Before we know it, this is going to turn into "We bailed you out of WWII!" and "You Yanks slept through the first half of WWII!". Then someone will mention the Revolutionary War ... pretty soon an Aussie will chime in against the Redcoats. It'll then probably be topped off with a Kiwi mentioning that they have the best Rugby team.
For wide open shots, 300/2.8 hands down. Even sharper than the 200/1.8 - the proof lies in wide open astrophotos of a star field-- the absolute worst torture test for CA and field flatness-- the 200/1.8 unfortunately does not render round stars corner to corner (as much as I wish it did) and requires stopping down to f/2.5 or f/2.8 until it does. It also suffers from some purple fringing at f/1.8 and f/2. Take a look at this flickr set and the specific 200/1.8L test (full size image). The set also includes the 135L and 85L. Then there's the famous 200/1.8 vs 300/2.8 comparison from the-digital-picture.com which shows a clear winner in the 300/2.8.
I'm surprised no one mentions the 400/5.6L which is a close second, on par with the 135L in my book. I need only to stop the 400/5.6L down to f/6.3 to get a perfectly flat field and round stars. The 135L requires stopping down to f/2.8 to remove purple fringing.
Either way, all of these lenses (85/1.2L as well) give the visual impression of sharpness because the subject in the center of the frame is sharp and in focus while the edges are blurred with bokeh, giving the impression of increased sharpness. The only valid sharpness test is either the brick wall, distant cityscape or star field.
The OP did not mention BTW which lens was sharpest *wide open* or at all aperatures. I've heard reports the 24-70L is pretty darn sharp at f/8...
I think digital-picture.com is a joke with conclusive test with either a poor copy of the 200 1.8 or they screwed up real bad at the expense of gullible readers.
There's no way the Canon 70-200 f/4 out resolves the 200 1.8 in there test.
Don't belive everything you see in print
I actually had a little correspondence on that with the gent who owned the site and the lens. His 200 f/1.8 was in a remarkably good condition and I was kinda tempted to buy it since it was priced quite low for the condition and seller reputation. Yet, his test tresults were a concern......that lens just did not quite perform as expected according to his own tests.
I am currently on my 3rd 300 f/2.8 and 2nd 200 f/1.8. There is no doubt in my mind that the 200 f/1.8 resolves detail better than any other lens I've owned/used including the 300 f/2.8. The difference is small but consistently there.
(Where the 300 f/2.8 really rules is rich colour rendering. Out of camera my 200 f/1.8 yields more natural (subdued) colours, almost to the point of appearing flat. Superbly fluid bokeh, yet, again, not as rich coloured.)
PetKal wrote:
I actually had a little correspondence on that with the gent who owned the site and the lens. His 200 f/1.8 was in a remarkably good condition and I was kinda tempted to buy it since it was priced quite low for the condition and seller reputation. Yet, his test results were a concern......that lens just did not quite perform as expected according to his own tests.
I am currently on my 3rd 300 f/2.8 and 2nd 200 f/1.8. There is no doubt in my mind that the 200 f/1.8 resolves detail better than any other lens I've owned/used including the 300 f/2.8. The difference is small but consistently there.
(Where the 300 f/2.8 really rules is rich colour rendering. Out of camera my 200 f/1.8 yields more natural (subdued) colours, almost to the point of appearing flat. Superbly fluid bokeh, yet, again, not as rich coloured.) ...Show more →
Thanks for your personal insight to my convection of his test
The sharpness depends on focus distance and its design. A macro lens will do its best at close distance, but a regular lens is usually designed to reach its optimal perfomance at 1000 * the focus length. To compare two different lenses is not as easy as we thought. To me contrast is much more important than sharpness, although they are related to some extend.
PS. Both 135/2L and 200/2.8L share similar optical formula, so their performance should be very close.
phuang3:
....but a regular lens is usually designed to reach its optimal perfomance at 1000
I have my serious doubts about it. Let's see: 85 mm lens should have its optimal performance at 85 m (250 feet). That is definitely not what I saw testing any of my lenses (especially 85 f/1.8). As a matter of fact, most of my primes (with the exception of 35 f/2.0) peform much better at close focusing range
Here is my 85 f/1.8 at close to MFD (test shot at f/2.2):
netminder0 wrote: dhphoto wrote:
No I didn't, you just lack irony
Before we know it, this is going to turn into "We bailed you out of WWII!" and "You Yanks slept through the first half of WWII!". Then someone will mention the Revolutionary War ... pretty soon an Aussie will chime in against the Redcoats. It'll then probably be topped off with a Kiwi mentioning that they have the best Rugby team.
And I'll be enjoying every minute of it! [/quote
So much for the lenses...Now who has the sharpest sense of humor?
