Canon 28/1.8 and 85/1.8 vs 24-70/2.8

[hocus_focus]

<p>I have a 5D2, 24-70/2.8 and 135/2 and am thinking of adding 28/1.8 and 85/1.8.</p>

<p>How do 28/1.8 and 85/1.8 compare to 24-70/2.8 in terms of sharpness, contrast and color?<br /> I will mainly use these lenses at f/1.8 or f/2. If I have to stop them down further than f/2 to achieve comparable quality to 24-70/2.8 at f/2.8, I will skip these primes.</p>

<p>PS: I really don't intend buying the expensive L primes.</p>

<p> </p>

[ljwest]

<p>Some <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/">reviews you might want to read here...</a></p>

 

[hocus_focus]

<blockquote>

<p>Some <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/" target="_blank">reviews you might want to read here...</a></p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is just one review, I've heard better things about 28/1.8.</p>

<p>I'd prefer a comparision to 24-70/2.8 wide open rather than individual reviews. Thank you.</p>

[zml]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>I'd prefer a comparision to 24-70/2.8 wide open rather than individual reviews.</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Go to the site mentioned above and compare ISO 12233 charts - you can compare any two lenses. </p>

[hocus_focus]

<p>OK thanks. However, test charts only say so much and I would appreciate a personal opinion from experience.</p>

<p>PS: I'm also looking into Sigma primes.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>I vacillated for quite awhile before I sold my 24-70. My main application for that lens was indoor, low light work, and I found that I prefer to use my faster primes for that. Outdoors, I use my 24-105 as a standard zoom. <em>Ergo, </em>I really had no use for the 24-70.</p>

<p>Furthermore, the 24-70 obviously doesn't go to f/1.2 or f/1.4. So if you envision yourself "needing" apertures wider than f/2.8, primes are the way to go. You should also ask yourself whether you'd <em>actually use</em> a set a primes rather than the zoom (as I do). If so, get the primes and dump the zoom; if not, keep the zoom and forget the primes. </p>

<p>Of course, if your pockets are deep, keep the zoom and get the primes as well. That way you'll be able to gain some of your own personal experience comparing the lenses, and you can always just sell one or the other later, anyway.</p>

[saskphotog]

<p>While I appreciate your appreciation of "testimony" from users, it is important to remember that eye witness reports are very unreliable. Can you expand on what aspects of the lenses you think descriptions of personal experience will be more useful to your decision than measured optical characteristics? It may help people respond with something relevant. </p>

<p>I base my evaluation of lenses on test results much more often than I use someone's "Man, this lens is great!" comments.</p>

[craigd]

<p>My first-hand experience with the EF 28mm f/1.8 USM matches what the-digital-picture.com says about it. Lots of color fringing and veiling flare, quite noticeable even when stopped down. Quite possibly the worst prime SLR lens I've ever used. Physically it's well-made and the USM works well, but optically it's horrible. My Nikkor 28mm f/2 AI, a 30-year-old manual focus lens, is far superior.</p>

<p>I haven't used the EF 85mm f/1.8 USM, but I've never heard anything negative about it. You may also want to consider the EF 100mm f/2 USM, which some people say is slightly better.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>The 24-70mm is surprisingly good, but I think you will find the 85mm will easily better it at its 70mm setting at f2.8 and is also good at wider apertures (obviously). I have both. The 28mm f1.8 I have always steered clear off as the reviews I have read do not give it a favorable report. It is a shame as this would be the lens I would buy if I could. Canon want you to pay up for the 24mm L where they have concentrated their design prowess.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>I currently own the 24-70 and I have had the 28 and 85. I actually sold my 28 to fund my 24-70, I personally liked the 28 ( I think the bad rap this lens gets is overhyped ) but its not that sharp wide open but its good at 2.2. The biggest advantage of the 28 is the small size but IMO I would say skip this one unless size/weight is a key factor since you have this FL covered.</p>

<p>The 85 is a great lens and not covered in your 24-70 range so its one you may look at, I found it sharp wide open and exceptional at 2.2 and up but you have 2 of Canon's best lenses and while I have never used the 135 I hear its just amazing so the 85 may be a step down. I hear Sigma has a new 85 1.4 that seems to get high praise and is considerably cheaper then the Canon 85L. May be worth a look</p>

<p> </p>

[hocus_focus]

<blockquote>

<p>The 24-70mm is surprisingly good, but I think you will find the 85mm will easily better it at its 70mm setting at f2.8 and is also good at wider apertures (obviously).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>We should compare 24-70/2.8 at f/2.8 to 85/1.8 at f/1.8. If I have to stop down the 85mm to f/2.8, I might as well stick to the zoom lens. Like said, these fast primes are meant to be used WIDE open.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The 85 is a great lens and not covered in your 24-70 range so its one you may look at, I found it sharp wide open and exceptional at 2.2 and up but you have 2 of Canon's best lenses and while I have never used the 135 I hear its just amazing so the 85 may be a step down. I hear Sigma has a new 85 1.4 that seems to get high praise and is considerably cheaper then the Canon 85L. May be worth a look</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thank you for your comment. I also own a 100/2.8 macro and the difference between 70 and 100mm is too small to warrant a change of lens, so I believe that the only incentive to change from 24-70 to 85mm would be the larger aperture and perhaps increase of sharpness, contrast and color, but not the focal length.</p>

<p>Sigma is indeed interesting. Sigma also makes a 28/1.8 and I wonder how it performs versus Canon 28/1.8. However, Sigma 85/1.4 is twice the price of Canon 85/1.8. These primes should back up and not replace my 24-70/2.8, which will remain my main lens, and thus I do not wish to invest too much money in secondary lenses.</p>

<p>On a sidenote, who uses both 24-70/2.8 and 85/1.8 on full frame? Since there is almost no difference in focal length, why did you choose the latter and how often do you switch from 24-70/2.8 to 85/1.8?</p>

<p>Thank you.</p>

[tdigi]

<blockquote>

<p>I also own a 100/2.8 macro</p>

</blockquote>

<p>After getting the 100L I sold the 85 1.8. but IMO they are really very different and I may in fact re-buy the 85 1.8 just because its so compact and the extra speed is useful at times. For what its worth I thought it was excellent on full frame.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>You will not find a better lens than the 85/1.8 at anywhere near the price.</p>

<p>I wrote a reveiw of it here - <a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/canon_ef_85mm_f18_review.html">http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/canon_ef_85mm_f18_review.html</a></p>

<p>It's small, light, very sharp and fast. Clearly it's not as versatile as the 28-70/2.8 zoom, but it's cheaper, smaller, lighter and sharper.</p>

<p>Can't comment on the 28/1.8 because I've never used one.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<blockquote>

<p>We should compare 24-70/2.8 at f/2.8 to 85/1.8 at f/1.8.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There's no we about it. I think you mean <em>you </em>want to compare them like that. My statement (I thought) clearly says that the prime in this case is optically superior to the zoom at 70mm at the widest aperture they both share. But yes the 85mm at f2.8 is better than when it is at f1.8 (obviously). I use them both on FF, but I guess this answer will not be satisfactory either.</p>

[philip_wilson]

Hocus I own the 24-70 and 85 F1.8 plus the 100 F2.8 L IS and there are all different. I doubt if I would be prepared to

sell any of them. Of the three the 24-70 gets slightly more use (on full frame - I don't use it much on crop bodies -

either 1.3x or 1.6x). In terms of contrast and sharpness the 85 is better than the 24-70 but not by a lot. The 85 is

softish at F1.8 and really needs F2. In terms of colour I slightly prefer the zoom to the prime (the zoom is slightly

warmer) and while both are very good they lack the subtle tones of a Zeiss lens. For portrait use I find that the 85 f1.8

and 100'F2.8 L IS are both great lenses. Given you own the 100 and the 135 F2 I would suggest that the zoom wil be

more useful than the 85 and 28. The zoom is a big heavy lens and has a massive lens hod but it is a great lens. If

you do buy the 85 then I suggest that you also buy the lens hood asncontrast can suffer without it.

[OPK]

<p>all of the fixed lens you mentioned are better than 24-70L. Zoom is better only for convenience...<br>

28 1.8 is lovely for travel shooting and is for my taste extremely sharp - look for my Portugal gallery.<br>

85 1.8 is great portrait lens which is contrasty and sharper too.<br>

Now I work with a zoom, which is really good, has lovely color and acutance, but is damn heavy.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>I own all three and use them extensively on a 5D2. The bad news? At the far edges the 28/1.8 suffers distortions WO, and WO the 85/1.8 has <em>BAD</em> CA. Both though have better contrast and color retention than the 24-70/2.8L though only a little bit. My favorite thing about the 28/1.8 is being able to use the ape. on such a WA to get <em>actual</em> DOF control. yep, actual bokeh, which isn't available at 28mm/2.8. just my take...</p>

[model mayhem gallery]

I have and love the 28 1.8. My zoom is the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 DI which I have compared to be very similar to the

canon 24-70. The 28 1.8 has much more dramatic blur, is much smaller and lighter and is way easier to manual focus

in low light. The 28 1.8 is my absolute toto lens for HD video to get that super shallow DOF needed for video. very

bright and sharp for video. when I am shooting stills I dont care about edge sharpness much because I am using

center focus point and want everything else blurred which this lens does much better than Tamron 28-75 2.8. plus has

nice smooth focus ring and full time manual focus override like L lenses.

[yakim_peled1]

<p>The 28/1.8 is not a good lens. Flares easily and not sharp in the corners. The 85/1.8 is an excellent lens.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

[OPK]

<p>@Yakim</p>

<p>I understand that you had personal experience with that lens. Maybe your lens was faulty or misaligned. Hard to tell. From my observation derives something completely different. It doesn't flare with lens hood and has beautiful contrast.</p>

<p>Soft corners? - didn't observe any special problems. By the way - have you ever seen wide angle lens without soft corners/fringing? it that price range....</p>

[tdigi]

<blockquote>

<p>The 28/1.8 is not a good lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I too would not call this a bad lens. I used it many times and compared to 24-70 or 16-35 you would be hard pressed to tell the difference in many situations. It is sharp at 2.0 and while not as good as the 85 1.8 its still a pretty good lens. Still if you own a 24-70 its probably not worth getting unless the size/weight is of concern. </p>

[hocus_focus]

<p>Is Sigma 28/1.8 better than Canon's?</p>

<p>How about Sigma 85/1.4 vs Canon 85/1.8?</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<p>Let me re-phrase: <em><strong>My</strong></em> 28/1.8 was not a good lens. Flares easily and not sharp in the corners. <em><strong>My</strong></em> 85/1.8 was an excellent lens.</p>

 

<p>Happy shooting,<br /> Yakim.</p>

 

[hocus_focus]

<p>I really think that bad copies are overhyped. Most people complaining about bad copies either don't realize that lenses can be callibrated in camera or don't know what matters in a photograph.</p>

<p>Meanwhile, I tried the Canon 28/1.8 myself and it is quite soft wide open and lacking contrast, but I have a similar experience with 24-70 at the wide end wide open so it's perhaps more a trait of wide lenses.</p>

<p>Anyway, is the Sigma 28/1.8 and 85/1.4 a better performer than Canon 28/1.8 vs 85/1.8? I will NOT consider 85/1.2. Thank you.</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<p>From what I read, none of Sigma's 1.8 lenses is particularly good but the 85/1.4 <a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/602-sigma85f14eosff">is a different matter</a>.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>