Canon EF 28mm f/2.8 Lens for Canon SLR Cameras

Other products by Canon  | See collection 

Product Details

Product Manual [830kb PDF]

• Product Dimensions: 3.8 x 3.8 x 3.6 inches ; 4 ounces
• Shipping Weight: 1 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Shipping: Currently, item can be shipped only within the U.S.
• ASIN: B00006I53T
• Item model number: 2505A002
• Average Customer Review: 3.8 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (10 customer reviews)
• Date first available at Amazon.com: September 22, 2002

Product Description

Amazon.com Product Description

Designed for Canon SLR cameras, the highly portable Canon EF 28mm f/2.8 wide-angle lens offers a terrific price-to-performance ratio. The lens offers a fast f/2.8 aperture that makes it easy to use in low light, providing a bright viewfinder image in the camera. The lens also focuses as close as 10 inches without accessories. And optically, it provides excellent edge-to-edge contrast and sharpness while correcting for linear distortion, ensuring that straight lines in a photographic subject--such as architecture--remain straight. Other features include a 75-degree diagonal angle of view, a 52mm filter diameter, and a one-year warranty.

Specifications

• Focal length: 28mm
• Maximum aperture: f/2.8
• Lens construction: 5 elements in 5 groups
• Diagonal angle of view: 75 degrees
• Focus adjustment: Overall linear extension system with AFD
• Close focusing distance: 1 foot
• Filter size: 52mm
• Corresponding mounts: Canon
• Dimensions: 2.7 inches in diameter and 1.7 inches long
• Weight: 6.5 ounces
• Warranty: 1 year

Product Description

28mm wide angle lens for Canon cameras

See all Product Description

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

34 of 38 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Ideal waterfall lens, April 30, 2005

By	Scott Burgess (California) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

Waterfall lovers will appreciate a 28mm lens, and the Canon f/2.8 is no exception. A 24mm lens often puts you into the spray zone. A 35mm lens isn't as dramatic. 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. In my experience, the ultrawide aperture lenses are harder to optically correct and seldom noticeably better--but they are noticeably heavier and more expensive. While the wide aperture might help with shooting action, 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.

25 of 29 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Before you buy this lens!, April 6, 2006

By	A. Aljabri (Chicago) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

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.

8 of 8 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars So-so. But worth considering., May 7, 2007

By	Matt - See all my reviews

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).