Sharpest non prime Canon lens

Just wondering if there will be some general consensus on the sharpest non prime lens. Say you are in Washington DC and If you only had to choose one walk around lens to photograph a day around town where you would take pictures of flowers, kids, some buildings, monuments, etc, and wanted to minimize post production (for sharpens, colors, WB) or do none at all which lens would you take with you?

Lets ignore the telephoto lens for now and think that you will be shooting the most in the 24-40 range ( to make all 5 eligible)

28-70?
17-40?
28-105?
17-50?
17-85?

Any other?

17-55mm f/2.8 for your T2i would be great for that. That or the 17-50 by sigma/tamron would be good too. 24 mm on the L lenses wouldn't be wide enough for the buildings and monuments. Honestly though, your 18-135mm would be fine too.

On your camera definitely the 17-55 2.8 IS given your limits, its not the sharpest zoom lens, but its the best option for the scenario you suggest.

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).

15-85 is no slouch

keano016 wrote in post #12758793
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).

The 24-105 is sharp, but its not a great walkaround on a crop. What you lose on the wide end is important for a general purpose carry lens. 24 is not really wide on a crop camera.

I love my 24-70L. It is superb!

keano016 wrote in post #12758793
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).

The 24-105 is sharp, and it's a great walkaround on a crop. What you lose on the wide end is not important at all for a general purpose carry lens. 24 is plenty wide enough on a crop camera.

For a trip like you inquired about I would go with the 17-55, with the 15-85 right behind that if you want a little more reach. Both are good lenses. At the apertures you would be shooting during the day you most likely won't see much additional benefit from the 17-55, but in lower light it would definitely have the advantage.

The 24-105 would likely not be ideal on a crop as it will probably be too long in tighter indoor spaces. I have the lens and it's a great one but I'm going to have to add an UWA zoom to make up for the lack of short end. If you won't be using it much indoors though it's definitely worth considering.

krb wrote in post #12758895
What you lose on the wide end is not important at all for a general purpose carry lens. 24 is plenty wide enough on a crop camera.

To some maybe, but to others, 24 is nowhere near wide enough for a general purpose zoom, especially not for buildings in a city. Personally, I would never be able to take only 1 lens with me if it only went to 24mm (unless I was specifically trying to limit myself), I'd have to have a wider lens to complement it.

As for the OP's question, the 17-55 would be the best bet out of your choices if you want fast aperture, and for the things you plan on using it for, though personally I'd pick the 15-85 for the extra range which is more useful to me.

If it were me, I'd start with focal length, DOF and light gathering needs first and then as budget allows maximize image quality & SOOC look.

If you really think that 28mm will be wide enough, the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 will be better than the 28-105 and as good as the 28-70 (assume you mean the L).

On a crop body 28mm is pretty close to a "normal" fov and I'd want a wide to normal zoom for a trip like this - at least 18mm and wider would be even better. Outdoors during the day, you'll probably want some DOF and at f8, all of the lenses will be fine. If you're doing museums or night time, f2.8 and IS will come in handy.

If you want shallow DOF or if image quality is the number one concern, a fast prime (or 2) would be best. You'll get some advantage in going from f4 to f2.8 but not a huge amount. And a Sigma 30 f1.4 at f2.8 will most likely be much sharper than even a 17-55 at the same aperture.

If I remember well the Smithsionians allow photography in their museums. The 17-55/2.8 is great for that.

Try some panorama stitching where 17 is not wide enough.

Sirrith wrote in post #12759164
To some maybe, but to others, 24 is nowhere near wide enough for a general purpose zoom, especially not for buildings in a city. Personally, I would never be able to take only 1 lens with me if it only went to 24mm (unless I was specifically trying to limit myself), I'd have to have a wider lens to complement it.

I was mocking gonzo's post (2 before mine) as much as I was answering the OP. It is extremely conceited to think that any us can dictate to anybody what is the 'right' focal length for how they capture a scene. I rarely work at wide angles and I find the 24-105 a good choice. A guy I often go shooting with is the opposite and he considers the 10-22 a perfect walkaround lens. Neither of us is wrong and it's always interesting to look over eachothers shots at the end of the day and see the different interpretations of the same places and events.

17-55 - Great lens for DC when I was there a couple of years back. Another thing that I wish I had then (I do now) is the grided focusing screen for my 40D. I don't know if your camera has one or one is available. No matter how level/square I had the camera, it seems that the architecture shots were off by just a little...correction defeated the advantage of having a sharp lens. Now that I have it...it's the best $30 bucks I ever spent.

krb wrote in post #12758895
The 24-105 is sharp, and it's a great walkaround on a crop. What you lose on the wide end is not important at all for a general purpose carry lens. 24 is plenty wide enough on a crop camera.

+1. I agree.