Which are your three sharpest and best lens you have ever used on an EOS camera?

[Canonized]

Hi, I am new to this forum (in fact just two days ago I was told about this place!) but I have long since realised that to benefit from any forum, is to jump in to participate ASAP. So here goes.

I would like very much to have a feedback from Canon EOS owners what are the three sharpest lenses they had used. If it all possible, I will be also grateful for some feedback on the biggest bang for the buck lenses.

For myself, I think the 100mm f2.8 macro has no equal and the 70-200 f4L is wonderfully sharp as well.

Looking forward to the replies.

 

[hazekang]

hi hi hi!

me stil struggling to take a non-hazy pic

 

[Digiman]

300mm f2.8L
135mm f2L
100mm f2.8 USM macro

Most bang for buck = 50mm f1.8 II

 

[fWord]

1. 70-200mm f/4L
2. EF-S 18-55mm F/3.5-5.6

Note: I have only used these two lenses so far, but ordinarily, the 18-55 wouldn't qualify as a 'sharp' lens. However, it's good value for what it does.

The 70-200mm f/4L is a great bang for the buck though! Just shoot at a fast enough shutter speed, focus properly, and it'll take sharp photographs.

 

[sriram]

100/2.8 macro USM : better than any L lens I've used
200/2.8L USM : a close second
300/4.0L USM : probably as good as the 200/2.8L

OTOH if you ask about most used lenses, then it's my cheap "junk" lenses, the 18-55 kit lens, 50/1.8 etc. I think this is what matters more. Sharpness is secondary. If the lens doesn't do the job for you then there's no point. Even if someone donated a 300/2.8L to me I would use it 0.5% of the time.

 

[nutek]

pls ponder: is sharpness the only consideration to have when deciding on a new lens to buy?

sharpness depends on a lot of things: ur technique, ur support, ur sensor, ur postprocessing... I feel that it is more important to get a lens that you will _use_, and not one that is super sharp yet sits in the cupboard all day long.

 

[Canonized]

pls ponder: is sharpness the only consideration to have when deciding on a new lens to buy? sharpness depends on a lot of things: ur technique, ur support, ur sensor, ur postprocessing... I feel that it is more important to get a lens that you will _use_, and not one that is super sharp yet sits in the cupboard all day long.

You are indeed right about the factors causing sharp captures. But even if you have all the skills, technique etc is 100% spot on, an average lens will let you down. So, it does take ALL factors to make a good photograph. Problem is that not all of us know which lens are sharp and considered as value for money. Hence the question.

Some examples of why I am on the look out for really good and sharp lens as well as being reasonably priced. Hence "biggest bang for the buck" request - found here:

http://watchinghorology.com

 

[Canonized]

300mm f2.8L
135mm f2L
100mm f2.8 USM macro
Most bang for buck = 50mm f1.8 II

Hi Digiman
I thoroughly agree with you. Currently from my lenses, this just has to be the best $ spent. Its so much sharper and useable lens compared with the kit 18-55mm due to its wider aperture. Just check this photo taken at the Star Wars Exhibition this week by the 50mm:

 

[Russ]

85 mm / 1.8
50 mm / 1.8 Mark I
24 mm / 2.8
17-40 /4 L can't match the 3 above but it is my most commonly used lens.

 

[+evenstar]

300 f2.8L IS
85mm f1.8
50mm f1.8

 

[hwchoy]

I'm glad everyone rates the 100mm Macro so highly as I use it as my primary lens. It is indeed very good.

On the other hand I was disappointed by the EF-S 17-85mm which also got very good reviews. The wide-end (which is why I got the lens in the first place) has quite a lot of distortion and chromatic aberation. Thinking of switching to an EF 24-135mm. Any suggestions?

 

[nightwolf75]

Most bang for buck = 50mm f1.8 II

:thumbsup: couldn't agree more! it was the first lens i bought, right after my ex-300D. some ignorant, equipment wankers on overseas forums diss this lens cos its not USM, plasticky etc... however, for under $150 (used), u get a light-weight, fast and pretty sharp lens. wat more could u ask for?

3 sharpest i've used? hmm...
a) 70-200/f4L
b) 17-40/f4L
c) 135/f2.8 SF <- one of the most under-rated, non-L prime lenses in Canon's stable of lenses.

 

[mpenza]

I'm glad everyone rates the 100mm Macro so highly as I use it as my primary lens. It is indeed very good.

On the other hand I was disappointed by the EF-S 17-85mm which also got very good reviews. The wide-end (which is why I got the lens in the first place) has quite a lot of distortion and chromatic aberation. Thinking of switching to an EF 24-135mm. Any suggestions?

there's no Canon EF 24-135. The sharpest in the range would be the new 24-105F4L but that would be pretty expensive ($2k+).

 

[knoxknocks]

for me, it would be:

1. 135 f/2
2. 70-200 f/2.8 IS
3. 85 f/1.8

 

[nickmak]

1: EF 100mm f2.8
2: EF 500mm f4L IS USM
3: EF 70-200 f2.8L

Its been so long since I touched my cameras since enlisting to the army... wish I could still do this often!

Cheers,
Nick

 

[holeinone]

I don't think we should just restrict ourselves to Canon lenses. How about the 3rd party ones? In fact, I think they give the most bang for the buck in most cases, considering how highly priced most Canon lenses are.

I vote for the Tamron 28-75 f2.8. Fast, lightweight, affordable and of course :thumbsup: performance.

 

[TrailsofLife]

For me,

Tamron 90mm f2.8 Di
Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 Di
Canon 70-200mm f2.8L

 

[Denosha]

1. Canon 135mm F2 L USM (beats the rest hands down)
2. Canon 35mm F1.4 L USM
3. Canon 100mm F2.8 Macro USM

 

[ptwong]

canon 70-200 F2.8L
Canon 400 F2.8L
love my 50 F1.8

 

[user111]

EF300f4L USM :thumbsup:
EF300f4 IS L USM :thumbsup:
EF400/5.6L USM :thumbsup: