Q. What is the sharpest Canon lens?

wrote in message
ups.com...
180mm f/2? f/1,8 is 1/6th of a stop faster!!
Don't try to tell me the Canon is better, cause it ain't so....

Oh, yes it is, mikey.
I know it's hard to accept, but try, anyway, for your own good. Leica's
great at a lot of things, but they can't always be the best at everything.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Alan Browne wrote:

Annika1980 wrote:

Which Canon lens is the sharpest?
Some say the 100 f/2 (not the macro version).
Others vouch for the 300 f/2.8L.


The 200 f/1.8 USM appears to be top dog. The closest Leica's (various
180mm) aren't even close in sharpness and nowhere as fast.

http://www.photodo.com/pix/lens/mtf/CAEF20018L.gif
Indicates fine bokeh wide open, a bit harsh at f/8.

Not sure how available this lens is, if at all, or at what price.
(The lens hood is $474.00 ... I hesitate to think what the lens is
priced at!)

oh! here's an indication.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...ort=7&thecat=2
puts it at $3000+

Cheers,
Alan


I would like to know what is the practical sharpest Canon lens.
Practical means the marginal best that is affordable. Just a little
more for a lot more cash is not practical since most people will never
see the difference in a 16x20 a 5 feet.

Annika1980 wrote:
Which Canon lens is the sharpest?
Some say the 100 f/2 (not the macro version).
Others vouch for the 300 f/2.8L.

So which is it?


Having owned many Canon lenses, I can tell you absolutely that the
sharpest telephoto lens is the 300 f2.8.

Of course you have made this question a 'bait' by not defining if the
"sharpest" lens is Sharpest in a range. I.E. Zoom lenses, telephoto
lenses, standard lenses and wide angle lenses might have extracted a
better answer.

All groups have different models with 'better sharpness' than others.
You can hardly expect a zoom lens with constantly moving elements to
constantly be as sharp as a fixed lens with fixed elements.

Which did you actually want to enquire about?

James

measekite wrote:



I would like to know what is the practical sharpest Canon lens.
Practical means the marginal best that is affordable. Just a little
more for a lot more cash is not practical since most people will never
see the difference in a 16x20 a 5 feet.

The OP, who is known to be a little loose with his credit cards, wants his "I
love me" Christmas present. His photo postings amuse us. (Well, the titles do,
anyway). So we love to help him add to the US statistics on personal credit
card debt. The fact that the 200 mm f/1.8 outresolves his 20D by about 4 or 5
to 1 makes no difference to him.

I don't know Canon lenses very well, but I surmise that one of the best bangs
for the buck is the 28-135 USM IS for around US$400. I assume that is afordable
for most people if they suck down a few less beers/week for a year.

The absolute best Canon ka-boom/sheckle is the 50mm f/1.8 at US$75.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Ryadia wrote:
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...


Most important is why are you so worried about it?

--
Joseph Meehan

Let me have a guess... Hmm.
Some people say AA is for drunks. Canon say it's to stop the moir
effect. Nikon don't bother with it and you can overcome it with an
unsharp mask of 300 @0.4 radius... Hmmm. Now what could that be and
why is a "sharp" lens of interest to a Canon shooter?

Doug

The point is if you are going to talk about a technical description of a
lens, it would be good to use the right terminology. Sharp is a perceived
quality not really one that can be measured. A given lens may be more sharp
with one subject and less sharp with another. Of course you may judge them
the sharpness different than I might.

You may measure the number of lines per length that the lens may
resolve, but that is not sharpness. You may talk about the contrast of the
lens, but that is not sharpness. I suspect I might well judge an image
sharpness different with or without my glasses.

--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

Ryadia wrote:
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...


Most important is why are you so worried about it?

--
Joseph Meehan

Let me have a guess... Hmm.
Some people say AA is for drunks. Canon say it's to stop the moir
effect. Nikon don't bother with it and you can overcome it with an
unsharp mask of 300 @0.4 radius... Hmmm. Now what could that be and
why is a "sharp" lens of interest to a Canon shooter?

Doug

The point is if you are going to talk about a technical description of a
lens, it would be good to use the right terminology. Sharp is a perceived
quality not really one that can be measured. A given lens may be more sharp
with one subject and less sharp with another. Of course you may judge them
the sharpness different than I might.

You may measure the number of lines per length that the lens may
resolve, but that is not sharpness. You may talk about the contrast of the
lens, but that is not sharpness. I suspect I might well judge an image
sharpness different with or without my glasses.

--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

(Bill=A0Hilton) wrote:
It's too short for nature photographers, it's more of a fashion lens
apparently.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Or maybe indoor sports.



Cody,

http://community-2.webtv.net/AnOverc...otographyLinks

Are you blind?

From: James Douglas

Which did you actually want to enquire about?

I'm looking to do some more stitched panoramics and I'm looking for the
sharpest lens I can find. I did some preliminary testing between my 50 f/1.8
and the 28-135 IS @ 50mm and the prime lens was bit sharper (as expected), but
not so much that you'd even notice it at normal print sizes.

I remember reading on photo.net about the old 100mm f/2 being one of the
sharpest primes. I'd sure like to test it out if I could talk someone (Skip M,
are you hearing this?) into lending me one.

From: James Douglas

Which did you actually want to enquire about?

I'm looking to do some more stitched panoramics and I'm looking for the
sharpest lens I can find. I did some preliminary testing between my 50 f/1.8
and the 28-135 IS @ 50mm and the prime lens was bit sharper (as expected), but
not so much that you'd even notice it at normal print sizes.

I remember reading on photo.net about the old 100mm f/2 being one of the
sharpest primes. I'd sure like to test it out if I could talk someone (Skip M,
are you hearing this?) into lending me one.