35mm f/2.0 or 28mm f/2.8?

[Stevil]

I'm trying to decide whether to go with a 35mm f/2.0 or 28mm f/2.8 prime as my general-purpose lens for when the 50mm f/1.8 AOV is too narrow. I'll mostly use it for daylight outdoor photos- landscapes and architecture.

Optical quality and build quality/ruggedness are equal considerations; price difference is not a concern. I'm also very interested in ergonomic nitpicks, like whether the AF/M switch works well (it does not on my 50mm f/1.8 Mk II).

Finally, I am interested in opinions on how pleasing or "natural" the angle of view is for either lens. Biased, subjective opinions welcome here.

Any informed opinions out there?

 

[Wild-Mike]

I have the Sigma 24mm 1.8 and it is tack sharp wide open. A very good lens indeed. Here are a few pics taken wide open hand-held. The Sigma 28mm is good too.

Sample images:
http://tkis.com/mike/pics-01.html

Regards,
Mike

--
300D Gallery:
http://tkis.com/mike/

Joy in looking and comprehending is nature's most beautiful gift. -- Albert Einstein

 

[mskad]

I had the 28mm f/2.8 for a while, and I would say it's an OK lens. Nothing to rave about. Some softness wide open, slow AF and not that fast (f/2.8).

The 35mm f/2.0 is, IMO, a nicer lens: fast AF, really sharp center to corner even wide open. And no CA at all! The only issue I had with this lens was poor AF accuracy with the Canon 10D. But with the DRebel, no problemo.

The lens is light but construction is good (same as 24mm f/2.8, 28 f/2.8 and 50 f/1.8 MkI). AF/MF switch is the "flat" kind, not really handy.

Field of View (FOV) wise, I also prefer the 35mm. And yes, this is subjective ;-)

I'm trying to decide whether to go with a 35mm f/2.0 or 28mm f/2.8
prime as my general-purpose lens for when the 50mm f/1.8 AOV is too
narrow. I'll mostly use it for daylight outdoor photos- landscapes
and architecture.

Optical quality and build quality/ruggedness are equal
considerations; price difference is not a concern. I'm also very
interested in ergonomic nitpicks, like whether the AF/M switch
works well (it does not on my 50mm f/1.8 Mk II).

Finally, I am interested in opinions on how pleasing or "natural"
the angle of view is for either lens. Biased, subjective opinions
welcome here.

Any informed opinions out there?

--
Mskad.

 

[nunyobiznus]

I'm trying to decide whether to go with a 35mm f/2.0 or 28mm f/2.8
prime as my general-purpose lens for when the 50mm f/1.8 AOV is too
narrow. I'll mostly use it for daylight outdoor photos- landscapes
and architecture.

Optical quality and build quality/ruggedness are equal
considerations; price difference is not a concern. I'm also very
interested in ergonomic nitpicks, like whether the AF/M switch
works well (it does not on my 50mm f/1.8 Mk II).

Finally, I am interested in opinions on how pleasing or "natural"
the angle of view is for either lens. Biased, subjective opinions
welcome here.

Any informed opinions out there?

Well, the only lenses built well are the super telephoto prime lenses. everything else is average to poor. Lenses are not built well anymore. I have several lenses which are all about 25-30 years old...and they are all "heavy" compared to today's counterparts.. they are as rugged as you can get....built to last a lifetime...and are easy to grip...unlike most lenses being sold these days from any lens maker aside from Carl Zies... Contax has the best lenses.... these Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Minolta lenses are meant to last a while....but not for ever.

 

[thpx]

I ended up buying the 28/2.8 over everything else just because i like looking through it.

if you're aiming for the "natural" view of a 50, 35 is a little long and 28 is a tad wide. and it's easier to walk forward two steps then back

28x1.6=45

2.8 isn't as fast as anything else, but it's still faster than most zooms.

as to build, it's not too bad.

the AF/MF switch is there, if you've got smart thumbs you'll be able to find it.

when on AF, the MF ring is disconnected. so you an spin it, nudge it, bump it, let your kids drool on it and it won't change anything.

so there's no danger of ripping it around and stripping gears when you don't want to.

manual focus is a little bit long, it takes a lot of wrist to go from one end to the other.

the other thing is that it's got an old AFD AF, it sounds like a coffee grinder

i love it, point it at something and you get a high pitched fzzzzzz

i tell people i'm making espresso.

IMO Canon doesn't make poor primes. they make poor zooms because people buy cameras and want zoom lenses and are happy with snapshots.
primes are good

this lens has given me some beautifully sharp pics, even at 2.8.

i'd lend you mind if you lived close enough

final say: the 1.6x 45mm focal length makes anything bad about this lens worthwhile. it's noisy, it's short, it says lewd things about your mother. but it's a good shooter.

and that's the end of my biased rant.

I'm trying to decide whether to go with a 35mm f/2.0 or 28mm f/2.8
prime as my general-purpose lens for when the 50mm f/1.8 AOV is too
narrow. I'll mostly use it for daylight outdoor photos- landscapes
and architecture.

Optical quality and build quality/ruggedness are equal
considerations; price difference is not a concern. I'm also very
interested in ergonomic nitpicks, like whether the AF/M switch
works well (it does not on my 50mm f/1.8 Mk II).

Finally, I am interested in opinions on how pleasing or "natural"
the angle of view is for either lens. Biased, subjective opinions
welcome here.

Any informed opinions out there?

 

[Stevil]

Seems to be good arguments on both sides. I'm leaning towards the 35mm on the basis of its apparent edge in build quality and optical quality, but I think I might like the wider angle of view of the 28mm better. I'm going to do as thpx suggested (in another thread) and tape my kit lens at each focal length for a few days and see which angle of view I like best...

I'm trying to decide whether to go with a 35mm f/2.0 or 28mm f/2.8
prime as my general-purpose lens for when the 50mm f/1.8 AOV is too
narrow. I'll mostly use it for daylight outdoor photos- landscapes
and architecture.

Optical quality and build quality/ruggedness are equal
considerations; price difference is not a concern. I'm also very
interested in ergonomic nitpicks, like whether the AF/M switch
works well (it does not on my 50mm f/1.8 Mk II).

Finally, I am interested in opinions on how pleasing or "natural"
the angle of view is for either lens. Biased, subjective opinions
welcome here.

Any informed opinions out there?

 

[marcoricci]

I'm trying to decide whether to go with a 35mm f/2.0 or 28mm f/2.8
prime as my general-purpose lens for when the 50mm f/1.8 AOV is too
narrow. I'll mostly use it for daylight outdoor photos- landscapes
and architecture.

i try 2 28mm f 2.8 canon on a 300D.

both have GREAT problem on a 300D, the border of the pics looks like out of focus and a little stretched, like astigmatic lens..
both lens work ok on a eos5 (film).
the problem is less visible at f8 and more, but still present..
u can see an example here:



now i'm waiting (some days) for a 24 f 2.8, hoping this work..

(obviousily i try the 300d with zoom kit, 50 f 1.4, 100 macro, 70/200L and a zenitar, and work without problems!)

 

[thpx]

Yeah, 2.8 gives a relatively shallow DoF.
(bloody DoF, they should outlaw it!)

You're focused on that bloody great piece of rock two kilometers in front of you which means, unfortunately,the city right in front of you isn't going to fare that well.

but it's a beautiful shot, go back with a tripod and shoot at f11!
where is this? can i come visit?

i try 2 28mm f 2.8 canon on a 300D.
both have GREAT problem on a 300D, the border of the pics looks
like out of focus and a little stretched, like astigmatic lens..
both lens work ok on a eos5 (film).
the problem is less visible at f8 and more, but still present..
u can see an example here:

now i'm waiting (some days) for a 24 f 2.8, hoping this work..

(obviousily i try the 300d with zoom kit, 50 f 1.4, 100 macro,
70/200L and a zenitar, and work without problems!)

 

[Karl R. Josker]

Stevil wrote:
I'll mostly use it for daylight outdoor photos- landscapes

and architecture.

I would offer that image quality aside, the 35mm f2 is too close to your 50mm f/1.8 in focal length and speed to make a significant difference. Taking your use for architecture into consideration, the 28mm f/2.8 might be a better choice.

Having said all that, my personal, no basis in fact or no discernible thoughtful analysis, I would choose the 35mm f/2. There is no photographic reason for me to say that, there is just something about being out of the mainstream and the 35mm f/2 seems just a little bit out of the mainstream than the 28mm f/2.8. I could be wrong.

 

[Edward Karaa]

Hello,

If you want to follow the principle which says that the standard lens focal length should be equal to the diagonal of the shooting format, then the 28mm is the one for you, same as the 45mm lens is the standard for 24X36mm format not the 50mm.

I myself went for the Sigma 28mm 1.8 because of the above reason, and becasue I have the 50mm and the 20mm lenses. I was considering the Canon version which seems lighter and more compact than the huge heavy Sigma, but it seems that the Sigma performs better so I chose quality over convenience.

The 35mm has a very good optical performance and it gives you one extra stop, so it might me a better choice over the 28mm 2.8, but I would personally get the 28mm 1.8 either Sigma or Canon.

But this is my very subjective opinion ;-)

Cheers,
Edward

--
http://edwardkaraa.smugmug.com

 

[Stevil]

I'm curious- do you know on what that principle is based? Is there something special that makes the relationship between the focal length and the diagonal important? It's not one of those intuitive things, for me.

Hello,

If you want to follow the principle which says that the standard
lens focal length should be equal to the diagonal of the shooting
format, then the 28mm is the one for you, same as the 45mm lens is
the standard for 24X36mm format not the 50mm.

I myself went for the Sigma 28mm 1.8 because of the above reason,
and becasue I have the 50mm and the 20mm lenses. I was considering
the Canon version which seems lighter and more compact than the
huge heavy Sigma, but it seems that the Sigma performs better so I
chose quality over convenience.

The 35mm has a very good optical performance and it gives you one
extra stop, so it might me a better choice over the 28mm 2.8, but
I would personally get the 28mm 1.8 either Sigma or Canon.

But this is my very subjective opinion ;-)

Cheers,
Edward

--
http://edwardkaraa.smugmug.com

 

[Edward Karaa]

I don't know the exact scientifical principle behind it, but it is a long established one. It seems that when the focal length of the lens is equal to the film format diagonal, it gives the most natural and human eye like perspective. It is exactly the border line between wide and tele.

That is why a normal lens for 5X4" is 150mm, 6X7 is 100mm, 6X6 is 80mm, 6X4.5 is 70mm... etc.

From the practical side, there is a big difference between a 28mm (45mm in FF equivalent) and a 35mm (55mm in FF). I think the 55mm will limit your field of view unnecessarily while the perspective won't allow you to take any flattering portraits. This focal length for me is quite unusable. The 45mm gives a good wide coverage and gives the most natural "perspective". I think the people who use the 35mm 2 do so for the excellent quality and price not for the field coverage.

Cheers,

Hello,

If you want to follow the principle which says that the standard
lens focal length should be equal to the diagonal of the shooting
format, then the 28mm is the one for you, same as the 45mm lens is
the standard for 24X36mm format not the 50mm.

I myself went for the Sigma 28mm 1.8 because of the above reason,
and becasue I have the 50mm and the 20mm lenses. I was considering
the Canon version which seems lighter and more compact than the
huge heavy Sigma, but it seems that the Sigma performs better so I
chose quality over convenience.

The 35mm has a very good optical performance and it gives you one
extra stop, so it might me a better choice over the 28mm 2.8, but
I would personally get the 28mm 1.8 either Sigma or Canon.

But this is my very subjective opinion ;-)

Cheers,
Edward

--
http://edwardkaraa.smugmug.com

--
http://edwardkaraa.smugmug.com

 

[noisebeam]

While it means nothing, FWIW Canon put a dot on the 300D kit lens at the 28mm mark - likely because they consider it (45mm equivalent) 'normal'

Al

That is why a normal lens for 5X4" is 150mm, 6X7 is 100mm, 6X6 is
80mm, 6X4.5 is 70mm... etc.

From the practical side, there is a big difference between a 28mm
(45mm in FF equivalent) and a 35mm (55mm in FF). I think the 55mm
will limit your field of view unnecessarily while the perspective
won't allow you to take any flattering portraits. This focal length
for me is quite unusable. The 45mm gives a good wide coverage and
gives the most natural "perspective". I think the people who use
the 35mm 2 do so for the excellent quality and price not for the
field coverage.

Cheers,

Hello,

If you want to follow the principle which says that the standard
lens focal length should be equal to the diagonal of the shooting
format, then the 28mm is the one for you, same as the 45mm lens is
the standard for 24X36mm format not the 50mm.

I myself went for the Sigma 28mm 1.8 because of the above reason,
and becasue I have the 50mm and the 20mm lenses. I was considering
the Canon version which seems lighter and more compact than the
huge heavy Sigma, but it seems that the Sigma performs better so I
chose quality over convenience.

The 35mm has a very good optical performance and it gives you one
extra stop, so it might me a better choice over the 28mm 2.8, but
I would personally get the 28mm 1.8 either Sigma or Canon.

But this is my very subjective opinion ;-)

Cheers,
Edward

--
http://edwardkaraa.smugmug.com

--
http://edwardkaraa.smugmug.com

 

[noisebeam]

I found the post where I got this from:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=6685557

Al

Al

That is why a normal lens for 5X4" is 150mm, 6X7 is 100mm, 6X6 is
80mm, 6X4.5 is 70mm... etc.

From the practical side, there is a big difference between a 28mm
(45mm in FF equivalent) and a 35mm (55mm in FF). I think the 55mm
will limit your field of view unnecessarily while the perspective
won't allow you to take any flattering portraits. This focal length
for me is quite unusable. The 45mm gives a good wide coverage and
gives the most natural "perspective". I think the people who use
the 35mm 2 do so for the excellent quality and price not for the
field coverage.

Cheers,

Hello,

If you want to follow the principle which says that the standard
lens focal length should be equal to the diagonal of the shooting
format, then the 28mm is the one for you, same as the 45mm lens is
the standard for 24X36mm format not the 50mm.

I myself went for the Sigma 28mm 1.8 because of the above reason,
and becasue I have the 50mm and the 20mm lenses. I was considering
the Canon version which seems lighter and more compact than the
huge heavy Sigma, but it seems that the Sigma performs better so I
chose quality over convenience.

The 35mm has a very good optical performance and it gives you one
extra stop, so it might me a better choice over the 28mm 2.8, but
I would personally get the 28mm 1.8 either Sigma or Canon.

But this is my very subjective opinion ;-)

Cheers,
Edward

--
http://edwardkaraa.smugmug.com

--
http://edwardkaraa.smugmug.com

 

[bullet1]

I'm trying to decide whether to go with a 35mm f/2.0 or 28mm f/2.8
prime as my general-purpose lens for when the 50mm f/1.8 AOV is too
narrow. I'll mostly use it for daylight outdoor photos- landscapes
and architecture.

Optical quality and build quality/ruggedness are equal
considerations; price difference is not a concern. I'm also very
interested in ergonomic nitpicks, like whether the AF/M switch
works well (it does not on my 50mm f/1.8 Mk II).

Finally, I am interested in opinions on how pleasing or "natural"
the angle of view is for either lens. Biased, subjective opinions
welcome here.

Any informed opinions out there?

I had a 35mm f/2 for two weeks and really liked it. It was returned due to the aperture motor problem which caused the infamous Err99. In exchange for that, I got a Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8. Since I need a fast lens for indoor shots, I need to buy the 35mm f/2 again, hopefully a problem free copy.

I share your view of 50mm f/1,8 about the build quality. I had that lens too and struggled to get sharp pictures when the lighting was not too great. In the end, the 50mm f/1.8 died when I dropped the camera. I love the sharpness of the 35mm f/2 and bigger DOF as I plan to use it for landscape work as well. It is so light and non-intrusive vs. a big zoom like the 70-200mm f/4 when taking picutres of people.





--
Nelson

 

[Leonard Migliore]

Yeah, 2.8 gives a relatively shallow DoF.
(bloody DoF, they should outlaw it!)

You're focused on that bloody great piece of rock two kilometers in
front of you which means, unfortunately,the city right in front of
you isn't going to fare that well.

but it's a beautiful shot, go back with a tripod and shoot at f11!
where is this? can i come visit?

Huh? It's a 28mm. If you're focused at infinity, at f/2.8 it's in focus down to 10 meters.
--
Leonard Migliore

 

[Wild-Mike]

FYI ...Just about every professional book on portrait photography recommends a lens of about 80 - 100mm for 35mm film. I have three recent publications that recommend this. Here is an online source as well:
http://www.romanzolin.com/techniques/potraiture/studio_1.htm#Equipment

So you would benifit from a 50mm lens for portrait photography with the 1.6 crop factor for portrait work.

Regards,
Mike

That is why a normal lens for 5X4" is 150mm, 6X7 is 100mm, 6X6 is
80mm, 6X4.5 is 70mm... etc.

From the practical side, there is a big difference between a 28mm
(45mm in FF equivalent) and a 35mm (55mm in FF). I think the 55mm
will limit your field of view unnecessarily while the perspective
won't allow you to take any flattering portraits. This focal length
for me is quite unusable. The 45mm gives a good wide coverage and
gives the most natural "perspective". I think the people who use
the 35mm 2 do so for the excellent quality and price not for the
field coverage.

Cheers,

Hello,

If you want to follow the principle which says that the standard
lens focal length should be equal to the diagonal of the shooting
format, then the 28mm is the one for you, same as the 45mm lens is
the standard for 24X36mm format not the 50mm.

I myself went for the Sigma 28mm 1.8 because of the above reason,
and becasue I have the 50mm and the 20mm lenses. I was considering
the Canon version which seems lighter and more compact than the
huge heavy Sigma, but it seems that the Sigma performs better so I
chose quality over convenience.

The 35mm has a very good optical performance and it gives you one
extra stop, so it might me a better choice over the 28mm 2.8, but
I would personally get the 28mm 1.8 either Sigma or Canon.

But this is my very subjective opinion ;-)

Cheers,
Edward

--
http://edwardkaraa.smugmug.com

--
http://edwardkaraa.smugmug.com

--
300D Gallery:
http://tkis.com/mike/

Joy in looking and comprehending is nature's most beautiful gift. -- Albert Einstein

 

[Isola Verde]

but it's a beautiful shot, go back with a tripod and shoot at f11!
where is this? can i come visit?

As no-one else has replied, I'll do so.

Just along the coast from Naples, this is Pozzuoli - a fine city set in the Campi Flegrei, a beautiful part of southern Italy, rich in Greek and Roman remains and - more recently - famous as the birthplace of Sophia Loren.

Pozzuoli itself has suffered over the centuries from an effect known as bradyseism - a repeated slow rise and fall in the level of the land caused by expansion and contraction of underlying magma chambers.

Perhaps that's the cause of the distortion in the corners of this shot, in which case a faster shutter speed might help? Sorry - no offence meant!

Peter

 

[SFJP]

The 28 mm makes a perfect 'standard' lens with a slight wide angle trend on the 300D. I bought the 1.8 in order to have a fast lens, the 2.8 seems too close to the 18-55 aperture to be really interesting. The 28 mm 1.8 is very, very sharp, while a slight bit less than the 50 1.8. At full aperture, the 28 1.8 has also a narrow DOF appropriate for portraits, while focusing is less delicate than with the 50 mm 1.8.

Now I have the 28 1.8 and the must have 50 1.8, my next buy will be a fast prime tele, a 100 or 135 with an aperture of 2.

I'm trying to decide whether to go with a 35mm f/2.0 or 28mm f/2.8
prime as my general-purpose lens for when the 50mm f/1.8 AOV is too
narrow. I'll mostly use it for daylight outdoor photos- landscapes
and architecture.

Optical quality and build quality/ruggedness are equal
considerations; price difference is not a concern. I'm also very
interested in ergonomic nitpicks, like whether the AF/M switch
works well (it does not on my 50mm f/1.8 Mk II).

Finally, I am interested in opinions on how pleasing or "natural"
the angle of view is for either lens. Biased, subjective opinions
welcome here.

Any informed opinions out there?

--
SFJP
http://www.pbase.com/sfjp

 

[Edward Karaa]

Alright! Now I know why portaits taken with my wide-angle seem so distorted. Perhaps I should seriously consider investing in a 50mm lens after all.

So you would benifit from a 50mm lens for portrait photography with
the 1.6 crop factor for portrait work.

Regards,
Mike

That is why a normal lens for 5X4" is 150mm, 6X7 is 100mm, 6X6 is
80mm, 6X4.5 is 70mm... etc.

From the practical side, there is a big difference between a 28mm
(45mm in FF equivalent) and a 35mm (55mm in FF). I think the 55mm
will limit your field of view unnecessarily while the perspective
won't allow you to take any flattering portraits. This focal length
for me is quite unusable. The 45mm gives a good wide coverage and
gives the most natural "perspective". I think the people who use
the 35mm 2 do so for the excellent quality and price not for the
field coverage.

Cheers,

Hello,

If you want to follow the principle which says that the standard
lens focal length should be equal to the diagonal of the shooting
format, then the 28mm is the one for you, same as the 45mm lens is
the standard for 24X36mm format not the 50mm.

I myself went for the Sigma 28mm 1.8 because of the above reason,
and becasue I have the 50mm and the 20mm lenses. I was considering
the Canon version which seems lighter and more compact than the
huge heavy Sigma, but it seems that the Sigma performs better so I
chose quality over convenience.

The 35mm has a very good optical performance and it gives you one
extra stop, so it might me a better choice over the 28mm 2.8, but
I would personally get the 28mm 1.8 either Sigma or Canon.

But this is my very subjective opinion ;-)

Cheers,
Edward

--
http://edwardkaraa.smugmug.com

--
http://edwardkaraa.smugmug.com

--
300D Gallery:
http://tkis.com/mike/

Joy in looking and comprehending is nature's most beautiful gift.
-- Albert Einstein

--
http://edwardkaraa.smugmug.com