sheldonnalos Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 I know that this is a FAQ and a hotly contested issue, so I felt that I had to share this with you all. I own a Canon 28mm f/2.8 and just recently was able to borrow a friend's Canon 28mm f/1.8. I couldn't resist running a little test to compare the two against each other. The general consensus has been that the 28mm f/2.8 is a better (sharper) lens than the 28mm f/1.8. However, every time someone brings up the 28mm f/1.8, the issue is debated by many who have (and have not) used the lens. Many people have acknowledged that it is soft wide open, and many others have stated that their copy is as good as their 50mm f/1.4. So, here are my test results, and some disclaimers... Methodology: Canon 10D, tripod mounted, self timer, mirror lockup, Large Fine JPG, Standard Paramenter, ISO 100, Daylight WB, No UV Filters, front of lens shaded from any sunlight, No post processing, 100% center crops. The subject is about 150 ft away. There are *NO* focus issues, since I can see other items in the full frame shot that are nearer and farther from the crop, results are the same regardless of whether you crop closer or farther away. There are no motion blur problems, since both lenses visibly improve as they are stopped down (and the shutter speeds correspondingly slow down). No, I did not smear vaseline on the front element to influence the results. ;-) Disclaimer: This is a sample of ONE copy of each lens. YES, sample variation exists (I have just seen it comparing two 50mm f/1.4 lenses). This does NOT settle the issue once and for all. I am NOT saying that if you own a 28mm f/1.8 you are a bad person. Yakim Peled is NOT always right, even if he's been right in this case. ;-) Hope this is helpful to you all! Sheldon<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon wilson Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 2.8 obviously seems better at sharpness and contrast, weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ky2 Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 So you're shooting an outdoor shot in broad daylight, and expect the available light (f/1.8) lens to perform better? Take both lenses indoors and try to shoot them handheld, and then compare. My point: it doesn't really matter which one is sharper. The f/1.8's key purpose is extreme light gathering, not ultimate sharpness... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbq Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 Very helpful, thanks. Makes the 28/2.8 look like a decent choice for a "normal" lens on the 10D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 Hummmm.......... I feel pretty silly right now :-) I have recently decided to buy the 28/1.8 over the 17-40/4 (slow aperture) and 28/2.8 (slow AF) for my 1D. Yes, I know that it is optically inferior to the other two but I was thinking that it might (just might) make no difference for me. At this point I advise you to sit down, have a glass of cold water and breath deeply. Are you relaxed now? Good, now I'll explain :-) You see, I never print over A4 and most of my prints are half that size. I was thinking that for these parameters, the optical difference between these lenses will be negligible. If that happens, I will only enjoy the fast aperture and fast AF. If it won't, well, I tried that once with the 70-200/4 and it didn't work so I sold it. If it doesn't work again, I will sell that one as well. No harm done. Happy shooting, Yakim. P.S. Let the stoning begin...... :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 <p> BTW, if you look at the center performances of both lenses in <a href="http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html">http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html</a> you can see that the 28/1.8 is actually a bit <b>better</b> from f/2.8 onwards. </p> <p> Sample variations?</p> <p>Happy shooting, <br> Yakim.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew robertson Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 It's not weird that a f/2.8 lens would perform better than an f/1.8 lens. It's actually pretty predictable. It's much harder to design an f/1.8 lens, and compromises must be made. However, you can't shoot the 1.8 at 2.8! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panos_voudouris Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 I think that copy is not good. I had the 2.8 and have the 1.8 and the difference is nowhere near this. Mind you, I don't pixel peep, I just look at the prints and the (mid-res) scans. In any case, even if the 1.8 is softer, it has better bokeh, colour, construction, has USM, looks good and makes shots with DOF and bokeh like the one attached at f/2 possible. I think, for all the people who worry about it too much, get the f/1.8 and if you don't like the results then go back to the f/2.8. I won't even if you paid me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lester_wareham Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 Good test. They look about the same at f8 which agrees with the Canon MTF data for the APS-C sensor. For full frame the f2.8 MTF falls off faster than the f1.8 at the edge. It would be interesting to see full frame edge results. I would have expected the lens to sharpen up withing 2-3 stops of wide open however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lotsawa Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 Seems the 28/1.8 is better for short distances. That's what it is probably mainly designed for -- indoor low light shots. @ Panos: cute! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknagel Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 I never had results that bad on my 28/1.8 unless I accidentally left it in MF and forgot to focus. Mine is almost as sharp as my 50/1.4 and you really have to peep to see that. m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheldonnalos Posted November 24, 2005 Author Share Posted November 24, 2005 A couple other side notes... I think that the 28mm f/1.8 does have better color and contrast, especially when you look at a full frame shot. For this test on an APS sensor, the corners for the f/2.8 lens remain better than the f/1.8 lens, all the way to f/8 and f/11. Sheldon BTW - Yakim! How could you go and buy a 28mm f/1.8 after all your staunch defense of the f/2.8? (Actually, I totally understand why) I hope you get a sharper copy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_meloy Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 Sheldon, Did you AF these pics? I really can't say that I see anything that is clearly in focus with any of the lens' samples. It may be that you were shooting into a shaded area. When you AF with WA lens at wide apertures on a 1.6 camera, turn the FTM focus to the right just past the point of focus and then press the shutter half way to AF the pic. I know the 28 2.8 doesn't have FTM, so you get what you pay for I guess. Your examples of the 28 1.8 do not represent the quality of the 28 1.8 that I own. I can give some of my examples here: http://www.pbase.com/bosphorousman/inbox These pics were shot for testing of the lens, mostly. I use this lens mostly for indoor, availible light photos. Outside at wide aps, it has a lot of CA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant g Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 "I have recently decided to buy the 28/1.8..." -Yakim The sky is falling! LOL. Yakim, I'm glad you are open enough to have changed your mind about this one. :-) I have both and having to choose one, I'd keep the 1.8 hands down. The 2.8 is only preferred for hiking and daytime landscapes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheldonnalos Posted November 24, 2005 Author Share Posted November 24, 2005 Mike - The pics were autofocused, but the full frame shots has elements in it that go from 15 feet away to infinity, so you can see if things are front/back focused. Unfortunately, that's not the case. The lens shows similar performance indoors at closer distances when wide open. I think it's just a poor performer/poor copy. Sheldon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_meloy Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 Sheldon, I agree, it appears that it is a poor performer. My first 28 1.8 had to be sent back to B&H because of inconsistant wide ap performance below f3.5. It was the only lens I have ever had to return but its replacement has been just fine. Hope you find a good one to use for comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benb Posted November 25, 2005 Share Posted November 25, 2005 I've had both, I think my f/1.8 copy is one of the good ones, it has always subjectively seemed better then the 28/2.8 I had. Especially color & contrast as noted. But I use it for available light stuff too, and for that the f/1.8 is obviously superior. But I have a 5D and I've shot quite a few pictures which are very sharp on it already. It is noticeably better then my 17-40 f/4L USM. I had a 10D up till a month ago and the f/1.8 lens always seemed better on that one too. Keeping with the pets, 5D, EF 28mm f/1.8, 1/100th @ f/1.8 @ ISO 100. http://bsquared.net/2005/november/IMG_1849_web.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benb Posted November 25, 2005 Share Posted November 25, 2005 Oops, the shoot I linked to in my previous post was ISO 800, not ISO 100. In any case I think it is a great lens. It has just a teeny bit of light fall off wide open, not much worse then the 50/1.4, great focus, always nice and sharp. I used it as a normal on my 10D but it is really coming into it's own on the 5D, I anticipate getting lots of very nice shots with it. Actually here are a few more shot in NYC a few weeks ago, I really like this lens. http://www.bsquared.net/2005/november/11162005/images/IMG_1607_800.jpg http://www.bsquared.net/2005/november/11162005/images/IMG_1615_800.jpg Here's a landscape shot, stopped down with a polarizer, again nice color, this has absolutely minimal post processing: http://www.bsquared.net/2005/october/10302005/images/IMG_0046.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew robertson Posted November 26, 2005 Share Posted November 26, 2005 Yes, it shoots pictures. Yes, they look nice when reduced severely. How does the exact frame look when shot with both lenses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted November 26, 2005 Share Posted November 26, 2005 Sheldon, you've got a <i>very</i> bad sample of the 28/1.8 lens. It's my most-used lens on digiRebel, and I'm consistently getting much sharper shots than that. Here's a full-frame image taken at f4, shot in RAW (parameter 2, which is the low sharpness/saturation setting). (see the followup post for a 100% crop)<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted November 26, 2005 Share Posted November 26, 2005 Here's a 100% crop from that image with <b>no</b> sharpening applied.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted November 26, 2005 Share Posted November 26, 2005 Another set shot at f2.8. (Neither set are great photos, but they were the first I found to illustrate my point.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted November 26, 2005 Share Posted November 26, 2005 Here's the 100% crop.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benb Posted November 26, 2005 Share Posted November 26, 2005 BTW I am not going to stoop to posting pixel peeping 100% crops but all the photos I posted are nice and sharp at 100% viewing just like the one Mike posted. (Assuming they don't have blur due to DoF) Point is unless you have a broken or defective 28/1.8, if you're not getting good pictures out of it, it's you, not the lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benb Posted November 26, 2005 Share Posted November 26, 2005 Sorry I got angry. I am really sick of all the pixel peeping though. Here are some crops, these are from a 5D so when I say corner it means the corner. All of these are handheld except for the f/22 shot. I would actually say mine perhaps gets worse at f/16 and f/22, although I haven't really had any ruined shots, and most of my shots at those apertures are slow shutter speeds so it could just be my technique. I think the original posters shot may have flared. The f/1.8 is more vulnerable to flare. It doesn't come with a hood and it can be quite deceptive on a cropped body. When I was using it on my 10D I could barely tell when it was flaring through the viewfinder. The issue is there may be a bright light which is in the lenses field of view but is being cropped out by the camera. You could even have the sun in the field of view and not realize it. The hood helps but you can still screw it up as you're not seeing everything that the lens is seeing. A lot of my f/1.8 shots are indeed not sharp, but that has more to do with what I'm shooting then the lens. I don't know if I would say it is sharp as the 50/1.4 wide open. I only recently got a 50/1.4 and I've already gotten a few handheld f/1.4 shots that are tack sharp in the center. The crop I am including was actually a mistake, I should not have taken that shot at f/1.8 but it is pretty sharp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now