Author | Thread |
|
04/25/2005 11:37:36 AM · #1 |
Taken with the sharpest lens on this site :-)
 |
|
|
04/25/2005 11:44:30 AM · #2 |
it's no better than the 100mm 2.8 USM according to photozone .... and all the 300 and 400 2.8 L's are sharper, but no one on this site owns them.
so your almost right |
|
|
04/25/2005 12:36:08 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by pitsaman: Taken with the sharpest lens on this site :-)
|
what lens did u use and what post-processing was done...great photo by the way...i like the water effect...just curious on how it was done as i am soo new to post processing( i use photoshop 7.0)
|
|
|
04/25/2005 02:19:41 PM · #4 |
Used 200 mm f2.8 L lens at f5.
BTW Canon 100 USM is no comparison to 200 mm L !
There is no photoshop effect here,just water flowing .
Message edited by author 2005-04-25 14:20:24. |
|
|
04/25/2005 04:06:05 PM · #5 |
Here is another color shot :
 |
|
|
04/25/2005 04:08:36 PM · #6 |
Another crystal clear beautiful shot! Ducks and flowers - gotta love them.
|
|
|
04/25/2005 04:16:32 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by pitsaman: Taken with the sharpest lens on this site :-) |
According to PhotoDo:
Grade: 4.1 35mm/AF Canon EF 200/2,8L II
Making it nowhere near the sharpest lens.
And if we're comparing it to other lenses. The 50mm/1.8 mkII gets a grade of 4.2, making it sharper, and only $80.
|
|
|
04/25/2005 04:22:19 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by PaulMdx: Originally posted by pitsaman: Taken with the sharpest lens on this site :-) |
According to PhotoDo:
Grade: 4.1 35mm/AF Canon EF 200/2,8L II
Making it nowhere near the sharpest lens.
And if we're comparing it to other lenses. The 50mm/1.8 mkII gets a grade of 4.2, making it sharper, and only $80. |
Oh,well-photoDO...
This one is sharper : 300 f2.8,and this 400 f2.8,
And 200 mm f1.8 L, but nobody owns them :-) |
|
|
04/25/2005 05:55:14 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by pitsaman:
This one is sharper : 300 f2.8,and this 400 f2.8,
And 200 mm f1.8 L, but nobody owns them :-) |
I wouldn't speak so soon I believe Dadas115 has them all! |
|
|
04/25/2005 06:04:40 PM · #10 |
|
|
04/25/2005 08:15:39 PM · #11 |
The 200/2.8 L is by most accounts possibly just a hair sharper than the 100 macro. the 200/2.8 II is not as sharp, but it's no slouch either! I'd guess that it would be very difficult indeed to tell them apart. Either of the 200s prolly suffer less from flare, but that's taken care of by the hood on the 100.
FWIW, by nearly all accounts the sharpest Canon prime was the 200/1.8 L, which goes *used* for between $3.5k and $4k USD today.
|
|
|
04/25/2005 08:41:06 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by pitsaman: Here is another color shot :
|
Wow. I can't wait to get a dSLR.
Message edited by author 2005-04-25 20:41:26.
|
|
|
04/25/2005 09:29:20 PM · #13 |
(starts diggin thru kids pockets for pennies) ok...just a few bazillion more pennies and that dslr is mine ;) |
|
|
04/25/2005 09:50:59 PM · #14 |
What are people using to compare the sharpness of Canon lenses? I used to put a lot of faith in a page titled Lens Test Guide on the Photozone site. They have renovated the site and I can't find it anymore.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/18/2025 03:06:36 AM EDT.