Aside from all the technological goodies what is the difference between this lens and the 35mm f2.8 Macro ? Is the Macro optically better ?
1114827
The Macro is better optically and sharper at f2.8. The bokeh might be softer at 2.4 but at a cost of sharpness especially at the corners. The macro 2.8 has quickshift and is metal but larger and heavier and of course much more expensive with the huge added versatility of macro. If you want a macro at this short length and a sharp lens this is the ideal all in one solution. Otherwise, there are longer lengths for macro that are to many more useful and faster as sharp and w/ better bokeh 35mm lenses such as the Sigma 35 DG HSM 1.4. I don't get it only because I have a Tamron 90mm macro AND the sigma 35 for the best of both worlds at twice the cost though =/ The Macro is better optically and sharper at f2.8. The bokeh might be softer at 2.4 but at a cost of sharpness especially at the corners. The macro 2.8 has quickshift and is metal but larger and heavier and of course much more expensive with the huge added versatility of macro. If you want a macro at this short length and a sharp lens this is the ideal all in one solution. Otherwise, there are longer lengths for macro that are to many more useful and faster as sharp and w/ better bokeh 35mm lenses such as the Sigma 35 DG HSM 1.4. I don't get it only because I have a Tamron 90mm macro AND... » Read More The Macro is better optically and sharper at f2.8. The bokeh might be softer at 2.4 but at a cost of sharpness especially at the corners. The macro 2.8 has quickshift and is metal but larger and heavier and of course much more expensive with the huge added versatility of macro. If you want a macro at this short length and a sharp lens this is the ideal all in one solution. Otherwise, there are longer lengths for macro that are to many more useful and faster as sharp and w/ better bokeh 35mm lenses such as the Sigma 35 DG HSM 1.4. I don't get it only because I have a Tamron 90mm macro AND the sigma 35 for the best of both worlds at twice the cost though =/ « Show Less
1114828
Yes - I believe so, though I've never used it. Mainly macro lenses are more expensive to produce to allow them to focus so close to the subject. This 35mm f/2.4 has become one of my favorite lenses for its sharpness - I often use it to shoot panoramas, although I have an old A-series 50mm f/1.7 and an ancient Takumar 135mm f/2.5 I also use for that. But for the price this 35mm has outstanding image quality.
1114829
This lens is good because its simplicity. That is all I can say. I suspect that adding "macro" to its name makes it less simple which is not good)))
1114830
I don't have the Pentax 35 mm macro so I can't give an honest answer to your question however I do use a Pentax DA 40 mm LTD and the Pentax DA 35 mm f/2.4 comes close to that. The exception is at f/2.4 the DA is soft at mid point to the edges and there is some CA problems, sometimes in low contrast compositions, stopping down 1+ stops generally corrects all of these problems though. I do like the DA 35 mm a great deal. Light weight, very good to excellent IQ and an excellent price point. But you can't compare it to a Pentax DA 35 mm Macro which, according to reviews on Pentax Forums, is a superb lens. Hope this helps. I don't have the Pentax 35 mm macro so I can't give an honest answer to your question however I do use a Pentax DA 40 mm LTD and the Pentax DA 35 mm f/2.4 comes close to that. The exception is at f/2.4 the DA is soft at mid point to the edges and there is some CA problems, sometimes in low contrast compositions, stopping down 1+ stops generally corrects all of these problems though. I do like the DA 35 mm a great deal. Light weight, very good to excellent IQ and an excellent price point. But you can't compare it to a Pentax DA 35 mm Macro which, according to reviews on Pentax Forums, is a... » Read More I don't have the Pentax 35 mm macro so I can't give an honest answer to your question however I do use a Pentax DA 40 mm LTD and the Pentax DA 35 mm f/2.4 comes close to that. The exception is at f/2.4 the DA is soft at mid point to the edges and there is some CA problems, sometimes in low contrast compositions, stopping down 1+ stops generally corrects all of these problems though. I do like the DA 35 mm a great deal. Light weight, very good to excellent IQ and an excellent price point. But you can't compare it to a Pentax DA 35 mm Macro which, according to reviews on Pentax Forums, is a superb lens. Hope this helps. « Show Less
1610125
No- the focusing distance is much too far. Great lens- but not for macro work.
1686347
thank so much what do you think about the 55mm 2.8what is best deal i have physical limitations due to wheel chair but lve macro concept
2154579
IQ wise the 28-135mm is the superior lens. There is less barrel and pincushion distortion, and FAR fewer chromatic aberrations. And sharpness is more consistent across the focal range. I had the 18-135 on my T3i and then the 60D, and in order to get a sharp image, the lens had to be stopped down to at least f8 on the wide end and f11 on the tele end. And even then, at some focal lengths, the pictures were just plain soft no matter what. There was a significant amount of corner and edge blurring, especially at the wide end. And at the tele end, my oh my, the CA! Not just at the edges, either - color fringing was very noticeable well into the frame. The 28-135, on the other hand, is pretty sharp at its widest apertures throughout the range and quite good stopped down one stop narrower than its maximum opening at any given focal length. And pictures have very good corner and edge sharpness across the entire focal range. While image stabilization is superior on the 18-135mm, by the time you stop it down enough to get a sharp picture, you're still running up on using slower shutter speeds (which equals motion blurred images), using high ISOs and/or flash. The 28-135 lets you avail yourself of more light, so you can shoot at lower ISOs or increase the shutter speed a tad to compensate for its less sophisticated image stabilization. By the way, image stabilization on the 28-135 is effective. It's just not quite as effective as the 18-135. About the 18 vs 28mm at the wide end--unless you're shooting indoors in smallish rooms a lot, you probably aren't going to notice the difference. Looking at the EXIF data of 18-135mm sample images on the web, I've noticed that most of them are shot toward the tele end of the zoom. I certainly tend to zoom at least a little with nearly everything I photograph. I much prefer the 28-135. It focuses faster and more quietly, I can shoot at wider apertures for better bokeh and more light, and it produces great pictures with a minimum of distortion and CA.
1646078
Both lenses are excellent and brilliantly sharp. The Sigma is less expensive. The Canon focuses more quickly, a little, no macro lenses are fast. It should come down to what focal length you want. Canon offers an IS version of the macro. The stabilization is nice if you hand hold, but doubles the price and weight.
1801157
The Macro can give some fun perspectives foreground to background. As for if it is an upgrade the aperture difference alone is an upgrade as it will allow you to take more pictures with only available light instead of using flash. I love this lens and the glass is great.
1917125
I absolutely love the 28-135mm IS f/3.5 lens from Canon. For about $400 +/- you get a moderate zoom telephoto with a 1:1.6 mag aspect on your dSLR about 44mm - 206mm in 35mm terms with an added bonus of macro capability. I use it as a 'walk around lens' and while not the BEST in construction - the optics are sharp, color rendition is super and the IS is a lifesaver when shooting scenes in low light without a tripod or monopod.For wide angle work - I've purchased the SIGMA 17-35mm f/2.8 and found the optics and color rendition above my expectations for a $225 lens. The SIGMA comes with a lens hood and pouch - for which Canon sells as accessories and expensive ones at that. I absolutely love the 28-135mm IS f/3.5 lens from Canon. For about $400 +/- you get a moderate zoom telephoto with a 1:1.6 mag aspect on your dSLR about 44mm - 206mm in 35mm terms with an added bonus of macro capability. I use it as a 'walk around lens' and while not the BEST in construction - the optics are sharp, color rendition is super and the IS is a lifesaver when shooting scenes in low light without a tripod or monopod.For wide angle work - I've purchased the SIGMA 17-35mm f/2.8 and found the optics and color rendition above my expectations for a $225 lens. The SIGMA... » Read More I absolutely love the 28-135mm IS f/3.5 lens from Canon. For about $400 +/- you get a moderate zoom telephoto with a 1:1.6 mag aspect on your dSLR about 44mm - 206mm in 35mm terms with an added bonus of macro capability. I use it as a 'walk around lens' and while not the BEST in construction - the optics are sharp, color rendition is super and the IS is a lifesaver when shooting scenes in low light without a tripod or monopod.For wide angle work - I've purchased the SIGMA 17-35mm f/2.8 and found the optics and color rendition above my expectations for a $225 lens. The SIGMA comes with a lens hood and pouch - for which Canon sells as accessories and expensive ones at that. « Show Less
892919
I love using this lens for Macro. In fact that is what I end up doing with it about most of the time as I rarely use it as the wide angle lens. After using it way more I found the the edges are always blurry with the wide angel lens. You can crop off the blurry parts. So just be sure to not center peopl/items all way to edge. As for macro pics. Love it to do so! Only downfall it has a narrow depth of field. But for the price can't beat it. I do have a set of 4 lens I like better. But this lens is not bad, and I do still use it want medium magnification. I say medium because when you extend the lens all the way out with this lens say on a kit lens to .55 you get some vignetting. Works best on mid range on lens. But for the money well worth it. Becuase if you are like me macro lens are out of the league at the time. Magnification is .45. Hope this helps. Let me know if I can help with anything else.
75886
I have the 35mm 1.8, and that is my favorite lens of all time. Having had about 12 cameras over the course of my life, digital and film, I have to say, the 35mm 1.8 is the best lens I've had. It's bright and takes amazing photos in low light. Some people complain about the rough bokeh, but I actually like it. Gives me alot of creative latitude and just the right focal length for me. the 18-55 has VR, which helps keep pictures non-blurry despite the higher f-stop. There's really no comparing the two, one is a zoom and the other a fixed focal length with a much wider aperture. For indoor pictures, the 1.8 is much much better, unless you need the zoom. with the 1.8 there's really no need for flash.
709670
Honestly, the focal length, distortion (35mm has a bit more distortion but its unnoticable unless you correct it), depth of field...that type of thing. I got the 35mm because I wanted to be able to get closer to my subjects if I wanted to do macro-ish shots and portraits. Honestly, I would have both but the 35 suits me best.
1506918
It has both and one really great lens I would recommend it too anyone!!! Also great macro use if you want to use it for that!!!
1150127
i have both of these lenses and i have to say both are extremely sharp even wide open. i've used the 135/2 more often than the 200/2.8 because i mainly used it as portrait and candid pics. i've enjoy both of these lenses personally and really preferred prime lens over zoom.
39228
It's like apples and oranges. One is a short zoom. The other is prime. So it does depend what you want it to do for you.If you need the faster lens I would go with the 35mm f1.8. If you don't need the faster lens and you like the advantage of not having to move around to compose your shot go with the zoom. I will say I find that Sigma 18-50 a bit bulky and it is basically a kit lens at least and Nikon's newer 18-55 is lighter and better it also does close focus really well. The Nikon f1.8 35 mm is a great lens for general shooting and keeps your camera footprint small and easy to carry. Don't know if this helps or not. Hope you make the best choice for you. It's like apples and oranges. One is a short zoom. The other is prime. So it does depend what you want it to do for you.If you need the faster lens I would go with the 35mm f1.8. If you don't need the faster lens and you like the advantage of not having to move around to compose your shot go with the zoom. I will say I find that Sigma 18-50 a bit bulky and it is basically a kit lens at least and Nikon's newer 18-55 is lighter and better it also does close focus really well. The Nikon f1.8 35 mm is a great lens for general shooting and keeps your camera footprint small and easy to... » Read More It's like apples and oranges. One is a short zoom. The other is prime. So it does depend what you want it to do for you.If you need the faster lens I would go with the 35mm f1.8. If you don't need the faster lens and you like the advantage of not having to move around to compose your shot go with the zoom. I will say I find that Sigma 18-50 a bit bulky and it is basically a kit lens at least and Nikon's newer 18-55 is lighter and better it also does close focus really well. The Nikon f1.8 35 mm is a great lens for general shooting and keeps your camera footprint small and easy to carry. Don't know if this helps or not. Hope you make the best choice for you. « Show Less
2103069
Yes! I have both these lenses and i think it's so much better than the 35mm 1.8. Plus i use it with the Metabones SpeedBooster on my BlackMagic Pocket Cinema Camera and it's Killer!!!
2253130
The lens is extremely sharp in all light. The F2.8 lens is only marginally sharper but 1 stop faster and if low light and not cost or weight is important, then for low light get a "faster" lens. I use a D800 and am amazed at the performance. I got the F4 after trading in my 2.8 lens to reduce the weight of my gear (and size of lens).
604837
Hi Jack - to be honest I've not had hands on with this lens. It was bought for my Son for his birthday. And from what I do know about it it is smaller and with the Macro capability - a more useful lens, also the 18-200 has less focal range then the newer Macro Lens. Seems to have pretty good reviews and as my son uses it for digital video - he's pretty happy thus far. Sorry I can't be of more help.Chuck
2253131
Not nearly as good as the F2.8. I use this lens on the Nikon D5200. I initially brought the lens for my daughter's lacrosse games. It was excellent during the day games, but not so hot taking action shots during the night games. However, when taking no action shots (i.e. crowd, sideline, etc.) it performed well under the stadium lights. If I felt comfortable enough dishing out the extra $grand and lugging around a much heavier lens I would have gone with the 2.8, but I'm extremely happy with the F4.