Next to the 28-105 usm that I own and to the 50/1.4, which I intend to buy these days, I'd like to buy a wide angle prime, to shot quality slides in not much light, when my zoom photos get shaky. I thought of the 28/1.8 for the low apperture, but I read comments that its sharpness/contrast/etc is not better than the cheaper 28/2.8 lens. This said, if I go for the f/2.8, why not for the 24/2.8 and hope it is better than 28/2.8, plus it adds extra 4mm to my zoom?

Does anybody have experience with these three lenses or the combination 50mm + 28mm vs. 50mm + 24mm (plus non-L zoom)? Does the difference f/2.8 to f/1.8 matter?

Thanks!

-- Aan Lin (aljazule@email.si), April 22, 2002

Answers

The reputation of the 28/1.8 is indeed that it is not better than the 28/2.8. On the other hand, it's not a lot worse, and photodo's MTF graphs (for what they're worth) show that the 28/1.8 @ f/1.8 is about the same as your zoom at 28mm @ f/3.5.

You already have a 28/3.5, so if you want to work in not much light and you find the 28/3.5 to be restrictive, the 28/2.8 won't help much - though I'd expect the optics to be better so you'd have less need to stop down.

-- Steve Dunn (steved@ussinc.com), April 22, 2002.

Do you really want to shoot at f/1.8? At aperatures that big, the results can be depressing -- I know this is true for my 50mm f/1.8 but I haven't tried the 24mm f/1.8 (photodo.com backs this up, for whatever it's worth).

I went for the 24mm f/2.8 (although Sigma) and not having a larger aperature has only been a problem a couple of times. Since the 28mm 1.8 is over twice the cost of the 28mm 2.8 it wouldn't be worth it, for me. I personally wouldn't want the 28mm f/1.8 or f/2.8 over my 24mm f/2.8. You should be able to shoot at 1/30th or 1/15th @ f/2.8 handheld, that's capturing a lot of light as it is. At those speeds moving people often blur though (nice effect, though not always wanted).

With that price difference, you could buy a nice monopod. ;)

-- Steven Fisher (steven_fisher@hotmail.com), April 22, 2002.

I like the 50 + 28 combination and find that f2.8 is usually fast enough. If it's dark and you are working on something special, you will probably use fast film (or push) anwyay.

Wide-angle lenses are great in low light, even without the fastest of apertures--since they can be handheld at low shutter speeds and they have a naturally forgiving field of focus, which means they can be shot very quickly. The autofocus does not have to travel very far, end to end.

I would always opt for optical quality and make up for lack of speed with other techniques.

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), April 22, 2002.

I have the 28/2.8 and the 50/1.4. As far as the combo, I feel they compliment each other nicely (I chose the 28 after contemplating a 35mm). I did not consider the 24 - I just wanted a good clear/sharp lens for group photos when the 50 wasn't wide enough. I have been pleased with the 28/2.8 for group shots (often with flash indoors) and landscapes as well. I don't wish I had a wider aperture - I think I'd be afraid to use it at the expense of sharpness. Steven makes smart observations about handholding and monopod use. I have gained up to 2 stops with my monopod and have been able to stop down to maximize or improve sharpness. How wide do you want to get? For me, 24mm is getting into the range that begins to distort perspective too much - and too big a jump from my 50.

-- Derrick Morin (dmorin@oasisol.com), April 22, 2002.

I have the Sigma 20 and 24 f/1.8 lenses. They are great! About a third of the price and all you give up i a bit of AF speed. Build quality and and optics are about the same as canons (IMHO)...

-- Magnus (magnus@hotmail.com), April 23, 2002.

Well, I thought that a f/1.8 would be great shooting at f/2.5 or so and have better optical performance than my zoom at f/5.6, but the photodo says not, which I find surprising. And, if the 28mm lenses don't complement my zoom, the 24mm does with the 4mm, if not with the quality. But I'd prefer a quality 28mm to a quality 24mm.

-- Aan Lin (aljazule@email.si), April 23, 2002.

I think it would be fair to conclude that Mangus is a Sigma rep who is using this forum to boost Sigma. The sigma 24mmf2.8 of just 5 years ago will not work with eye controll canons, so only a fool or a rep of Sigma would be promoting this product on this EOS forum. Looking at previous replies from Magnus almost every new production Sigma is mentioned, but no canon. Nice try.

-- joe cap (joemocap@yahoo.com), April 29, 2002.

I'd recommend the 24f2.8. It is a very sharp lens and will give you a nice wide angle look and keeps the same 58mm filter size of your other two lenses. I own the 28-105 and the 24, love my 24, maybe even more than my 300F4. Mike Dziak

-- Mike Dziak (biglens2c@hotmail.com), May 01, 2002.