| sent on September 29, 2023
Pros: Compact and lightweight; Medium diaphragm resolving power - minimum M.A.F. distance - 3 control/fire ring modes
Cons: A bit of flare - af not lightning fast - unobtainable hood - not stabilized (but what do we want, then?)
Opinion: Among the Canon "not L" vulgarly defined "povery", I think that this 28 pancakes is the one that best competes - at least, in terms of sharpness - with the most famous brothers with the red line. Always waiting confidently for a wide series with fixed focal length, however, I believe that the most appropriate quality comparison term for Canon's wide-angle is the RF 15-35 / 2.8 L IS: the performance of the professional zoom compared to the various fixed wide non-L (35, 28, 24, 16) at focal length 28 are in my opinion equaled by the very small pancake, to intermediate diaphragms (f:5,6-8). Everyone else gives way, albeit with dignity. Beyond the first home tests, I took it with me on several South Tyrolean walks, obtaining respectable results that did not make me regret having left the aforementioned L zoom in the hotel. Of course, I operated in ideal conditions, beautiful days, clear atmosphere, and of course I tried to keep the front lens in the shade, exposed and without an untraceable hood that exists only in the Canon price list. But this little guy turns the R5 into a "compact" without the demanding 45mpxl sensor highlighting qualitative limits of the optics that, in those circumstances, are not there. Excellent results. Different is the case at the most open apertures (2.8-4) in which the lens continues to behave very well, but does not remain at the level of 15-35L, at least at the edges of the format of an R5 file. Probably a lower resolution (20-24mpxl, maybe even 30) would not allow to perceive the slight peripheral drop. In the backlight you have to be rather careful, both for the absence of the hood, and because, given the structure of the lens, the front lens is very exposed and inevitably some phenomenon of flare (halos) occurs, even if the general contrast remains good. That on such a lens lacks a stabilization system I do not see it as a problem, because it is part of the game: a one-ounce wide-angle with L-series performance cannot also have the stabilizer: either it becomes bigger and heavier (and expensive) or it remains what the designer wanted to offer. Distortion and fall of light at the edges: usual speech. These RFs are lenses born for digital, designed ab origine according to ex post corrections. Does the game work? Yes, and very well. It is more a mental annoyance to think that "but if there was no sw downstream it would suck". I, although an old film who loves old-fashioned optics, I made up for it. And then, here too: I think there is a gradualness in the compromise optical correction / electronic correction. With 16/2.8 this compromise leans "a lot" on the second, with 50/1.2L hangs almost everything on the first. Yet the 16/2.8 does more than well and allows you to have a light and cheap bright superwide. And how does our 28/2.8 fit into this "philosophy"? I think it is the most correct "of its own" of the group formed by 50/1,8-35/1,8-28/2,8-24/1,8-16/2,8. I have them all and it seems to me so, which does not mean that the fw / sw intervention is not there: it is simply not felt, and the results, even if in the optimal conditions described above, are extremely convincing. |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.
JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.
