Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM soft?

I had the 28mm and my copie was sharp (not amazingly) at 2.0.. better focusing than both 30mm1.4 and 35mm 2.0, better bokeh, no issues at all.

some other question you should ask yourself is : are you doing prints? are you putting works at true resolution over the net?

dannygt wrote in post #8863080
some other question you should ask yourself is : are you doing prints? are you putting works at true resolution over the net?

No and no, haha. I just like to make sure everything is working as it is supposed to.

Playing with the micro adjust on my 50D I have found that +2 has helped a ton!

Seems to be a great deal of dislike for the 28. I've got it, and it has very acceptable sharpness @ 1.8 and by 2.8 is as sharp as anyone would need.

Suggest you've got a bad copy and get it checked out.

Mark-B wrote in post #8862823
28mm vs 30mm, both at f/2.2

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

the focus planes are different.

the 30mm is focused on the moustache/eye brow level, while the 28mm is focused to the wrinkle next to the eyes.

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.

My experience was the same. Sold the lens when I only had a crop, I might like it with FF now.

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.

totally agree with this statement.

I currently own a 28mm, and although it might be a little soft at f/1.8, it is sharp and has no problem at 2.8 and beyond..

Jaetie wrote in post #8864554
the focus planes are different.

the 30mm is focused on the moustache/eye brow level, while the 28mm is focused to the wrinkle next to the eyes.

good eyes you got there....nice catch!

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.

I agree, I have one. Soft at 1.8, but still very useable when you need it. I regularly shoot mine at 2.2+.

I'm happy with my 28...

Maybe you give this lens too much of a challenge. The EF-s 17-55IS is one of the sharpest lenses Canon make, zoom or prime. At 2.8, I would say the 28mm should be compatible with the EFs, but probably not sharper. My 28mm is pretty good at start from 2.2, acceptable at 2.0. Check focus for your 28mm.

I forgot to mention that I got mine calibrated by CANON. Came back exactly the same - soft at f1.8. So I never used it under f2 after that. Sold it because it bothered me that I paid for a f1.8 but in reality received f/2 lens. What's the point in owning a fast prime if you have to stop it down to get sharp images?

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

Hello,

By lens align, http://www.lensalign.c​om/ and use the Micro adjustment on your 50D. This should help if the lens is not over +/-20.

pixel_junkie wrote in post #8866821
I forgot to mention that I got mine calibrated by CANON. Came back exactly the same - soft at f1.8. So I never used it under f2 after that. Sold it because it bothered me that I paid for a f1.8 but in reality received f/2 lens. What's the point in owning a fast prime if you have to stop it down to get sharp images?

I recently got this lens. Noticed some slight back focus. So I took it to Canon to be calibrated. Came back the same (well maybe slightly better). It's soft at 1.8 (not terribly so, but enough to notice). OK at 2.2 and above (as you said).

Slightly disappointed to say the least.

Oh well, I just want it as a light everyday lens so I don't have to lug around one of my L zooms. It should be OK for that function. I do like the focal length quite a bit and 1.8 will be OK for those times I need to get some speed in low light (so long as critical sharpness isn't an issue). It's still worth the saving in price and weight over the 35L IMHO. Though I'm sure the 35L is worth the difference in PRICE alone for the IQ (but weight was my main concern for this lens in the end).

For work, I'll be using my 16-35. It's just as sharp at 2.8 I think.

Oh and I only really notice the sharpness problem when I pixel-peep, so mainly it will do fine.