Any opinions on 28mm 1.8 vs 28mm 2.8?

If you sharpen your images in any way shape or form, you've just negated the difference between the 28mm f/1.8 and Sigma 30mm f/1.4 in terms of sharpness. And I doubt most could tell the difference in IQ between the 28 and 30. The build of the lenses, while slightly different, is roughly equal. It really comes down to what one prefers - the 28 has the same build of the 85mm f/1.8, which is to say, excellent.

If you need f/1.4 then get the Sigma. If you want the best AF in a fast, Canon mount, wide prime then get the 28mm f/1.8.* With the Sigma you may have to focus twice . If you need future FF compatibility, then the Canon is your lens.

*- Fwiw, I've owned (in order): 28mm f/1.8 & 30mm f/1.4 (returned 30mm after a week), 35L, 24LII and 28mm f/1.8 again. Why? I loved the 28 but wanted the 1.4 of the 35L. After a year or so I needed wider than the 35L, so got the 24L II. The 24LII couldn't focus as well in low light as the 28 (or 35L) in my experience over about 3 months of owning it, so I sold it and re-bought the 28. Simply put, you can't beat the AF reliability of the 28.

28mm f/1.8 @ f/2.8

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

While money isn't never ending, I'd rather get the best lens for the focal length first time around.

TweakMDS wrote in post #12587146
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

I seen that one in the sample thread. That's a nice sharp shot.

2 more suggestions for the sigma 30. I'd like to try the sigma 30 if the focus problems are few and I can get a good one.

I guess I would get the 1.8 if I can get the sigma out of my head. You guys have reinforced the faster being better. I don't really shoot my 50 at 1.4 all that often, but it's nice to stop down to 2.8 then to want 2.8 and have to start there, where sharpness is not optimal.

Thanks for the help! I have some thinking to do.

@twoshadows

Those are sweet; that's what I'm talkin' about! I love #2, you hit that one perfect.

Let me just say that I was in your position in january this year I was dead set against the sigma because I'd heard so much about their focus issues. However, I looked through the image threads for both lenses, and the 35 f2 and the 28 2.8, and decided that the sigma's IQ was too good to pass up (I'm not just talking about sharpness, I'm talking about IQ overall, e.g. I hate the canon 28 1.8's bokeh) so took the chance. I tried 3 different copies of the sigma at 3 different stores, and none had any focusing issues. I've been happy with my choice since then, and I've never missed focus in anything but near-darkness (as in almost pitch black).

Here are a few shots for comparison with the 28's posted above:

f1.4:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/noobography/5​788071990/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/noobography/5​425364416/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/noobography/5​535321747/

Sounds like I need to get to a camera shop and actually test a sigma 30 if I have any interest in it.

samueli wrote in post #12591755
Sounds like I need to get to a camera shop and actually test a sigma 30 if I have any interest in it.

If you go the used route with a Sigma 30, especially from a longtime forum member, you're likely to get a sharp copy... since many of the guys go through the purchase-return cycle until they get a sharp and accurate lens.

samueli wrote in post #12591755
Sounds like I need to get to a camera shop and actually test a sigma 30 if I have any interest in it.

Bingo!

I would like to point out one important difference between these two sets of pics. Imo there's a big difference between 1)a stationary beer mug, 2)a stationary city & 3)someone posing, and the candid shots I've presented which, to me, reflect more of a challenge for the AF. I'm not saying it isn't capable, but i'd sure like to see more "real world shots" that challenge the AF of the 30 more. Kinda like this:

28mm f/1.8 wide open @ iso3200 on a 1dmkIIn. This guy was back lit and thrashing around and the 28 didn't miss a shot.

I've only experience with the 28/1.8, but that's because since I've laid my hands on it I've never let go.

I did rent the 24LII but didn't think it was worth the cost.

bubbygator wrote in post #12587289
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

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

EXIF says that's a 85mm picture.

Darn, you're right! - I didn't check it before posting. I almost never shoot the group pic with my 85 cause I have to back up so far. How's this then:

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

twoshadows wrote in post #12594663
I would like to point out one important difference between these two sets of pics. Imo there's a big difference between 1)a stationary beer mug, 2)a stationary city & 3)someone posing, and the candid shots I've presented which, to me, reflect more of a challenge for the AF. I'm not saying it isn't capable, but i'd sure like to see more "real world shots" that challenge the AF of the 30 more. Kinda like this:

The main problem here is that I don't really like shooting people so I don't have many photos like yours.
Of the few I do have, here are a couple:
Exif was lost in this one, so-
f1.4
1/60
ISO 800

I really dug the 28mm f2.8. It had very even sharpness right from wide open and was a nice normal prime on a crop camera. I felt like it was a decent upgrade from the cheaper zooms I was using at the time. The only problem was that the reason I wanted a prime was for low light and subject seperation, and f2.8 just didn't quite get me there on APS-C. I ended up with the 30mm f1.4 and felt it was a nice upgrade in AF and aperture, but honestly sharpness is the same.

twoshadows wrote in post #12594663
I would like to point out one important difference between these two sets of pics. Imo there's a big difference between 1)a stationary beer mug, 2)a stationary city & 3)someone posing, and the candid shots I've presented which, to me, reflect more of a challenge for the AF. I'm not saying it isn't capable, but i'd sure like to see more "real world shots" that challenge the AF of the 30 more. Kinda like this:

28mm f/1.8 wide open @ iso3200 on a 1dmkIIn. This guy was back lit and thrashing around and the 28 didn't miss a shot.
.

I don't know how much the 1D body makes a difference, but I have never been disappointed with the 30mm on my 30D. It's not my favorite action sports lens, though due to the length.


f1.6

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

So to piggy back onto this thread, how's the 28 1.8 for basketball? I found my 24-70 to be too slow to focus. With the 28's legendary AF, would that problem go away?