Preference on full frame: EF 28/1.8 or EF 35/2?

[sjp010]

Hello,

Looking for some advice. I'd like to purchase a moderately wide prime lens for my 5D and have narrowed my choices to the two lenses mentioned above. I'm sure many have had a similar dilemma, so I'm posting to see if anyone has any advice.

The 28/1.8 has similar build quality to the 85/1.8 which is a lens I absolutely love using (it's actually the reason I bought a 5D - wanted to use this lens more!). So the build of the 28/1.8 is very appealing. However, various reviews on this site and elsewhere are less than complimentary about its image quality. However (part II), I have noticed that a lot of user reviews of this lens are much more positive about the lens than the "official" reviews are. I am far from a "power user" - just an enthusiastic amateur. I'm wondering if the IQ will be just fine for me.

The 35/2 on the other hand is nicely reviewed for IQ by many sites. This site did not think it was a good option for full frame, but that review is in the minority. Also in looking at the test charts for that lens, I wonder if The Digital Picture was using a bad copy of the lens - it is truly horrid in the corners. User reviews of this lens are also very positive. What holds me back on this one is the build quality - it's been said to be similar to the 50/1.4, and that lens just broke on me! So that gives me pause. I don't care about the sound of the AF motor, I just care that the thing won't break when it gets bumped or jostled like the 50/1.4 did on me.

Any advice anyone has is welcome. Please don't suggest an L prime - I know those are better but I do not have the budget.

Thanks!

[Sean Setters]

I'd suggest the 28mm f/1.8--but that's only because I have previously owned the 35mm f/2. Using the 35mm f/2 anywhere close to wide open on my crop sensor left me unhappy with the image quality. Plus, the build quality is only eclipsed by the 50mm f/1.8 in its deficiency. When using the 35mm around f/4-f/8, it provided satisfactory results.

[ham]

I'm beginning to wonder about the reviews of the Canon 28mm 1.8 and the Sigma 30mm 1.4 (DC, so not for FF) and I'm (still) trying to decide between the two.

The tone of the reviews here seems to suggest the Sigma performs better. But I've read some truly horrible reviews of it.

Would love a definitive, "this lens is better than that" answer, but I don't think I'm going to get one.

[Sean Setters]

As I've said before, I love the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. When using a body with AFMA, focus concerns can be mitigated. The build quality is very good; it focuses quickly. If I could only keep 1 prime, it would be my top choice.

[sjp010]

Just thought I would follow up on this thread for future reference. I ended up ordering both, and trying both on my 5D (classic). I'm an amateur, but for my uses I found the image quality to be similarly excellent on both lenses. Both were slightly soft wide open but still very useable, and nicely sharp by f/2.8. I care little about corner sharpness, but checked anyway as a means of comparison - the 28/1.8 was slightly better but they were both soft in the corners wide open, less so at f/2.8.

Either would be a fine pick for an affordable, very useable wide prime on a full frame camera. Ultimately, I kept the 28/1.8 for a couple of reasons:
1. The 28/1.8 has superior build quality, and by a wide margin in my opinion. The AF mechanism, in particular, is a delight. The 35/2 is indeed a loud lens, especially in comparison to a sweet ring USM lens like the 28/1.8. Barrel extends slightly on the 35/2 as well, while the 28/1.8 is all internal focusing. The extension of the 35/2 is not troublesome in use, it was just something I see as being potentially vulnerable to bumps.
2. I have a 50/1.4 and felt I wanted more separation from that lens in my wide prime. This also tipped the scales towards the 28/1.8.

Hope this helps future readers!

[Thom Deevers]

sjp010 - Good choice and good feedback on the reasons.

[ham]

This decision (Canon 28 f/1.8, Sigma 30 f/1.4, Canon 35 f/2.0) has been driving me nuts for a long while.

I'm on a crop, so corner sharpness matters less (and means I can include the Sigma) but it's a 60D, so I don't have AFMA (which should rule the Sigma out).

Whilst it seems that the Sigma is the better lens, the question is, is it worth the hassle of finding somewhere to get it calibrated (is that even possible)? Or should I, even as a beginner (first picked up a camera in anger in Apr '11), consider one of the MF options in this area?

That's also without mentioning that the Sigma only SEEMS to be the better lens, nowhere on-line can provide a definitive answer, and most places rate all but the L lenses in this range pretty poorly.

[sjp010]

ham, I've tried had experiences with all three lenses now, and extensive experience with the 28/1.8 and Sigma 30/1.4. They are very similar, and both very good. Take the online reviews with a grain of salt - I think they are overly harsh and highlight deficiencies that aren't that relevant to real-world use (like corner sharpness, for example).

In my opinion, if you are certain you will only be using a crop camera in the future, get the Sigma, due to its aperture advantage. If there's a chance you would consider a full-frame camera in the future, go for the 28/1.8, unless you don't mind selling lenses.

I bought a Sigma 30/1.4 (after agonizing like you for several months) a year ago and liked it quite a bit on my 40D. It was my most used lens on that camera. I'm certain it would benefit from AFMA, but seemed quite good to me right out of the box.

But then I bought a 5D and wanted a lens that would work on both bodies. So I sold the 30/1.4, bought both the 28/1.8 and 35/2, and kept the 28/1.8, as described above. The image quality between the 30/1.4 and 28/1.8 is similar, although I'd give an edge to the 30/1.4 wide open. Build quality also very comparable - both excellent. Canon 28/1.8 is slightly smaller and lighter.

IMO, the quality control issues on the Sigma 30/1.4 are overblown. If you get a fine performing Sigma 30/1.4, do you go onto an online forum and sing its praises? Maybe some do, but most won't - they will spend their time happily shooting photos. But if you get one that you don't like, you'll complain about it everywhere you can. Thus, I think there is sample bias in user reviews online. There must also be QC issues with Canon - it is also a manufactured product. So, I wouldn't use this as a criterion for selection between the lenses. Aperture vs. full-frame compatibility are the real issues, I believe.

Anyway, hope this helps.

[ham]

It does, a bit. I'm just most worried about the close/far focusing issues. To me, knowing it's got a rep will mean whenever I get an out of focus shot I'll be blaming the lens. Of course if I knew of anywhere local I could take the camera into to get it calibrated I'd be happy with it. Is there any way of finding such places? Are there even any?