My 70-200 f/4 non-IS is sharper than any zoom lens has the right to be. It's hard to believe that the cheapest lens that I own is as sharp as it is. I hardly ever use my 70-200 f/2.8 IS any more.
Same here. Nifty fifty and 70-200mm F4L are the sharpest tools in my bag. 50mm cost less than the tripod ring for the 70-200mm F4L usm.
Only problem with owning a 70-200mm F4L and a 50mm F1.8 II. Buying other lens in the same league requires M.I.S.S.U.S spproval first. (Management In Surplus Spendies, Utilities & Services.)
My EF-S 60mm f/2.8 USM Macro is sharper than any supertelephoto lenses I've owned and used. The only problem is that 60mm focal length is sometimes insufficient.
PetKal wrote:
My EF-S 60mm f/2.8 USM Macro is sharper than any supertelephoto lenses I've owned and used. The only problem is that 60mm focal length is sometimes insufficient.
I'd hardly call that the only problem. It doesn't mount on real bodies.
50 CM was the sharpest lens I owned, until the really expensive 24LII came into my life. I will probably sell it to a good home, I have lots of much more expensive glass in this range, but none of it is really sharper than the 50CM.
On any sharpness/cost comparison I would rank the 300mm f4.0L non-IS near the the top, right up there with the 50 f1.8. I am waiting for a EF-S 60mm to use on my new "fake" 7D.
enough talk of cutting one's self this, and bleeding eyes that, and hyperbolic emoting about actual physical pain or the destruction of one's enemies. canon's lens system is optically still a B+ collection when compared to MF lenses (or even simply another, unnamed, oft-maligned 35mm system).
good, solid small format equipment, but it won't cut you.
