Sharpest "Reasonably priced" Canon lens

Yes, I know that "sharpest" is a rather generic description, but bear
with me....
I have a Canon 20D with the 17 - 85mm zone. It is a very nice "walk
around" lens and is fine for most casual use.. but... Sometimes I
really want to take the high resolution (sharp) pictures that I'm sure
the 20D is capable of. Even stopping down to f11 and, keeping the
shutter speed up and using a tripod still does not product the sharpness
and detail I'm looking for. So, I want to do a bit of a test....
I want to get a lens that would at least match the capabilities of the
20D's 8 MP sensor resolution, but I can't really justify the cost of the
nice L lenses. I've seen comments about the 50mm lens being very sharp,
and I figure that would be a reasonable test lens... So..
What (single focal length) Canon lens is the sharpest while staying
within a reasonable price point. For example, Canon offers 50mm 1.8,
1.4 and even 1.2 (L) or 1.0 (L). Without looking them up, I suspect the
1.2 and 1.0 L lenses will be a bit pricey. Would the 1.8 (or 1.4) lens
be my best bet, or should I consider dropping down to the 35mm F2 or
even 28mm f2.8?? Since this is primarily an 'experiment', I'm not real
concerned about focal length; I can use about anything within the
moderate wide to moderate tele range. If this experiment works out, I
may then see about some other focal length lenses that provide the
'sharpness' I'm looking for.
Thanks

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 08:23:55 -0500, Mike wrote:

Yes, I know that "sharpest" is a rather generic description, but bear
with me....
I have a Canon 20D with the 17 - 85mm zone. It is a very nice "walk
around" lens and is fine for most casual use.. but... Sometimes I
really want to take the high resolution (sharp) pictures that I'm sure
the 20D is capable of. Even stopping down to f11 and, keeping the
shutter speed up and using a tripod still does not product the sharpness
and detail I'm looking for. So, I want to do a bit of a test....
I want to get a lens that would at least match the capabilities of the
20D's 8 MP sensor resolution, but I can't really justify the cost of the
nice L lenses.

Don't be so sure about L-glass meaning anything these days. Some recent tests
last month prove that L-glass on even a tripod mounted Mk-II can't beat the lens
and resolution in a hand-held $400 P&S superzoom camera. Seen the comparison
photos with my own eyes. Dem's da fac's.

Mike wrote:
Yes, I know that "sharpest" is a rather generic description, but bear
with me....
I have a Canon 20D with the 17 - 85mm zone. It is a very nice "walk
around" lens and is fine for most casual use.. but... Sometimes I
really want to take the high resolution (sharp) pictures that I'm sure
the 20D is capable of. Even stopping down to f11 and, keeping the
shutter speed up and using a tripod still does not product the sharpness
and detail I'm looking for. So, I want to do a bit of a test....
I want to get a lens that would at least match the capabilities of the
20D's 8 MP sensor resolution, but I can't really justify the cost of the
nice L lenses. I've seen comments about the 50mm lens being very sharp,
and I figure that would be a reasonable test lens... So..
What (single focal length) Canon lens is the sharpest while staying
within a reasonable price point.

snip

Take a look at

"http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/best_canon_eos_lenses.html"

and the lens reviews at

"http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/index.html" (under
"Equipment Reviews" scroll down to "Lenses."

Especially look at
"http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/ef-s_17-85_review_4.html"
where he compares the sharpness of the lens you have against several
other lenses, at different settings.

So the short answer is that the 50mm primes will be sharper than the
zoom you're using.

The real gem in the EF-s line is the 10-22, which has L quality optics,
but at $625 it's expensive.

"TrevorAndersen" wrote in message
...

Don't be so sure about L-glass meaning anything these days. Some recent
tests
last month prove that L-glass on even a tripod mounted Mk-II can't beat
the lens
and resolution in a hand-held $400 P&S superzoom camera. Seen the
comparison
photos with my own eyes. Dem's da fac's.

Produce full sized comparisions with a proper resolution chart. Seat of the
pants puffery doesn't count.

I want to get a lens that would at least match the capabilities of the
20D's 8 MP sensor resolution, but I can't really justify the cost of the
nice L lenses. I've seen comments about the 50mm lens being very sharp,
and I figure that would be a reasonable test lens... So..
What (single focal length) Canon lens is the sharpest while staying within
a reasonable price point. For example, Canon offers 50mm 1.8, 1.4 and
even 1.2 (L) or 1.0 (L). Without looking them up, I suspect the 1.2 and
1.0 L lenses will be a bit pricey. Would the 1.8 (or 1.4) lens be my best
bet, or should I consider dropping down to the 35mm F2 or even 28mm f2.8??
Since this is primarily an 'experiment', I'm not real concerned about
focal length; I can use about anything within the moderate wide to
moderate tele range. If this experiment works out, I may then see about
some other focal length lenses that provide the 'sharpness' I'm looking
for.
Thanks


The 70-200mm f4 L is reasonably priced. I can get one in the UK for £350.
They are very sharp. Also - you can ignore the price because you can re-sell
it for 90% (or more) of what you pay for it (so long as you keep it clean
and retain the packaging).

I have a 50mm f1.4 and it's not as sharp as the L lenses I have. I only use
it if I want a physically small lens or for photography in cities at night
because I want to use a large apeture. The lack of sharpness of this lens
does't matter so much if you're producing grainy monochrome pictures.

John

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:21:07 -0500, "/dev/null" nntp.server.net wrote:


"TrevorAndersen" wrote in message
.. .

Don't be so sure about L-glass meaning anything these days. Some recent
tests
last month prove that L-glass on even a tripod mounted Mk-II can't beat
the lens
and resolution in a hand-held $400 P&S superzoom camera. Seen the
comparison
photos with my own eyes. Dem's da fac's.

Produce full sized comparisions with a proper resolution chart. Seat of the
pants puffery doesn't count.



Yeah, ain't that the kicker? They were full-res images of the moon. An easily
available, reproducible, easily shared by all, high-resolution, high-contrast,
test target. Even fractal in nature, because you can always use crater sizes on
it as small as you want to go to test resolution limits. Photos of the moon are
great for comparing cameras in the world. Everyone is posting an image of the
moon from their camera at some time or another. They were 100% pixel crops. No
seat of the pants puffery there. As I said, "Dem's da fac's." Can't you read?

The even bigger kicker? The images coming from the Mk-II with L-glass, locked on
tripod, mirror locked out of the way to prevent any shake at all, were done by
someone who prides their self on their astro-photography (for some reason). He
was trying to use his equipment as best as he knew how. One of the DSLR maniacs
who is always trying to justify why he spent so much, $13,000 in this instance.
He couldn't even blame atmospheric "seeing" conditions on the differences. The
DSLR+L-glass taken with the moon high in the sky, the P&S guy taking his image
of the moon near the horizon through denser and more turbulent atmosphere. The
$400 P&S camera guy was pointing his hand-held camera at the moon shortly after
purchase just to see how it would do just for the hell of it, not even trying to
get the best shot he could. The $400 P&S camera still won.

Dem's da fac's, Mam. Nuttin' but da fac's.

Deal with it.

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 17:57:10 GMT, TrevorAndersen wrote:

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:21:07 -0500, "/dev/null" nntp.server.net wrote:


"TrevorAndersen" wrote in message
. ..

Don't be so sure about L-glass meaning anything these days. Some recent
tests
last month prove that L-glass on even a tripod mounted Mk-II can't beat
the lens
and resolution in a hand-held $400 P&S superzoom camera. Seen the
comparison
photos with my own eyes. Dem's da fac's.

Produce full sized comparisions with a proper resolution chart. Seat of the
pants puffery doesn't count.



Yeah, ain't that the kicker? They were full-res images of the moon. An easily
available, reproducible, easily shared by all, high-resolution, high-contrast,
test target. Even fractal in nature, because you can always use crater sizes on
it as small as you want to go to test resolution limits. Photos of the moon are
great for comparing cameras in the world. Everyone is posting an image of the
moon from their camera at some time or another. They were 100% pixel crops. No
seat of the pants puffery there. As I said, "Dem's da fac's." Can't you read?

The even bigger kicker? The images coming from the Mk-II with L-glass, locked on
tripod, mirror locked out of the way to prevent any shake at all, were done by
someone who prides their self on their astro-photography (for some reason). He
was trying to use his equipment as best as he knew how. One of the DSLR maniacs
who is always trying to justify why he spent so much, $13,000 in this instance.
He couldn't even blame atmospheric "seeing" conditions on the differences. The
DSLR+L-glass taken with the moon high in the sky, the P&S guy taking his image
of the moon near the horizon through denser and more turbulent atmosphere. The
$400 P&S camera guy was pointing his hand-held camera at the moon shortly after
purchase just to see how it would do just for the hell of it, not even trying to
get the best shot he could. The $400 P&S camera still won.

Dem's da fac's, Mam. Nuttin' but da fac's.

Deal with it.

Minor correction in "dem fac's" ... now I remember why the P&S moon image was
more orange. It wasn't due to being lower to the horizon, that was never stated
by the photographer (but could be true). He was taking the image of the moon
through all the smoke and haze of the huge fires in California USA last month,
even more atmospheric turbulence than average on a bad "seeing" night. Like
trying to shoot through heat-waves, only ones fill with smoke too. And it
_still_ beat the Mk-II + L-glass for resolution on a clear night of seeing. This
is why I remembered being certain that there was more atmospheric turbulence.
One more minor kicker, the L-glass was a prime lens, not even a zoom. The P&S
camera was a super-zoom. A Panasonic FZ18 if I recall now.

Again, deal with it.

TrevorAndersen wrote:


Yeah, ain't that the kicker? They were full-res images of the moon. An easily
available, reproducible, easily shared by all, high-resolution, high-contrast,
test target. Even fractal in nature, because you can always use crater sizes on
it as small as you want to go to test resolution limits. Photos of the moon are
great for comparing cameras in the world. Everyone is posting an image of the
moon from their camera at some time or another. They were 100% pixel crops. No
seat of the pants puffery there. As I said, "Dem's da fac's." Can't you read?

I'm not sure the moon is a good universal test subject for comparison.
The distance from you to the moon depends on how high above the horizon
the moon is. While that probably isn't significant, the amount of
atmosphere between you and the moon and the relative pollution level
where you are could significantly effect the sharpness of the image.



--
Chris W
KE5GIX

"Protect your digital freedom and privacy, eliminate DRM,
learn more at http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm"

Ham Radio Repeater Database.
http://hrrdb.com

If you want to do lens tests, you could always hire a lens from someone like
Calmut. I would also go for a 50mm personally as it's a fantastic focal
length to work with on a 1.6 cropped sensor (of course, depends on subject).

I generally use 'L' primes now-a-days, but I previously used a Canon 17-85
(still have it in fact). I never found that the 17-85 was unsharp though.
Just out of interest, are you shooting in RAW? If so, in order to preserve
the maximum amount of image information, RAW data is intentionally
unsharpened, so you will find that post production sharpening will make a
lot of difference in the overall look of the image in terms of sharpness (if
done properly).




"Mike" wrote in message
.. .
Yes, I know that "sharpest" is a rather generic description, but bear with
me....
I have a Canon 20D with the 17 - 85mm zone. It is a very nice "walk
around" lens and is fine for most casual use.. but... Sometimes I really
want to take the high resolution (sharp) pictures that I'm sure the 20D is
capable of. Even stopping down to f11 and, keeping the shutter speed up
and using a tripod still does not product the sharpness and detail I'm
looking for. So, I want to do a bit of a test....
I want to get a lens that would at least match the capabilities of the
20D's 8 MP sensor resolution, but I can't really justify the cost of the
nice L lenses. I've seen comments about the 50mm lens being very sharp,
and I figure that would be a reasonable test lens... So..
What (single focal length) Canon lens is the sharpest while staying within
a reasonable price point. For example, Canon offers 50mm 1.8, 1.4 and
even 1.2 (L) or 1.0 (L). Without looking them up, I suspect the 1.2 and
1.0 L lenses will be a bit pricey. Would the 1.8 (or 1.4) lens be my best
bet, or should I consider dropping down to the 35mm F2 or even 28mm f2.8??
Since this is primarily an 'experiment', I'm not real concerned about
focal length; I can use about anything within the moderate wide to
moderate tele range. If this experiment works out, I may then see about
some other focal length lenses that provide the 'sharpness' I'm looking
for.
Thanks

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Chris W wrote:
[]
I'm not sure the moon is a good universal test subject for comparison.
The distance from you to the moon depends on how high above the
horizon the moon is. While that probably isn't significant, the
amount of atmosphere between you and the moon and the relative
pollution level where you are could significantly effect the
sharpness of the image.

You only needed to look at the images for yourself to see which had the
higher image quality. The larger sensor produced the better quality
image, although the differences were subtle, as would be expected for a
subject in bright sunlight.

Cheers,
David