I was pleased with this lens when I bought it in 2014 with a Canon 5D mark II. I would not recommend it for modern cameras. Sharpness is frankly lame.
What is it for?
This is a convenient travel lens (on par with the Canon EF 28mm f / 2.8). Why? There are 2 very good reasons for this:
First, a very convenient focal length. On full frame 28mm is wide. You can shoot landscapes, narrow streets, sights near you, etc. However, this focal length will still be quite convenient on the crop.
Canon 24-70 2.8, 28 1.8 and Sigma 35 1.4 in size comparison
Secondly, what I consider to be a very important advantage, it is very small and light (310g). Dimensions and weight are very important when traveling. He does not attract attention to himself (from the outside it looks quite amateur), and will not be a burden if you carry him with you all day.
However, travel is not its only use. It is convenient for them to shoot reports indoors. With 28mm, you will never be cramped. And if you need to take a close-up of something, you just need to come closer. With this approach, you can completely do without zoom. You don't need to place people at the edges of the frame, because there are distortions in the corners. Distortion is tolerable for general scenes, but the faces of people in group portraits in the corners of the frame will be elongated.
I started by describing the focal length, while the Canon 28 1.8 has another important advantage - aperture. Really you can shoot from f2... At 1.8, the image is low contrast and not at all sharp. Closing f-stop improves the situation, but now there are many more adequate lenses in sharpness. For example, Canon EF 35mm f2 IS. Yes, it's more expensive, but it's worth it.
Also worth mentioning is the Canon 28mm f2.8. It is also a very good lens. I would safely recommend it as a staff instead of everyone's favorite Canon 50mm 1.8... It's inexpensive, sharp (slightly sharper than the Canon 28 1.8), very light (185g) and compact. Should the 2.8 aperture be considered a disadvantage? Indoors f2 is beneficial. The Canon EF 28mm f / 1.8 USM lets you shoot much more in low light. It even seems that more light is visible in the pictures than the human eye sees (I'm not talking about Sigma 35 1.4). But is it always necessary? You need to understand why the lens is purchased. Because at closed apertures the Canon 28mm f2.8 and Canon 28mm f1.8 USM are almost identical. And the difference in cost is 2 times.
The bokeh is nice. It's a matter of taste. My opinion is better than +24(70)2.8-XNUMX XNUMXbut worse than Sigme 35 1.4... However, it is not surprising that the higher the aperture, the better the background blur. More details in this stuff.
Test videos (bokeh)
Overall image quality
It pleases. Excellent color reproduction, typical of native lenses from Canon, saturated colors, picture contrast - everything is excellent.
Sharpness. This is not the sharpest lens I have ever held in my hands. By modern standards, to be honest, it is soapy on any diaphragm.
Subjective opinion - it is very pleasant to hold it in your hands. Small, compact, and at the same time fast and versatile and with poor detail. Together with Canon 85mm 1.8 they can shoot anything. These two lenses complement each other well. There are more expensive alternatives like Canon EF 24mm 1.4L or Canon EF 35 1.4L and Sigma 35mm1.4, but there is a very, very good lens - Canon 35mm f2 IS USM... Moreover, it has an advantage in size and weight over the listed expensive wide-angle lenses.
Also read Canon EF 28mm f2.8 IS USM review
To protect the front lens of the lens, I recommend using Hoya protective filters.