Sharpest non "L" lens

50mm F/1.4 and the 100mm Macro

To get anything from our nominations we should really separate primes from zooms.
There's no way ANY non-L 'zoom can compete for sharpness with the 50's, 85 /1.8, 135sf, etc.

Tyreman wrote in post #2056601
EF28-105/3.5-4.5/II-USM
Works good for me!

In the telephoto range I see that only one person mentions the caon EF28-105 F3.5-4.5. How do you guys think this lens compares to the ones already mentioned???

AdamJL wrote in post #2056595
This has been called "Canon's hidden L" by a few reviewers...

You got me... I was thinking of the 75-300mm f4-5.6 IS, which doesn't have the best optics.

SuzyView wrote in post #2056667
I bought the 85 1.8 before joining the forum and had that lens on my 10D for a very long time when I wanted a good portrait lens. It has too much bokeh for shots having more than 4 people, but I love that lens. Then I got the 50 1.4 because I wanted something I could use most of the time indoors and it hasn't disappointed. It's a great lens. Both those lenses stay in my bag when I go out for an event because in low light, they are very good.

I think what you are trying to say is that it doesn't have enough Depth Of Field. The key is that you can't shoot it wide open when you need the entire frame to be in focus. You need to stop down a bit to get a nice crisp image, with more DOF.

ben4633 wrote in post #2055930
How about Telephoto also?

Sigma 150 f/2.8 macro.

ben4633,
The 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 is a great lens!
A prime will always be a tad sharper then a zoom but a zoom is much more convient (with 28-105mm available). However if you need more light, more sharpness or less DOF more than the convience of a zoom then the prime is usually the way to go.

Lester Wareham wrote in post #2056598
If you want a good quality prime telephoto there are not many options without going L. You could look at the 200/f2.8L, fantastic quality but not as expensive as many of the Ls.

I own this one, too, and wholeheartedly agree. For $650 USD, it's one helluva lens. I use mine all the time.

ben4633 wrote in post #2055930
How about Telephoto also?

How long? Telephoto is anything longer than 50mm,. which is a lot of ground to cover.

As mentioned, above 135mm there isn't much in the way of "non-L primes".
Your either getting a soft zoom, or a third party. But prices even out too (the fact that it doesn't have an "L" on it won't make it a better bargain)

there's the very affordable 200mm f/2.8L if your looking at mid tele,.

For 300mm all of the non OEMs make a 300mm f/2.8 all of which are optically very good (but much pricier than the EF 300mm f/4L IS)

For 400mm there are no Prime bargains but the EF 400mm f/5.6L

For 500mm the Bargain is the Sigma 500mm f/4.5EX, but that' "bargain" is still $3,500.00

Of the lenses that I have tried, you'd have to pretty much throw out all of the zooms that are non L except the 17-55. Although I haven't tried it, others are impressed, but it carries an "L" price.

The 100mm f/2.8 and 200mm f/2.8 are great lenses and very sharp. Some of the other posters have alot of experience with the other focal lengths and have made good recommendations.

Pick a macro, any macro......

ben4633 wrote in post #2057018
In the telephoto range I see that only one person mentions the caon EF28-105 F3.5-4.5. How do you guys think this lens compares to the ones already mentioned???

I have the 28-105 USM, the Tamron 28-75 Di and the Canon 24-105L. The Tamron is sharper thatn the 28-105, and the L is slightly sharper than then Tamron

I'll vote for the 50 f/1.4 for the sharpest non-L prime (that I've used), and the 17-55 for shapest non-L zoom.

the tammy 17-50 is pretty damn sharp. but i would have to agree, macro.

This sigma 24-70 f2.8 I just bought is pretty sharp. Not sure if it is the sharpest Non L lens out there but it is a lens with a constant aperture and a somewhat L build. I can't truly answer this question because I have never owned every lens made to fit a EF mount (yet).

120-300 f/2.8