File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Captain /p/,

what is sharper, or which one is overall better, focal length differences aside (because that's just taste and I'd probably do with either)?

EF 28mm F2.8 or 35mm F2?
>> Anonymous
The 35mm should be better

Just by logic, the 28 can't go any lower than 2.8, EVER. If you stop down the 35mm at 2.8, it should be better already than wide open.
>> Anonymous
28mm 1.8
>> Anonymous
>>157948
dont have that cash
>> Anonymous
>>157946
This is a reasonable assumption, but it's not necessarily true. Some lenses are just better than others, either in design or the sort of glass used, or whatever. Other lenses perform better opened up than others. I have no clue about either of these lenses.

Also, making this reasonable assumption, it also follows that the 28/2.8 would be able to be stopped down farther before it hits diffraction. If the OP works mainly at smaller apertures, the lens that will stop down farther and still be good will be better. If he works mainly at larger apertures, the lens with the larger sharpest aperture will be best.

And lastly, technical performance doesn't really matter much; aesthetic performance does. OP should run a Flickr search for the two lenses and pick the one he likes the look of best for the work he wants to do with it.
>> Anonymous
>>157946
>>157953

Anons' replies very much appreciated, thanks guys. I tried both focal lengths on my 28-75 zoom (too heavy for a 'standard' walkaround lens) and there doesn't seem to be much of an angle difference, at least on crop. Might take a bit more thought if I buy a film body as my secondary camera.

Also I like doing both kinds of work, low dof/ deep dof. Both night street photography and passenger seat photography (usually with lower aps).

I'll look into it. Again, I appreciate your advice
>> Anonymous
>>157956
Yeah, just look at a ton of sample pics, get a feel for the look produced by the lenses, and decide based on which one you'd prefer for your work. Unless you really need that extra stop.

Also look into the Sigma 28/1.8. Cheaper than the Canon. I understand (never seen one in person) it's huge, though, so if you're looking for a small lens that probably won't be your call.
>> Anonymous
Yeah, kinda looking for a small 'normal' lens. (50 1.8 is often very narrow). 77mm lens thread on the Sigma is fucking huge!
>> I||ICIT !!mknjFN/v/49
if you can live not being able to use it on your film, may i lastly suggest the sigma 30?

dunno how it compares in price but you should consider it if its close. nice and fast! pretty sharp, even better stopped down yada yada yada you know the rest ;)
>> Anonymous
>>158024
Sigma 30 is huge and IIRC $6xx USD.
>> Anonymous
>>158025
$429 on B&H, slightly heavier than Canon's 50/1.4. Can be uncomfortable with Rebel XT(i) because it leaves little room for the fingers.
>> Anonymous
>>158070
Huh. Might be slightly heavier, but it's mch larger. Nice thing about a lens like the 50/1.4 is that it fits in a good-sized pocket.
>> Anonymous
>>158024
A good suggestion but I'm a cheap bastard. I don't think I'd like to spend over 300 on a lens I cant use both in full frame and crop. More so if it's a fast prime like that.