Well, I recently (Monday night) picked up a 7d and the 28-135 kit lens as an upgrade to my 30D.
I've had a finnicky Sigma 24-70 that backfocused badly on my 30D. I was hoping some MA would fix my problems. Well...while microadjusting with the LCD zoomed in I realized that outside of AF, you could check optimum sharpness with Manual (duh...right?)
What I found was interesting. I'm not an "L" guy due to $, but I feel I have a great kit. Here is how my lenses stacked up to each other as far as sharpness goes.
85/1.8
300/4L
28-135 IS ?!
18-55 (original)?!
50/1.8
Sigma 24-70/2.8 EX DG
So, my sigma may just be a lemon. It is terribly soft. The thing is, my 50/1.8 isn't that bad. What was shocking was how well the 28-235 and the stinking original 18-55 EFS kit lens performed. Perhaps I just got lucky?
I know that there is more to a lens than its sharpness, but I am quite pleased with my two kit lenses. With the price of the 50, it may be time to check out some others...and the siggy...what do I do with it? I won't use it, but I don't want to pawn it off to some other poor soul.
The 28-135, 50 1.8, and 18-55 are all excellent lenses, and all Canon lenses, regardless of price, should be "sharp" if working properly. Nothing to be surprised over, really.
Can't comment on the 28-135, I never liked mine, but even the original 18-55 (mark-1) was a very decent lens compared to the other options at low price points. The new 18-55 IS truly is a stunning lens. I literally did a double-take when I saw the results from my all-plastic doorstop 18-55 IS because I thought the photos were from my 24-70L.
I have never had any luck with the wide sigmas and tokinas. One sigma 28-70/2.8 I used was soft at all apertures till f/7.1 and the tokina AT-X Pro 28-80 would front focus like mad on my old film cameras, so I dumped it. I don't trust sigma and tokina's QC.
I bought my 50mm f/1.8 II for low light. I used it for 2 years and never stopped down past f/2.0. I always thought it was a little soft but I thought, hey it’s a $80 dollar lens. Then I got a used 1Ds2, so I was checking out all my glass on that body. I was outside shooting the neighbor’s dog with the 50 f/1.8 and I decided to stop down to f/5.6. When I looked at them shots, my jaw just about hit my desk. I had no idea this lens was that sharp.
AmIgone wrote:
I was outside shooting the neighbor’s dog with the 50 f/1.8 and I decided to stop down to f/5.6. When I looked at them shots, my jaw just about hit my desk. I had no idea this lens was that sharp.
The thing is that most lenses out there will sharpen dramatically when stopping down. For instance, there are a bunch of zooms that have a max aperture value of F/5.6. If you stop those down to F/8, they sharpen dramatically. My EF-S 55/250 produces some excellent results when I go to F/8 at 250mm.
As far as the 50 F/1.8 is concerned, it really comes into its own at f/2.8 and is flawless by f/4. Softness at apertures wider than f/2.8 is typically due to thin DoF which can be a bear if you focus and accidentally move too far in any direction, focus/recompose and pixel peeping.
AmIgone wrote:
As far as the 50 F/1.8 is concerned, it really comes into its own at f/2.8 and is flawless by f/4. Softness at apertures wider than f/2.8 is typically due to thin DoF which can be a bear if you focus and accidentally move too far in any direction, focus/recompose and pixel peeping.
This was also my experience with my 50/1.8. When needed I would shoot at 1.8 or 2.0, but 2.8 was very much better and 4.0 seemed to give "L" like sharpness. I really could see no difference in the 4.0-8.0 range.
UCDEngBoss wrote:
This was also my experience with my 50/1.8. When needed I would shoot at 1.8 or 2.0, but 2.8 was very much better and 4.0 seemed to give "L" like sharpness. I really could see no difference in the 4.0-8.0 range.
Hmm...for sure something for me to think about. I was shooting wide open...but I was also shooting the 85/1.8 wide open. Every time I shoot my 85, I am impressed. My background is 2 years of wedding shooting. My current gig is 85% outdoor daytime sports. When I'm not shooting my 300, I'm usually indoors and out of instinct try to shoot wide open. I'll see what I can get out of the 50 from stopping it down...
Jeff_Stapleton wrote:
Hmm...for sure something for me to think about. I was shooting wide open...but I was also shooting the 85/1.8 wide open. Every time I shoot my 85, I am impressed.
I think that the 85/1.8 and 100/2 have much better reputations for sharpness wide open when compared to the the 50/1.4 and 50/1.8. The 50's seem to really soften up the wider that you go.
seraphkz wrote:
is the 85 1.8 really that sharp?
man i really shoud look into this before buying a 85 1.2...
My 85 1.8 is sharp at 1.8 and gets better throughout the range. I did a shoot yesterday, and for the heck of it, I shot a portrait at 1.8 (i was using strobe and most were f/4-8) sharp!
Jeff_Stapleton wrote:
Well, I recently (Monday night) picked up a 7d and the 28-135 kit lens as an upgrade to my 30D.
I've had a finnicky Sigma 24-70 that backfocused badly on my 30D. I was hoping some MA would fix my problems. Well...while microadjusting with the LCD zoomed in I realized that outside of AF, you could check optimum sharpness with Manual (duh...right?)
What I found was interesting. I'm not an "L" guy due to $, but I feel I have a great kit. Here is how my lenses stacked up to each other as far as sharpness goes.
85/1.8
300/4L
28-135 IS ?!
18-55 (original)?!
50/1.8
Sigma 24-70/2.8 EX DG
So, my sigma may just be a lemon. It is terribly soft. The thing is, my 50/1.8 isn't that bad. What was shocking was how well the 28-235 and the stinking original 18-55 EFS kit lens performed. Perhaps I just got lucky?
I know that there is more to a lens than its sharpness, but I am quite pleased with my two kit lenses. With the price of the 50, it may be time to check out some others...and the siggy...what do I do with it? I won't use it, but I don't want to pawn it off to some other poor soul....Show more →
i guess you were just viewing all the lenses wide open
the 50 1.8 should be amazingly sharp stopped down a little
I had the 28-135 for quite a number of years. I was pretty pleased with the results, it was a good all around travel lens - even on a 1D series. I gave it to my son when I got a35L, but I did have some difficulty parting with it Will find out how I cope with a 1D3 and 35L + 135L when I go to Portland next week.
Will find out how I cope with a 1D3 and 35L + 135L when I go to Portland next week.