ICYMI: Canon 28mm F2.8 IS USM sample gallery

I can't vouch for the EF 28mm 2.8, IS, but I love its siblings EF 24, 2.8, IS, and EF 35mm, f2, IS. I used them both extensively with a 5D3 on drive from San Fran following the coast north to Crater Lake Oregon, and back past Mt Larsen, to Bishop, Death Valley, Yosemite, Carmel and San Fran. Then a year later I used mainly the EF 35 f2 IS out the window of the California Zephyr AMTRAK ( avoiding reflections ) from Chicago to San Fran taking in a drive for a week around Utah canyon country on the way.
The 35 f2 IS has a T stop of T2 whereas from memory the 2; 2.8 lenses are slightly slower at T3.1 ( according to DxoMark ) The primes are faster to use than zooms ( I also have ) and have much better light gathering performance. Zooms loose much more light than primes and are even slower than the f stop suggests. Now with my 5D4 they perform even better.
The EF 28 f2.8 IS is no doubt just as good as my two favourite lenses. Don't try to analize the charts. Just try them for yourself.

Oct 18, 2017*permalink

Morvegil

Looks decent. But I''d rather shoot a 24mm 1.4 or 50mm1.4 Prime any day.

Oct 16, 2017permalink

vscd

Yes, but they are WAY larger and have no IS.

Oct 18, 2017permalink

The EF 24, 1.4L is no better optically than the IS primes at a narrower stop than f2.8. I use the 50mm f1.4 if the framing requires 50mm

Oct 18, 2017permalink

Morvegil

I guess you need to hit the gym. I'd rather have 1.4 and not use it, but maybe need it then stick with 2.8. The 2.8 is kind of a waste on a Prime lens, its only acceptable on a Zoom.

Oct 19, 2017permalink

vscd

2.8 is a waste on a primelens. Hmm, that 400mm f2.8 is quite expensive and good. Oh, you mean, smaller ones. I like my 40mm f2.8 pancake. F2.8 is good enough, especially for wide lenses if the size is reasonable.

Oct 19, 2017permalink

Morvegil

I have that 40mm Pancake. Its nice. I only use it in restaurants and stuff. But for street photography at night you need 1.4/

Oct 19, 2017permalink

vscd

No, I don't. Believe me. You would wonder what even an APS-C Ricoh GR with f2.8 is able to do...

Oct 19, 2017permalink

Morvegil, No need to go to the gym. I've spent years carting around 10 kg ENG cameras and 10 kg tripods and lights. The fact is 2.8 zoom lenses have less light transmission ( T stop ) and more vignetting and distortion than 2.8 primes.

Also DXOmark tests ( with 5D3 ) indicate for the EF 35mm f1.4 L II, a T stop of T 1.7... the EF 35mm f2 IS a T stop of T2 . Very little actual light transmission difference. For the f1.4 L II lens the sharpness is 18 mp. For the f2 IS lens the sharpness is 20 mp. Slightly better for the f2 lens. For the f1.4 L II the vignetting is 2.2 ev. For the f2 IS the vignetting is 1.8 ev. Better for the f2 IS lens. For the L lens the CA is very slightly better. More expensive and faster is not always better.
Also for economy air travel with a 7.5 kg carry on limit, lighter is better. I usually carry on the limit.

Oct 20, 2017*permalink

AlonRozen

I admit, I can't see a a clear difference in the pictures between this lens and the results I got either with a Canon 24-105 (first addition) which I used for years (on 5D II) , or my current Sony 24-70 GM (on a Sony a9). I refer to pictures taken with the same focal length. If, at all, the pictures from the Sony 24-70 GM looks a bit sharper.
Isn't the point of prime lens to be much sharper?

Oct 16, 2017*permalink

CameraLabTester

It's an amazing focal length for Full Frame use, wide open.

I had a blast with my Canon FD 28mm f/2.8 on my F1.

With IS and USM, the new baby will continue the relationship...

A most underrated and wallflower lens, but full of surprises.

Oct 16, 2017*permalink

Really nice - I like the lens and the photographer. Too bad it's wasted on such a mediocre/behind the times camera. Ha ha.

Oct 16, 2017*permalink

Stevo, have you tried a 5D4?

Oct 18, 2017permalink

@Graham - it's already outdated, don't think I'll be getting one.

Oct 18, 2017permalink

These days Stevo, its more about the person behind the camera.

Oct 19, 2017permalink

@Graham - yea, I gather that too. It seems that all the mediocre shooters bought 6dii and 5d4.

Oct 19, 2017permalink

Alas, it's true stevo23, we can't always aspire to your greatness.

Oct 20, 2017permalink

@Graham - But I'm humble.

Oct 21, 2017permalink

Djenuwine

28mm is the most usual focal length using today, because it's the current FL of smartphones.
So we used to take picture with that angle, that short distance shooting style.
So we are inspire with it and this pictures prove it.

Oct 15, 2017permalink

calte

'Take a look to see what this little lens can do' - I mainly see what you, the photographer is doing with the lens and that's refreshing and excellent - love it.

Oct 15, 2017permalink

theprehistorian

It's surprising how few decent 28mm primes there are out there. I love it! My GR does most of my wife angle duties but I've got the Sigma Art 24-35 waiting in the wings for when I want more (in absence of a 28/1.4 Art).

As for these reasonably priced golden oldies, I love my Nikkor 35/2 D. Granted it's a bit of a disaster wide open but at f/8 I love it. Fantastic sunstars too.

Oct 15, 2017permalink

(unknown member)

Your wife is lucky you have such a capable camera! :D

Oct 16, 2017permalink

theprehistorian

:D Yeah, that's a damn funny typo! Obviously my phone knows better than I do what I'd like to say...!!

Oct 16, 2017permalink

mahonj

What is the big deal here. I had a 28mm F2.8 in 1979 (Tamron).

Oct 15, 2017permalink

Barney Britton

Future generations shall speak your name with reverence.

Oct 15, 2017permalink

Duckie

I got a 28mm Adaptall F2.5. Liked it a lot even in early days (6MP) of digital.

Oct 16, 2017permalink

smozes

The gallery isn’t working correctly on mobile Safari in landscape mode. The lower 1/4 or so of the image is below the viewable area and it’s impossible to scroll down, because a down gesture dismisses the gallery.

Oct 15, 2017permalink

John Bean (UK)

Hmm. Wonky horizon in featured image is a big turn off. Sloppy photography.

Oct 15, 2017permalink

Carey Rose

Fair point. We have to include uncropped images in the gallery itself, but I've straightened the lead / homepage images.

Oct 15, 2017permalink

Cerf Vola

Meh, the horizon was fine with me before. You don't have to satisfy every photographer's pet peeves. Gary Winogrand certainly wouldn't be bothered by it ;)

Oct 15, 2017permalink

Barney Britton

We've been secretly shortening one of Carey's legs, in tiny degrees, every day now for a year.

Oct 15, 2017permalink

(unknown member)

wouldn't it have been easier and less painful just to screw around with lifts in his shoes?

Oct 15, 2017permalink

Spectro

Or maybe flatten his nose. This problem happens to me on many casual shots since the eye OVF and EVF is right in the middle of the camera. Future evf needs to be to the left side for my right eye. And I don't have a big nose either compare to other. I refuse to tilt my head.

Oct 16, 2017permalink

Sezano

Enough foolishness, or y’all risk not being taken seriously.

Oct 16, 2017permalink

JonBush

A Swiss Army knife of lenses. Some very ice images in the gallery and a good demonstration of the capabilities of this modest lens. A good travel companion.

Oct 15, 2017permalink

JhvaElohimMeth

I don't see the point of this lens. I own the "old" 28mm 1.8 USM. As I can see here my lens performs better at 2.8... maybe the 28 1.8 has a bit less contrast, but more sharpness: and I can go down till 1.8 when needed.

And it costed me just about 300 euro used in mint condition. It doesn't have the stabilizer? Ok, who cares on a 28? Stabilizer doesn't help when you shoot things that move... like people.

Oct 15, 2017permalink

Jon555

Mousing over the image here (so changing from 1.8@2.8 to 2.8 IS) I don't see it, did you have an iffy 2.8 IS?
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=253&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=789&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Oct 15, 2017permalink

JhvaElohimMeth

I use lenses in real world. Maybe if you shoot a brick wall with 28 1.8 you'll notice many imperfection, but, believe me, in real world photography is a really fine lens, that at 2.8 matches easily the newer one

Oct 15, 2017permalink

The question is:
Is it better than SONY's FE 28mm F2? Which is twice faster and $50 cheaper.

Oct 15, 2017permalink

jacson

....And this is a relevant question to Canon shooters how?

Oct 15, 2017permalink

Prognathous

It's relevant to Sony shooters debating between the Canon and the Sony lens ;-)

Oct 15, 2017permalink

I don't believe direct comparisons were made but I fortunately used both, but for video so any sharpness conclusions are 2k and 4K based (2-8 mp).

The 28mm is boring for me. It's the Cell Phone FOV for god's sake, but that also has a lot to say about the importance of it, it's the standard chosen by all phone camera manufacturers for a neutral do-it-all lens. So it's a bit boring, So the extra depth of field of the Sony gives it a better "look" when shot wide open, it really helps. Focuses close too. If I were shooting a film I'd shoot it on the Sony wide open. However even on 1080p (albeit very sharp 1080p) the drop in resolution and corner shading/sharpness/distortion is quite much more severe at F/2. Close it down to 2.8 and it gets much better, the corners clean up and everything looks sharp-ish like the Canon f2.8, but still not quite as sharp. By f/4 they're both tack sharp across the FF frame. TBC

Oct 15, 2017permalink

The Sony feels better built, but the Canon feels that it will last longer as it's so utilitarian and small and mechanical in feel and the focus ring on the Canon is slightly more convenient. Overall just better design/ergonomics yet more plastic. IS is the real star of this show and how smooth and quiet it is. It just has to be more expensive with such a complex IS implementation. Helps video shooting from an utter mess to a cinematic shot. Although on newest A7's you have good IS with the Sony too. Just not as good. More robotic and produces 'jitter" in 24p pans unlike the neutral IS of the Canon lens. TBC

Oct 15, 2017permalink

Overall I feel the Canon is a better lens for those seeking landscape and fine-art and travel and food photography type, while the Sony is more suited for artistic DOF manipulation, much more forgiving on an actress close-up at f/2 with beautiful background blur and more "character" if that's a thing.

Personally, for film, If I had a Sony I'd buy the Sony.

For more straight boring non-artistic work like interviews/corporates/documentaries and such I'd use the Canon with a Canon body for both the better IS and the Canon DPAF, two features that make a huge, huge difference in video shooting experience. I've become addicted to touching that LCD vs turning the focus ring, so if I had a sony camera and was thinking I'd ever get a Canon body (say a 1DxII for 4K60p and DPAF) then sticking to this one is a good choice. If I were a Sony shooter with an E-mount investment, I'd never buy the Canon and fiddle with those Metabones adapters especially not for stills photography!

Oct 15, 2017permalink

These are two sharp, well made lenses from two optics giants. Both produce amazing images. An a7rII + FE 28/2 or a 5DIV + 28/2.8 are both amazing packages.

Oct 15, 2017permalink

Yake

The Canon is the better lens. Period. I have owned and used both. For me, the Canon 28mm is an excellent lens and is worth every penny. The size, design, optics, etc. — all really nice. It draws beautifully, and the vignetting is nice. The Sony 28mm distorts like a $50 lens and is made useable only by heavy-duty digital corrections. There is no comparison. The Sony is definitely not "better built".

Oct 15, 2017*permalink

@Ebrahim Saadawi
Thank you for your quick review :). I agree that they do not compete directly. But I think that $500 for a slow prime lens is a bit much. I'm just trying to understand why this lens even exists. IMHO, Canon should have updated their 20F2.8USM instead. I think that most potential buyers are either getting the 24F2.8IS or the 35F2IS. I can imagine its place in videography though. It is much smaller than wide or standard F2.8 zooms.
I don't think that 28mm is boring. However, if it's boring, then why not 24F2.8IS or 35F2IS? I have the old 28F1.8USM and I rather use my 40F2.8STM for landscaping (stitching) than that lens. Close-ups and portraits is where it shines with its nice and dreamy "retro" bokeh that no cell phone can produce :).

Oct 15, 2017permalink

Well I personally find the 28mm (especially when slower than f/2.8) very boring. A 24mm is far more exciting as a wide lens, and a 35mm is far more exciting as a both wide & close up (Boy I adore that 35mm f/1.4 II).

@The other, The Sony FE28/2 might not be actually better built but it most definitely feel like a much more external solid lens, most Sony primes are more metal than Canon/Nikon which go for all plastic. Which one is better, I don't know. Just talking about the "feel" of it.

Oct 16, 2017permalink

The new 35F1.4L'II is superb, but is it worth the extra $$$ over the Sigma 35F1.4|Art for non-professional use? Specially for video. Because I'm not sure :).

Oct 16, 2017permalink

Worth every penny! That lens is just magic. As you might know in the video world we rent thus the difference between the Canon L and the ART is not that large at all, but the difference is quality is quite large no matter how many say it's close, so much sharper and clearer like looking through crystal clear glass, a look I have never seen in any other lens I've ever used by any manufacturer, and that kind of quality combined with the f/1.4 iris, is just a magical wide look. If I were to ever choose only one lens to use for the rest of my life it'd be this lens with an A7rII, to use as a 50mm f/2 in S35 mode for close ups and a wide 35mm f/1.4 in FF mode.

It's not this conversation anyhow, the 35mm f/2 has an incredibly helpful IS and I think any video shooter should own one in his bag. Shallow DOF and stable just by hand-holding the camera body.

Oct 16, 2017permalink

IMHO, for intense video purposes, a speedboosted Sigma 18-35F1.8Art on a proper Panasonic camera (GH4/GH5) is a winner.

Oct 16, 2017*permalink

I have no exact idea why but I never ever liked Panasonic's image quality and feel. A Sony A7 series or a Canon or a Nikon just make much more pleasing images, more filmic and less soo reaal and video-ish. It's something that can't be explained properly in words!

I've used the 18-35mm on the Canon 1DC about a year back and it covered the entire 4K crop mode surprisingly as the 1DC 4K is pretty close to FF (Just a horizontal 1.25x crop). It's a lovely lens. Just lacks IS. Very sharp at the wide end and pretty good on the 35mm end too. On Sony with IBIS it would be even better, on say an A7rII in S35 mode. It's like a super kit lens for an a7rII...

Oct 16, 2017permalink

Something like that :)
Yes, the 18-35F1.8 almost covers an APS-H frame, with a bit of vignetting past 28mm (I think). And no problems for video. Many people like to use it on the a6500 via speedboster.

Oct 17, 2017permalink

As a normal spectator with no huge video knowledge, can you see the Panasonic videos to look distinctly different (video-like) from the other cameras like the A7 and Canons/Nikons?

Just curious

Oct 17, 2017permalink

It's not really about the look. It's about the workflow, tool flexibility, versatility and all the important things like battery life, fps, bitrates, flippy touch screen, IBIS, non-overheating, clean HDMI out, price, etc. Judging a tool by the out of context final product is just silly. Same as all the FF vs crop "which is which" guessing BS snapshot comparison galleries, which are meant to fool people. The looks are done in post-processing.

Oct 17, 2017permalink

So you believe the video-ish IQ feel I speak of is a post-processing error rather than a camera being better than the other in that specific area?

Oct 17, 2017permalink

"Betterness" is not some kind of magical camera property. Better cameras are better to work with for very specific reasons in specific circumstances and for a reasonable price. It is possible to make a $10000 camera footage and a cell phone camera footage to look similar (which I believe has been done numerous times already), but it doesn't mean that they are comparable. Every camera can potentially be better at something, on a spectrum. And every operator can potentially fail at taking advantage of those better camera features or in post-processing. Everything is measurable/quantifiable and the rest is just a superstitious nonsense.

Oct 18, 2017permalink

But of course when the user is the same (you), and the method is that same, a camera can be "better" than another. By a big, big margin that's enough to make or break the resulting photo/video right?

Post processing and skill can only change so much, the camera's inherent image quality coming off the card is my most valued criteria unlike you say workflow is to you. Workflow is important, a GH4 is easier and smaller and has more features than a 1DC, but I wonder why I keep renting the 1DC and left off the GH4 much superior workflow/ergonomics/ease of use, when I think about it, only the image mattered to me,

and not even all the aspects of IQ like Res, DR, Noise, but just actual "feel" I get viewing the images is enough for me. And it's that darn specific criterion that I CANNOT define well enough to analyze scientifically like all other aspects of an image!

Oct 18, 2017permalink

Post-processing and skill can change a lot actually. Let's not blame neither the camera nor the photographer for everything. Because it's both, always. However, it's your fault if you are choosing wrong tools for the job, or using right ones in a wrong way. Most people are lazy, me included. And they expect their new shiny expensive gear to work perfectly to their taste right out of the box. Which is just impossible, because different people like different things. But you can calibrate your camera to produce the right "look". I do like Canon Camera Standard profile, but I've messed around with all kinds of images from various cameras and it is possible to make them (most of them) look like Canon. So, perhaps the lack of trying could be the only problem.
Not sure why GH4 size makes any difference to you. The whole pro setup is still huge, specially with the DMW-YAGH unit. I'd say just as big as 1DC.

Oct 18, 2017permalink