Lens sharpness Canon vs. Nikon vs. third parties
I know that sharpness is not the only factor to judge a lens. There are many other factors such like color, contrast, focus speed/precision, build qualities etc etc. Some of these are subjective, some are measurable. Sharpness is the one that is measurable. I am very happy with my Canon lenses and have no intention to leave the camp. But I cannot stop peeking the other side of the fence. 
Not trying to flame war etc. But it seems people no long test lens using film camera. The MTF data on photozone.de always seems to favor Nikon when compare similar lenses between Canon and Nikon. I read the disclaimer that test results are not cross-system comparable and understand that the test camera D200 has 2 MP advantage over the Rebel XT etc.
But I really interested to know how those flagship lenses compare to each other coss the brand. Like 16-35L vs 17-35 D IF-ED; 24-70L vs. 28-70 D IF-ED; 70-200L vs 70-200 VR 50 f1.4 Canon vs. Nikon; 85L vs 85 1.4 D etc etc. Anyone care to shed some lights?
Not trying to flame war etc. But it seems people no long test lens using film camera. The MTF data on photozone.de always seems to favor Nikon when compare similar lenses between Canon and Nikon. I read the disclaimer that test results are not cross-system comparable and understand that the test camera D200 has 2 MP advantage over the Rebel XT etc.But I really interested to know how those flagship lenses compare to each other coss the brand. Like 16-35L vs 17-35 D IF-ED; 24-70L vs. 28-70 D IF-ED; 70-200L vs 70-200 VR 50 f1.4 Canon vs. Nikon; 85L vs 85 1.4 D etc etc. Anyone care to shed some lights?
0
Comments
This is practically an impossible question. The sharpness across the L lenses is good, but some are better than others. Same in Nikkor world, just because its an AF-S VR, doesn't mean its the sharpest.
moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]
Nikon has the edge here, but the 16-35L is super on a 1.6 body.
24-70L vs. 28-70 D IF-ED;
IMO a tossup
70-200L vs 70-200 VR
the canon 70-200L is one of Canon's best. I've also seen great results from the Nikon, too. I'm calling this one a tossup. Though I can also say, the 70-200 Canon will cut your eyes even on a Full-Frame DSLR.
50 f1.4 Canon vs. Nikon;
tossup
85L vs 85 1.4 D
Canon 85L without a doubt, esp at f/1.4
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
I think far more images are poor quality due to shooters technique than lens quality limitations, if we are talking about the pro level lenses of Canon and Nikon.
It's not how good your saw is, but how skillful you are with the saw you have.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
I'd echo Andy's ratings.
Other thought that Pathfinder mentioned is the crop factor / sensor size. All the Nikon cameras are using the sweet spot of the lens. I haven't looked at the tests you are referring to, but if a 5D or 1Dsmk2 is used this will be tougher on the lenses, esp the wide angles.
www.finesart.com
How about: One of the Sharpest Tamron:
Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) Autofocus Lens for Canon EOS
VS
Canon's best zoom:
EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
But here is what I find in actual practice: In nearly every shot, the Canon is sharp, all the time. For the Tamron, sharpness can vary. I think it depends on getting the focus centered on what I want to be sharp. What I think I mean by this is that the Canon has a larger 'circle' of sharpness than the Tamron. Whether this is center vs edge I am not sure.
I suspect much of this is user error: I am very guilty of an old and hard to break habit of focus and recompose, and I prefer the center focal pt. So this likely means that the Tamron does not perform as well as the Canon using this method, and perhaps means it is less sharp as you move away from the center, though this is no real surprise. When I focus properly with the Tamron, it is so incredibly sharp that it is shocking at times.
I believe the difference really comes down to the forgiveness, and what Pathfinder is suggesting: It is more technique than equipement, and especially the techique of getting the best from the equipement you have.
But I can endorse the Tamron 28-75 as one of the best zoom lenses available and an absolute steal at $350. Do not hesitate to buy this lens.
Examples:
Tamron: (click for other sizes)
Canon:
Interesting. I have the same camera and the same two lenses, the Tamron and the Canon 70-200F4L. I also have the same conclusions.
I like the Tamron and have gotten good photos from it, but I really love the Canon lens.
Now I know its a totally different focal length and price point, but I find I like more photos from the Canon than I do the Tamron. More keepers per shooting session.
I am thinking about upgrading to the Canon 24-105L lens, since everyone who has it loves it as well. But I have to admit, the price point of ~$1100 slows me down a lot.
If I thought I would love the 24-105 as much as the 70-200 I would buy it. It is hard to justify, when you already have the Tamron that covers about the same focal lenghts and is known as a pretty sharp lens.
When I bought the camera, I skipped the kit lens and went to the Tamron - a decision from recommendations here - and I have been pleased.
I do agree with Pathfinder that technique is more improtant than equipment - but the Canon L glass on Canon cameras is a special combination that gives great results.
Maybe that's why they are expesnive - they work!
Thanks for all the info and thought.
Zanotti
That's really the heart of the matter. On the whole both Canon and Nikon produce excellent lenses (yeah, there's some rotten apples in both barrels, but nobody's perfect).
I have both retina-cutting-sharp images and painfully soft images from my 20D/24-70 combo. The difference? Technique.
http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
Couldn't agree more! I am still learning to use the 24-70. At first I thought I got a bad copy like lots of posts on canon forums. Images are soft in real life shooting, I wanted to send to Canon for calibration. But my makeshift focus tests told me the lens was perfect sharp. I slowly learnt to shoot steady, watch the lighting try to get better contrast and expousure, taking advantage of the zoom to keep distance from the object when shooting aperture wide open etc etc. My keeper (sharp) rates are climbing. 24-70 is not the sharpest lense, but it is sharp. Color and contrast are top notch. What puzzles me is that it is relative hard to get sharp result. I know my technique sucks, it is user fault. But I do get much better result from 17-40L and 70-200L. Someone is complaining the Tammy 28-75 when compare with 70-200L, I am not sure about Nikon. Maybe the 24/28-70 lens is hard to master?
Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD LMNOP
Straight from the camera, no sharpening, shot in jpeg, no crop. It helps to shoot at 1/2000 to eliminate shake, f4.0. Sometimes I think that manual focus is more accurate with this lens. I kind of miss the old days when we had to move the aperature ring and focus ourselves.
Does this explain why when using my 17-40L on a 5D at its widest angle the image sharpness always seems to tail off towards the edges of the images, plus I seem to get a lot of fringing in these areas?
Charlie
yup!
-Fleetwood Mac
Zanotti,
I own and use both of these lenses. I agree that the Tamron is an excellent lens and a veritable steal for the price. But it is not as good as the 24-105 - particularly for a full frame camera. I have rec'd the Tammy 28-75 f2.8 LMNOP (as described above) here and here - among several other threads. So, I have been on record liking this lens a great deal.
But........ I am sure the Canon 24-105 L is sharper when tripod mounted and used at its very best. The lens I took into Antelope Canyon last May was my 24-105, and I can see individual sand grains falling in the images. It was mounted on a 1DsMkll though.
Both lenses are good, but sharpness is not how I distinguish them. Size, weight, focal length, aperture needed, IS needed or not, are what decide which lens I will take with me. Indoors I tend to favor the Tammy for its speed, and I usually do not need 105mm indoors on a APS sensored camera.
The small size of the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 Di complements the size of the 20D in my hands. The 24-105 seems made for the 5D. A 1 Series camera needs the heft of the Canon 24-70 f2.8 L for the proper balance.
I posted images of the Tamron 28-75 Di on the 5D here
Tha Tamron 28-75 will work well on a full frame camera, but will not be as sharp in the corners as the Canon L 24-70 or the 24-105. Just my opinion of course. YMMV
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
As some might have heard I lost mine (yes, I did!).
I have gathered some money and am looking to replace it, but I notice that Gus sold his. On top of it being a specialty lens, he said it was/is soft.
I never noticed that at all. Then again, I am not much of a critic.
So, have any of you used it, and what did/do you think?
Also, Tamron used to make one for less money in that size range. Has anyone tried that?
I have the Canon 16-35L and I love it. I don't test my lenses, however.
anyone can check a couple of months worth of my photos on dailies.
I also have the 70-200L, that one took me awhile to use, it is the 2.8 now. I started with the f4, it is much lighter. I kept it because I thought it might come in handy, it has come in darn handy! Now I have the 2.8, it is sitting on my lap right now. I shot a cat with it. And the moon. No tripod, may be soft, may not...........but it is a cool lens.
I don't have any normal lenses, smile. Got a 400mmL (birds), with extender (birds). That is a good lens, too. I tend to walk and stalk. I might like more length, but then I would have to use a tripod........and I like to walk and stalk.
The macho hunting feeling, you know.
ginger (oh, anyone have the 10-22mm canon? My orig question)
I also find that it is the least used lens of my three, but critical to have on landscapes and other creative shots, so I find that spending a bit less on it makes up for the use it gets.
"The new ZEISS ZF lenses went to test for resolving power recently. Attached to a Nikon F6, which was mounted on a Sachtler heavy duty tripod, we exposed our Eastman resolution test chart onto Kodak Imagelink HQ film. The best we had ever achieved before with any SLR lenses was 250 lp/mm.
The new Planar T* 1.4/85 ZF achieved that same resolution at f/5.6, and even down to f/2.
The new Planar T* 1,4/50 ZF went even further: It reached 320 lp/mm in the aperture range from f/5.6 to f/2.8, and 250 lp/mm at f/2."
I have one, it kills my EF 50 1.4 in the corners (even in the 1.6x crop corners). It appears to be about the same sharpness (though when both are stopped down to optimal sharpness it's sharper than the canon) in the center but somehow retains more detail
Ginger, While I don't own the 10-22, I have used one. Image quality was fine as far as I'm concerned. For my own kit, I went with the Tokina 12-24. Constant aperture, far better build quality (think L), and about 35% less expensive. Oh, and image quality is right there with the Canon. There was a pair of thread at POTN a few months ago on samples from these two lenses; both had amazing, sharp, saturated shots.
http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
Thanks for reminding me of the third parties. I remember really researching this and the Sigma was getting very good reviews. And, yes, for the diff in price, that would be a big help to me. Kind of like a life saver right now. Let me pay my doctor deductibles, too. Priorities here, smile! I have to have the lens................. that became a given. I was shooting at the same places, as in the same tree, and it didn't fit into the 16-35. I just could not imagine getting the same skys and other things w/o that ultra wide lens!
Yet, I go out to shoot birds, so it does not get the same amt of use. That is how I lost it. I put it on my camera to take one shot, took it off in order to put the 400 back on, when I looked again towards my case the lens was gone. I don't like to shoot and be paranoid. I don't live like that. And I got caught! Good thing it wasn't the bird lens, but the bird lens is the one that is usually on my camera, and my camera is around my neck. more difficult to steal!
thanks,
ginger
Dont read too much into my ranting G...i just thought it was a very ordinary lens..but other than all my 20 year old tamron/canon stuff i have locked away with my AE-1, im not someone you should take too seriously with lens advice. I have 4 other lenses are canon prime thus im spoilt rotten with sharness etc.
I just think that the 10-22 is a specialised lens with limited use. Thats just my opinion remember.
Im currently looking about for a prime wide with manual focus like an old distagon etc. No idea whats about or what i will find but with looking for odd stuff im very patient.