Canon USM Prime Suggestions?

Today I received a Canon 28mm f1.8 USM from Canon (refurbished). I was extremely impressed at how amazingly sharp this lens is from 2.8 up!!

This is my first USM lens. I currently own a 16-35mm f4.0L, 70-200mm f2.8L, a 50mm f1.8 EF, an EFS 10-18, EFS 55-250 and a couple of kit lenses (18-55 and the 55-300).

My primary camera is a 7dmk2, travel camera is a T6. I plan on getting a full frame in the next year.

For personal preference reasons I want to shoot with a few primes instead of with a zoom lens. I know I can just get a 16-35mm 2.8L to replace my 16-35mm 4.0L, but I prefer lighter, faster primes. I don't want to spend a small fortune on any more L glass either (I shoot with both Canon and Nikon and I have a bunch of money invested in my current Nikon D750 plus a ton of Nikon lenses - no, I don't want to sell anything, I actually enjoy using both systems equally).

What I'm looking for are suggestions, actual user experiences with Canon USM primes. Which USM primes have you used? Which are your favorites? Which ones turned out to be disappointments?

p.s. While I am now only using a crop sensor Canon, I would like to purchase and keep whatever USM primes I buy to use in the near future with a Canon full frame camera I will be buying, so I'm looking to buy nice (not premium quality expensive) glass first.

canon has some great inexpensive primes but the 28 1.8 isn't one of them. i'm very surprised this lens and the 20 f2.8 are still being made. the 28 f2.8 IS is a better lens (I've owned it twice and the 28 1.8 three times).

I have only had it for a few hours, ran a few test shots I normally do whenever I buy a new lens. This 28mm 1.8 is absolutely amazing in terms of sharpness, color rendition and little (if any) distortion. Could be that I am using a crop sensor camera with it, but from what I have seen so far, I am impressed!

Build quality seems much better than my EF 50mm 1.8. If other USM lenses are way better than this one, I can't wait to get my hands on a few of them!!!

I had the 28 1.8 when I was shooting Canon full frame. I liked it. At f/1.8 the center of the frame is really good, and IQ deteriorates quickly toward the corners. At f/8 to f/11, it pretty much doesn't matter which lens you are using. My favorite prime on full frame was the 35mm IS.

snegron wrote in post #18899697
I have only had it for a few hours, ran a few test shots I normally do whenever I buy a new lens. This 28mm 1.8 is absolutely amazing in terms of sharpness, color rendition and little (if any) distortion. Could be that I am using a crop sensor camera with it, but from what I have seen so far, I am impressed!

Build quality seems much better than my EF 50mm 1.8. If other USM lenses are way better than this one, I can't wait to get my hands on a few of them!!!

If you like the 28 1.8, you are in for lots of pleasant surprises with other Canon primes.

Staying with Canon, and without going into L territory, the 35/2 IS, the 85 1.8 (and 100/2) may be as good as you can get

There are a couple of pancake lenses you can consider as well but I believe they start at 2.8

I have zero experiences with the pancakes, but they are well reviewed.
I have some with the 35/2IS and I have no complaints, but I decided to stick to the Sigma 35.
Limited experience with the 85 1.8 but a ton with the 100/2 - they are basically the same lens - for the money, they are pretty good

snegron wrote in post #18899697
I have only had it for a few hours, ran a few test shots I normally do whenever I buy a new lens. This 28mm 1.8 is absolutely amazing in terms of sharpness, color rendition and little (if any) distortion. Could be that I am using a crop sensor camera with it, but from what I have seen so far, I am impressed!

Build quality seems much better than my EF 50mm 1.8. If other USM lenses are way better than this one, I can't wait to get my hands on a few of them!!!

https://www.the-digital-picture.com …-1.8-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

"The Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM Lens is soft wide open. Stop the aperture down to f/2.8 and the center becomes sharp. Mid-frame performance (on a full frame DSLR) is softer - even stopped down. Corner performance does not degrade much (if any) over the mid-frame results. I'm disappointed by the sharpness delivered from this lens - It's not up to my expectations.

Another disappointment is the very obvious CA (Chromatic Aberration) the 28 f/1.8 exhibits at mid and corner portions of the frame. Proneness to flare is another notable negative characteristic. Though it is not bad, some barrel distortion is present."

Recommendations really depend on what you want to use the camera to photograph - and where. I especially like the 35F2 IS, 85 F1.8, and Sigma 70 mm Art macro lens. If you are really into macro, Canon makes very good macro lenses, including the 100 mm F 2.8 IS L, and the regular 100 F2.8 macro lens without IS.

I promised myself that I wouldn’t get any more lenses, but I am sorely tempted by the 135F2 L. I just can’t justify the expense right now, given the limited number of times and places I would use it.

I have been eyeing the 100mm macro (L version) for some time now. Every time it goes on sale I am tempted to buy one, but I can't justify the expense of nearly $700 for a lens I will only use a few times.

snegron wrote in post #18901187
I have been eyeing the 100mm macro (L version) for some time now. Every time it goes on sale I am tempted to buy one, but I can't justify the expense of nearly $700 for a lens I will only use a few times.

Just get the non "L" version just as good IMO.

Having tried out the L version the only advantages that I could find were that it came with a lens hood and looked prettier. I am not knocking the 100 F2.8 L Macro (it is an excellent lens) but the older model is just as good for most, if not all, purposes.

you didnt't find the IS to be an advantage? I think the 100L is a steal for the price. it would make an excellent portrait lens too.

I have the Canon 100 mm macro, non-L. It is very sharp, but I do find myself boosting ISO when using it outside hand-held. If I were getting a 100 mm Canon macro lens today, I would get the L for the IS. IS won’t help if you are using a tripod or flash, but it would help a lot for hand-held shots in poor light.

IS is not going to help quite as much if you need faster shutter speeds for people walking or flowers moving in a breeze, but there is no question about it being a help in low light portraits, ...if you can catch people when they are not moving. IS can increase lens performance by minimizing the effect of hand shake. I think that the IS version of the Canon lens is worth the price of admission. I am happy enough with the non-L version to not bother with an upgrade. If you plan to use the lens with flash or a tripod, then IS is just a costly feature. For candid photos of people, however, the IS can be a help.

SMP_Homer wrote in post #18899705
Staying with Canon, and without going into L territory, the 35/2 IS, the 85 1.8 (and 100/2) may be as good as you can get

There are a couple of pancake lenses you can consider as well but I believe they start at 2.8

I have zero experiences with the pancakes, but they are well reviewed.
I have some with the 35/2IS and I have no complaints, but I decided to stick to the Sigma 35.
Limited experience with the 85 1.8 but a ton with the 100/2 - they are basically the same lens - for the money, they are pretty good

I LOVE the 40mm pancake lens. Would be the last lens I sell. In fact, it WAS my only lens for 3 years, after selling all of my other equipment. That lens alone kept the 5d III on the shelf. Otherwise, I've had sold that, too.

ed rader wrote in post #18901313
you didnt't find the IS to be an advantage? I think the 100L is a steal for the price. it would make an excellent portrait lens too.

Agree. If you use the 100 macro both as a portrait and a macro lens, it's a great deal.

ed rader wrote in post #18901313
you didnt't find the IS to be an advantage? I think the 100L is a steal for the price. it would make an excellent portrait lens too.

No I do not currently use the IS on any of my lenses (that have it) as it costs me too many shots and hinders AF performance/tracking. When I gave the 100 L IS Macro a whirl IS didn't seem to help in any way that I could find. The 100 L didn't give any IQ benefits that my cameras, or I, could show so I am happy with my Non L version.

I agree that the 100L is an excellent lens but, other than being prettier, I can't see that buying it would make me any happier than my 100 F2.8 Macro - though it would mean that I would only have one non "L" lens, food for thought?