Would you rather have better MFD or better image quality?

I'm in a dilemma of choosing between two lenses.

One has great image quality wide open but has MFD of 15.7"

The other has MFD of 9.8" but worse IQ wide open.


I speak of the Canon 28mm f/1.8 vs Sigma 30mm f/1.4

I know many of you will say that it depends on what I shoot. I'm still fairly new to photography and still like to shoot everything. People and still life mostly.

I think better IQ should be a priority at all times. MFD is a consideration when choosing glass, but being able to focus closer only to get a worse result isn't much of a fair trade. Buy the better IQ, and move your butt 6".

nureality wrote in post #9709788
I think better IQ should be a priority at all times. MFD is a consideration when choosing glass, but being able to focus closer only to get a worse result isn't much of a fair trade. Buy the better IQ, and move your butt 6".

Ok, I guess that's reason enough. Thanks

Extension tubes make quick work in reducing the MFD.

Yeah, you can always add a tube, but you can't add image quality.

IQ every time.

Without question, image quality. As mentioned, tubes reduce MFD without greatly affecting IQ.

one is also f1.4, while the other is f1.8...even that would probably matter to me more than MFD...and yeah i'd go for the better image quality...

Do you often shoot people form under two feet distance?
If not, it isn't even an issue.

In general MFD is totally unimportant.
The subject will either be beyond the MFD of every lens under consideration, or you are in the macro realm, where the opposite, working distance, is more likely to be important.

IQ is always my top priority. (Assuming price is not crazy high)

punkerz123 wrote in post #9709736
I'm in a dilemma of choosing between two lenses.

One has great image quality wide open but has MFD of 15.7"

The other has MFD of 9.8" but worse IQ wide open.

I speak of the Canon 28mm f/1.8 vs Sigma 30mm f/1.4

I know many of you will say that it depends on what I shoot. I'm still fairly new to photography and still like to shoot everything. People and still life mostly.

You're not going to be shooting much, if any, people or still life within 15.7 inches with a 28~30mm lens. You will much more often be shooting wide open.

I've owned both. The 28/1.8 is a very nice lens. Acceptably sharp over about 80% of the APS-C frame wide open, and sharper stopped down (though the corners never really get sharp). Beautiful skin tones and color gradation out of that lens. Fast AF and overall very nice.

The Sigma 30 I had to go through 3 to get one that had good AF, but it was worth it. The 30 is better in essentially every way. Faster max aperture, sharper, more contrast, much nicer bokeh. The only time the 30's MFD became a problem was when I had the 1D, where it actually works pretty well (a little vignetting, but not enough to really matter), but the MFD is killer on 1.3x. I never had a problem with it on 1.6x, though.

Unless the shorter MFD is a requirement, go for the IQ. Sort of obvious.

^What he said. MFD is nice but it depends on what you shoot. IQ out weighs that but if you shoot bugs all day and other macro objects without using a macro (you get my point) then obviously something with a larger MFD wouldn't be a consideration.

I think the choice between the 28 f/1.8 and 30 f/1.4 is more of a choice between rock solid AF and excellent IQ, rather than MFD vs. IQ.