28mm f/2.8 EF vs. 35mm f/2 EF

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Canon EOS FAQ forum : One Thread

I shoot a lot of scenics / landscapes with a 50mm f/1.4 EF USM (my widest prime). I am finding a use for something a bit wider and would like input about the 28mm f/2.8 EF and 35mm f/2 EF. Photodo.com rates these lenses at 3.8 and 3.9 respectively - a negligible difference. I just want a sharp, reliable, wide lens (but not super wide!). I don't need wide apertures; I'll use the lens almost exclusively for scenics on a monopod or tripod. Any input on these two options would be appreciated.

-- Derrick Morinmm (dmorin@oasisol.com), September 29, 2001

Answers

They're both great lenses and the choice depends on your preferences. Do you desire lens with a slightly wider field of view than your EF 50 1.4? If so, get the EF 35. If you need more, get the EF 28.

You say speed doesn't matter as you're be stopping down. However, the extra stop of the EF 35 2.0 makes for a brighter viewfinder. You won't notice much difference during daylight, but you will appreciate the extra stop under dim conditions. The EF 35 2.0 also has a slightly smoother turning manual focus ring than the EF 28 2.8. Of course, the EF 28 2.8 is cheaper. The EF 35 2.0 is one of my favorite lenses.

Neither lens has FT-M or USM, but the AFD motors are peppy enough to move the small front elements reasonably fast, albeit with a little noise.

I've written short reviews on these two lenses at: http:// alaike.lcc.hawaii.edu/frary/

-- Puppy Face (
doggieface@aol.com), September 30, 2001.


I would choose between them based on focal lengh, not any negligible difference in sharpness. For my money, 28mm provides a more significant difference in perspective, from a 50mm. When I owned a 35mm f2, I basically used it as my normal lens, for photojournalizm, and switched to a 24mm when I needed somthing wider. Also, many landscapes beg for wide angle lenses (28mm and wider)

-- kenneth katz (socks@bestweb.net), September 30, 2001.

I echo the last comment - a 28 mm lens would provide a significantly more useful field of view than the 35 without too much distortion. The classic wide angle is the 24 or 28. A 20 is too extreme and the 35 doesn't offer the near/far effect as well (an object in the foreground with the environment in the background with both in reasonable focus).

I had both a 35-105 and a 28-85 lens for a single lens/body combination but traded the 35-105 away because I found the wider lens to be much more useful.

Good luck & cheers,

Duane

-- Duane k (dkucheran@creo.com), September 30, 2001.


Thanks for your comments. B&H is sending me the 28/2.8 this week. I decided I am better off with a greater difference in focal length from the 50. This will be my first Canon non-USM, but I think for its purpose I'll be pleased that I have a sharp, useful wide angle lens. Thanks again for the input - this forum is a great source for informed opinions and free advice!

-- Derrick Morin (dmorin@oasisol.com), October 01, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ