Q. What is the sharpest Canon lens?

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

  1. Well, my Zeiss & Leica lineup DOESN'T include (original) super-macro &
    super-telephoto lenses. And my favorite lenses don't belong to those
    categories either (de gustibus...), but I do admit that my 55mm f/2.8
    Nikkor is rather spectacular, though it doesn't get used often.
    Sorry, I just prefer boring old 35mm, 24/25mm, 21mm, 85/105mm &
    180/200mm primes.
    : )

    About linking: The full qualities of an excellent lens aren't given full
    justice even by a 5400 dpi 48 bit scan, which in TIF format is about 250
    MB. Or do you think you can tell an excellent lens from "just" a good
    one on a 1600x1200 jpeg?

    I'm not saying your Canon stuff isn't adequate for your needs, but
    please do realise that some lens designs which are over a century old
    (Tessar, Planar) are still first rate today - at least within their
    focal length/aperture design parameters.

    Agreed; zooms (which I don't like), super fast telephotos and extreme
    wides are generally better today than in the past. But primes such as
    35mm f/2.0 or f/2.8 or 85mm f/2.0 or f/2.8 were probably BETTER in the
    past: The "progress" made on those lenses has been in how to build them
    more cheaply.

    How about showing ME some pictures which will leave me in awe and make
    me want to junk all my "old & obsolete" equipment? You've tried hard,
    but haven't succeeded yet!
    ; )
    Chris Loffredo, Dec 24, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Annika1980

    MXP Guest

    It should be possible to show details of an image on the web. E.g. a jpg of
    whole picture just to get an overview and then a very little detail of the
    image which
    maybe correspond to 1x1 mm of the film.

    It is my impression that many 50mm lenses from the 50' og 60' is every bit
    as sharp
    as a modern 50mm lens.....if you stop down the old lens 2-3 stops. I think
    it is the
    film which is the limit here.....

    MXP, Dec 24, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Contrast is a vital part of a superior lens. In some cases, superior
    lenses have slightly inferior edge sharpness in order to gain more
    important qualities elsewhere. These choices or compromises make the
    lens better overall.
    uraniumcommittee, Dec 25, 2004
  4. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    From: Chris Loffredo
    If that is true then I would suggest that the mystical qualities of Leica
    lenses are more imaginary than real. If you can't see the difference then the
    difference is really no difference at all.
    This is silliness. So you are now claiming that lens design is about the only
    technology that hasn't improved over the years. In fact, you claim that it has
    even gotten worse. What bull. Just because Leica doesn't have the technology
    or know-how to improve their designs in 40 years doesn't mean that others
    Check some of these out:

    Let's see you do that with a Leica!
    Annika1980, Dec 25, 2004
  5. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    You don't have to post the whole pic, ya know.
    Annika1980, Dec 25, 2004
  6. Annika1980

    Ryadia Guest

    How many times do you have to be told...Stop posting links to photos of
    Ryadia, Dec 25, 2004
  7. Annika1980

    Roxy Durban Guest

    Well that's easy, Bret. Just Google "images" and make sure you exclude all
    your shots from the search results. That way you will see billions of
    pictures that *you* wouldn't be able to take "just as well".
    Roxy Durban, Dec 25, 2004
  8. Annika1980

    pioe[rmv] Guest

    It uses the same optical design, but according to many testers the
    quality of the glass was reduced because Canon wanted to make a really
    cheap lens. I cannot confirm that because I have only tested the
    newest version, but it is clearly less sharp than the 1.4 USM and the
    2.5 Compact Macro. But most importantly any lens should have a metal
    mount. No matter how cheap the lens is, plastic in the mount is a no-no.

    Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
    pioe[rmv], Dec 25, 2004
  9. Annika1980

    pioe[rmv] Guest

    This is not entirely correct, because even on web sized images it is
    easily visible if a picture lacks detail. High resolution means you
    can print the image in a larger size, but the quality of the pixels is
    independent on the number of these pixels. If a lens or a scanner is
    not sharp, you are not going to get a sharp picture in screen size

    Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
    pioe[rmv], Dec 25, 2004
  10. Annika1980

    Bruce Graham Guest

    The plastic offends but I have not read any reports of major malfunction.
    (but I still bought the metal mount 1.4)
    Bruce Graham, Dec 25, 2004
  11. (pioe[rmv]) wrote:
    most importantly any lens should have a metal mount.
    No matter how cheap the lens is, plastic in the mount is a no-no.

    The EF 50 f1.8 II only weighs 4.6 ounces, so I don't think you will have
    to worry about the mount.


    AnOvercomer 02, Dec 26, 2004
  12. Annika1980

    usenet Guest

    Opera works fine with XP, (& other versions of 'Doze), & is greatly
    superior to IE in speed, security & convenience.
    usenet, Dec 26, 2004
  13. Annika1980

    usenet Guest

    Kibo informs me that stated that:
    I don't believe you. The only way I'd believe a wild claim like that
    would be to see it in person.
    usenet, Dec 26, 2004
  14. Annika1980

    prep Guest

    That is because Canon have patents on using it for Camera lenses,
    and a butt load of key patents on making the stuff. As a result,
    Canon are rumoured to make more profit from a Nikon Mask Stepper
    than Nikon do...

    Canon have been using it since the FL-F lenses of `70 or there

    Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
    +61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
    West Australia 6076
    comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
    Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
    EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.
    prep, Dec 26, 2004
  15. Annika1980

    BC Guest

    The advantages of CaF2 aren't really utilized until you need correction
    substantially into the ultraviolet or infrared, or both. CaF2 is
    absolutely essential in lenses like the UV-Nikkor, for example.

    For ordinary visible light lenses a standard commercial glass like
    FPL53 is nearly equivalent to CaF2 in optical properties and has
    slightly better thermal properties.

    There are several commercial optical glass makers producing a full
    range of glass types which anyone can buy. Leica has no advantage

    BC, Dec 27, 2004
  16. Annika1980

    Chris Brown Guest

    [blocking popups]
    You don't need to install another operating system to install another
    Chris Brown, Dec 27, 2004
  17. I guess you don't care about sharpness.
    Brian C. Baird, Dec 28, 2004
  18. I use the Leitz 560mm f/6,8 Telyt all the time. It's designed as a
    hand-held lens.
    uraniumcommittee, Jan 3, 2005
    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.