Need help finding the sharpest lens I can afford.

here are the 2 of the 50mm lens

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

And here are the 18mm-55mm lens pics

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

D0T-C0M wrote in post #6151316
Thanks guys for all the comments but the lens I have is not the IS model.

m-bartelt wrote in post #6151877
The non IS version of the 18-55 lens is definitely regarded as sub-par. The IS version has much better optics.

Get the 18-55 IS. Problem solved.

I personally will buy nothing other than Canon's "L" series lenses. The reason being is I bought a Tamron (24-105mm I think) f2.8 and it was really soft at wider apertures, especially 2.8. I came to learn this is rather common with Non-Canon brand lenses due to the quality of the glass being less. Now grant it, I've heard plenty of people using the other brand lenses and being very satisfied with them, but I had a bad case and won't ever buy another. I never have regretted buying a "L" series lens. They have always been really sharp, very good at cutting chromatic Aberration, and focus really well in low light. So I'm one of the ones sold on Canon "L" series lenses for this reason.

With that said, canon does have two lenses just a bit more than your budget that are "L" series lenses, but are both f/4 lenses. If shooting in low light isn't a high priority, I would recommend considering these.

Canon 17-40mm f/4L
and
Canon 70-200mm f/4L
You may find them used for a bit cheaper, but I've personally known people owning these and love them. Hope that helps.

Whilst not wide the 50mm 2.5 will out perform most lenses I have seen. Its also well under your goal.

Ridiculously sharp.
Adam

yogestee wrote in post #6149010
Brilliant lens especially for portraiture but not quite wide enough on a crop body..

Agreed. I would have to go for the Tamron 17-50 2.8 as you mentioned before.

imchillindave wrote in post #6153783
I personally will buy nothing other than Canon's "L" series lenses. The reason being is I bought a Tamron (24-105mm I think) f2.8 and it was really soft at wider apertures, especially 2.8. I came to learn this is rather common with Non-Canon brand lenses due to the quality of the glass being less. Now grant it, I've heard plenty of people using the other brand lenses and being very satisfied with them, but I had a bad case and won't ever buy another. I never have regretted buying a "L" series lens. They have always been really sharp, very good at cutting chromatic Aberration, and focus really well in low light. So I'm one of the ones sold on Canon "L" series lenses for this reason.

With that said, canon does have two lenses just a bit more than your budget that are "L" series lenses, but are both f/4 lenses. If shooting in low light isn't a high priority, I would recommend considering these.

Canon 17-40mm f/4L
and
Canon 70-200mm f/4L
You may find them used for a bit cheaper, but I've personally known people owning these and love them. Hope that helps.

The OP is on a tight budget and looking for a lens under $500..

imchillindave wrote in post #6153783
I personally will buy nothing other than Canon's "L" series lenses.

imchillindave wrote in post #6153783
I came to learn this is rather common with Non-Canon brand lenses due to the quality of the glass being less.

imchillindave wrote in post #6153783
but I had a bad case and won't ever buy another.

No offense intended, but that's somewhat shortsighted IMO because you're basing your choice on one bad apple.

With that said, if you bought your first L lens and it turned out to be a bad apple, you wouldn't buy another by the same reasoning ?

DOT COM. I have both the 18-55 non-IS and 18-55 IS. There is a very noticeable difference in sharpness between the two lenses (ie. 18-55 IS being the sharper out of the two).

Another option for you may be to invest in some post processing software to increase the sharpness if you decide to keep the 18-55 kit lens.

Unsharp mask is by far the sharpest lens I've ever used.

Thanks a lot for everyones responses. This forum is filled with so many helpful knowledgeable people. I have the 50mm 1.8 lens which I now have learnt to take better pictures with thanks to the depth of field calculator posted on page 1 of this post. I knew what depth of field was in theory but now I can see mathematically how it changes per f-stop at different distances. I thought the f-stops affected the acceptable focal length more than it actually does. Very helpful.

jfarsang wrote in post #6157136
DOT COM. I have both the 18-55 non-IS and 18-55 IS. There is a very noticeable difference in sharpness between the two lenses (ie. 18-55 IS being the sharper out of the two).

Another option for you may be to invest in some post processing software to increase the sharpness if you decide to keep the 18-55 kit lens.

Thats great to know that there is a noticeable difference in the IS model. As long as it is as sharp or better than the 50mm 1.8 lens pics above I would be happy. I think I can return the non-IS lens I bought and trade it in for an IS model. That would satisfy my present needs and budget. I like the range the 18mm-55mm has and suits me well for what I intend to use it for.

D0T-C0M wrote in post #6157440
Thanks a lot for everyones responses. This forum is filled with so many helpful knowledgeable people. I have the 50mm 1.8 lens which I now have learnt to take better pictures with thanks to the depth of field calculator posted on page 1 of this post. I knew what depth of field was in theory but now I can see mathematically how it changes per f-stop at different distances. I thought the f-stops affected the acceptable focal length more than it actually does. Very helpful.

Experiment with the DoF preview button on your camera. While you push it, the lens iris closes down to its selected setting, and you can actually see through the viewfinder the effect changing the aperture has on depth of field.

Well, you might be disappointed. The 50/1.8 (stopped down a little) is very sharp by any standards, and it is inherently easier to make a sharper prime than zoom lens.

If I haven't said it in this post above, the difference between the IS and non-IS is like night and day in my experience. I found the non-IS to be virtually useless due to soft images and chromatic aberration, but the IS is a joy to use. When I get nasty images now, I know its my fault!