Which lens is sharper?

bradstaylor said:

bradstaylor wrote:

Nobody said it was simple...LOL

150dpi is the bare minimum, but 300dpi is preferred.

Click to expand...

Hmm.. this thread got me thinking (perhaps not enough).

But at 300dpi you would have to be quite close (few feets at the most) to differentiate it from a lower resolution picture. And if it is going to be on a wall.. that wall has to be circular, otherwise you would have to walk along side it to notice any differences (?). And if you (as a viewer) has to move, so also does the camera in order to make it appear as "natural" ("point of view" so to say).

If it is going to be displayed on a round wall (circular) you may get away with shooting from a single position, but still... the viewer has to be pretty close to the picture to apreciate the full 300dpi, no??

Sorry for my ignorance but I have tried hard to think of how a picture at that size and quality (resolution) would be like... and when that would be a requirement !! (please read that as a question rather than statement)

Otherwise, my 70-200f4IS (100mm) is as sharp as my 100f2.8 Macro (@f4.0), but both probably out-resolves my 8MP camera.

Curious

I have always heard that the 70-200/4.0L's are sharper than the 2.8L's

I will not even waste time on the 100-400. (sorry to those who love it)

I believe my 70-200/4.0L (non IS) is slightly sharper for landscapes than my 70-200/2.8L IS.

The MTF charts (from Canon) show that the 70-200/4.0L's are better for sharpness and contrast.

Slightly

But if you want the best for your use, maybe you should test the two 70-200/4.0's and see what is best for you.

For Panoramas and Landscapes the IS is off so I feel no desire to even consider the 4.0L IS. My non IS is great and when I need speed or IS I have the 2.8L IS.

Your millage may differ. Take this as what it is, my opinion.

Happy shooting

Oh and there is no way that my 70-200's even come close to my 300/2.8L IS

I don't care what others say, they are really good; but do not compete with the best of the primes.

If I was big into travel I would use the 70-200/4.0L IS

--
--
--
Dave M. Shumway
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
http://www.DaveShumway.com
http://www.ShumwayPhotography.com
http://blog.shumwayphotography.com
http://www.Photos.Rocky.edu

JohnMaij said:

Having both the 70-200F4LIS & 100-400IS I would still go with the
100-400 for all round sharpness.

While the 70-200 is a sharp lens it falls down quite noticeably
around the minimum focus distance while the 100-400 remains very
sharp. If I don't have a macro lens with me I'll just use an
extension tube on the 100-400.

Click to expand...

On the other hand, the 70-200 is much sharper between 100 and 200mm than the 100-400. But it really s* s between 200 nad 400! I have the 100-400, and, while I really like the lens, it's not a match for the other other L zooms, except the 28-300, which I'll bet isn't as good. At least the old 35-350 wasn't, which is the one I compared to my 100-400.

It really just depends on what is important to the individual photographer. If I shoot macro, it's usually by plan, and I have a macro lens with me. If I'm going to shoot beyond 200mm, I'll have my 100-400 with me, and so on.

--
Skip M
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
http://www.pbase.com/skipm
http://skipm.smugmug.com/
'Living in the heart of a dream, in the Promised Land!'
John Stewart

bradstaylor said:

Shooting horizontally makes zero sense regardless if distortion is no
different.

Click to expand...

Wrong. If you know that you will print at size X and you get sufficient resolution to print at that size from stitched landscape images you'll need fewer images to complete your pano. Besides the practicality of using fewer frames, there will be fewer stitching boundaries to deal with, less change in the subject between the first and last shot (light, clouds, water, etc.), and since you throw out the overlapping edges of the component shots you are throwing out the portions furthest from the center of the frame.

So, it makes sense in some situations. I use both methods depending upon the shot.

bradstaylor said:

LOL, I'm not sure what costs have to do with this subject, but if you
need to know a 6'x3' pano printed using an Oce Lightjet Printer and
dry mounted on a polished aluminum frame with an acrylic backing is
$500 Canadian.

Click to expand...

What it has to do with the subject is that some people imagine that they might need to resolution from, say, multiple rows of vertical format original images.... but fail to recognize that smaller prints will show no increased resolution (you eventually bump up against issues like ink spread) and that they will never actually make a pano large enough to see the effect of the increased resolution. YMMV.

bradstaylor said:

So I'm not sure why you commented about a 5DII???

Click to expand...

That's what I use for panos and other work.

Dan







--
---
G Dan Mitchell - SF Bay Area, California, USA
Blog & Gallery: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/
IM: gdanmitchell

Gear List: Cup, spoon, chewing gum, old shoe laces, spare change, eyeballs, bag of nuts.

--

'Don't argue with an ignorant for it will be hard for people to differentiate between you!!'

pls do remember that zoom lenses are not all sharp across with focal lenght, and sure, the f/4 is sharper due to DOF.

the majority of reviews say, 70-200 f/4 IS USM is the sharpest both handheld and tripod but for me, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM is the sharpest shoot at f/4, IMHO.

if you want the sharpest wide open, zero distortion, almost zero CA, try the 200L 2.0 IS, i always bring it for portraiture sessions, its on sale right now for 4800, a bargain compared to the 5,999 launching price.

the EF 100 macro is rumored to be really sharp as well, just to name a few.

--
Canon Shooter:
5D Mark II, 1D Mark II and 1D Mark II N

15mm Fisheye, 16-35L2, TS-E 24L, 24-105L IS, 24-70L,
28-135 IS, 50L, 50 1.8, 85L2, TS-E 90, 135L, 75-300,
70-200L IS 2.8, 200L 2.0, 1.4X Tele, 2X Tele

580EX II (3x), RadioPoppers (3x), ST-E2, CP-E4,
White Lightning X1600, Vagabond II, V2s Wireless Trigger
Zeus 2500 w/ Z2500HS (2x), 47' Octabox, Calumet Strip Box
Sekonic L-758DR & Calibration Target

Manfrotto 058B & RC322, Manfrotto 055XBPro and Manfrotto Monopod.

I, along with many others I'm sure, own, or have owned all 5 of these lenses. As for my copies:

Sharpest first; If rated 1-10 with 10 being the best:
1) 70-200L f4 IS...................................10
2) 70-200L f2.8, 70-200L f2.8 IS............ 9.8
3) 100-400L IS.....................................9.0
4) 70-200 f4.........................................7.0

Wide open, the f4 IS version is slightly sharper than those grouped as #2, and significantly sharper than the f4 non-IS version. Conventional thought usually rates the Non-IS 2.8 version sharper than the 2.8 IS version but my copies do not bear this out. Perhaps I simply have the exceptional f2.8 IS copy. In my experience, when shooting @ f4, either of my f2.8 lenses are indistinguishable from my f4 IS lens as far as sharpness is concerned.

The only of these 5 that I no longer own is the non-IS f4 lens that I sold a few years back. Once again, referencing my lenses the 70-200 f4 (Non-IS) was possibly an inferior copy as it was not close to any of the others.
--
Canon DSLRs: 1De, 1De MkII, 1De Mk IIs, 20De, 40 De & 450 XS(i)...Macs & PCs...