are standard zooms generally sharper than telephoto zooms?

iamaelephant wrote in post #5524392
I agree, I think it's ridiculous.

I agree why would people buy CHEAP ones..?

My last telephoto- Tamron 75-300 came with a Sunpak filter which I just took off cause it was a $80 lens and didn't want to further degrade the IQ,

I've owned a 58mm and 67mm B+W F-pro (non-Multicoat) and never had any problems with them on my lenses. Couldn't tell the difference with it on or off. I actually bought another (77mm) B+W F-pro from a forum member and it will either go on my 24-60 or the 70-200 cause they are both the same filter size. But if the 70-200 is super sensitive or something then I guess no UV filter..

I will try and get some shots asap, it's been crap weather and nothing to shoot in the apartment..

Okay heres some shots. They suck because I didn't PP at all and used the onboard flash (looking for my AA charger.. lol)

I was aiming at the "8"

70mm f/2.8

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

IMO the shots look okay.
I see a big color difference though between the 70 and 200mm shot, which suggests the test wasn't too scientific
Too much ambient in the first? Maybe a bit camera shake in image #3?

lol no.. that lens was placed on a toilet seat in the bathroom that's the shower curtain in the background. It's the only place I have incandescent bulbs and it's bright enough. Energy efficient bulbs everywhere else in my apartment. Onboard flash= crap. My 550EX is out of action due to batteries on the charger. But for sharpness, you get the idea. There very well may be camera shake in #3.. big difference in weight between the 2 lense.