28mm f/2.8 vs. 28mm f/1.8

Naturalist wrote in post #6689464
For those that shoot the 28 f/1.8..........

CA is horrible on this lens (according to the statistics)

My question: Do you have to do much PP after shooting to eliminate the CA or is CA really not that much of an issue?

I would love to use the lens, but I do not believe in PP after the fact.

Your comments, please, and thank you.

PP is after the fact.

that's why they call it post processing .

i've owned two copies of the 28 1.8 and i never had any problems with CA.

ed rader

n1as wrote in post #6560845
Ah, the dark side of primes. We all chant the mantra "Fast Primes for Low Light" but the truth is that many (most) primes are not all that sharp wide open. My 50 f/1.4 is soft at 1.4. It's OK in the middle but soft at the corners. If I stop it down to 2.0 the center and about 1/2 way to the corners becomes pretty sharp. By f/2.8, the corners are looking pretty good and I finally have a truly sharp lens. My 85 f/1.8 is similar.

Oh, and I'm shooting APS-C so the corners would be worse on your FF camera.

My primes are still very useful lenses, I just need to know that I can't expect great sharpness until stop down a couple of stops.

All of my primes are sharp wide open ... the 35 and 85 are deadly wide open. The 50 can be but not as much as the other 2. If yours are not sharp wide open then something is wrong.

ed rader wrote in post #6689635
PP is after the fact.

that's why they call it post processing .

i've owned two copies of the 28 1.8 and i never had any problems with CA.

ed rader

Same here, never had CA problems. I owned one and sold it because I didn't like the colors it produced. Otherwise it was a nice little lens, sharp too.

pixel_junkie wrote in post #6689747
Same here, never had CA problems. I owned one and sold it because I didn't like the colors it produced. Otherwise it was a nice little lens, sharp too.

i regret selling my last copy. actually i regretted selling my first copy and that's why i bought the last copy that i regret selling .

ed rader

ed rader wrote in post #6689797
i regret selling my last copy. actually i regretted selling my first copy and that's why i bought the last copy that i regret selling .

ed rader

I see you're going for copy #3. I understand it, I can see the appeal. If I didn't find my 35L for the ridiculously low price I paid, I would have tried to make the 28 work for me also.

pixel_junkie wrote in post #6689870
I see you're going for copy #3. I understand it, I can see the appeal. If I didn't find my 35L for the ridiculously low price I paid, I would have tried to make the 28 work for me also.

i don't use primes often and when i do i don't like them to be as big as my zooms or as expensive .

we're going to maui in december and i'd like to get the 28 1.8 for my 30d for when i don't want lug around the mark III, or to let my wife use when we are walking around .

i've also been thinking about the 35 f2 because i hear it's a pretty good lens and i haven't tried it yet.

ed rader

ed rader wrote in post #6689924
i don't use primes often and when i do i don't like them to be as big as my zooms or as expensive .

we're going to maui in december and i'd like to get the 28 1.8 for my 30d for when i don't want lug around the mark III, or to let my wife use when we are walking around .

i've also been thinking about the 35 f2 because i hear it's a pretty good lens and i haven't tried it yet.

ed rader

I hear you. Spend the big coin on what you use the most. The 35 is nice especially for the price. Nice colors, wish it had USM.

ed rader wrote in post #6689924
i don't use primes often and when i do i don't like them to be as big as my zooms or as expensive .

That's exactly how I think.. shame it took me so long to realise it!

I admit, I'm a zoom person, so the only the reason I shoot with primes is when they can do something my zooms can't. IQ isn't part of the equation anymore, since my 70-200 and 17-55's does that fantastic. So it comes down to being faster and lighter. Well, I took a good look at my shots with the 35L and I take most of them around f/2.2-f/4 anyway. Hence why I'm selling my 35L now!

I think in the future if I ever go back into primes again, it's gonna have to be cheap and light. Something like a 28 f/1.8, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8 setup. Right now, I'm officially over pursuing the holy trinity.

Collin85 wrote in post #6690595
I admit, I'm a zoom person, so the only the reason I shoot with primes is when they can do something my zooms can't. IQ isn't part of the equation anymore, since my 70-200 and 17-55's does that fantastic. So it comes down to being faster and lighter. Well, I took a good look at my shots with the 35L and I take most of them around f/2.2-f/4 anyway. Hence why I'm selling my 35L now!

I think in the future if I ever go back into primes again, it's gonna have to be cheap and light. Something like a 28 f/1.8, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8 setup. Right now, I'm officially over pursuing the holy trinity.

Right on. I LOVE my primes, but my zooms (17-55, 70-200) give IQ that is right up there and they're more versatile. When I'm shooting a track meet or soccer game or wedding, I'm using the zooms!! The Primes get pulled out for more predictable stuff like Basketball or school plays and in both cases, I'm going prime because I need the big apertures.

I love my primes but I find my zooms to be much more useful.

The 28/1.8 is often my walk around lens on my crop sensor camera. It's compact even with it's lens hood and delivers good image wide open and great stopped down just a wee bit.

Frankly, when I was shooting film/full frame, it got little use. 28mm just isn't my fav focal length. In previous camera systems I usually opted for a 24mm instead.

But it's a great 'slighty wide normal' on crop sensor cameras. I don't hesitate to recommend it.

why hasnt the 24 2.8 been given as an option here?

zacwolf wrote in post #6693345
why hasnt the 24 2.8 been given as an option here?

post #10 .

ed rader