Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 14 Jul 2011 (Thursday) 15:48
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Sharpest non prime Canon lens

 
Twix6
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
62 posts
Joined Dec 2010
     
Jul 18, 2011 12:14 |  #46

Plus the questions was about Canon lenses only, and quite simple.

Which lens would give you the best picture SOOC at 30-40mm focal length?

Let me decide if I want a wide lens and get the 17-55, or I want the 24-105 and deal with 4.0 aperture/less wide.

Seems like the 17-55 2.8 Canon is the sharpest/most vivid colors lens out there in this range.


T2i - 18-55IS, Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, 50-250 IS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
HughR
Senior Member
Avatar
999 posts
Joined Feb 2011
Location: Toronto, Ontario
     
Jul 18, 2011 13:10 |  #47

My suggestion would be the 15-85mm IS. It's a great lens and cover both wide angle and medium telephoto on crop bodies. It is on my 60D all the time, and I shoot about 90% of my photos with it.


Hugh
Canon 60D, Original Digital Rebel (2003)
EFS 15-85mm IS USM, EF 70-300mm IS USM, Tokina 11-16mm
Speedlite 430EX, Speedlite 430EX II,
Qbox 16 pro, Lastolite EZbox 24x24, Lumiquest Softbox III

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
drunkenxmonkee
Member
163 posts
Joined Aug 2009
     
Jul 18, 2011 13:41 |  #48

keano016 wrote in post #12758793 (external link)
Thanks for the input. I am more thinking about a possible upgrade of getting "the one" lens that will be great.

Just wondered what people thought was the sharpest lens with no PP.

on my 18-55 I found myself wanting a bit more reach so I am quite happy with the 18-135 range, so the closest to that range in the next category of lens would be the 24-105, but wondering if I sacrifice bit of a focal length, would 28-70 produce the sharpest, vivid pictures of objects and kids (plus the 2.8).

I have the 28-70L and I loved it when I was on a cropped body. It used to be my work horse until I got myself into primes. the 28-70L is a really nice lens even though it's a little bit on the older side, but since you're on a cropped body (it works perfect on a FF), I'd recommend the 17-55 IS, but if you plan on upgrading to a FF camera, I'd go with the 17-40L.

There are bits and pieces that you have to take into consideration:
Are you upgrading to FF anytime soon?
Do you need the extra stop?
Is built quility important for you?


-John
5D | 55-250mm IS f/4-5.6| 50mm f/1.8 | 35mm f/2.0 | 50mm f/1.4 | 85mm f/1.8 | 28-70mm f/2.8L | | 70-200mm f/4L | 430EXII | Kenko Extension Tubes

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MilesW
Member
240 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Apr 2005
     
Jul 20, 2011 06:30 |  #49

It would appear the best answer to this sharpness question is not to be found here. Has there been an actual study done on this question any where?


20D Canon EFS 17-85IS, 70-2001:4 L IS, Macro 100 F2.8, Canon 50 1.4Canon ext EF 1.4X II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SamuelYCWang
Senior Member
Avatar
280 posts
Joined Feb 2008
     
Jul 20, 2011 19:51 |  #50

DL.Photography wrote in post #12758921 (external link)
I took my 17-40 + 50 f/1.4 (my usual vacation gear) to Washington D.C. and it did not disappoint!

Edit* ^on a full frame

If i was on a crop, i would probably have liked my old EF-S 10-22 + 50 f/1.4

If only you have experience the 17-55/2.8.


Canon 5D MK III
EF 17-40 f/4L USM
ER 50 f/1.2L USM
EF 24-70 7/2.8L II USM
EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MilesW
Member
240 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Apr 2005
     
Jul 20, 2011 23:22 |  #51

Watching all the responses here as I would like to replace my EFS 17-85 IS with a better quality walk around lens. it is on my 20D most of the time. Sometimes the results I get are a little soft.


20D Canon EFS 17-85IS, 70-2001:4 L IS, Macro 100 F2.8, Canon 50 1.4Canon ext EF 1.4X II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
krb
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,818 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Jun 2008
Location: Where southern efficiency and northern charm come together
     
Jul 20, 2011 23:29 |  #52

MilesW wrote in post #12796087 (external link)
Watching all the responses here as I would like to replace my EFS 17-85 IS with a better quality walk around lens. it is on my 20D most of the time. Sometimes the results I get are a little soft.

If the range of that lens is working for you then the 15-85 that replaced it in Canon's lineup has a good reputation.


-- Ken
Comment and critique is always appreciated!
Flickr (external link)
Gear list

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
The ­ Fox
Goldmember
Avatar
1,793 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 98
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Eugene, OR
     
Jul 30, 2011 00:45 |  #53

HKGuns wrote in post #12773518 (external link)
It is great that you own this lens and everything, however, don't post crap that simply isn't true. The Canon 17-55 by all tests, I have seen, has higher resolution numbers than this lens and is overall a better lens when other factors are included in the analysis. If you add for dollar spent I may have less issue with your statement.

Yeah, I've owned 2 copies of each the 24-70mm and 17-55mm(what have you owned?). The tamron(non VC) single handly beat them all on my 50D. The 17-55mm is amazing, but sharpness in both copies I had was just okay at F2.8, F4 was about the same as the tamron but wide open at anything closer then 10'(which I do plenty of) the 17-50mm took the lead. The 24-70mm was just okay at everything(not bad, just no where near the hype which sucks because I love that range more then the 17-5ish focal length). And some the feature are nice, USM is great with FTM(what I miss the most), but build I give it to the tamron for being more soild with less wobble in the lens barrel and it has a smoother focusing ring. IS does not mean much to me personally, as I shoot product where it is useless, or shooting sports where it is even more useless. For less then half the price, you can have a lens that is equal to

Remember kiddies, numbers dont reflect reality. Give a 3 year old a 5d mk II and 200mm F2 does not mean the images they get will be amazing. I am seeing it more and more as I spend time and shoot instead of just being a gear whore like I used to be.

And please dont tell people their opinions are s***. I have owned more gear then you could imagine(most of canon's current lens line up I have owned, as well as 1/5/7/10-60D bodies). And my current work camera is my Mamiya Pro-S and a P65+ digital back, so I know nothing about quality.

Nick


"I work from awkwardness. By that I mean I don't arrange things. If I stand in front of something, instead of arranging it, I arrange myself" -Diane Arbus
7D MK II Gripped | 7D Gripped |17-50mm F2.8 | 35mm F1.4 | 60mm F2.8 Macro | 135mm F2L | 70-200mm F4L IS |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wombatHorror
Goldmember
1,937 posts
Joined Sep 2010
Location: NJ
     
Jul 30, 2011 13:48 |  #54

keano016 wrote in post #12762773 (external link)
You are saying that the 18-55 is better and sharper than the 17-85 and the 28-105?

The IS version of the 18-55, yeah (not the versions without IS). The 17-85 was not so hot and the 28-105 is not great either. The 18-55 IS is actually very, very sharp although the colors can be a little dull and so on (but those other two also have some of the same other issues PLUS they are not as sharp).




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wombatHorror
Goldmember
1,937 posts
Joined Sep 2010
Location: NJ
     
Jul 30, 2011 13:50 |  #55

m.shalaby wrote in post #12762828 (external link)
so many threads about sharpness... *sigh*

sharpness isn't everything. most of these lenses are SOOOOOO close in sharpness its silly.

what makes it even more ridiculous is - have you hever heard of post processing? you know there's something called a sharpening tool?

sure there are other aspects and that is why even the 18-55 IS is very sharp it still loses to say a tamron 17-50 or canon 17-55 IS.

also, you can't make up for a less sharp lens with sharpening since you'd also sharpen the pic from the sharper lens, fine microcontrast or ability to separate similar shades/intensities can't really be brought back in PP, only a little.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wombatHorror
Goldmember
1,937 posts
Joined Sep 2010
Location: NJ
     
Jul 30, 2011 13:53 |  #56

peterbj7 wrote in post #12768909 (external link)
I hear what you say, but I do the same (shooting sports) and see no practical difference between my 24-105 (constant aperture) and 15-85 (variable aperture). I have friends who say you can't shoot acceptable video using a lens with variable aperture, but I've done precisely that with my 15-85 mounted on my 7D. Can you (or anyone) give me a precise technical reason why a variable aperture lens can't be used successfully, or is less effective?

The thing when it comes to sports and variable aperture is that sometimes Av mode works worse than M mode, it depends upon the field and conditions etc., and variable aperture makes M mode awkward to use since you basically have to fix say an f/4-5.6 lens at f/5.6 and you give up a stop of background blur and shutter speed at the wide end of the range.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wombatHorror
Goldmember
1,937 posts
Joined Sep 2010
Location: NJ
     
Jul 30, 2011 13:56 |  #57

HKGuns wrote in post #12773518 (external link)
It is great that you own this lens and everything, however, don't post crap that simply isn't true. The Canon 17-55 by all tests, I have seen, has higher resolution numbers than this lens and is overall a better lens when other factors are included in the analysis. If you add for dollar spent I may have less issue with your statement.

I've heard plenty of people say that the Tamron is just a little sharper than the 17-55 IS (although it has more CA on the wide end, although the CA does clean up very well in ACR).
It was better than my 17-40L and better over the shared range, quite clearly, than 24-105L.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

8,531 views & 0 likes for this thread
Sharpest non prime Canon lens
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Dman780
1501 guests, 317 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.