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

I've been doing a lot of reading on the Canon 28mm f1.8 and see that as I expected, it has its fans and its haters.

For those that have tried it and also have used the Canon 50mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.8 lenses, do you think the 28mm f1.8 is comparable? While I would love to have the 24mm or 35mm Ls, I just have a hard time dropping that much... but, I would like a wide prime.

I am perfectly happy with my 50mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.8 lenses and have never felt any need to upgrade to the Ls of those focal ranges. So... can I expect to be equally happy with the 28mm f1.8?

Thanks for any input.

I have all 3, and it is the same standard in built quality and optically very good. So if you like the IQ and build of the 50 1.4 and 85 1.8, the 28 1.8 fits in nicely.

I don't have the 85/1.8 but I do own the 50/1.4 and I would rate the 28/1.8 as comparable. I quite like the 28, mine is sharp and focuses well and the IQ is great even wide open (to my rather uncritical eye).

I love my 28mm. Simply put

On a crop camera, this lens is great for indoor use, but also provides great coverage for landscape. Head over to the 28mm f/1.8 Photo Thread to get a better idea of what this lens can do. It has great bokeh in my opinion, and is pretty damn sharp when stopped down to around f/2.8

Any other questions, just ask.

(I also own a 50mm f/1.4, both lenses compete for use, it all depends on what/where I'm shooting. I'd say I use these lenses exclusively, and they cover most of what I need.

I have the 85 1.8 and it is a truly exceptional lens, filled with pixie dust.

The 28 1.8 is a very good performer and I like it a lot more than the 2.8s in similar focal lengths. It is as good as a 28 1.8 should be, but the 85 1.8 is more than the sum of its parts, so it's not a fair comparison.

The Sigma 30 1.4 is frequently brought up in discussions about the 28 1.8 or near-normal options for crop cameras. Sigma unreliable build and calibration consistency is also widely mentioned.

You might really enjoy the 30 1.4 (if you get a good copy), but all I know is that I don't regret buying my 28 1.8

Only 3 of my 7 lenses sees any consistent use: 10-22, 28 & 85. And it's these lenses that I start with when deciding what to take out with me.

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.

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.

good point

Thanks all for the lightning fast replies!

I probably should have given a bit more information.

bdp23 wrote in post #11955987
The Sigma 30 1.4 is frequently brought up in discussions about the 28 1.8 or near-normal options for crop cameras. Sigma unreliable build and calibration consistency is also widely mentioned.

I do have a 7D, but my primary camera is a 5D2, so the Sigma 30 1.4 is not a contender.

Why I'm looking for a wide prime: for wedding receptions. I like to shoot both tight and wide for first dance and parents' dances. The 24-70 is too slow to focus in the dark - even with the AF assist from my flash. And while my 16-35 is one of my favorite lenses, I don't like it for these kinds of dancing portraits. Guests dancing, I think it's okay.

I also thought it might be better suited to shooting video. I'm shooting my first wedding video in a couple weeks and thought it might have a little less distortion than the 16-35.

Current lens lineup: 16-35 f2.8l, 24-70 f2.l, 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.8, 100mm f2.8l, 70-200 f2.8L IS

I use the 28 1.8 to shoot indoor swing dancing allot, the focus is pretty quick even in very dark places. AF assist from the flash does help out allot. It does focus faster then the sig 30 if you were a aps-c user.

Your the second person to say that, I am surprised, I never noticed any issue with mine. Does your 16-35 also have this issue?

I did work on a music video where the 28 1.8 came in handy, mainly for the extra stop. I really wish Canon would make a 24 1.8 or 2.0 similar to the 28 in build.

Tommydigi wrote in post #11956196
You're the second person to say that, I am surprised, I never noticed any issue with mine. Does your 16-35 also have this issue?

No, the 16-35 is great in low light. I never use the 24-70 during receptions any more. Fortunately I am not short on other lens options . I usually put it away for the bride's entrance, too, if the ceremony is somewhere dark.

I've owned a 85mm f/1.8 for a couple of years, and picked up a 28mm f/1.8 late last year. I think they are very comparable lenses in IQ, build quality and auto focus performance. The 28mm is a great indoor lens for a crop body.

I've been using the 28mm f/1.8 instead of my 17-55mm f/2.8 for indoor family events. It's smaller, lighter, and less intimidating to photo subjects than the large 17-55.

Im using EF 28 1.8 as standard wide angle lens on my 5D. I like it, IQ is just fine.

I've used the 28/1.8 quite a bit for a number of years now, alongside 20/2.8, 50/1.4 and 85/1.8. It's part of the same "mid-grade/USM" lens series... fast focusing, full time manual focus, reasonably durable build, good IQ. The 28mm is the smallest of this series of lenses, even with it's matched lens hood either in use or reversed for storage.

The 28mm isn't my favorite lens on full frame. For one, it's just not my fav focal length. But also it's a little soft in the corners... not that it's really all that bad, and stopped down it gets better.

It really comes into its own on a crop camera, where I find the "slightly wide normal" focal length useful and the crop uses the lens' sharpest parts.

I can't say how suitable it will be for video... I never shoot video at all with any lens.

bdp23 wrote in post #11955987
Sigma unreliable build

Whut?