What are Canon's sharpest lenses?

[DCM1024]

I know a lot of people on this forum have lenses I have never tried, so I am looking for your personal use experiences. This question came up last night because I received the EF 100mm Macro L IS. I took some test photos, low light, hand held vs. tripod, some with flash and with apertures ranging from 2.8 to 22. I had taken a portrait shot of our dog and when I enlarged it in (in LR4) to view her eye, my bf was astounded by the detail and sharpness. He questioned what a comparison to the 24-105L would produce. I haven't had a chance to make that comparison yet, but I knew other members here would know what lenses would give the sharpest photos. Any input appreciated as we are upgrading lenses this year. Thank you.

 

[Dick]

comparison to the 24-105L

The 24-105L is not even close to being as sharp as the 100L. The 100L is maybe my favorite Canon lens because of the sharpness & versatility.

The 24-105L is an ok all around lens, but it's not particularly good at anything. It's not the sharpest lens nor can it help you with decent DOFs. When you know its limits, you can surely make the best out of it though.

 

[paulc]

Practically anything at f/8 is sufficient.

 

[eddiemrg]

Take a look here:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx

It's an useful comparison chart!

 

[7enderbender]

As a rule of thumb primes are usually sharper than zooms. Thought there are some examples these days where that is not necessarily true anymore - though it's also a question what is a fair comparison.

I'm not surprised that your 100L is sharper than a 24-105. In my line-up the 135L is probably the sharpest. The other question however is why that is important. Sharpness is only one factor in what people like about lenses. There are lots of camera/lens combinations that will deliver sharpness but may lack in other areas.

The 24-105 I find surprisingly sharp by the way for what it is. Maybe I'm just lucky that I have a "good copy" (as there are always variations for each lens it seems), maybe I'm jut not too picky when it comes to sharpness. The weakness -if any- of the 24-105 is not sharpness as far as I'm concerned. I have no issues using it for indoor portraits with controlled light at f/8. And even at f/4 for general use it's totally fine. I go for the primes for a general different look and feel and not so much out of concerns for sharpness. It's all good really.

 

[Invertalon]

I would say the 24-70 II at 24mm stopped down to f/4 or f/5.6 may be the sharpest I have seen. Especially in an wide-angle.

Other notable mentions would be the 135L, 70-200 II and 85L (stopped down of course).

 

[heptagon]

The 200 f/2 L beats the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II easily.

EF-S lenses are sharper (lp/mm, not lp/ph) in general, so if you have a crop camera use good crop glass for maximum sharpness.

 

[RAWShooter126]

Mostly i depends on how much you are willing to spend and what you are planning to shoot.
For a lot of shooting types I would recommend a 24-70mm L f2.8 II ($2,000~)
For wide angle 17-40mm f4 L ($700~)
For wide angle on the 7D I would suggest a sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 (Crop body only) I have one and it blows me away, especially with it's 16mm equivalent for FF comparison. ($450~)
For Telephoto and a lot of portraits 70-200mm f2.8 II L IS ($2,000~)
But, one of the best lenses I have had the priviledge of using and owning is the nifty (50mm 1.8 II) it costs just over $100 and it's super sharp. If you can put up with it's low build quality it will serve you well

 

[DCM1024]

Take a look here:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx

It's an useful comparison chart!

Cool tool -thank you for sharing! I will show that to him.

 

[sdsr]

I know a lot of people on this forum have lenses I have never tried, so I am looking for your personal use experiences. This question came up last night because I received the EF 100mm Macro L IS. I took some test photos, low light, hand held vs. tripod, some with flash and with apertures ranging from 2.8 to 22. I had taken a portrait shot of our dog and when I enlarged it in (in LR4) to view her eye, my bf was astounded by the detail and sharpness. He questioned what a comparison to the 24-105L would produce. I haven't had a chance to make that comparison yet, but I knew other members here would know what lenses would give the sharpest photos. Any input appreciated as we are upgrading lenses this year. Thank you.

The 100L is certainly one of them. The 135L is another (like the 100L, it has other virtues as well, of course), though it's perhaps worth noting that almost all of Canon's primes are very sharp in the center (and that most lenses are very sharp in the center when stopped down to c. f/8). Among longer zooms, the 70-200 f/4 IS and f/2.8 II IS are both very sharp (the latter perhaps a bit more than the former). If you're willing to look outside the Canon label, include the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4.

 

[dewa]

one more for 135mm f2L

 

[ithinky]

Better check the MTF graphics of the lens. When we ask different photographers have different experiences.
The graphics shows us resolution and contrast. The more upwards the curves the better. Compare in the american Canon website. They have the graphics.
Good luck...

 

[robbymack]

There is a definite difference between perceived sharpness (how sharp it appears to be at what print size) and actual near pixel level sharpness (viewing at 100% on a monitor). I'd reason to guess most aren't printing images at the equivalent of 100% magnification on the monitor so realistically, IMHO, that doesn't matter too much. To answer your question the 100L is generally considered one of the sharpest lenses canon makes especially wide open, I also find the 24-105 acceptably sharp wide open, maybe not cut your teeth sharp, but good enough for most uses. Stopped down to f8 at 100mm I doubt there would be much of a perceived sharpness advantage for either.

 

[jasonsim]

Well...the sharpest lens I have and have used without any doubt is the new Canon EF 300mm F/2.8L IS II. Hell, it is even sharp with a 2x III converter on it.

Second might be the new 600mm F/4L IS II, followed by the 200mm F/1.8L or 70-200mm F/2.8L IS II or 85mm F/1.2L II. My 24mm F/3.5L TS-E II was also really sharp...sorry I had to let it go; just found I did not use the tilt and shift features all that much.

Kind regards,
Jason

 

[RLPhoto]

200mm F/2L

 

[AlanF]

Well...the sharpest lens I have and have used without any doubt is the new Canon EF 300mm F/2.8L IS II. Hell, it is even sharp with a 2x III converter on it.

+1

 

[florianbieler.de]

According to traumflieger.de (a very well known german page for anything gear) the sharpest lenses are in that order:

180mm Macro
200mm 2.0L
400mm 2.8L
Sigma 105mm Macro
Canon 300mm 2.8L

Tokina 100mm Macro, Canon 100mm Macro and 70-200 2.8 are not far beyond. So mainly the longer focal lengths are the sharpest with the two exception 8-15mm Fisheye and 24-70 II.

 

[RS2021]

And there we go again...a shameless parade of "what I own (or wish I owned) is the best, sharpest, and the inevitable answer to what you need" pronouncements...

 

[RS2021]

Take a look here:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx

It's an useful comparison chart!

Cool tool -thank you for sharing! I will show that to him.

The digital picture.com site is a great tool yes, and certainly one of the most systematic and complete ones...

But remember, while very useful, the image crops are still based on one (and occationally two copies of the lenses). As Roger from lensrentals repeatedly demonstrates, there is a "spread" in sharpness for any given lens...some are notorious for variation if you were to sample 20 copies of the lens, others are tightly bunched up with little variation. Keep that in mind as you browse the t-d-p site....it is still a great resource.

My copy of the simple 24-105L is very sharp and contrasty...yet I hear some are unhappy with their copies...two possibilities: they are either pixel peeping "measurebators" who simply will not be happy with most lenses, or, their copy is truly a lemon, in which case there is still some hope to land a good copy.

This is *not* to suggest that 24-105 is the sharpest lens ever, for it isn't, just a way to exemplify the copy-variation issue. In my lens line-up, if forced to choose something, I will have to go with 135L at the top and 70-200 f2.8II as a close second. I also own the f4 version, which to my eye at least is equally sharp. I don't own any of the large white super-tele primes, but from what I hear they are all quite sharp.

 

[dafrank]

My sharpest lenses, as I rate them, in very rough order (much depends on taking aperture, distance, etc., and I might easily switch the order a bit on any given day) from the very sharpest to extremely sharp, are:

1) Canon 90mm f/2.8 TS
2) Canon 300mm f/2.8 IS
3) Sigma 150mm f/2.8 Macro (non IS)
4) Canon 85mm f/1.2 vII
5) Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS vII
6) Canon 50mm f/2.5 macro

All the other lenses I own are very good, but these especially stand out in the sharpness department.

Regards,
David