Canon 28mm f2.8 poor for landscape?

[griff19690]

I am looking at getting this lens but have been warned that the CAs are so bad that it cannot be used for landscape/nature photography.  Does anyone know how true this is?

[ashley]

I am looking at getting this lens but have been warned that the CAs are so bad that it cannot be used for landscape/nature photography.  Does anyone know how true this is?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208843\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have this lens which I purchased second hand several years ago and I can't say I use it that often but I have never been particularly struck by problems of CA. Optically its OK but nothing special on the 1Ds II. I did a side by side test on a tripod a while back against my Tamron 28-75 and the Tamron was sharper at the apertures I tested which surprised me.

[CJL]

It's a very under-rated lens, that will handily outperform many of Canon's L-series wide zooms.  For the low purchase cost, it's certainly worth checking out.

[nemophoto]

I have both the 28/2.8 and the 35/2. I've stopped using them because of poor results. For me at least, I've had superior results with both the 17-40 and the 24-70. In fact, I slightly smashed my 24-70, had Canon repair/rebuild it and it still produces far superior results to my 28 and 35 with my 1Ds Mark II and Mark III. Personally, if I were to buy a fixed focal wide-angle, I'd go for the 28/1.8 this time.

[semillerimages]

I just had a 30x45" print of this image made, using my 28 f2.8 lens and an 8 stop neutral density filter... and it looks awesome. Maybe my copy is a good one, but I would never sell it

*steve

[Bill Caulfeild-Browne]

I just had a 30x45" print of this image made, using my 28 f2.8 lens and an 8 stop neutral density filter... and it looks awesome. Maybe my copy is a good one, but I would never sell it

*steve
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210862\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I've never thought much of Canon's WA lenses, but I REALY like your image!
Bill

[Bill Caulfeild-Browne]

I've never thought much of Canon's WA lenses, but I REALY like your image!
Bill
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210908\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Make that REALLY!
B

[lovell]

I've long ago replaced my 28mm F2.8 prime with the 24L, and so what I remember about it is that it was a fine under-rated lens.  At F8 or F11 it was razor sharp, however I always thought it lacked contrast, and general punch; the type that nearly all L lenses provide.  But to the question, yes it will be good for F8/F11 landscapes.

[Plekto]

Lovell beat me to it.    

As with most 2.8 and faster lenses, the last two stops aren't really useable if you want to maintain absolute sharpness. Though, as with most lenses, the last two stop aren't useable either, so it still nets you a little better results.  It's a good lens, though, and fine for trips and other daytime/outdoors scenery.  

Myself, I'd buy the 1.8 instead.  It's sharper because you can actually get good results if you use it at 2.8 or 4.0, while the 2.8 just isn't razor sharp at the edges until about 8.0.

[semillerimages]

Thank you kindly Bill

*steve

Make that REALLY!
B
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210909\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]