Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM soft?

Hey everyone,

I just picked up a second hand 28mm prime and am really enjoying it however I noticed it being just a bit soft or so I thought. I then preceeded to do a quick test with it vs. my EF-S 17-55.

I shot on a tripod both lenses at f/2.8 and the 17-55 at 28mm and the 17-55 was MUCH sharper. Should this be the case or do you think my 28 needs to be sent in for calibration?

Thanks,
Nick

the 28mm f1.8 has high center sharpness but suffers on the corners. you are better off with the 35mm f2 or the sigma 30mm f1.4

The 28 should be very sharp at f/2.8. My copy, when I had it, was a bit soft at f1.8. By 2.2, it was perfect.

Thanks for the info although I should have done a bit more research before I purchased it I suppose. However my tests were right on center...

Mine was OK at 2.2 but soft wide open. A nice lens for $300 but not full price. The 85 1.8 is in another class but obviously a very different FL.

pixel_junkie wrote in post #8862344
The 28 should be very sharp at f/2.8. My copy, when I had it, was a bit soft at f1.8. By 2.2, it was perfect.

Hmm. Maybe I should get it checked out.

5D2USER wrote in post #8862365
Mine was OK at 2.2 but soft wide open. A nice lens for $300 but not full price. The 85 1.8 is in another class but obviously a very different FL.

I really want an 85L. Next lens on my list to buy actually. This 28 was a bit compulsive but just using the past few days I really like the FL on my crop and 1.8 is rather nice comparing it to my 17-55 (although I love that lens as well).

amd is the best wrote in post #8862308
I shot on a tripod both lenses at f/2.8 and the 17-55 at 28mm and the 17-55 was MUCH sharper. Should this be the case or do you think my 28 needs to be sent in for calibration?

The 17-55 is much sharper than the 28mm.
Both the Canon 35mm f/2 and the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 primes are also sharper than the 28/1.8


Obviously not identical, but close enough that you should get the point:

28mm @ f/2

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Wow! Great post. Thanks Mark. Anyone want a 28mm? Lol..

Did you try the ma feature on your 50D, the lens with your body might have a front ot back focus issue ?

Mark-B wrote in post #8862603
The 17-55 is much sharper than the 28mm.
Both the Canon 35mm f/2 and the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 primes are also sharper than the 28/1.8

Those are pretty bad examples for a sharpness comparison imo

Drowned wrote in post #8862751
Those are pretty bad examples for a sharpness comparison imo

Those are just real life samples. Saw something that I wanted to take a picture of and took them with all of the lenses I had at the time. I may not be an expert at taking pictures of flowers, but I have done it a few times before.


How about this:

28mm vs 30mm, both at f/2.2

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

So in other words sending the lens in to Canon to have it calibrated may be a waste of money because it will have little to no gain?

Yaamon wrote in post #8862665
Did you try the ma feature on your 50D, the lens with your body might have a front ot back focus issue ?

I should definatly try messing around with that. All tests were with my 30D.

amd is the best wrote in post #8862308
Hey everyone,

I just picked up a second hand 28mm prime and am really enjoying it however I noticed it being just a bit soft or so I thought. I then preceeded to do a quick test with it vs. my EF-S 17-55.

I shot on a tripod both lenses at f/2.8 and the 17-55 at 28mm and the 17-55 was MUCH sharper. Should this be the case or do you think my 28 needs to be sent in for calibration?

Thanks,
Nick

The 17-55 is an IS lens, so it should be sharp.... most owners say it's a very sharp lens. Did you stop down the 28mm to f/2.8 to do your comparison shots? I've briefly used the 28 f/1.8 and did like the photos and bokeh from the lens wide-open.

zoom_zoom wrote in post #8863025
The 17-55 is an IS lens, so it should be sharp.... most owners say it's a very sharp lens. Did you stop down the 28mm to f/2.8 to do your comparison shots? I've briefly used the 28 f/1.8 and did like the photos and bokeh from the lens wide-open.

Yes both lenses were @ 2.8. Ill post up the pics in a few. I do love the 28mm @ 1.8 and the bokeh is VERY nice however I am just not sure if there is somthing wrong with it or its just a softer lens.