[Christos]

I am thinking about purchasing this lens for my 7D because as at the moment I can't afford the 35 1.4L, but I am also wondering about the EF 35 f2 if it is much better than the 28 1.8, is sharpness between these 2 about the same? reason is I would like a nice prime for inside low light, museums exc, thanks

[allanmb]

[quote name='Christos' date='14 June 2010 - 11:54 AM' timestamp='1276512899' post='487']

I am thinking about purchasing this lens for my 7D because as at the moment I can't afford the 35 1.4L, but I am also wondering about the EF 35 f2 if it is much better than the 28 1.8, is sharpness between these 2 about the same? reason is I would like a nice prime for inside low light, museums exc, thanks

[/quote]



Since you have the 7D I would seriously consider the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. If you get a good copy it can really shine.



Allan

[Christos]

[quote name='allanmb' date='14 June 2010 - 11:56 AM' timestamp='1276513002' post='488']

Since you have the 7D I would seriously consider the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. If you get a good copy it can really shine.



Allan

[/quote]Well I just sold my Sigma 30 1.4 it is the 2nd copy I sold as both needed to go in for calibration and even then I had a problem with AF in low light, so no Sigma for me thanks

[allanmb]

[quote name='Christos' date='14 June 2010 - 12:08 PM' timestamp='1276513712' post='489']

Well I just sold my Sigma 30 1.4 it is the 2nd copy I sold as both needed to go in for calibration and even then I had a problem with AF in low light, so no Sigma for me thanks

[/quote]



In that case I believe the 28/1.8 is the more solid AF performer of the two you mention :-)

Allan

[Rainer]

Given that the difference in focal length between the 28 and the 35 doesn't matter,

I think in most situation you will be more satisfied by the 28.



It is better build, has the faster AF (also certainly the more silent one), it usually

produces slightly better contrast. .... except if straylight or contralight hits the lens

in that case, the 28 will lose contrast very soon, while the 35 remains usable quite

well.

[Christos]

[quote name='Rainer' date='14 June 2010 - 02:53 PM' timestamp='1276523633' post='498']

Given that the difference in focal length between the 28 and the 35 doesn't matter,

I think in most situation you will be more satisfied by the 28.



It is better build, has the faster AF (also certainly the more silent one), it usually

produces slightly better contrast. .... except if straylight or contralight hits the lens

in that case, the 28 will lose contrast very soon, while the 35 remains usable quite

well.

[/quote]Thanks, I ordered the 28 1.8 a couple hours ago

[wim]

It's a great little lens. IMO, for real life use it outperforms the 85 F/1.8 quite easily. Usable at F/1.8, very good at F/2. I used it and a 50 F/1.8 Mk I plus 85 F/1.8 as a cheap low light trio, which I all replaced with time with their L "equivalents" (85 first... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' />). However, when I got the 24L, I felt it was a shame to sell the 28, because it was that good. I only did in the end, 9 months or so later, because it just didn't get any camera time anymore. Fortunately, I found a very good home for it, and if need be, I can still borrow it <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.



Lovely lens, much underrated.



Kind regards, Wim