28mm 1.8 vs. 35mm 2.0, which goes best on a full frame?

Hi everyone,

I'm replacing my broken 50mm and I wanted to hear about any FF users' experiences with either the 28mm 1.8 or the 35mm 2.0. I do a combination of stills and video with my 6D and I'm looking for a faster prime that can gimme a bit more versatility. But on to the point, how would either of these two lenses work on a full frame? Are they sharper or suffer from low IQ?

Well to be honest coming from a photographer that started his photography in the mid 1970's the main thing that I would have to say is that they are respectively wider and much wider than a 50mm lens. It really depends on the subjects that you are photographing/filming. To maintain the same framing as the 50mm lens you will have to get significantly closer, even with the 35mm lens. This is quite probably going to have a negative effect on the perspective of the images. This is especially true if your subjects are human. If its landscapes that you are doing then this is less likely to be an issue. Considering replacing a 50mm lens with a 35mm or 28mm just because they have a faster maximum aperture is not workable if you happen to need a lens with a 50mm focal length. If you are using 50mm and you need 50mm then the sensible option is to look for a 50mm lens that meets your aperture requirements.

Alan

I use the 28 1.8 & 35 IS on my 6D. Of the two, I prefer the focal length of the 28. I also actually like the fact that is has no resolution at all at the edge of the frame. If I am shooting at f/1.8, I want subject separation. The 28 1.8 delivers a better shot because it can't resolve anything at the edge of the frame, even if it should be in focus. The 35 IS on the other hand, is great for f/8 shooting. It is sharp all the way into the corners, starting at about f/4.