Anyone used the Canon EF 28mm f2.8?

Barks · 18 Aug 2011 at 21:15

Quite a few people on here suggested I grab the Canon 50mm Prime f1.8 MKII lens on here as a bargain lens to go with my new camera.

I've been looking around for something wider and stumbled across this. Would this be better for landscape shots than the 50mm?

In short is it worth shelling out an extra £80 or so for this over the 50mm? A Google search suggestions that people praise the 50mm for being a highly creative lens with an almost sporadic character. Also bear in mind I wanted the 50mm for video work but I'm off travelling before that so I'd now be looking at whichever lens of the two would be the best travelling companion.

Many thanks,

greedy123 · 18 Aug 2011 at 21:29

Which camera have you got? Tbh I wouldn't clasify either as landscape lenses, the 50mm def isn't. For travelling a zoom lens would be more ideal in my opinion. Maybe the 28-135mm.

BusError · 18 Aug 2011 at 21:30

What body ?

28mm will certainly be more versatile than a 50mm on a crop body; a 50mm on a crop is already a rather "narrow" field of view; the 28mm will act a lot more like a 'traditional' 40-50 standard lens...

However, a 28mm f2.8 is really nothing special. and ~>150 for one is rather insulting. If you want the wider angle AND the "creative" look of a fast lens, you could have a look at the Sigma 30mm 1.4 -- I got one of these, and it is a pretty nice lens...

Otherwise, for video (manual focus?) you could pick any of the myriads of 28mm f2.8 available second hand and buy an adapter (m42 to EOS for example, about £5). Most of them are excellent, especialy on a crop camera...

m3csl2004 · 18 Aug 2011 at 22:08

I had one for a while. Can take decent photos, but it's not as sharp as the nifty by a long way, and soft in the corners until stopped down a lot.

A Canon 28-105 USM II is a cheap versatile lens.

Barks · 18 Aug 2011 at 22:09

It's a Canon 550D with the 18-55 kit lens.

The Sigma lens looks pretty good but would I not be better going with the Canon 1.8 50mm and saving up for a decent wide angle lens? If I can get some 'creative' shots with the 50mm lens and decent video results (next project will involve shooting footage at night) then that would keep me happy for the time being.

feriso · 18 Aug 2011 at 23:24

Consider the Tamrom 17-50 f/2.8 you can get shots with it

Barks · 19 Aug 2011 at 01:18

feriso said:
Consider the Tamrom 17-50 f/2.8 you can get shots with it

That looks pretty good and slightly more affordable.

Noob Photographer Question - How does this differ to the kit lens 18-55? If I zoom right out (not sure what the technical term is for this) will I get more of what's in front of me squeezed into the image with this Tamron lens?

adamau5 · 19 Aug 2011 at 07:27

barely, 17 vs 18 isnt much. its just a much better quality image, and f2.8 has many advantages, better low light, more background blur.

Its a fantastic lens, one which i wouldnt hesitate to recommend to anyone. Go for the non vc version

Amp34 · 19 Aug 2011 at 13:42

People recommend the 50mm because it's cheap... Most end up stored in the bottom of their bag never seeing the light of day.

The 28 f/2.8 isn't very good either tbh (well it's not bad, just nothing special).
The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is ok, but is known to be soft at the edges, which isn't very good for landscape work, but good for people shots and others where there is a main subject close to the middle.

I currently have the 35mm f/2. It's a reasonably old lense now but very nice (sharp and small, whereas the sigma is massive in comparison, something you probably want to think about if you're travelling). The main issue is it's just a little long for a lot of things and when I upgrade if I get another prime it will be the Canon 28mm f/1.8, the bigger (and more expensive brother) of the one in the OP.

The Tamron is ok, very sharp and tiny (not much bigger than the kit lens). I managed to break mine within a week of having it though (electrical problems) so am a bit wary about them... It's well built but very plasticky and feels like even looking at it would make it fall apart... It's certainly no 35 f/2 or L lense (or Tokina) in the build quality/beating sense!

adamau5 · 19 Aug 2011 at 15:50

Amp34 said:
The Tamron is ok, very sharp and tiny (not much bigger than the kit lens). I managed to break mine within a week of having it though (electrical problems) so am a bit wary about them... It's well built but very plasticky and feels like even looking at it would make it fall apart... It's certainly no 35 f/2 or L lense (or Tokina) in the build quality/beating sense!

my 17-50 felt really solid and if i hadnt moved to full frame would be the most used lens by far. They look and feel more solid than the kit lens.

Capt Doufos · 19 Aug 2011 at 16:07

I bought a 24mm f2.8 for my USA trips, but I do a lot of Landscapes. Very impressed with it.

Razor-BladE · 19 Aug 2011 at 16:32

I had the Tamron 17-50mm and I thought it's well built. Great size and sharpness.
Although I swapped it for the Sigma 10-20mm and 30mm, as I wanted something wider and faster (not together obv).

I found the 50mm (which I had before the Tamron) too long on a crop body.

Barks · 20 Aug 2011 at 20:27

Razor-BladE said:
I had the Tamron 17-50mm and I thought it's well built. Great size and sharpness.
Although I swapped it for the Sigma 10-20mm and 30mm, as I wanted something wider and faster (not together obv).

I found the 50mm (which I had before the Tamron) too long on a crop body.

I'm going to stretch my budget and go with one of those Sigma lenses.

Which would be the best travelling companion for landscape shots? I'm guessing the 10-22. Which version is your one?

Cheers

Razor-BladE · 20 Aug 2011 at 20:53

Nice one, you won't regret it!

The Canon 10-22mm would be the 'best' but comes in at ~£410 second hand.

The Sigma 10-20mm 3.5-5.6, the one that I have, is a good compromise and is about £240-£300 second hand. Don't go for the constant 3.5 one because apparently it's not as sharp as the 3.5-5.6, and it's more expensive anyway.

Another recommended lens is the Tokina 12-24mm which has better IQ than the Sigma supposedly, but doesn't go as wide. So it depends whether you think you'll use the 10mm and 11mm.

BusError · 21 Aug 2011 at 12:36

Personally I find 10mm a bit extreme; and having the top end at 22mm will limit you in composition too (50mm is after all, quite useful even in landscape).
I've been using the Sigma 18-50 EX DC f2.8 for many years and I'm quite happy with it tho; on the odd occasion where I need 'wider' I either use my 8mm fisheye lens or I stitch a few frames together...

I'm fairly sure the equivalents from Tamron/Tokina are also very good...

Barks · 26 Aug 2011 at 00:53

I'm scouting eBay at the moment for bargains. I'm after a wide angle so I'm watching the Sigma 10-22 and the Tokina 12-24. Does anyone have any other suggestions I should consider? Usually I would be patient enough to wait for the right price and the right lens but time is an issue as I'm off travelling in just over a week.

I've just discovered the Tamron 19-35mm which is much cheaper than the others. Anyone know much about this?

Cheers

Amp34 · 26 Aug 2011 at 01:42

adamau5 said:
my 17-50 felt really solid and if i hadnt moved to full frame would be the most used lens by far. They look and feel more solid than the kit lens.

Than the kit lens yes... Compared to anything in any of the brands "pro" ranges it is terrible, alongside the solidness of a lot of canons consumer lenses, that's the problem.

the tamron isn't brilliant from what I remember.

BusError · 27 Aug 2011 at 10:34

scott212 said:
I've just discovered the Tamron 19-35mm which is much cheaper than the others. Anyone know much about this?

Actually I just bought a Tamron 19-35 for my 5dII, to give it a try as a "keep on camera" lens for landscape. Yes it's cheap (about 70 quid, second hand) it's a fairly nice lens, AF seems pretty good, and image (at first glance) looks pretty nice so so far, so good.

My next buy is going to be the Samyang 14mm...

Barks · 27 Aug 2011 at 20:51

I've ended up with...

Canon EF 50mm f1.8 MK II
I really like this lens, I've been doing some video work with it and it simply provides breathtaking shots. It's not really ideal for photography but with video work were you have all the time in the world to position the camera, focus and film creatively it is absolutely fantastic.

Sigma 10-20mm F4/5.6 EX DC HSM
Won this today on eBay and paid 250 odd for it, going based purely on advice from these forums. Hopefully should take delivery late next week.

Planning on taking these two with the kit lens to China. So ideally I could have done with a telephoto lens but I had one for my old Nikon and never really used past 70mm so I reckon these three lenses should give me plenty of flexibility.

Thanks for the advice chaps.

theheyes · 30 Aug 2011 at 22:06

I have both of those lenses and it wouldn't surprise me at all if you ended up with the 50mm 1.8 on your camera most of the time while you're travelling. It's a bit flimsy, the focusing ring is scratchy and generally crap and it's a little long on a crop camera but it's so convenient, light, inconspicuous and takes great pictures. Mine may well end up in the bottom of my kit bag but only when I buy another similar prime in replacement.

As for the Sigma 10-20mm... it surprises (positively) and disappoints me in equal measure if I'm honest. Firstly I only ever use it at either 10 or 20mm (and not in between) and at f/8, f/11 or f/16. I find it pretty hopeless at other focal lengths and apertures and therefore it's pretty much married to my tripod. Your mileage may vary of course, but there's no way I'd trust it as your walkaround lens (if that's your plan) based on my experience. You can take some great shots but subject and composition is king with this lens as you don't have very much wiggle room in post due to the softness and distortion outside of the centre of the frame, and you won't wow anyone on image quality alone. For me, you will have to be far more "creative" with the Sigma to get the best out of it.

To offer some additional advice, I would try to avoid the temptation of pigeonholing certain lenses for certain tasks. To use the 50mm 1.8 purely for video and no other purpose would be a real waste of a good lens that is much sharper and has a much larger aperture than your other two. I've taken some great landscape shots with mine (one of which ended up in a newspaper) as well as portraits, close ups of flowers etc. Probably my best landscape picture to date I recently had printed onto canvas was taken with my 70-200 f/4L - at 200mm no less. So just remember that landscape doesn't necessarily equal wide angle (and vice versa) and put those lenses through their paces!