The Lowly 28/1.8?

[luis_g]

<p> I read complaints about this lens from weekend duffers and pixel peeps who think it unworthy of a walk to 7-11, let alone Wally World.</p>

<p>Imagine my surprise when I ran into an editorial (and some advertising) pro whose pictures are carried by galleries who says he uses the much-maligned 28/1.8 as his <em>only</em> lens.</p>

<p>http://www.zizola.com/#</p>

<p>One of his recent essays...</p>

<p>http://consequencesbynoor.com/francesco-zizola-maldives-a-paradise-in-peril-portfolio/</p>

<p> He's been mentioned in the Street/Documentary forum back in 2007, but I had no idea he was using one lens, and the 28/1.8 at that.</p>

<p> </p>

[tdigi]

<p>I really like the 28 1.8. I use it all the time on a 5D2. I think many people listen to web rumors and just go along with out ever really trying it. I am not sure if its just by chance buy I seem to catch many of my favorite photos with this lens. </p>

[bobatkins]

<p>I image in it would make little or no difference to his work if he used any 28mm f1.8 lens, and probably very little difference if he used a 28/2.8 or a 24-70/2.8 zoom set to 28mm or shot with a 28mm on a Nikon using a Sigma 28/1.8. It probably wouldn't make much difference if he used a P&S digicam with a 28mm (equivalent) lens on it.</p>

<p>Other then the focal length, it's not about the lens.</p>

[luis_g]

<p> Well, Bob, I know it's really not about the glass and am not disagreeing with you, but the point is that in spite of all the chatter about bad IQ, it's plenty good for publication, including covers and double-truck layouts, and good-sized gallery prints. In other words, that lens is amply good enough for mere mortals and major magazine editors. That's all.</p>

<p>Bob, I know what you are saying: It's true that Magnum members like Chris Anderson, Alex Majoli, and Paolo Pellegrin are getting published in major venues using <em>point and shoots.</em> And we all know how inferior IQ wise they are, and all about the insurmountable lag times, right?</p>

<p> </p>

[bobatkins]

<p>99% of it is about the photographer, 1% is about the camera/lens.</p>

<p>I doubt there's a DSLR and lens in current production (or made in the last 10 years) that isn't good enough for a magazine cover or double spread, and as you say there are people doing it with P&S digicams.</p>

<p>Let's just hope nobody else realizes this or many of the camera manufacturers and retailers will go out of business...</p>

[lester_wareham]

The 28/1.8 makes a great fast prime, the centre is very sharp and the af fast and acurate in low light.

 

Agreed edge and corner sharpness is not the best but for most applications it is good enough.

 

It does suffer from high CA but this is easy to fix in Photoshop or done automatically with DPP.

 

It is very good value IMHO.

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Bob - "</strong> 99% of it is about the photographer, 1% is about the camera/lens."</p>

<p> Yes, Bob, as I said before, we agree. I'm sure it will stay a secret. What happens on PN stays on PN.</p>

<p> </p>

[bobatkins]

<p>I think we're safe. People only hear what they want to hear anyway. Truth is often a secondary consideration!</p>

<p>When it comes to equipment the key factor is not in having something good enough to do the job you want, but making absolutely certain that nothing better exists. That's why it's so annoying when manufacturers bring out new cameras and lenses because there's then no alternative but to upgrade. It never ends...</p>

[alan_bryant1]

<p>I shot with a good P&S (a Nikon CoolPix 4500) from 2003 until I got a 5D in Aug 2008. Actually I shot with three 4500s - I wore out the first two. In good light it worked great, and I seldom found the 4 Mp resolution limiting. The 4500 focus speed is poor and in dim light the sensor noise is a real problem. But on the other hand it weighs nothing and it's whisper-quiet. For theater work the 5D with a good lens is much better; I used to have to take 1,000 shots of a theater performance to get 60 keepers, now I can shoot 400 shots and get 80 keepers. But the size and shutter noise of the 5D is a problem for live theater. It's all tradeoffs - but I don't use the 4500 very much anymore.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>In my experience I cannot tell the difference in shots with the 28 1.8 next to my L zooms. People rave about the quality of L zooms and scoff at the 28. My experience is in real world shots, not tests so maybe I am wrong but I don't shoot tests.</p>

[carbon_dragon]

<p>There are certain kinds of shots, say a close up macro image of a leaf or a flower or even a conventional landscape where the absolute razor sharpness of the image is part of the impact of the image. But documentary photography, no matter how well done (and this one is) doesn't really need flawless technique and ultimate lens quality. As long as the lens is not awful the image works.</p>

[zml]

<p>In the film era of Canon FD, I owned all three Canon 24 mm lenses (f/1.4, f/2 and f/2.8) and consistently found myself using the f/2 and f/2.8 for almost everything except when I needed a really fast lens. The f/2 was better corrected even wide open than the f/1.4 but the (least expensive) f/2.8 was almost as good at f/5.6 or so as the f/2.<br>

Moral: most lenses are not as bad as the internet mob paints 'em...</p>

[fxdonny]

<p>I still want, and hope, Canon 28/1.8 and 35/2 get upgraded by Canon with improved USM, or in the case of the 35mm, with USM, and with better glass quality (as close as possible to the L quality), but maintaining the same sizes (NOT larger sizes) of the old ones... :)</p>

[commortis]

<p>This lens' focal length and aperture made sense to me on a crop sensor. I read a favorable review before buying this lens on ebay. I use it as a walkaround for landscape, street, portrait work. Sharp. Fast. I am quite thrilled with it.</p><div></div>

[pbizarro]

<p>The 28 1.8 has been around for almost 12 years now (it was intriduced in 1998 I think). It is an excellent lens for documentary and street photography, so I am not surprised that it gets picked by pros working in that area. The key note is that it is a lens that is "good enough" for the intended purpose, and gets the job done. Ditto for the 35 f/2, for example.<br>

Canon may one day produce a 28 1.8 L, but then for sure it would be double the price of the existing one. Wouldn't you love it, just think about the topics in the forum: should I buy the 28 L or the non-L? Is the L really worth the extra cost, and bla bla bla.<br>

In the meantime, there are many very happy photographers using the lens anyway, and getting results and getting published.</p>

[jack_nordine]

<p>The 28mm 1.8 might be lowly, but it gets a lot more praise than the much maligned 28mm 2.8. I've always been impressed with the nice center sharpness of this cheap little lens and never understood its seedy reputation.</p>