Apples

Apples

by Garik

submit your photo


Picture of the Week Themes
Suggest and vote on themes

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Tell me more ×
Photography Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional, enthusiast and amateur photographers. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 4 down vote favorite

I have a Canon 500D/T1i with the kit 18-55mm IS lens. I need to replace the kit lens with a prime as a work around lens. I usually take photos of streets, people etc., and use the 20-35mm range of the kit lens.

I am planning to buy the Canon 28mm f/2.8, as it's very cheap, but could not find any resources comparing it to the kit lens.

I want to know if the 28mm f/2.8 is very sharp and good compared to the 18-55mm. Remember I am going to use the 28 as a work-around lens and get rid of the 18-55, so hopefully I'll zoom with my feet.

Or, should I instead save a bit more for the 35mm f/2 ? My budget is less than $300.

share|improve this question

6 Answers

up vote 2 down vote accepted

Yes, if you're absolute sure about the preference of your focal length, Canon EF 28mm f/2.8 would be ideal for you. If you compare ISO Chart crops of the 28mm lens @f/2.8 and 18-55mm lens @28mm and @f/4.0, the 28mm is a lot sharper in the center, almost same in the mid-frame and slightly worse in the corner. As you'll be using the lens (which is an EF lens) on a crop sensor camera, you wont be suffering much around the corners. Please note that the 28mm f/2.8 does not have USM and its very noisy in AF. This might place you in an awkward situation while shooting in a quite environment.

Now about the 35mm f/2.0, it has slightly upper hand in low light conditions, but might be just a little too tight to be used as an all purpose lens. I'd recommend the 28mm f/1.8 USM lens (which is 200$ over your budget but have USM and better build quality) over 35mm f/2.0 for you if you had budget.

And don't just get rid of the 18-55mm lens as in throw it away/sell it off. I saw a lot of people who did and later regretted :)

share|improve this answer
Thanks for the iso comparison, it's really great I'll keep the kit lens too :) – Amila Sep 15 '11 at 13:20
I have the 28mm f/1.8 and it is a lovely lens, really sharp. I recommend it if you can afford it. – Hamish Downer Sep 17 '11 at 16:30
up vote 1 down vote

any prime will be superior to any kitlens. That's a law of nature :)
So even without having ever used either, I can say decisively that yes, the 28mm f/2.8 will be superior to the kitlens.

share|improve this answer
1  
The 28mm f/2.8 was released in 1987. Its as old as the entire EOS system. Your assumption that every prime is better then every kit lens is flawed. This lens does not compare to many of the higher end kit lenses out today. – dpollitt Sep 16 '11 at 0:23
up vote -1 down vote

I would not get rid of that lens, even if getting something that replaces it. It's optical quality is quite OK, and while build quality and speed are low, it's small, inexpensive and light. Considering you won't get much money out of selling a kit lens, these properties can come handy in future.

If travelling by foot in questionable weather conditions, for example, a lens that's light to carry and not a big financial loss if weather takes some toll might be just what you need.

share|improve this answer
I totally agree, but strictly speaking this is not an answer. – MattiaG Sep 15 '11 at 9:47
up vote 0 down vote

Generally speaking, prime (fixed) lenses such as the 28mm will always be sharper (particularly towards the edge of the image) than your zoom lens.

That said, I'd save up for your 35mm f/2, which will approximate a 50mm focal length on your crop (APS-C) sensor.

There is no question your 18-55mm is more versatile, but it is also a "slower" lens, in that the maximum aperture is smaller. In short, the 18-55mm will not perform as well as the 28mm or the 35mm in low-light.

share|improve this answer
28mm x 1.6 = 45mm, while 35mm x 1.6 = 56mm. But 50mm is technically a bit long for "normal" on full frame — 43mm is the diagonal, so arguably shorter is more "correct". – mattdm Sep 15 '11 at 2:15
up vote 0 down vote

First, I wouldn't suggest getting rid of the kit zoom, it's very versatile and optically decent, and nobody would give you more than 50$ for it.

I also wouldn't suggest 28mm as an all-purpose lens, it's a nice wide angle on full frame cameras but its focal length is not very useful on crop sensor cameras; not wide enough for landscape, not long enough for detail/portrait.

The canon 35mm f/2 is a good lens giving you what classic 50mm gives on full frame, it's in your budget (actually a tad more). The 50mm f/1.8 is good and cheaper (about 120$) but a bit limiting.

EDIT: in the end comments here made me re-think my answer; I still recommend 35mm, but if you like the framing and build quality, get the 28mm and I'm sure you'll have lots of fun (don't get it if the only reason is saving a little money). It is the photographer that matters in the end; we're making a big fuss over nothing, a common problem here on photo.SE. That's why lately I loved this question: it's about photography.

share|improve this answer
If he's already determined that he spends most of his time in the 20-35mm - I'm not sure why the 28mm length wouldn't be appropriate? – rfusca♦ Sep 14 '11 at 18:38
2  
Actually on the 1.6x crop of Canon, 28mm is closer to "classic 50mm" than 35mm. photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1104 – drewbenn Sep 14 '11 at 18:39
@rfusca - What I said in my answer; I think it's a bit too wide for some things, but not really wide enough for others (dramatic perspectives, some landscape). Maybe it's only me :-) – MattiaG Sep 14 '11 at 19:07
@drewbenn - you are right, it didn't occur to me; I think, however, one gets closer to the feeling of the "normal" focal length with some millimeters more than with some less. I experienced this with both the sigma 30mm and the nikon 35mm on my aps-c nikon DSLR (1.5x crop factor, yes, but we're talking 28mm here so it's quite the same); it's actually easy to see 30mm is a bit wide, different from a 50mm on full frame cameras, while 35mm is very similar in rendition of distances. – MattiaG Sep 14 '11 at 19:22
2  
The Sigma 30 f1.4 EX is excellent, check it out. May have to find it used to stay in your budget – cmason Sep 14 '11 at 20:05
up vote 0 down vote

Photozone.de has tests of the following lenses on a Canon 350D:

Granted, it's not the camera you're using, nor exactly the same version of the 18-55mm, but may have some pointers towards a comparison.

Personally I enjoy shooting a 28mm on my APS-C Nikon D200, it's a nice normal field-of-view and is a compact package.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.