Customer Reviews
Nice lens, sharp photos, slow autofocus 
2008-07-14
I picked this lens up because I needed a wider angle without spending too much cash. The overall quality of photos I take using this lens is superb, yet I do find that the autofocus is slow enough to be a real annoyance. I would not recommend this lens for shooting lots of moving subjects, just because with the shallower depth of field, it's easy for your subject to walk or move out of focus - and the autofocus can't keep up. Overall though, it'a a nice low-light lens and a creative photographer can use it to create some amazing photos. However, if you want better response, look for a lens with USM focusing.
Great price...almost as good lens. 2007-12-31
Great price for this 2.8 lens if you do a lot of architectural work. On a crop factor body (I used it on a 30D and 40D), it produces virtually no distortion. Only gripes are that is focuses slow and noisy.
So-so. But worth considering. 
2007-05-07
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).
A good all-around "normal" lens 2006-11-02
If you could only carry one lens for your Canon digital SLR, or you wanted to keep your gear to a minimum, this would be the only lens to carry. Of course, you would be limited in your range of photography, i.e. no large groups of people in small spaces; no sports photos.
Otherwise, this is a very good lens for all-around photography.
it's cheap, but it's GARBAGE 
2006-10-11
Canon generally makes excellent lenses, but my copy of this lens is awful! Even at f/8 with a fast shutter speed and low ISO, images are blurry when blown up to 100%. It also suffers from severe CA, particularly in bright settings. Yes, this lens is inexpensive, but I can't recommend it at any price. You would do much better to save your money and buy a better lens.
Canon should pull the 28mm f/2.8 off the market.
Good copies of this lens exist 2006-07-14
28mm wide angle lens for Canon cameras
Before you buy this lens! 2006-04-06
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.
Really nice lens 
2006-01-03
I had used this lens at night with low light and taken many indoor shots. My camera multiplies the les to 1.6 and it become a 44mm lens. The shots were cystal clear.
Ideal waterfall lens 2005-05-01
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.
