- Status
D
DCM1024
Guest
Thank you so much for all the great responses. I have bookmarked this thread for future reference. Due to the purchase of several kits, we ended up with three! 24-105s plus the EF-s 17-55, so some selling and purchasing of new tools is definitely in order. We do like the 24-105, and it can be surprisingly sharp itself. I have a photo of a bride (head and shoulder) where you can see the fine vellus hair on her shoulder. At this time, we use primarily zooms for convenience, but I could see that changing as I mature as a photographer. I can tell you that spending a year photographing weddings has already changed me - I have gone from shooting primarily aperture or shutter priority to manual as I now know where I want my settings to be. Thank you all again. Debbie
Upvote
0
Generally speaking any of the prime L series lenses will be sharper than any of the zooms. One exception may be the new 24-70 mkii.
The 100 2.8L Macro IS is a fantastic lens. I've used it for landscape work but it really shines as a macro lens. The IS is not very good at really close macro distances so it may be just as good to turn it off and use high shutter or tripod in macro mode. The sharpness is astounding. You will have a lot of fun with it.
The 100 2.8L Macro IS is a fantastic lens. I've used it for landscape work but it really shines as a macro lens. The IS is not very good at really close macro distances so it may be just as good to turn it off and use high shutter or tripod in macro mode. The sharpness is astounding. You will have a lot of fun with it.
Upvote
0
Ray2021 said:
And then there are the circumstancial factors. AFMA ever so slightly off? Traces of camera shake or subject movement? Field curvature (or photographers sense of volume) put the focal plane not where its supposed to be? With the big whites air(both turbulence/seeing and dust) can get the limiting factor quite easily.
Upvote
0
privatebydesign said:
Sure, but (1) the differences between the two in that example are slight and probably wouldn't be noticeable when shooting actual three dimensional things (of course, that's true of lots of other similar comparisons too); and (2) with different samples of either or both lenses the results of the comparison could be quite different - look at the rather wide range by which lenses vary from copy to copy in the various examples/comparisons available at lensrentals.com, for instance. (The first 70-300L I bought was seldom even barely sharper than my 70-300 non-L and even less sharp at 300mm, so I returned it; the second was sharper, but the first one was sharp enough that without the direct comparison I probably wouldn't have realized there was any reason to return it.) Plus, some lenses seem happier on some cameras than on others.
Upvote
0
Sharpness is sometimes overated... and sometimes counter productive. And it cannot make up for an unimaginative artist with a super sharp lens...
I only put that down first as I wanted to share Kirk Tuck's wonderful quote from his blog:
"Never before have so many boring photographs been so damn sharp."
It made me smile and think.
I only put that down first as I wanted to share Kirk Tuck's wonderful quote from his blog:
"Never before have so many boring photographs been so damn sharp."
It made me smile and think.
Upvote
0
My impressions are from use, and from tweaking the files at 100% in post. I have no test equipment.
Probably the sharpest picture I have ever taken, was with an 85mm f/1.2 L, a landscape image at infinity focus (done manually via live view), closed to f/5.6. But at wider than about f/2.5, it wasn't all that sharp at any focus distance, and had severe vignetting even on my crop camera. Contrast was very good, color was nice with a lot of richness toward the violet end.
I've owned the 135mm f/2 for almost 4 years, it is extremely sharp even wide open on a crop camera. Some say it's not all that sharp, but it's possible there is some sample variation. It also has bokeh at least as good as the 85mmL, and with none of the "bokeh fringing" the 85 had (at least the one I tried.) It's possible the 135's bokeh is as good or better than the 50 f/1.2, I can only guess...obviously it's not as extreme in its shallow-ness.
I've rented the 500 f/4L (first generation), and the current generation 200mm f/2L. That 500 was not very sharp at all on my crop camera (no matter how I adjusted focus, or even if I focused manually via live view at 10x, on a tripod, on a motionless target...and was apparent via the live view's video feed, before I even snapped the shutter while the mirror was up). The rental place tested it, and found nothing wrong.
By contrast, the 200 f/2L was extremely sharp even on a monopod with its fabulous IS, and had better color than any other lens I've had experience with (including the 85L). The colors, well they looked like they were shot with a medium format camera! "Global contrast" was slightly more than my 135, which puts it at extreme. It didn't usually blow out highlights, though, so my camera's metering was still able to function well with it.
I've also tried the 300 f/4L and the 400 f/5.6L. The 400 was a lot sharper than I thought it would be...it was on par with the 200 and my 135. The 300 f/4L is certainly more than sharp enough at its price point...and I'm actually currently considering buying either it, or a zoom. I will never buy a long telephoto without IS.
The Zeiss 100mm Makro Planar f/2 that I tried, was extremely sharp via my crop camera, had extremely smooth bokeh (on par with my 135, if not exceeding it), and a color with very rich (almost over ripe) reds, but this was still pleasing and very usable. I wish I owned one. Some say it is the sharpest lens in the world, or was.
The Zeiss 35mm f/2 that I tried, was the sharpest wider angle lens I have ever tried. The color balance was very neutral, and the contrast was so extreme that its highlights overwhelmed my camera's metering, so I always had to under-expose a bit.
Another very sharp lens I've owned since Fall 2011, is the (Cosina) Voigtlander 58mm f/1.4 Nokton SLii, in Nikon mount, with a Canon adaptor. I refer you to photozone.de's test/review, and you tell me which they found to be sharper overall, the Canon 50mm f/1.4, or this one? (They don't admit it in their summation, but their test results speak for themselves...compare them side-by-side). It has some slight bokeh fringing at wider apertures, but is still very sharp wide open. Closed down a bit, it has to be one of the sharpest lenses ever made. It has almost no vignetting even wide open on a crop camera, and is extremely sharp to the corners, wide open...on a crop camera. No other f/1.4 lens I have ever tried, was capable of this. The color rendition is quite magical, in my opinion. Greens and reds are especially rich. The bokeh isn't the smoothest, but it's smooth enough for me.
I recall a magazine article, I think it was in "Digital Photo Pro" 2 or 3 years ago, where they recounted the sharpest lenses of all time. The sharpest they found, was a Leica 100 f/2.8 macro, which I believe ended production in the 1990's. From what I have read, the Leica lens I would love to own (and somehow use on an SLR without chopping it in half), is the 75mm f/2 Summicron Aspherical.
Probably the sharpest picture I have ever taken, was with an 85mm f/1.2 L, a landscape image at infinity focus (done manually via live view), closed to f/5.6. But at wider than about f/2.5, it wasn't all that sharp at any focus distance, and had severe vignetting even on my crop camera. Contrast was very good, color was nice with a lot of richness toward the violet end.
I've owned the 135mm f/2 for almost 4 years, it is extremely sharp even wide open on a crop camera. Some say it's not all that sharp, but it's possible there is some sample variation. It also has bokeh at least as good as the 85mmL, and with none of the "bokeh fringing" the 85 had (at least the one I tried.) It's possible the 135's bokeh is as good or better than the 50 f/1.2, I can only guess...obviously it's not as extreme in its shallow-ness.
I've rented the 500 f/4L (first generation), and the current generation 200mm f/2L. That 500 was not very sharp at all on my crop camera (no matter how I adjusted focus, or even if I focused manually via live view at 10x, on a tripod, on a motionless target...and was apparent via the live view's video feed, before I even snapped the shutter while the mirror was up). The rental place tested it, and found nothing wrong.
By contrast, the 200 f/2L was extremely sharp even on a monopod with its fabulous IS, and had better color than any other lens I've had experience with (including the 85L). The colors, well they looked like they were shot with a medium format camera! "Global contrast" was slightly more than my 135, which puts it at extreme. It didn't usually blow out highlights, though, so my camera's metering was still able to function well with it.
I've also tried the 300 f/4L and the 400 f/5.6L. The 400 was a lot sharper than I thought it would be...it was on par with the 200 and my 135. The 300 f/4L is certainly more than sharp enough at its price point...and I'm actually currently considering buying either it, or a zoom. I will never buy a long telephoto without IS.
The Zeiss 100mm Makro Planar f/2 that I tried, was extremely sharp via my crop camera, had extremely smooth bokeh (on par with my 135, if not exceeding it), and a color with very rich (almost over ripe) reds, but this was still pleasing and very usable. I wish I owned one. Some say it is the sharpest lens in the world, or was.
The Zeiss 35mm f/2 that I tried, was the sharpest wider angle lens I have ever tried. The color balance was very neutral, and the contrast was so extreme that its highlights overwhelmed my camera's metering, so I always had to under-expose a bit.
Another very sharp lens I've owned since Fall 2011, is the (Cosina) Voigtlander 58mm f/1.4 Nokton SLii, in Nikon mount, with a Canon adaptor. I refer you to photozone.de's test/review, and you tell me which they found to be sharper overall, the Canon 50mm f/1.4, or this one? (They don't admit it in their summation, but their test results speak for themselves...compare them side-by-side). It has some slight bokeh fringing at wider apertures, but is still very sharp wide open. Closed down a bit, it has to be one of the sharpest lenses ever made. It has almost no vignetting even wide open on a crop camera, and is extremely sharp to the corners, wide open...on a crop camera. No other f/1.4 lens I have ever tried, was capable of this. The color rendition is quite magical, in my opinion. Greens and reds are especially rich. The bokeh isn't the smoothest, but it's smooth enough for me.
I recall a magazine article, I think it was in "Digital Photo Pro" 2 or 3 years ago, where they recounted the sharpest lenses of all time. The sharpest they found, was a Leica 100 f/2.8 macro, which I believe ended production in the 1990's. From what I have read, the Leica lens I would love to own (and somehow use on an SLR without chopping it in half), is the 75mm f/2 Summicron Aspherical.
Upvote
0
I own lots of lenses, but just recently got the 70-200mm f2.8 IS II USM. It seems sharper than my primes, even at f2.8!
BIG fan of that one...
BIG fan of that one...
Upvote
0
I'm a bit surprised: The 180mm macro L was one of the softest lenses I ever tried. I assume that was just a very bad lens and the rest is much better.
My sharpest must be the 100mm f/2.0 I think...
My sharpest must be the 100mm f/2.0 I think...
Upvote
0
I do not yet have experience with the Mark II big whites mentioned by some in reply, so with that caveat, in my experience/view:
(1) 200 f/2.0L (clear winner)
(2) 85 f/1.2L
(3) 70-200 f/2.8L II
(1) 200 f/2.0L (clear winner)
(2) 85 f/1.2L
(3) 70-200 f/2.8L II
Upvote
0
Of what I've used and seen- the 24-70 II, 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, 85L II, and the 135L are the sharpest I've seen!
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
- Contains 2 staff post(s)
