28mm f1.8 - comparable to 50mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.8?

cagenuts wrote in post #12331011
Could you perhaps point me to an example of this please?

Just look through some of the threads for particular lenses, the 24L produces nice background blur but its just not the same separation you get with a tele lens. Still the 24 does a better job then the 28 1.8 which is should for about 3 x the price.

Also just google depth of field calculator to see the difference. Getting the background to blur is a combination of distance to subject, subject to background, focal length and aperture. Better lenses produce nicer background blur but on the wide end its generally not as good and harder to achieve

Sirrith wrote in post #12331166
I don't have a fast 24mm, so I can't compare, but here's a shot with the 70-200 f4 IS at f4, 116mm, so imagine what it could do at 200mm

Thanks very much! That's pretty impressive.

I had the 28 for a few weeks. It was a great lens, don't get me wrong, but once I tried out the 24, there was no going back. I promptly returned the 28 and picked up a used 24 II. It might seem like a small thing, but the extra 4mm seems to make a world of difference, and the IQ is spot on. I agree, it's hard to justify dropping that kind of cash on a lens, but try it and you'll see what I'm talking about. I'm sure you can find a 24 I for a reasonable price.

One more photo for sharing.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

I am just playing around with a Sigma 28mm 1.8 EX and it seems better than the Canon 28mm 1.8
I had in bokeh, sharpness, macro capability (2in) and build. The canon has an edge in focus speed
and weight. The bokeh is the most notable difference the Sigma really shines here where the canon
is just plain ugly in the corners.

Blurr Cube wrote in post #12275046
Now that's a "bokeh" of roses!

love the pun

Conserning the lens, I was thinking which one to get - the 35/2 or the 28/1.8 and I'm leaning toward the 28 because of the usm. But I'm wondering how do they compare IQ wise.

Kind of funny coming back to this thread and reading my OP...

After that, I foolishly borrowed a friend's 50mm f1.2L. What was I thinking? I fell in love. That said, I mostly fell in love because I'm shooting a lot of video these days and I find the L much easier to focus. For photos, I think I'd still be okay with the 1.4.

I never did get the 28mm f1.8 either. I just couldn't decide on a wide prime. Somehow this led me to the 1.2 and the 135mm f2

I own the 28 1.8 and love it on full frame, but I kinda took the detour in buying one. When I was shooting crop (40D), I was looking for a good normal lens, 50mm was slightly too long normally, so set out for a Sigma 30 1.4. Then I became terribly disappointed with the brand as I tried 7 30's, none of which would do any sort of proper AF on my 40D, and 3 of them were very soft even with live view focus until 2.8. Ended up blindly buying a 28 1.8 (which I previously disregarded due to mixed reviews) and it was spot on perfect on my 40D. Even wide open was very usable, certainly better than not getting the shot or having it blurry.

Then I bought a 5D and since I didn't have too many EF lenses (mostly 3rd party crop - which I sold now), used just the 28 1.8, 50 1.8 and 100mm macro. The 28 1.8 really shines on full frame. Maybe the bokeh isn't the most pretty of all time, but I simply love the wide angle shallow DoF it brings at 1.8 - 2.2 or so. Was a completely new effect to me.

If you look at a shot like this one below, I don't think it can be made with a crop body.
Maybe not the most impressive shot ever, and some might rightly claim the focus was slightly missed, where others would counter that it's a happy accident the way it came out...
5Dc + 28mm f/1.8 @ F/2, ISO 320, 1/60th.
Lit by stage floodlight from high up camera left and a single flash through a shoot through umbrella from camera right.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …5634374915/in/p​hotostream

Tommydigi wrote in post #11955989
I had all 3, I think the 28 is the weakest of the bunch but thats not to say its not good. Its certainly capable and will beat any zoom at 28mm. I only sold mine to fund a 24-70.

The 28 is a lot like the 85 in build and feel.

I beg to differ, my 15-85mm IS USM is sharper throughout the image than my 28mm. Unless I got a good copy, my zoom is awsome.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=1​&APIComp=0

Except that the 15-85 at 28mm is f/4.5 whereas the 28mm is still f/1.8.

Depends what you're looking for I suppose.

no the 28mm "can" be at 1.8, but my example has the F stop as close as the comparo will let me, and thus shows the 15-85 is sharper all over the frame and contrast is better.

I never claimed the zoom lens was faster. Im just saying the Lens is optically superior.

Ok got you. Thanks

Just tested the two lenses, the 50 has way more CA going on at 1.4 to 2.2

the 28mm is not bad at 1.8 and good at 2.0

I'll post pics soon