PetKal reminded me that I forgot to list the 300/4L (non-IS version). No longer available new, but razor sharp and available on the used market for under $750 in reasonable condition. I'll edit the previous post to include it...
short of the big guns, my sharpest lenses that i've used are the 35L and the 85L though the 85mm f1.8 was no slouch in terms of sharpness. I think a lot of it comes down to certain copies being good and certain copies being not as good. for example, i owned two 24mm f1.4L's but the first one was pretty much no good... however the second one i owned could hold it's own against the 35L (and my 35L, in my opinion, is very sharp.) but really, to buy a lens based on how sharp it is, not what FL it is is sort of dumb. I mean, if you need the sharpest lens, but you won't use that FL then don't buy it. For example, most people say that the 200mm f1.8L is the sharpest lens in the Canon line up, but I can't imagine ever using a lens like that. I hardly do anything past 85mm... so in other words, i'd be wasting $4000 if I bought something like the 200mm f1.8. So the best thing to really do is just find out what sort of lens you need (35L for wide angle, 50L for standard, 85L for portaits, 135L for indoor and events, 200L 300L 400L for teles.) and outside of these options, there are of course the ziess, leica, and oly options. if you think you opened a can of worms by asking what L lens is the sharpest, just wait until you asked what lens (regardless of the maker) is the sharpest.
Chris Beaumont:
why not buy the one that fits the focal length you use most ?
I can adjust my shooting to a focal length of a lens, I trust (I guess I do not use super wide and very long tele). Even with zooms (I do not have any at the moment), I used to use them at their best focal length, most of the time. In other words, I can completely relate to the question "which lens is the sharpest".
Brody LeBlanc wrote:
but really, to buy a lens based on how sharp it is, not what FL it is is sort of dumb. I mean, if you need the sharpest lens, but you won't use that FL then don't buy it.
I was already looking at the 85 1.8 cuz I'd have good use of it when it gets to FL and sharpness but I wanted to know what options I had that I yet had not thought of...
I am at a loss to understand why the 200/2.8 II is not mentioned by others. I have both the 135 2.0 and the 200 2.8 II, and the latter is a tiny bit sharper. It also has less CA than the 135. However, the 135 is best indoors because it has 2.0 and thereby one stop more speed. For absolute sharpness the 200 2.8 II and 300 2.8 IS are both a little ahead when all are set to 2.8.
Since you say this, Have you tried the EF 200 2.8 II?
In my opinion, the 200/2.8 II delivers extreme performance. It is an extraordinary lens which does not cost a fortune, and I am under the impression that it is being underestimated. See my other post.
If you really have a money restriction, and you are looking for sharpness, I suggest you not buy L lenses.
1. Buy good non-L lenses (85 1.8 is an example)
2. Buy a tripod
3. Spend some money on classes to improve your technique (both PP and behind the camera)
These three things will give you an overall better picture result AND cost you less than getting into the L race which it sounds like you can't affort.
In terms of MTF characteristics the 300 2.8 and 400 2.8, 500 4 and 600 4, beat everything else to death with a very sharp stick - save arguably the 200 1.8 which I've never used.
More affordably, and echoing what others have said - I have to say that my 135L suprises me every time I use it, with the 200Lii and 85Lii close behind.
There are of course some very good NON-L lenses, 85 1.8, 100 macro, 50 1.4 etc etc.. The best advice I can give is to pick your length, pick ur budget, and enjoy the images that result.
Buying a lens because it's sharp is not the best criteria IMHO. Buying a lens becuause it creates images that "pop" in the focal length you need is a much better criteria. Sharpness is one criteria, but contrast, color and bokeh are very important too in creating images that really stand out.
That being said, a lot of lenses mention above meet these criteria. It really comes down to the focal length that meets your needs.
No one has mentioned zoom lenses, but the 70-200 f/4 IS is a very good lens and reasonably priced too.
The only L lens I have is the 70-200 F/4 USM. non IS. It is amazingly sharp. Then again it is also my first L lens, so i don't know how well this stacks up, but here is a 100% crop of my puppy at 200mm F/4 on a XTi.
jeremy_clay wrote:
Always overlooked and incredible - 135 2.8 SF prime.
Agree the 135/2.8 is grossly underrated around here. At the center of the frame, I think it's a near match for the 135/2L, but at the sides it drops off in sharpness. On a crop camera it's simply outstanding; on a full-frame camera it's 'merely' great. At less than $300, it's a steal.
