Any opinions on 28mm 1.8 vs 28mm 2.8?

I'm getting tired of backing up into walls or falling off ledges trying to frame a shot with my 50mm on a crop. I have the tokina 11-16, but that is useless in most cases because of distortion. I don't want sigma as I don't have time for the buy/return/repeat process to get a good copy of a 30mm.

I think I know the answer since it's better to back off a bit from maximum aperture for sharpness, and I would be using this lens wider a good portion of the time.

I'm a bit worried though; I've already read plenty that says the 1.8 isn't so sharp. If I'm buying the 28mm 1.8, it should be as sharp as the 50mm 1.4 (especially for the money). I'm not worried as much about CA, since CA can be as much user error as lens trait.

The sample archive isn't helping much as far as sharp samples go, but I've only checked 100 posts or so.

So is the 28mm 1.8 worth over double the price of the 2.8? I've read lot's of good about the 35mm, but I can't seem to find it in stock.

I don't have any experience with the 28 2.8, but the 28 1.8 is really nice. Wide open it might be a tad less sharp than the 50 1.4, but from the-digital-picture's crops, the 28 1.8 is quite a bit better than the 28 2.8. It also features nothing short of excellent AF and pretty decent build quality. I normally shoot it from f/2 on, but 1.8 definitely works when needed.
I initially bought it as a normal lens on my 40D (since 50mm is often too long), but now I use it almost exclusively on my 5D.
If you check this pic (@ f/2), as well as a bunch around it, hopefully that gives you some insight into what it can do.

Also, people tend to focus too much on sharpness anyway, to me, if it looks good on 50% crop and I'm not printing huge, it's good

People say the 2.8 is the better choice because of the price/performance ratio.
I'd still pick the 1.8 out of the 2 though.

But I'd still say consider the sigma 30 1.4, which opens wider than either of the 28's you mentioned, is sharper than the 1.8 wide open, has better build, is cheaper, and has better IQ overall. The focus issues you see mentioned on the internet are overblown. The overwhelming majority of users are happy with their lenses.

I bought the 28/1.8 as my walk-around and indoor (poor lighting) lens. I've been well-pleased with it.

I've even shot some basketball towards the end of the game (where I've changed from 85 to 28 to be ready for the game-end gatherings and awards ceremony)... the /1.8 has great IQ; it crops well up to 4-6x, after that it's a bit noisy, but can go higher in center. It still has detail at 10x (100%).

Here's a shot and ~100% crop:

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

To me, one of the advantages that a prime has over a zoom is the wider aperture. Getting a f2.8 prime negates a lot of that advantage.

My 2.8 sits unused since I got the 24-70, the zoom is just better.

Go for the 1.8 IMHO

Faster is always better....get the 1.8

If you need 1.8, then get the 28mm 1.8. If you don't, get the 2.8. The 28mm 2.8 is one very unloved lens. But its center sharpness wide open is excellent. No stopping down is needed. This is one lens to buy used as they usually sell for under $150. If you don't like it, you can sell it at the same price you bought it. Check out the Photozone website as they have excellent reviews on both lenses.

thestone11 wrote in post #12587976
Faster is always better....get the 1.8

If faster is always better why did you buy the f4 version of the 70-200mm lens?

If you're shooting on a crop body and are gunning for this focal length, the Sigma 30/1.4 is probably the best bet.

nightcat wrote in post #12588050
If faster is always better why did you buy the f4 version of the 70-200mm lens?

Faster is always better is very true...but at the same time you have to have enough money in your pocket to afford it.

Ferrari is better than Toyota, but can you buy it? NO.....as simple as that.

thestone11 wrote in post #12588244
Faster is always better is very true...but at the same time you have to have enough money in your pocket to afford it.

Ferrari is better than Toyota, but can you buy it? NO.....as simple as that.

That was my point. The OP twice expressed cost as a consideration in his question.

nightcat wrote in post #12588512
That was my point. The OP twice expressed cost as a consideration in his question.

Cost is not his only consideration though. I am just saying the faster lens is better.

As for your comment, should everybody come in this thread say" go for the 2.8, since the 1.8 is expensive!" Then what's the point of having a vs thread, we have to find out which one is better and why for the OP? Does the higher price tag justify the better lens? Then with our info, he can pick whatever he feels like~!

crn3371 wrote in post #12587534
To me, one of the advantages that a prime has over a zoom is the wider aperture. Getting a f2.8 prime negates a lot of that advantage.

this.

i'd rather get a 17-55 2.8 IS (or 17-50 OS/VC) than the 28 2.8.

nightcat wrote in post #12588512
That was my point. The OP twice expressed cost as a consideration in his question.

Cost is always a consideration, but it depends on how much of a stretch between the price is. Yes money has a different value to everybody, but as the saying goes, you get what you pay for. Op has already bought a UWA thats about $600-700, so it looks like the money can be there. It is all relative. If this is a lens you feel you would use quite often, then you should get the best you can afford.
I have the sigma 30 and am happy with my decision. I did not even consider the 28, but 35L is just way too much for now.