Which EF 28 mm lens to get? Canon/Sigma/Tamron 1.8/2.8/zoom?

Hi Canon photography experts 8) ,

I'll be getting my 20D soon (January) and am toying with the 'learn photography from the base up idea' ...
that is, using the camera only in manual mode for some time with a normal (50 mm) lens.

For that reason, I'm thinking about getting a 28 mm lens ... but which one?

My original plan was to get the Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR DI (I still plan to get this lens as walk-around lens, but maybe later), so it's in the options, also the Canon EF 35/2.0 that should be a very good lens. I would prefer the 28 mm over the 35 mm, as it gives me a bit more of wide angle (45 mm vs. 56 mm).

My prime decision factors are
1) sharpness (at 2.8 and 1.8 )
2) quality of bokeh at 28 mm
3) focus speed
4) price
5) absence of CA
6) flare resistance

Who has experience with using these lenses?

Is the 2.8 sufficient on 28 mm to get nice bokeh?
I've seen nice images with a blurred background from the Tamron 28-75 XR DI, but they were all not at the full wide setting.
(I'm also not yet totally sure whether I like the bokeh of the Tamron 28-75, it seemed a bit harsh to me )

I looked up the lenses at www.photozone.de and the image database ranks the lenses Canon 28/2.8 > Canon 35/2.0 > Canon 28/1.8 > Sigma 28/1.8 with none of those a 'real slouch'.

So ... please give me your advice!
I'll really appreciate it.

Best regards,
Andy

PS: Additional info...
I currently have a G2 and use it mostly around 35-70 mm (equivalent)
I like to shoot people (candids and portraits), landscapes and the odd architecture shot.
My main subject is my 2 year old, so the focus speed should be up to it...
The other lenses in my planning are the 50/1.4, the Tokina ATX 17/3.5 and the Canon 70-200/2.8 L or 135/2.8 SF.
However, not getting all that great glass immediately will also be beneficial for my bank account
Thank you for reading all the post without tiring

So no opinions so far ...

I find it a bit hard to believe that nobody on the forum has ever used a 28 mm lens

C'mon guys, not everyone can ask you whether he should rather get the 400/2.8 L or the 500/4 L ..... this question normally gets 50 answers in half an hour ... so give me your best! I need the input!!!

I'm currently leaning towards the Canon 28/1.8 ... question is whether it is sharp wide open or whether it only can be used stopped down.

Best regards,
Andy

Is the sigma you are talking about the EX 28mm F1.8 DG Macro?

I just got rid of that lens as it had problems with my 20D. It just wouldn't focus correctly on either body I have had.
On my D60 it produced 'some' decent results but it is a heavy lens (heavier than either of the canon's) with VERY loud, scraping AF.

Yes, that's the lens: Sigma 28mm f1.8 EX DG Aspherical Macro.
Thanks for the info!

Best regards,
Andy

The Canon 28/1.8 has ring-type USM. Reports are that it is a bit soft wide-open, but I would think that it cleans up nicely by f/2.8. It has a 7-blade aperture diaphram so it should give nice bokeh. I don't have first-hand knowledge of the lens though.

The 35/2 is known to be a very good performer. It only has a 5-blade diaphram so bokeh might be a little choppy without a smooth background. It doesn't have Canon's top-notch USM focus mechanism either, but the price is hard to beat.

I can't say a lot about the Sigma 28/1.8, except that it tests well in Pop Photo's lens test. It has the awkward focus mechanism that my 20/1.8 had though, and that may or may not bother you.

I guess that none of this is a real answer, but if I had to choose among those choices, I'd probably take the Canon 28/1.8. If I wanted a zoom, the Tamron 28-75 would be the choice.

Oh yeah, and you can get nice blur with f/2.8 - keep your background a little more distant and you might even squeak by at f/4.

Tom,

thank you for the info!

Best regards,
Andy

There is a nice review of the 35mm f/2 at Petteri Sulonen's site, he actually likes this lens very much. In his own words, this lens is "Small. Inexpensive. Decently built. Loud. Bright. Sharp. No optical defects worth mentioning.".

IMHO, I'd get the Tamron zoom lens - it gives you all the focal lengthes you mentioned (28mm, 35mm, through 50mm and up to 75mm). The bokeh is very nice on this lens, and the optical performance is great.

I'm not so sure the idea of forcing yourself to use a single lens is a great idea
Yes we hear it espoused often by experts and,fundamentally it is certainly not the *worst* way to learn
I for one dissagree that using a single focal length teaches perspective.Having the benefit of a zoom increases the learning speed enormously *if* you apply yourself and realize you have to take abit of notice at what you are seeing.
In fact the procces of 'seeing' is usually stated as the other great benefit of a single (standard) focal length....but the same can be easily applied to a zoom
Oh well,it all depends on the way one learns i guess.
I cringe abit at that lovely (and expensive!$) 20D only being used with an ultraboring standard lens

As for the bokeh thing,that is something i thought long and hard about before going digital.
Because the smaller than full frame sensor in these cameras gives more DOF i was worried that i wouldn't be able to get the great effects i was used to.
Oddly it doesn't work out the way i thought...
Strangely-after doing some comparisons-- and also using shallow DOF at a friends wedding-i've found the f2.8+ shots looked much better than the f1.8 images
I think it has alot to do with the incredibly clean rendition of less detailed areas that digital gives.It seems that slightly MORE DOF is needed to give a pleasing looking background with digital.
Unfortunately i don't get much chance to do shallow DOF these days so i never did get around to doing more testing

I really don't know if i'm completely right about this but i do know it's certainly not a cut-and-dried case of digital missing out on shallow dof effects

Thank you all for your feedback.

That is certainly some food for my thoughts.

Maybe I'll just get the Tamron and lock it in the 28 mm position

But then ... 1.8 would be something ...

Best regards,
Andy

Andythaler wrote:
I find it a bit hard to believe that nobody on the forum has ever used a 28 mm lens

Andy, I missed this post -- as I'm no longer interested in lens discussion...

Using 50mm prime in a film camera is quite different from using 28mm prime in a 1.6x crop camera -- especially when you speak of bokeh, depth of field. Take a DOF calculator and compare them. Well, I won't use a 28mm or 35mm on a 1.6x camera for small DOF effect.

As Tom W said, the performance of EF28/2.8 was sharper than EF28/1.8 in many reports. However, I don't have the experience of EF28/1.8 myself. IMHO, the quality of EF28/2.8 is similar to EF35/2.0.

Andy, I go/went with similar route for lens purchase as your plan. I bought prime lenses step by step. Now I have 7-8 prime lenses and I have no intention to sell any of them.

Good luck to your search.

Hi ...

again, thanks to everybody who answered.
thought I might add that I got the Tamron 28-75/2.8 and haven't regretted it since. It is a very nice lens and nearly as sharp as my 50/1.8.

f/2.8 at 28 mm does NOT give much bokeh. So an advantage of the Tamron is really to zoom in to 50 mm and get the shot there.

I also got the 18-55 kit lens to cover the wide angle. And while it, of course, does not provide stellar results, it's a decent lens though.

My (unscientific) tests gave me comparable sharpness at 50 mm for the 50/1.8 @ 2.8, the 28-75/2.8 @ f/4.0 and the 18-55 @ f/8 (I think I got a decent copy)

Best regards,
Andy

Update .... a bit older, a bit wiser, a bit more experience.

In the meantine I have arrived at what I think to be near my optimal setup.

I have replaced the 50/1.8 with the 50/1.4 and love that lens. It 's my portrait lens.

I got both the 28/1.8 and the Sigma 30/1.4.
While both are great lenses, the Sigma just has that extra stop and that extra sharpness that give it the edge over the 28/1.8 for me.
As I don't plan to go full frame anytime soon (would like to, but don't want to spend the money), I sold on the 28/1.8 to forum member Jyrgen (who's happy with it) and kept the 30/1.4. While I use the 50/1.4 for portraits, this is my lens for 'environmental portraits' to take in a person in its (dimly lit) surroundings. I found out to my surprise recently that I have been using that lens more and more frequently ... although portraits taken at 50 mm with the 1.6 crop have a stronger impact on the viewer.

The Tamron 28-75/2.8 is on the lens for outings on bright days where I need the flexibility (stopped down to f/4.0, as it is not 100% sharp at f/2.8 ) ... but not as much as my 80-200/2.8L. Great lens if I have the space to my subject, and tack sharp at f/2.8.

The kit lens still takes the occasional wide angle image stopped well down to f/8.0... but I admit that I have been eyeing the new crop of 12-24 lenses recently. And there is still an opening in my lineup for the 85/1.8 (or hopefully the 85/1.2L a bit further in the future )

... just thought I'd let all those know who are interested

Best regards,
Andy

The 28mm f1.8 seems to have a reputation for process variation but if you want a fast prime with standard AoV for a 1.6X crop that is not too bulky it's a good choice but really it depends on lots of personal factors. What about the 24mm Canon lenses, these are ment to be sharper.

If you are getting the 20D get it with the 18-55 kit lens which is so cheap you would be nuts not to. Although the build standard is crummy it is fairly sharp except for the corners and will cover most basic photography needs except a fast portrait lens.

I think getting a prime and learning a purist methodology has merit as zooms can make one lazy compositionly, but I think it is too early for you to get hung up on that. If you are on a buget get the kit lens and add the 50mm f1.8. If you are not on a budget then just go for it.

On manual use: I have just transitioned from a Canon FD film system with manual focus and matched nedle metering. I operate completly differntly with the 20D. Yes you can use it manual, but I tend to use apature or shutter priority and exposure compensation checking the shots histogram and reshooting if needed. Different technology, different advantages = different technique.

The Tamron 28-70 2.8 is being well regarded even by old salts. For a dSLR neophyte that'd be even better !

I voted for other. I tried out a Sigma 30 F/1.4 about a month ago and was really impressed. I'm trying to get a cheaper version of the Canon 35 L until I can justify that lens, and this was the closest to it. It was sharper than the Canon 28 1.8 or the 35 2.0 .

http://www.sigma4less.​com …BAF%2B%3D28SG30​F14CA%3D29