gambit Senior Member  272 posts Likes: 1 Joined Dec 2008 More info | Dec 31, 2008 20:15 | #1 Hey guys i just did a test for center and corner sharpness, and it looks like my 50mm 1.8 f/6.3 just edges out the 24-105L in sharpness @ 50mm, f/6.3 anyone else have similar results, i thought my 24-105 was pretty damn sharp, but maybe not or maybe i have a freakily sharp 50mm prime?
LOG IN TO REPLY |
SCOTTinNJ Senior Member  550 posts Likes: 1 Joined Oct 2007 More info | Dec 31, 2008 20:18 | #2 Pics or it didn't happen. Fuji X-T1
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Grentz Goldmember  2,874 posts Joined Apr 2007 Location: Midwest, USA More info | Dec 31, 2008 20:38 | #3 I can believe it for the center. My 50mm 1.8 II is REALLY sharp. Search.TechIslands.com
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Grentz Goldmember 2,874 posts Joined Apr 2007 Location: Midwest, USA More info | Dec 31, 2008 20:39 | #4 Amazing it was a year ago, but here are some that I uploaded from my 50 1.8 to give you an idea. Sorry no 100% crops, but still I think you can tell they are darn sharp! Search.TechIslands.com
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Dec 31, 2008 20:48 | #5 ok here it is:  2nd is the 24-105L @50mm @ ISO100, @ f/6.3 crop similar off center, 1sec exp 
LOG IN TO REPLY |
ExeSight Hatchling 9 posts Joined May 2008 More info | Dec 31, 2008 21:24 | #6 I use both lenses a lot, and I'd say the 50mm is a lot sharper than the 24-105. I'm surprised this is even controversial.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
tkbslc Cream of the Crop 24,604 posts Likes: 45 Joined Nov 2008 Location: Utah, USA More info | Dec 31, 2008 22:02 | #7 At f6.3 most lenses look nice and sharp. The 24-105 is an L because it also looks nice and sharp wide open and at both ends of the zoom. Taylor
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Grentz Goldmember 2,874 posts Joined Apr 2007 Location: Midwest, USA More info | Dec 31, 2008 22:50 | #8 Those long exposure times kinda kill the comparison IMO. With long exposures there are a LOT of error variables added when going for sharpness comparison. Search.TechIslands.com
LOG IN TO REPLY |
SCOTTinNJ Senior Member 550 posts Likes: 1 Joined Oct 2007 More info | Jan 01, 2009 08:40 | #9 ExeSight wrote in post #6980244  I use both lenses a lot, and I'd say the 50mm is a lot sharper than the 24-105. I'm surprised this is even controversial. I wasn't suggesting it was controversial, just thought pics would be worth while. I used to have the 1.8 and LOVED it. It didn't focus fast enough for me (basketball) so I "upgraded" to the 1.4. The 1.4 does focus faster, and produces nicer bokeh, but the 1.8 is not far behind and costs a fraction as much. Fuji X-T1
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Grentz Goldmember 2,874 posts Joined Apr 2007 Location: Midwest, USA More info | Jan 01, 2009 10:58 | #10 SCOTTinNJ wrote in post #6981950 I wasn't suggesting it was controversial, just thought pics would be worth while. I used to have the 1.8 and LOVED it. It didn't focus fast enough for me (basketball) so I "upgraded" to the 1.4. The 1.4 does focus faster, and produces nicer bokeh, but the 1.8 is not far behind and costs a fraction as much. That is the one thing that really bugs me about the 1.8, the focus... Search.TechIslands.com
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Jan 01, 2009 14:48 | #11 yeah the 50mm 1.8 is a bang for buck killer@!
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! 1581 guests, 170 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
