Buy Canon EF 28mm f/2.8 Lens for Canon SLR CamerasCanon EF 28mm f/2.8 Lens for Canon SLR Cameras Product Description:
- 28mm and light weight
- Aperture of 2.8
- Wide Angle features
- It has a lens cap
Product Description
Designed for Canon SLR cameras.
Customer Reviews
Most helpful customer reviews
67 of 79 people found the following review helpful.
Before you buy this lens!
By Abdulrahman Aljabri
Make sure you buy it with the knowledge that you won't be able to use it to the full extent a wide angle lens is used to. Otherwise you will be severely disappointed with this lens. But just how so?I know a photographer that uses this lens for wedding photography with her 10D. For her the lens does the job wonderfully. The lens takes sharp pictures, is light enough to haul around in a wedding, and wide enough on a 1.6 form factor camera to provide sufficient field of view for such event. The field of view on a 1.6 form factor camera would be equivalent to 45mm on full format; almost normal view.I on the other hand used my 28mm lens for nature photography, and let me tell you the results were not just disappointing but down right useless! Simply stated, you will not be able to use high contrast/saturation landscape and nature pictures that are procuded by this lens. The bright sun will cause sever chromatic aberration in your pictures. Hence, the fringes of trees and light poles for example will display the dreaded discoloration (with this lens the color is generally purple). Every tree branch at the top corners will become purple at the fringes. Those are truly unacceptable results.Now for the big question, is it possible that I had a bad copy? Probably not. After being so disappointed I researched this lens extensively (especially on Fred Miranda site) and found that others had the same problem. In fact, its overall score on that site was 7.4 at the time of my research, thus my 3 star rating. After learning the facts I decided to return the lens instead of exchanging it with another one. Since then I have ordered a 17-40 L.Should you order it? This lens is a great value. In fact, I rank it as a best value lens after the 50mm 1.8 in the lower end range of Canon prime lenses. Nonetheless, don't expect to take stunning nature photos with it; otherwise chromatic aberration will stun you!PS. I agree with most of what a previous reviewer mentioned in his post, but wonder if he owns a good copy. This lens has been in production for a while and there may be a difference in quality between various batches out there.
50 of 58 people found the following review helpful.
Ideal waterfall lens
By Scott Burgess
Waterfall lovers will appreciate a 28mm lens, and the Canon f/2.8 is no exception. A 24mm lens often puts me into the spray zone. A 35mm lens to me lacks drama. I prefer fixed focal length lenses for waterfalls and similar landscapes to eliminate the ghosting that blemishes photos taken with zoom lenses: this lens has fewer groups/elements, consequently fewer internal reflections. I sometimes couple this lens with a 12mm Kenko extension tube to create dramatic closeups of flowers.Don't feel the more expensive f/1.4 is a "better" lens just from the higher price. In my experience, the ultrawide aperture lenses are harder to optically correct and seldom much sharper--but they are noticeably heavier and more expensive. While the wide aperture might help with shooting action or portraits, you should ask yourself if a significant fraction of your photos require this. Otherwise you're paying money for nothing.In short, this inexpensive lens is a solid performer and a great value.Update February 2013: Canon has now replaced this version of the lens with a bulkier f/2.8 with image stabilization. The optical formulation looks like a revision of this lens--there are more groups/elements, and the new lens is a little sharper overall, but the MTF curves look very similar between the two lenses. I bought this lens for $150, while the new version is clocking in at $650. Have to say that I am disappointed about this--a sharp, lower-cost f/2.8 without IS would be preferable, in my view. I have no need for image stabilization for most wide-angle work as I tend to do landscapes with that focal length. The irony is that the older (and lower quality) f/1.8 is now the less expensive lens.If I had to buy today, I would lean toward the new f/2.8 but before purchasing I would take a long look at the Zeiss Distagon 28mm f/2 lens, or to go wider maybe the Canon 24mm II Tilt-Shift. The Zeiss lens is sharp and supports high-resolution sensors, though the corners are soft wide-open (but better than the Canon 28mm f/1.8), and it is manual focus only. The tilt-shift is also manual-focus, but the sharpness is fantastic and the new version is lighter than the first. On all of the lenses today, I would look hard at ghosting since this would be my waterfall lens; renting first (eg: LensRentals.com) would give me the option of trying before buying.I believe Canon is prepping their lens lineup for higher resolution SLR sensors to be released in the next few years--perhaps as high as 40Mp (that is about 40% more resolution than a 20 Mp camera, and older lenses generally lack sufficient resolving power to support this). That explains why lenses are being revised and prices are rising dramatically. But I also believe there is a market for sharp, light-weight non-stabilized lenses for landscape photographers who know how to use a tripod, even if they have a smaller widest aperture. I suspect that third party manufacturers will fulfill the needs of such advanced amateurs if Canon doesn't provide sensibly-priced alternatives themselves.
19 of 20 people found the following review helpful.So-so. But worth considering.
By Matt
I bought this lens for a couple of reasons. First of all, I picked it up REALLY cheap used (and you can get it quite cheap even new). Secondly, I really wanted a standard-view lens for my Rebel XT. But honestly, I can't say that I am extremely impressed with it. Simply put, the sharpness is just not there like it is with, say, the 20mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, or 50mm f/1.4. In fact, sharpness ranges from equal to worse than the 28-105mm (depending on aperture). There also seems to be somewhat of a decentering effect, where the right side of the picture is ESPECIALLY soft. And chromatic aberrations are on the high side. Honestly, I don't now how Canon went wrong with this lens, as the 35mm f/2 is a VERY similar design and actually a GREAT lens. Oh, and like the 35mm f/2, build quality leaves something to be desired.On the other hand, it IS better than the kit zoom. And even though it really can't beat the 28-105mm in terms of sharpness, it DOES beat that lens in terms of contrast and color saturation. Oh, and it is cheap. So it may at least be worth considering. But overall, I would pass on this lens in favor of the MUCH better 35mm f/2. Of course, the 35mm f/2 is somewhat pricier than this lens (but well worth it).
Latest Price: See on Amazon.com!
More Info: See on Amazon.com!
See Customers Review: See on Amazon.com!
