Photozone review of the new EF 28mm f/2.8 USM IS

http://www.photozone.d​e …74-canon28f28isff?start=1

For the $800 asking price and considering that a 28mm f/2.8 is a relatively un-ambitious lens, I was expecting something a little better. Corner sharpness is excellent when stopped down but could be better at larger apertures. Not to mention the lack of a lens hood, case, or rear dust seal despite that high price.

The numbers at 2.8 compare favorably to the same numbers of the very expensive and highly regarded Zeiss 28mm 2.0, which of course is manual and has no IS.

nightcat wrote in post #15067082
The numbers at 2.8 compare favorably to the same numbers of the very expensive and highly regarded Zeiss 28mm 2.0, which of course is manual and has no IS.

Not quite. The Zeiss is the sharper of the two.

Canon:

996gt2 wrote in post #15067193
Not quite. The Zeiss is the sharper of the two.

Not the center ratings at f2.8 and f4

The center rating is better for the Canon at f2.8 and f4. To me, that's surprising. The Nikon's numbers are very impressive.

996gt2 wrote in post #15067193
Not quite. The Zeiss is the sharper of the two.

I'm not sure it's clear that the Zeiss is sharper. The charts indicate that each lens is sharper is some measures. It just depends on which aperture you choose.

Also, the comparison with the Nikon may not be valid. As Photozone states: "Please note that the tests results are not comparable across the different systems!"

I suspect the weak corners might be a field curvature issue - the Zeiss 28/2 suffers from this too.

My other observation is that the lens has quite a lot of focus shift as it is stopped down. (something like 20mm when going from f/2.8 to f/5.6.) This is quite a lot and there's no reason it could not be compensated for in the focusing algorithm.

nightcat wrote in post #15067488
Not the center ratings at f2.8 and f4

The center rating is better for the Canon at f2.8 and f4. To me, that's surprising. The Nikon's numbers are very impressive.

While we're talking centers, What about Canon's 28mm f/1.8? This is the most direct comparison after all... Given you can get the 28mm f/1.8 for almost HALF (its $450 right now at B&H) what the 28mm f/2.8 costs i think it warrants consideration, So lets look at the numbers:

At f/2.8 (Center/borders/extrem​es) 28mm f/1.8 on left, 28mm f/2.8 on right

3521/2561/1674 VS 3600/2843/2563

and at f/4

3702/2721/2749 vs 3729/2955/2844

The f/1.8 also has less distortion, 2.01% vs 2.41%

And less vignetting, .83 vs 2.12 at f/2.8...

Not to be really mean, But I frankly dont see why you'd spend more on the 28mm f/2.8, The f/1.8 does most of its tricks at least as well, Sometimes better and leaves you with a lot of money in your pocket..it also opens up to f/1.8 allowing for creative effects or because you need f/1.8... The only thing i think the f/2.8 might do better is flare, Because the f/1.8 is kinda bad when it comes to flare performance at times... But regardless..is that worth the extra cash?

The only justification i can see is for video....but even then...

I think Canon overpriced this by $200. Same for the new 24mm. If IS means a lot to you for a certain application, then it's an interesting option. In the 28mm range there are other good lenses available at a lesser price. If you include manual lenses, there's a lot of great 28mm options out there.

KenjiS wrote in post #15068317
While we're talking centers, What about Canon's 28mm f/1.8? This is the most direct comparison after all... Given you can get the 28mm f/1.8 for almost HALF (its $450 right now at B&H) what the 28mm f/2.8 costs i think it warrants consideration, So lets look at the numbers:

At f/2.8 (Center/borders/extrem​es) 28mm f/1.8 on left, 28mm f/2.8 on right

3521/2561/1674 VS 3600/2843/2563

and at f/4

3702/2721/2749 vs 3729/2955/2844

The f/1.8 also has less distortion, 2.01% vs 2.41%

And less vignetting, .83 vs 2.12 at f/2.8...

This makes me feel much better about my 28 1.8 (even though I already knew it was much better than it's reputation leads us to believe).

I think the main problem with lenses like the 28 1.8 is that people ONLY judge it on it's ability to shoot wide open, and while it's good at f/2 and great at f/2.8 and further stopped down, the mere fact that it's hazey and soft-ish wide open gets it a bad rep.
Another issue is that if you're in need of a 28mm that you mostly shoot at smaller apertures, most current zoom lenses already do this very well and there's not much need for an extra prime in the bag to do the same thing.

I use my 28 1.8 at f/1.8 - 2.8 and for the rest I use the 17-40 or 24-105. Maybe a luxury problem, but that's how it works for me. The L zooms aren't even that much more expensive.

^- thats how I use my 28mm f/1.8.. though I shoot it on a crop cam as opposed to full frame, When I go full frame I'm not thinking of getting rid of it because i like the idea of a fast wide prime like the 28mm for creative effects.. and the only other choice is the 24mm f/1.4L which is several magnitudes more expensive...

You cannot compare the Imatest Canon and Nikon mtf numbers straight across as the D3X sensor has somewhat higher resolution than the Canon's, and Imatest give system resolution, not lens resolution. Other factors, such as default sharpening and contrast differences between the bodies make cross platform comparisons pretty meaningless.

KenjiS wrote in post #15068317
Not to be really mean, But I frankly dont see why you'd spend more on the 28mm f/2.8, The f/1.8 does most of its tricks at least as well, Sometimes better and leaves you with a lot of money in your pocket..it also opens up to f/1.8 allowing for creative effects or because you need f/1.8... The only thing i think the f/2.8 might do better is flare, Because the f/1.8 is kinda bad when it comes to flare performance at times... But regardless..is that worth the extra cash?

The only justification i can see is for video....but even then...

The new 28/2.8 IS is a higher quality lens. At f/2.8, the corners are much better. I don't see what the 28/1.8 does "at least as well" except for going to a wider aperture. The 28/2.8 is great for stills, especially for photojournalism and events. It works very well when shot indoors at f/2.8, with some flash if needed. The 28/1.8 has a great look, but is notorious for fuzzy corners wide open and requires stopping down to about f/4 to avoid them. The relative lack of flare of the 28/2.8 is very valuable for stills. The IS function is great for stills too. I don't see how these benefits only have justification for video.

SLRgear has also just tested the new Canon 24mm and 28mm IS lenses.

I think that neither one is truly impressive given the price, but the 28mm is the better of the two. The 24mm f/2.8 IS does not perform well at f/2.8.

28mm IS:

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

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

996gt2 wrote in post #15081255
I think that neither one is truly impressive given the price, but the 28mm is the better of the two. The 24mm f/2.8 IS does not perform well at f/2.8.
....
Keeping in mind that these are prime lenses, and expensive ones at that, I just can't feel very excited about their performance. When a newly introduced $800 prime lens comes onto the market, one would at least expect it to outperform zoom lenses that have been available for several years (a decade in the case of the 24-70L).

On the Nikon side, the 14-24mm @ 24mm blows away the 24mm IS:
....
On the Canon side, the 24-70mm Mk. I also does better than both of these lenses:

I have both lenses and find that they perform very well at f/2.8. Lensrentals.com found that both of them substantially outperform the original 24-70L zoom at center and on average. See the first chart on this page:
http://www.lensrentals​.com …imes-why-did-they-do-that
This is consistent with what I see.

The Nikon 14-24 is undoubtedly an outstanding lens, but it's huge (and much more expensive). I think that one point of these new lenses is their small size & weight. They are wonderful small lenses for photojournalism and video.

Zlatko Batistich wrote in post #15081509
I have both lenses and find that they perform very well at f/2.8.

According to LensRentals, the 28mm/IS is sharper than the 24mm/IS.
Is this your experience as well?

I got the 24mm/IS but I'm still curious to know how it compares with the 28mm/IS in the 'real world'.
Thanks.