Is the 28mm 1.8 pretty comparable to the 85mm 1.8?

I use my 85 more than any other lens seeing how I spend a lot of my time shooting candids of strangers. So now I want a wider prime. The focal length of the 50 is too close to the 85, so I'm eyeing 24-35mm primes. Quality and IQ wise, is the 28 1.8 pretty much like the 85 1.8?

Any thoughts on any other 24-35mm range primes? Third party included.

Sigma 30mm 1.4? i like mine!

Andrushka wrote in post #9149327
Sigma 30mm 1.4? i like mine!

+1.

My experience with the 28 F/1.8 was that it was better than the 85 F/1.8. Very usable from wide open, very sharp from F/2, where I always had to stop down the 85 F/1.8 to F/2.2 at least. CA and PF were negligible compared to the 85 too.

The 28 is a heavily underrated lens, if you ask me.

The only reason I sold it, with pain in my heart, was because I got even better/faster L-glass, after which it got very little use (read: none). Fortunately I did find a very good home for it.

Kind regards, Wim

check out the reviews are photozone.com.

Have to agree with Wim, my 28/1.8 is pretty good too.

Andrushka wrote in post #9149327
Sigma 30mm 1.4? i like mine!

+2.

While I don't own either, I revisited the reviews for the 28 f/1.8 and the 24 f/2.8 lenses on TDP. It seems to me that the 24 f/2.8 has a better review.

After reading the reviews on SLR gear and other sites I got the Canon 35f2. The bokeh can be busy, but it is a sharp lens and I get good photos with it. It hasn't left my camera since I got it.

A 50 on a crop has the field of view of an 80 on film. The 85 on crop is like the field of view of the 135.
These are not too close together from my perspective.

All you have to do is visit the sample threads for any of these 28-35mm prime lenses and you will know the lens reviews are not applicable and are often splitting hairs. All of them are really quite good. Personally, I chose the Sigma 30mm f1.4 because I got a good deal on it, and it is f1.4. Wider aperture options are rarely a bad thing! I would have been just as happy with the Canon, though.

The 28mm f1.8 was designed as the wider counterpart o the 85mm f1.8. They are both in the "gold-ring" prime series and both have ring USM with FTM and good build along with fast max apertures. The 50mm and 100mm round out the series (although the 50 does not have ring USM).

28mm f/1.8 > 30mm f/1.4

Same IQ, but the 28 has faster, more reliable AF.

The 28 and 85 are very close in terms of IQ and AF speed & accuracy.

wimg wrote in post #9149384
The 28 is a heavily underrated lens, if you ask me.

I would have to agree with this one

I used to own it (sold it when i went FF and go the 35L) and it was a very solid lens. Great FL, fairly sharp wide open, good AF and made for a very nice combo paired with the 85 1.8

wimg wrote in post #9149384
My experience with the 28 F/1.8 was that it was better than the 85 F/1.8. Very usable from wide open, very sharp from F/2, where I always had to stop down the 85 F/1.8 to F/2.2 at least. CA and PF were negligible compared to the 85 too.

The 28 is a heavily underrated lens, if you ask me.

The only reason I sold it, with pain in my heart, was because I got even better/faster L-glass, after which it got very little use (read: none). Fortunately I did find a very good home for it.

Kind regards, Wim

mxracer535 wrote in post #9151709
I would have to agree with this one

I used to own it (sold it when i went FF and go the 35L) and it was a very solid lens. Great FL, fairly sharp wide open, good AF and made for a very nice combo paired with the 85 1.8

^
+1

I can't compare it with the 85/1.8 because I don't have one (though I plan to get one), but I like the 28/1.8 a lot.

My 85 is awesome wide open. It's the reason I sent the 85L back.
Multiple reviewers and opinions don't treat the 28 1.8 kindly so just based on that I'm avoiding it.