Canon 35 2 IS vs Canon 28 1.8

I've been extremely happy with my new Canon 6D over the last few months. However, I'd like a light (weight) prime to use for shooting family/everyday. I've been using an old Tamron 28-75 2.8 on my 6D when I need wider than my 70-200, because my 17-55 2.8 does not fit on full frame, and the focusing of the 50 1.8 is driving me crazy with the noise and hunting.

I'm interested in an option to replace the 50 1.8 as my lowlight and everyday lens that is still lightweight to throw in a bag and not add much weight to my 6D and 70-200 4 IS. Wider than 50 is an advantage too for indoors. In Canada, this is much of the year for me! I know a prime should be better image quality than my Tamron zoom. I've looked into 28 1.8 and 35 2 IS, and I think I'm leaning towards the 35, but I'm not sure if I'm missing anything about quality or otherwise that's important. I like that the 35 has the same filter size as my 70-200 and 100 macro, because they can share my polarizing filter. Also, I've seen that some people have both of these focal lengths, and I'm not sure if it's just because they like primes enough to buy lengths so close to one another, or if one wasn't good enough so the second was purchased. In particular, I'd love to know from anyone who has used either lens what the focus time (and noise) are--is it long or distracting? I don't want to buy another lens that annoys me as much as my 50 1.8 (although, I realize for the price it is pretty decent!). Any advice between these two lenses is appreciated! (Both budget and weight have ruled out any f/1.4 options for me!)

The 28mm f/1.8 is an older lens, while the 35mm f/2 IS is a recent design by Canon. Unless the added width is important to you, or you are looking for the less expensive option, I would go with the 35mm.

I used to own the 28mm f/1.8 -- I used it mostly for a "normal" focal length prime when I shot crop bodies. It worked well for that application. When I moved to full frame, I kept the lens for about a year and used it a few times, It produced decent results on my 5D3, but I just didn't have much of a need for that wider focal length prime on full frame, so I ended up selling it.

I would get the 35mm for sure. 28 is a little wide for everyday use. And besides, it's already covered on the Tamron.

EricaC wrote in post #17699467
(Both budget and weight have ruled out any f/1.4 options for me!)

The 50mm f/1.4 is both lighter and less expensive than either of the lenses you ask about.

Mike

Thank-you for the replies. They are both right around the same price at the big Canadian photo retailer where I looked them up. I think my leaning towards the 35 is what I will end up going with.

I know the 50 1.4 is much cheaper, but from my research, focus still seems to be less than great with that lens, and it's the main thing that bugs me about the 50 1.8. I will be keeping the 50 1.8 (not really worth selling in my opinion), so I would still have a 50 prime if needed in addition to the new lens. I will even be keeping my Tamron zoom, I'd rather just not have to depend on it rather than a better, lower light prime. Selling my 17-55 2.8 zoom that won't work on my 6D anyway will give me some cash for a prime.

the 35 f2 is a far superior lens. I've owned both. the 28 1.8 doesn't even begin to get sharp until f2.2. I always read the fred miranda user reviews as a starting point and you'll see there that the 28 1.8 was never highly regarded.

Thank-you! It's great to have the opinion of someone who has owned both lenses.

Just got the 35 f2 IS and have been shooting it a lot. It's very nice, light, fast AF and IS to boot. You cannot go wrong with it.

+1 for the 35mm f2 IS. It's my favourite lens and hardly ever leaves my 6D

ed rader wrote in post #17699896
the 35 f2 is a far superior lens. I've owned both. the 28 1.8 doesn't even begin to get sharp until f2.2. I always read the fred miranda user reviews as a starting point and you'll see there that the 28 1.8 was never highly regarded.

EricaC wrote in post #17699961
Thank-you! It's great to have the opinion of someone who has owned both lenses.

I've owned both. Still do. The 28 1.8 is very good wide open. I find it completely useable. That said, the 35 IS is a much better lens. Sharper across the frame, sharper overall, less vignetting, and IS. I think the 35 is a more 'general' lens. The 28 is a bit more of a specialty lens.

Looks like the 35 is the clear winner when having only one or the other. I don't want TOO wide for everyday use either. I'm selling my 17-55 and buying the 35!

EricaC wrote in post #17699467
I've been extremely happy with my new Canon 6D over the last few months. However, I'd like a light (weight) prime to use for shooting family/everyday. I've been using an old Tamron 28-75 2.8 on my 6D when I need wider than my 70-200, because my 17-55 2.8 does not fit on full frame, and the focusing of the 50 1.8 is driving me crazy with the noise and hunting.

I'm interested in an option to replace the 50 1.8 as my lowlight and everyday lens that is still lightweight to throw in a bag and not add much weight to my 6D and 70-200 4 IS. Wider than 50 is an advantage too for indoors. In Canada, this is much of the year for me! I know a prime should be better image quality than my Tamron zoom. I've looked into 28 1.8 and 35 2 IS, and I think I'm leaning towards the 35, but I'm not sure if I'm missing anything about quality or otherwise that's important. I like that the 35 has the same filter size as my 70-200 and 100 macro, because they can share my polarizing filter. Also, I've seen that some people have both of these focal lengths, and I'm not sure if it's just because they like primes enough to buy lengths so close to one another, or if one wasn't good enough so the second was purchased. In particular, I'd love to know from anyone who has used either lens what the focus time (and noise) are--is it long or distracting? I don't want to buy another lens that annoys me as much as my 50 1.8 (although, I realize for the price it is pretty decent!). Any advice between these two lenses is appreciated! (Both budget and weight have ruled out any f/1.4 options for me!)

Heya,

The 35 F2 IS is superior in every way. It's very fast focusing, very sharp (as sharp as the 35L, sharper in some instances), the IS is modern and very good and useful (especially for low light use with a 6D, you can get really low light shots with that combo of non-moving things). 35mm is wide enough to be wide on full frame, without the obvious distortions that creep in as you get wider and wider with something else. It's just a really hot lens. One of Canon's finest lenses frankly.

The 1/3rd stop difference is not worth the IS and the overall superior optics that the 35 has over the 28.

The only contender to the 35 F2 IS, really, is Tamron's new 35mm F1.8 VC. But at this point, it would probably be splitting hairs.

Very best,

I just got the 35 F2 IS and tried it out in the worst place I could think of. The aquarium. Low light, tight space, glass and water diffraction affecting quality of pictures.
I was very impressed how the lens would focus in such low light. And accurately too. Pictures came out pretty good too.
This lens will replace my 50 1.8, which has been great but inconsistent.

I've been using the 35mm f2 IS on my 6D for about six months, now, and find it to be an incredibly powerful combination. The IS is so much nicer than I had expected (I used to have the 50mm 1.8).

That said, Tamron has released a 35mm 1.8 IS (http://tamron-usa.com/F012_F013speci​al/index.html#/). Early reviews cite lower vignetting than with Canon's 35, and better edge-to-edge resolution. Naturally, it'll be more expensive, and larger but it's worth knowing about before you make your choice.