What's the sharpest canon mount lens you've used?

The TS-E 24mm MKII followed by the 50mm f/1.4. The L zooms chase along after in the following order 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200 f/4.0 and last (but still more than OK) the 17-40 f/4.0.
 
The sharpest for me was a Mk 1 Canon 300mm f/2.8 L (non-IS).
 
markmullen said:
135mm f2
The 24mm TS-E is pretty damn good if you get the technique right.
Click to expand...
That's the key right there. Any of the decent Canon glass, and much of the recent independent stuff is really very good to the point that the biggest difference will come down to the technique rather than the glass. Getting the focus point absolutely spot on, and using a sturdy tripod will have a bigger impact on sharpness than the choice of lens.
 
I think it is important to put these into context - what someone considers the sharpest they have used will depend on the other lenses they use.

I would say the sharpest I've used is my 300 F4L IS. I don't get to use it much these days but everytime I get it out its always on the money.

That is out of the following:

10-22mm
16-35 F.28L II
24-105 F4L
50mm F1.4
70-200 F4 mk1 non IS.

I've also been really happy (on crop) with my 16-35 F2.8L that I bought recently. Sharpness wise on test I can't tell much difference between that and the 10-22 really, but its got that something extra.
 
Here are my top 3 In order.....
1: Canon 135mm f/2
2: Canon 100 f/2
Joint 3rd
3: Canon 70-200 f/4 & Sigma 50mm f/1.4
 
It's hard to separate the TS-E24MkII and the Zeiss 100/2 but the Zeiss 135/2 and Zeiss 25/2 are very close.
 
KIPAX said:
In order

300 2.8 IS ...wish I still had it.. but upped to the 400
135l f2 ..sharp as a pin at f2 ... hardly use it as the 70-200 mkII is close enough.. but its one of those lens i would never part with.
35m f2
400 f2.8 is
nifty 50
70-200 mkII
Click to expand...

35 f/2 is my sharpest canon fit too. Pin sharp righ from the get go. It's a shame it's so underrated compared to the sigma 30 f/1.4. To put it in perspective it runs rings round my 35 f/1.8 Nikon...

Following that the 300 f/4, although it is surpassed by my current 120-300 (Nikon fit).
 
magicolor1 said:
That's the key right there. Any of the decent Canon glass, and much of the recent independent stuff is really very good to the point that the biggest difference will come down to the technique rather than the glass. Getting the focus point absolutely spot on, and using a sturdy tripod will have a bigger impact on sharpness than the choice of lens.
Click to expand...
This.
Apart from my cheapy samyung 14mm, every lens I have produces sharp results, in the right conditions. Push their capabilities(or that of the body) and you won't get such good results.. I've got a 100-400 that you can pick out amazing detail of birds etc, yet lots dismiss these as average.
 
Byker28i said:
This.
Apart from my cheapy samyung 14mm, every lens I have produces sharp results, in the right conditions. Push their capabilities(or that of the body) and you won't get such good results.. I've got a 100-400 that you can pick out amazing detail of birds etc, yet lots dismiss these as average.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with that. All lenses should be able to do sharp shots. The question should be how consistent are they? My 17-55 is sharp, along with my 35 f/1.8 but neither are as consistently sharp as the Canon 35 f/2 I had.

Same with the 70-300, not as consistent as the 70-200 or the 120-300.
 
Sigma 35mm f1.4 by a country mile. Needs to be properly calibrated though
 
My choice is the ef 50mm f1.8 kit lens, or my 200mm f2.8L.

Very few lenses disappoint. If you are prepared to take care, and the lens is not faulty, tou can get pin sharp results from just about anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top