I would say the 50mm f/1.4 and then probably the 100mm f/2.8 macro. Both pieces of glass produce super-sharp images. I also have the 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro and it can produce some very sharp portraits.
Oct 03, 2006 15:22 | #46 I would say the 50mm f/1.4 and then probably the 100mm f/2.8 macro. Both pieces of glass produce super-sharp images. I also have the 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro and it can produce some very sharp portraits. Kerry Sanders | flickr
LOG IN TO REPLY |
jr_senator Goldmember  4,861 posts Joined Sep 2006 More info | Oct 03, 2006 15:44 | #47 chtgrubbs wrote in post #2057722  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 would think a couple of your lenses are up for sale or trade.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
jr_senator Goldmember 4,861 posts Joined Sep 2006 More info | Oct 03, 2006 15:49 | #48 Depends on the format, no? I would consider 50mm a short tele on a 1.6 crop camera.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
In2Photos Cream of the Crop  19,813 posts Likes: 6 Joined Dec 2005 Location: Near Charlotte, NC. More info | Oct 03, 2006 15:52 | #49 jr_senator wrote in post #2072430 Depends on the format, no? I would consider 50mm a short tele on a 1.6 crop camera. No. The lens is still a 50mm which is considered a normal lens. The FOV when the 50mm is used on a 1.6 crop camera would be considered a short tele. Mike, The Keeper of the Archive
LOG IN TO REPLY |
aaronmd Member 101 posts Joined Jan 2006 Location: Stratford, Prince Edward Island More info | Oct 03, 2006 15:59 | #50 I have used the 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 IS and my old 85 f1.8 was sharper at all stops then each one....but a mile.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
ChopstickHero Senior Member  678 posts Joined Jan 2006 Location: Redlands, CA More info | Oct 03, 2006 16:14 | #51 Doom1701e wrote in post #2056264 The 50mm 1.4 is damn sharp. very true. i found my copy of the 50mm 1.4 very sharp at f/2. Canon 40D and 350D :: Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS :: Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS :: Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 :: Canon BG-E2 & BG-E3 :: Canon 430EX Speedlite :: Crumpler 6MDH & The Whickey and Cox
LOG IN TO REPLY |
aparmley Senior Member 508 posts Joined Jul 2005 Location: Near St. Louis More info | Oct 03, 2006 16:45 | #52 I really like my 35 2.0, I think it performs very good compared to my 50 1.4 and 85 1.8, a lot of people look past this lens due to the lack of USM and I from time to time complain about it too, but its still a sharp sharp lens for the money. Switched to Nikon . . . Thanks to all of you that made my sale a success! Enjoy your new gear!
LOG IN TO REPLY |
jr_senator Goldmember 4,861 posts Joined Sep 2006 More info | Oct 03, 2006 18:34 | #53 In2Photos wrote in post #2072440 No. The lens is still a 50mm which is considered a normal lens. The FOV when the 50mm is used on a 1.6 crop camera would be considered a short tele. 50mm is not always considered 'normal'. Perspective is the same regardless of focal length so FOV determines 'wide, normal, tele' for a given format. From the link below, "...FOV isn't determined by focal length, it's defined by focal length AND format size. That's why when we come to APS-C format digital SLRs (with a sensor approximately 15mm x 22mm) the wideangle lens is now 12.5mm, the normal lens is now 32mm and the telephoto lens is now 188mm."
LOG IN TO REPLY |
AeroSmith Goldmember  More info | Oct 03, 2006 18:38 | #54 Ditto on the 85 f/1.8. Josh Smith
LOG IN TO REPLY |
jr_senator Goldmember 4,861 posts Joined Sep 2006 More info | Oct 03, 2006 18:40 | #55 AeroSmith wrote in post #2073069 Ditto on the 85 f/1.8. The EF 100 f/2.8 Macro is a gem also.....really should have a red ring on it. Ouh, then my copy would had cost several hundred dollars more. Let's not be giving Canon ideas.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
AirBrontosaurus Goldmember  3,814 posts Likes: 1 Joined Sep 2005 Location: Indianapolis, Indiana More info | Oct 03, 2006 18:41 | #56 Agreed on the Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro. Sharp as a razor. Honestly, this lens never ceases to amaze me. Chris | My Flickr
LOG IN TO REPLY |
AeroSmith Goldmember More info | Oct 03, 2006 18:48 | #57 jr_senator wrote in post #2073076 Ouh, then my copy would had cost several hundred dollars more. Let's not be giving Canon ideas. LOL, good point. Josh Smith
LOG IN TO REPLY |
 | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in 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!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member was a spammer, and banned as such! 2810 guests, 163 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
