New lens recommendation

[SoulCapture]

Hello mates. So I have been shooting for about 2years+ now and its going great. I have been shooting portraits and been shooting some fashion. I am used to using the kit lens for the full body shots but I have slowly saved enough for a wide angle prime. When I check my EXIF, I see that I am usually shooting between 28 - 35mm. So I was thinking of picking up either a 28mm f/1.8, 28mm f/2.8, or the 35mm f/1.8. Cans anybody with either of these lens point me into making a decision? I shoot with a Canon 20d so it has a 1.6 crop factor.

[inkista]

Um, there is no 35/1.8 in the Canon lineup, like there is in the Nikon. We only have a 35/2 and a 35/1.4L.

Both the 35/2 and 28/1.8 are good lenses, but they don't get spectacular reviews. I think the basic question you need to ask yourself is whether or not you need USM, since the 28 has it, and the 35 doesn't.

You may also want to consider the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 HSM (drastically more expensive), and (if you don't care about autofocus), the Rokinon/Samyang/Vivitar/etc. etc. 35mm f/1.4.

I don't have any of the lenses I mentioned, btw. I went for converting manual focus lenses: a C/Y Zeiss Distagon 28mm f/2.8 and a Leica-R Summicron (f/2) 35mm, instead.

[SoulCapture]

lmao excuse that mistake. I meant the 35 f/2. Thanks for catching that Inkista. well I can't say If I need the USM. I have been fine without it so far. I usually use AF but I do a bit of manual focus when I need to. I might just pull the trigger and get the 35 f/2; it is less expensive. hahhaha

[inkista]

I know. I've been close to doing that, especially when one pops up on the Canon refurb store. But the lack of USM tends to hold me back. I like having a lens that AFs silently when I'm shooting in event situations, and USM does tend to make AF a little faster for me. But if you're used to the 50/1.8 II, the lack of USM probably won't bother you at all.