Something that has made me really think about fast L lenses

[SeanH]

Been thinking about this one lately and after buying & using 3 "L" lenses compared to a couple non L lenses.

First keep this in mind........I'm a sharpness FREAK......nuff said, I sure a few of you are also. SO.......in every lens test I have ever seen NONE of the lenses are that sharp as compared to their F4-8 or 11 settings, so why do we buy these 2.8 $1500-$7000 dollars lens? Yes I understand the "L" glass is better, and we can get 120th instead of 30th......2.8 VS 5.6, but I guess the age old question is......Is it really worth it? I shot my Daughters easter with a 18-55 that I picked up on Ebay for 70 bucks, and also used my 70-200 2.8 L, and the 18-55 is just as sharp. I' will enclude a croped shot of each at "actual Pixels".......you be the judge. 70-200 first. Oh and btw, 70-200 was shot at 2500th @ 2.8, and I forget on the 18-55.

[ed2day]

The first picture looks markedly better to me. Of course closeups always look sharper than a pic from farther back, but I don't really see anything sharp in the second picture and when I look at the hair near the edge of the picture it looks blurry to me.

[Phil Hall]

Its hard to compare two such different pictures. To compare lenses it is best to have as much the same picture as possible.

Phil Hall
Santa Ynez

[SeanH]

The first picture looks markedly better to me. Of course closeups always look sharper than a pic from farther back, but I don't really see anything sharp in the second picture and when I look at the hair near the edge of the picture it looks blurry to me.
Yea just looking at the photo's in PS they looked the same, but now that they are side by side and blow up the same I can see the difference. However I still find myself having a hard time with trying to lose the depth of field in a portait and at the same time knowing I'm not going to get the sharpest photo that expensive lens can produce. But I guess I am answering my own questions......LOL........that's life and use USM!