Q. What is the sharpest Canon lens?

Discussion in 'Canon' started by Annika1980, Dec 20, 2004.

  1. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    Which Canon lens is the sharpest?
    Some say the 100 f/2 (not the macro version).
    Others vouch for the 300 f/2.8L.

    So which is it?
     
    Annika1980, Dec 20, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. : Which Canon lens is the sharpest?
    : Some say the 100 f/2 (not the macro version).
    : Others vouch for the 300 f/2.8L.

    : So which is it?

    If you accept photodo ratings, the 200 f1.8L USM is the sharpest,
    at 4.8. The 100 f2 has a photodo rating of 4.2, bu the 300 f2.8L
    is unrated.

    Warren B. Hapke
     
    Warren B. Hapke, Dec 20, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. What's 'sharpness'?
     
    uraniumcommittee, Dec 20, 2004
    #3
  4. I agree with uranium. What is "sharpest." How do you define it and how
    do you measure it? Most important is why are you so worried about it?
     
    Joseph Meehan, Dec 20, 2004
    #4
  5. Annika1980

    Ryadia Guest

    Most important is why are you so worried about it?Let me have a guess... Hmm.
    Some people say AA is for drunks. Canon say it's to stop the moir effect.
    Nikon don't bother with it and you can overcome it with an unsharp mask of
    300 @0.4 radius... Hmmm. Now what could that be and why is a "sharp" lens of
    interest to a Canon shooter?

    Doug
     
    Ryadia, Dec 20, 2004
    #5
  6. Contrast in the range of 2-15 lppmm is the most important criterion, I
    believe.
     
    uraniumcommittee, Dec 20, 2004
    #6
  7. Annika1980

    Alan Browne Guest

    The 200 f/1.8 USM appears to be top dog. The closest Leica's (various 180mm)
    aren't even close in sharpness and nowhere as fast.

    http://www.photodo.com/pix/lens/mtf/CAEF20018L.gif
    Indicates fine bokeh wide open, a bit harsh at f/8.

    Not sure how available this lens is, if at all, or at what price.
    (The lens hood is $474.00 ... I hesitate to think what the lens is priced at!)

    oh! here's an indication.
    http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=36&sort=7&thecat=2
    puts it at $3000+

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Dec 20, 2004
    #7
  8. Annika1980

    Alan Browne Guest

    The Canon 200 f/1.8 USM. Leica have nothing that comes close at that FL in
    sharpness. And for all that this lens is a stop+ faster.
     
    Alan Browne, Dec 20, 2004
    #8
  9. Annika1980

    Alan Browne Guest

    Read em and weep:
    http://www.photodo.com/pix/lens/mtf/CAEF20018L.gif

    Cheers,
    Alan.
     
    Alan Browne, Dec 20, 2004
    #9
  10. Annika1980

    Alan Browne Guest

    Ryadia wrote:

    You'd have to ask all those nature shooters who use the 200 f/1.8.
     
    Alan Browne, Dec 20, 2004
    #10
  11. Annika1980

    Alan Browne Guest

    Regardless of what you believe, or indeed what is right (it would be subject
    dependant), the 200 f/1.8 does the job handilly at the range you mention and
    damned good beyond 0 lp/mm.

    http://www.photodo.com/pix/lens/mtf/CAEF20018L.gif
     
    Alan Browne, Dec 20, 2004
    #11
  12. uraniumcommittee, Dec 20, 2004
    #12
  13. Annika1980

    Bill Hilton Guest

    From: Alan Browne
    It's too short for nature photographers, it's more of a fashion lens
    apparently.
     
    Bill Hilton, Dec 20, 2004
    #13
  14. 180mm f/2? f/1,8 is 1/6th of a stop faster!!
    Don't try to tell me the Canon is better, cause it ain't so....
     
    uraniumcommittee, Dec 20, 2004
    #14
  15. Annika1980

    Alan Browne Guest

    Yes as a matter of fact. And the Canon 200 f/1.8 beats in sharpness, is faster
    and to add insult to injury has a wee bit more FL.

    Face it Mikey, while Leica indisputably make very good optics, usually the best
    for a given FL/aperture, there are others out there who will outdo Leica here
    and there.
     
    Alan Browne, Dec 20, 2004
    #16
  16. Annika1980

    Alan Browne Guest


    Could be. Depends on the "nature" of what you're shooting. For that flat
    fashion look, I agree it would be fine, and for some indoor sports it would be
    great as well, esp. in no-flash venues.

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Dec 20, 2004
    #17
  17. Annika1980

    Alan Browne Guest

    Alan Browne, Dec 20, 2004
    #18
  18. Annika1980

    Skip M Guest

    Oh, yes it is, mikey.
    I know it's hard to accept, but try, anyway, for your own good. Leica's
    great at a lot of things, but they can't always be the best at everything.
     
    Skip M, Dec 21, 2004
    #19
  19. Annika1980

    measekite Guest

    I would like to know what is the practical sharpest Canon lens.
    Practical means the marginal best that is affordable. Just a little
    more for a lot more cash is not practical since most people will never
    see the difference in a 16x20 a 5 feet.
     
    measekite, Dec 21, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.