Canon 28 f/1.8 or Canon 35 f/2.0

<p>I have a Canon 60D and my lenses are the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (non VC) and the Tokina 80-200 f/2.8 ATX-PRO. I have always wanted to have some prime lenses and I am looking for a "normal" focal length to use it on the 60D. I got my eye on the Canon 28 f/1.8 and the Canon 35mm f/2.0. The 28 is more expensive than the 35 but I don't know which one will be a better choice. Any comments and recommendation between both lenses is appreciated. <br>

Thanks,<br>

Alberto</p>

 

<p>Photozone puts the <a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/157-canon_35_2_50d">35/2</a> well ahead of the <a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/725-canon28f18apsc">28/1.8</a> with respect to resolution. Another lens to consider is the 40/2.8 STM, which is getting rave reviews, but is a little slower and longer.</p>

<p>Even though the 28/1.8's edges are pretty dramatically bad WO and near, on your 60D those terrible edges are all chopped off. The tangible difference between the two on the crop is pretty well darn near nonexistent. <br>

Things like FTM USM may be a bit more important. or FOV on the crop. or $250 vs $500....</p>

<p>Of course the Sigma 30/1.4 may be one to consider as well. Even though the new Sigma 35/1.4 is considerably better than<em> any</em> of these lenses, it's also $1000</p>

<p>Sigma has announced a new version of their 30/1.4 which should be a significant improvement over the old version. Then there's Canon 35/1.4L which is a fantastic lens but costs 1 arm and 1 leg.</p>

<p>The 35mm f2 is supposed to be very good overall but the bokeh is not as pleasing. I have the 28mm f/1.8 and am very pleased with it. The corners are a little soft but I shoot full frame, on the 60D they will not be seen as Marcus points out.</p>

<p>The best lens for the crop cameras like the 60D (at a price for mere mortals) is considered by most to be the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. If you have no plans to move to a full frame camera then this would be my choice. If you do think you will change to a full frame body in the near future then the 35 f/2 or 28mm f/1.8 will serve you well and be future proof.</p>

<p>There are other members of this group of more-or-less affordable APS-C normal lenses.<br>

The very reasonably priced (new or used) EF 28mm f/2.8 is decent. F/2.8 is pretty fast these days for the low-light situations (<a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/156-canon-ef-28mm-f28-test-report--review">link</a>).</p>

<p>I personally had both the 28/2.8 and the 35mm/2.0, and I preferred to keep the 35mm, which is a nice 'long' normal on APS-C (<a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/157-canon_35_2_50d">link</a>).</p>

<p>It's a little longer still but the new EF 40mm f/2.8 STM (<a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/772-canon_40_28_apsc?start=1">link</a>) is also worth consideration.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I had the same considerations, I wanted one fast Prime lens for the same reasons that you are asking. I used both the lenses.</p>

<p>As a general comment, I concur with what Marcus wrote, here: <em>“</em><em>The tangible difference between the two <strong>on the crop</strong> is pretty well darn near nonexistent.”</em></p>

<p>Apropos Bokeh: I am not all that concerned about Bokeh, generally - BUT – if I am to mention bokeh, then <a href="/photo/9899178&size=lg">wide open the Bokeh on the 35/2 is ok for me</a>, and (as already mentioned the edges of the image circle are chopped when the lens is used on an APS-C Camera), so, if Bokeh were to be my passion for the shot - then I would use the lens wide open.<br />But, I agree if both lenses are stopped down a bit, then the 5 Blades of the 35/2 can <strong><em>in some situations</em></strong>, be less pleasing (to my eye) than the 7 Blades, of the 28/1.8. But as I stated – if I were after Bokeh as a constituent part of the image, I would not be stopping down either of the lenses very much, anyway.<br />Whilst we’re on the Blades – both lenses are odd numbered and in this regard, having 5 and not 7 is my preference, as – IF the lens is stopped down, then often for my style of Photography, I will reckon the value of Star Flare above that of Bokeh – and 7 Blades for Star Flare is generally hideous, IMO.</p>

<p>I chose to buy the EF35/2 over the 28/1.8, to use on an APS-C camera because of (in no particular order):</p>

<ul>

<li>the lower price</li>

<li>the lighter weight</li>

<li>the smaller physical size – especially barrel length</li>

<li>the more recessed (protected) front element</li>

<li>5 Blades over 7 Blades (see above rationale)</li>

<li>the greater intrinsic, maximum magnification</li>

</ul>

<p>WW</p>

<p>I haven’t used the 40/2.8, the 28/2.8, or the Sigma Lenses.</p>

<p>I have the current Sigma 30 f/1.4, and I think it's a fine lens. I missed the news about a new version coming soon (edit: It's available now). If it's even better, that's a great solution.</p>

<p>Those are quite different lenses from focal length POW and not quite interchangeable. 35mm is far more usable from my perspective, it's by a good margin better performer wide open, physically smaller and lighter and despite lack of USM, focusing accurately and consistently.<br>

I vote for EF 35/2.0</p>

<p>The 28mm 2.8 (the old non IS version) is a very underrated lens. The center sharpness at 2.8 is quiye impressive. And the lens is very inexpensive. Of the 2 lenses you mentioned, I would go with the 35mm f2. I've used it for years and it's quite reliable.</p>

<p>BTW, if aesthetics matter, you'll never find a "cuter" Canon lens than the new 40mm STM. :)</p>

<p>The 35mm f2 is one of Canon's oldest still inproduction lenses. For the price it is not bad, but the build quality is on par with the 50mm f1.8. Also the USM sounds like a pack of bees. If you don't mind the noise and cheap build, it does take some very sharp pictures especially indoors. Outdoors I found I had to increase the contrast a couple of notches. Also forget about bokeh with this lens, it is very weak. I don't own the 28mm so I can't make any comparisons </p>

<p>The 35mm f2 is one of Canon's oldest still inproduction lenses. For the price it is not bad, but the build quality is on par with the 50mm f1.8. Also the USM sounds like a pack of bees. If you don't mind the noise and cheap build, it does take some very sharp pictures especially indoors. Outdoors I found I had to increase the contrast a couple of notches. Also forget about bokeh with this lens, it is very weak. I don't own the 28mm so I can't make any comparisons </p>

<p>A year or so ago I picked up the Sigma 30mm f / 1.4 and have been very happy with it. If you can afford the new version wait and buy it; if not, the old version is now around $300. <br>

<br />Really, though, I don't think any of the lenses you're looking at will be tremendously different from each other, with the possible exception of the new version of the Sigma. If <a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/11/sigma-35mm-f1-4-arrives-announces-new-world-order">we see performance similar to the Sigma 35</a>, then it'll blow the Canons away. </p>

<p>I have both the Canon 28 1.8 and 50 1.8 and absolutely love the 28 1.8. The build quality and focusing rings are sooo much better and faster. So if the 35 f2.0 is built on the same quality as the 50 1.8 I would definetely get the 28. Also, on crop camera the 35 will be a 50 and the 28 will be a 35. I think you will be happier with 35mm it allows you to see more....</p>

<p>I've owned and used both on crop. The 28/1.8 is no doubt the better lens when it comes to mechanics, feel and looks, but I found the 35/2 to be optically superior. It gives very decent bokeh at f/2 and superb sharpness at f/8 (probably matching the 35/1.4L there). Neither can be said about the 28, which suffers quite a bit from something I think is called "outlining" and only average sharpness stopped down. I wasn't too bothered by the latter as I used it mostly at f/1.8-2.8 but all the more by the former (for the same reason). The 35 is also very rectilinear on crop bodies and that's just great in cityscapes.</p>