Favorite 28 mm Prime.

<p>I want to buy a 28 mm prime lens (manual or AF) for 5D Mark III and EOS-1v and am considering these (price and DXO rating shown):<br>

Canon 28mm f/1.8, $449, DXO 20<br />Canon 28mm f/2.8, IS USM, $499, DXO 29 <br />Sigma 28mm f/1.8, $449, DXO 25<br />Zeiss 28mm f/2.0, $1083, DXO 25<br />Voigtlander 28mm, f/2.8 $529, DXO N/A<br>

Does anyone have strong positive or negative experiences with any of these? Thank you.</p>

<p>I like the 28/1.8<br>

It is a bit soft wide open but at f/4 it can challenge the $1000 16-35/4L IS (I have both).<br>

At f/1.8 it has decent bokeh, good enough for environmental half body portraits.<br>

The build quality is great, almost L class, and the USM / FTM are nice. Not so sure about the DXO rating, I used the lens comparison chart on the-digital-picture.</p>

<p>I'll second Orlando. The 28/1.8 is one of my favorite FF primes and I also use it on my crop-sensor bodies as a slightly wide "normal". Mine's also a tad soft wide-open, but I mostly shoot it between f/4 and f/11 anyway. Plenty sharp there.</p>

<p>You might also want to consider the Contax Zeiss 28mm 2.8. Stopped down a bit it has amazing edge to edge sharpness. You can find this used for $250 to $350. I've also enjoyed using the Canon 28mm 2.8 IS. If you require AF and IS, this is an excellent choice.</p>

<p>My advice would be to ignore anything written by DXO. Their methods may be scientific but their findings bear little resemblance to real world usage. </p>

<p>I would also recommend the Canon 28mm f/1.8 but only if you really need f/1.8. It is noticeably soft wide open but is a good performer otherwise. If you don't need f/1.8 then the Canon 28mm f/2.8 IS is a better choice and the IS partly makes up for the smaller max aperture anyway.</p>

I have the 24 IS lens and love it. the 28 is a bit sharper. Of the 28s you mention, the clear choice (for me) would be the IS lens.

<p>I used the 28/1.8 USM for several years, and while I loved it for it's shallow DOF, the edges on FF were absolutely atrocious anywhere near WO. By f2.8 it was certainly serviceable across the frame, and beyond f2.8 it was very very good. The main reason I bothered with it though was it's WO portraiture potential. Center sharpness was surprisingly good regardless of aperture though, so for portraiture it was a very good lens. I tried the Sigma 28/1.8, but it's center was only good at the <em>very</em> center of the frame, and went from bad to atrocious elsewhere WO, and regardless of aperture, it never was as good as the Canon.</p>

<p>I can't comment on any others, nor have I considered replacing it with any of the 28/2.8s as, on FF, none seem significantly better than a good 24-70/2.8 zoom (for me, which I have), but for you, maybe one of them would work well?<br>

</p>

<p>Since I got the 28/1.8 for its shallow DOF, I wonder if the 24/1.4L would be a better choice (probably better corners wide open?) there's a vast gulf in terms of price and size though..</p>

<p>I've owned three Canon 28mm primes but the only one I really liked is the EF 28 2.8 IS USM: deadly sharp wide open and the IS really adds a couple stops to my hand holding technique. It's a bit pricy at MAP but I bought one last summer during a refurb sale at CanonDirect for $300.</p>

<p>Thank you all very much for your kind and thoughtful opinions. Looks like it's going to be the Canon 28mm f/2.8, IS USM. ;)</p>

<p>Since you say you don't mind manual focus, another lens worth considering is the highly regarded Nikkor 28/2. Bjorn Rorslett rates it as one of the "<a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/bestof.html#top">Best of the Best Nikkors</a>." You'd have to get an adapter for it, though.</p>

<p>Olympus made 28mm lenses for their OM system. The f/3.5 is good and very cheap. The f/2 is good but costs a bit more.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the Canon 28mm f/2.8, IS</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's a good choice. Canon probably need to update their 28/1.8, although it does have its admirers.</p>