longer... :)

Thanks for your input,

/Uffe.

[KHogan]

Hi Uffe,

Indeed, if you are happy with the lens, this is what's most important. I'm not a big fan of the photodo ratings. I prefer to subjectively evaluate a lens. If I like the results I'm getting with the lens for what I want to do, then that's good enough for me. ;) I suppose it would be interesting to see examples of images shot with both lenses at f/2.8 to see the differences.

I ran across a bit of a thread on the lenses you're mentioning at photo.net this morning. In case it's of interest:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000U0X

Regards,
Kharim

[Uffe]

Kharim,

I read through the thread at Photo.net, and it is as always - a matter of opinion... :)

I am happy with the lens, and will keep it. As someone on that thread said - it has a specific purpose. When lights are low, every f-stop counts. Although I love an ultrasharp image as much as anyone, I tend to enjoy the content of the image more then the technology. A somewhat blurry, grainy portrait with an intense expression and immediate contact with the subject is worth more to me than a 1000 ultrasharp landscapes... :) (MY opinion, no flames please... :) )

Forgot to mention in my previos message - I haven't looked at the Sigma. Living in a small country, stores don't have that much in stock. You can't go into a store and look/feel/try a lense - because if they have any lenses at all, they are cheap zooms... :( In my town (Gothenburg) there are only two or thee stores that carry secondhand gear at all, and they rarely have any useful Canon AF lenses - so when I stumbled onto a lens I was planning on buying it was like winning the lottery... :)

Anyway, thanks for your thoughts, your time and your help in finding information!

Br,

/Uffe.