On Dec 22, 2008, at 9:14 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
I compared them when I was shooting with Canon gear. The EF
28/1.8USM was
one of my favorite lenses. At least on the 10D, it produced very
sharp,
contrasty photos and had nice imaging qualities. I paid $390 for
it, new, in
2003.
Like most Canon lenses, it was somewhat lacking in character, but I
wouldn't
call it a dog. The Sigma I tried was dung.
I've never tried it on a crop, but did on film during my fling with
the EOS 3. Soft wide open, not a lot of contrast, gets better when
stopped down but never gets great, and that's the general consensus on
the lens from everyone I know who has used it other than you. The
Sigma is variable but a good copy is a lot better performer than the
Canon.
It's myths like this that I heard over and over again when I was
looking for a lens around this focal length for the 10D in 2003. So I
went to my dealer friend and borrowed the highly lauded EF 35/2, the
EF 28/1.8 and the Sigma 28mm. I set up a standard contrast/resolution
target and tested them all at all apertures, then shot several dozen
triplets of different subject with them to evaluate imaging
characteristics.
My results showed that the 35/2 was indeed the sharpest of the bunch
but had horrible out of focus imaging. The Sigma's out of focus
imaging was similarly awful and it had very poor sharpness until f/
5.6. The Canon 28/1.8 wasn't quite as sharp as the 35mm f/2 wide open,
but had good imaging and excellent sharpness even at f/2-2.8.
Since by that point I already didn't care a wit about 35mm format, I
bought the Canon 28mm lens and made many many very satisfying photos
with it. It became my most-used, standard lens on the 10D.
Godfrey
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
