Are wide lenses sharper than telephoto ones?

I am noticing my 17-40L is much sharper than my 70-200L. Is this a normal occurance, maybe because the DOF is shallower and you need a higher shutter speed on a long lens? Or do I just have a bad copy of the 70-200?

it could be because its more difficult to hand hold the telephoto, and you're getting camera shake. i find it very sharp

I second this one. Try some comparisons on a tri pod if you have not done so already. If you are still having issues it could be that you have a bad copy of the telephoto or a better than average wide angle. There are test charts and many discussions posted here in this part of the forum.

THEY do tend to look sharper because of dof and the shutter speed being faster for the focal lenth also helps get rid of camera shake they are not realy sharper than any other zoom but i find the shots from my 17/40 often look sharper.
Rob.

One of the books I read not long ago said that images from telephotos occasionally look horrible because of the poor quality of the air. Hence, if you were photographing a subject very far away, a lot of this 'hazy' air in between will degrade the image.

This probably explains why one of my lenses turned in horrible, moth-bitten looking images of birds that were over 50 meters away compared with a magnificent image of a monitor lizard that was just a few meters away. In both cases the focal length was the same, and I'm sure that the shutter speed, combined with IS, would have made camera shake quite negligible.

Hope there's a better explaination for this phenomenon.

I've noticed under the same type conditions that my two are fairly the same.

This mirrors my experience. Love my 17-40 BTW.

Quite true - with a tele, you're going to find atmospheric disturbances more obvious than with a wide. There are a number of factors that can contribute to poorer tele shots than wide shots. This, hand-holdable speed (which gives the secondary benefit to a wide of letting you use smaller apertures), and greater DoF with wides than teles will all affect the impression you'll get about a lens.

Try using both lenses from a tripod with a subject at a moderate (15-20 ft/5-7 m) to get a fairer comparison.

Optically,. telephotos are inherently SHARPER.
But are, as noted allready, more prone to being susceptible to camera shake etc..

I'd check to see if the 70-200mm is sharper when mounted to a tripod and shooting something relatively close. If it's still not sharp you may have an issue

The sharpest photos I've ever taken have been with either my 85mm f/1.8, or with the 70-200mm f/2.8. In all honesty, I find that my "wider" lenses (50mm f/1.8 and 28mm f/1.8) are a bit softer...

Steve

>>Optically,. telephotos are inherently SHARPER.
But are, as noted allready, more prone to being susceptible to camera shake etc.. <<

here's the answer i most agree with but there is lots of great info on this thread so far!

btw, my 70-200L f4 is the sharpest lens i have ever used.

ed rader

Especially in the Canon lens lineup, the telephotos are better. Canon's telephotos are the best in the business. The long primes are absolutely stellar. The short telephoto zooms are the best zooms made (70-200 L's and 80-200L).

btw, my 70-200L f4 is the sharpest lens i have ever used.

ed rader[/QUOTE]

And I'd second that. The 100-400mm seems to come very close, but not exactly 'there'.

shniks, with that being said, do exchange your lens quickly if you think there really is an issue. If I remember correctly, you also posted some sample pictures of a cat that were somewhat soft, and some time ago. Try taking photos of some dogs at the beach (on a brightly-lit day), and go for their eyes. If the sharpness is really there, it should show up in the reflections from their eyeballs, and in the fur on their eyelids.

I second what CDS said. Wide angles are both more difficult to design and build, and perceptilby not as sharp in most cases. The MTF's agree. My 70-200/4 is incredible. Blows away my 24-70L at 70mm. I'd put it up against my primes, including the 135L, without blushing.

It's easier to design telephotos, they are naturally sharper, a wide should be no match for a tele.