Which are Canon's sharpest EOS lenses?

<p>If you were asked to list Canon's six sharpest lenses for EOS cameras, which would you select?</p>

<p>Pick any six of the "L" series primes, especially the ones over 50mm in focal length.</p>

<p>Canon EF 85mm f1.2L USM Mark II<br>

Canon TS-E 90mm f/2.8<br>

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro<br>

Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM<br>

Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM<br>

Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM<br>

(+ I love my old FD 55mm f1.2 Aspherical)</p>

 

<p>Pick any of the true macros.</p>

<p>I'll add the 35 1.4L lens. I've taken some nice images with that one. </p>

<p>Speaking in general, there is a lot more to a lens than how sharp it is. Lots of lens are sharp, and that is all they are. Your question is to general. Don't you have a lens in mind, a zoom, or telephoto, or wide, or fisheye, or fixed fast lens. The lens is selected to suit the conditions of the shoot and the desired effect that the artist may have. At the very least you don't take a 400mm lens to shoot landscapes, nor a fisheye to shoot most sporting events. I think you could get a better response if you were to give some idea of what you plan to do with a lens, or what type of lens you are looking for. The majority of lens are at least sharp, but there is so much more to a lens. </p>

<p>I don't have the others, but in my tests, when used optimally, the 50/1.4 is sharper than the 90 TSE and 100 Macro.</p>

<p>If you look at Canon's computer generated MTF charts the 300 f2.8IS and the 400mm f2.8IS are a small step above several others which makes them the top of the pyramid. The new 100 macro was tested by one site to be the best Canon lens they had ever tested.</p>

<p>I realize that my question is open-ended. I'm sorry if that decision is annoying to anyone, but I didn't want to color the responses by citing specific models for comparison or specifying a certain application/type of shooting. I just want to sample the community's thoughts on the topic. (For my own benefit, only.)</p>

<p>I will say that I find it interesting that the early responses have avoided most zoom lenses and tend toward the long end. Is the 90mm TCE lens really sharper than the new 17 and 24 mm models? Is the 90 mm macro lens sharper than a shorter macro? Please keep your evaluations coming!</p>

<p>I wouldn't care, really. If lens X is 1% "sharper" than lens Y, but lens Y provides the functionality that I need I'd pick lens Y every time.</p>

<p>On my 5D MK2,<br>

1. Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro<br>

2. Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L<br>

2. Canon 300mm f/4L IS<br>

Between the 35mm and the 300mm, I cannot tell which one is sharper.</p>

<p>"In General"</p>

<p>Prime lenses will be much sharper than zooms.</p>

<p>"L" series lenses will give you sharper results than the others.</p>

<p>So, once you narrow it down the the focal range areas you need. Then look at the MTF charts for those lenses. It's a quick way to confirm if the lens is good or not.</p>

<p>My experience has been that most good L series glass (zooms and primes) plus non-l primes are very sharp when used optimally. Put it on a tripod at f/8 or f/11 and you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference. Even then you'd be looking at corner sharpness and color rendition, etc.</p>

<p>To me, sharpness is more about functional sharpness - what does a lens look like when shot at f/2.8 or f/2, when you can get just enough shutter speed to be handholdable? What does the rendition look like? Is it contrasty with good color plus being sharp, or is it lower contrast but still sharp? Sometimes it's the rendition that gives the perception of sharpness - more than just resolving power.</p>

<p>From my experience, the 35L, 85L and 135L are exceptional at creating this perceived sharpness. The longer fast L primes do the same thing. A lot of other lenses are scary sharp in optimal conditions, but maybe do not have the same wide open "oomph" that longer/fast L primes do.</p>

<p>EF-S 10-800mm w/2x tele-extender.</p>

60 efs macro

135 f2

 

in that order

<p>135 F2 follow by 100 2.8 Macro. In my test, my70-200 2.8 IS was just as sharp as my 85 1.8. v/r Buffdr</p>

<p>My sharpest is the 100mm f2. Inexpensive, good build quality, quick focus, and wicked sharp. A true bargain.</p>

<p>60mm 2.8 macro<br>

135mm 2.8 L<br>

200mm 2.8 L<br>

100mm 2.8 macro (both versions)<br>

100mm 2.0</p>

<p>200mm 1.8 is the sharpest of the lot, followed by 135mm f2.</p>

<p>To the OP you should visit the Digital Picture . com</p>

<p>Gurbally,</p>

<p>No the 200 f2 tests sharper than the 1.8.</p>

<p>The 135 is behind the 300, 400 and 100 macro f2.8's.</p>

<p>I find this whole sharpness thing a little to overblown when it comes to lens selection. I have taken razor sharp photos with a p/s and blurry ones with a 5D2 and L lens. Is it just me? Over the years I have owned many lenses and I have not had one yet that was not sharp when used correctly. Using it correctly is the hard part. </p>

<p>IMO and from my experience there are definitely huge differences in lens sharpness, as well as the other factors that define quality from a lens - color, contrast, separation of planes, bokeh, control of flare, ca, vignetting, etc. Obviously not as much between one top notch lens to the next, but from a top notch to a crappy cheap lens, the difference is enormous - sharpness, color, flare, ca, bokeh, contrast, everything.</p>

<p>Brett my point exactly. Color, contrast etc was not part of the OP and is probably much more important or at least as important, but most questions all seem to center around sharpness alone when it comes to choosing a lens. Maybe I am exaggerating a bit but just trying to make a point. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>To the OP you should visit the Digital Picture . com</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for the tip! I'll check it out!</p>