Which is the most Optically Outstanding Canon/Nikon Lens?

[Neil S.]

Ya no doubt I love me some primes.

The proof is that my 1st two L lenses were primes.

I didn't sell out and buy all zooms lol.

Being serious though, zooms are so useful.

My 70-200mm 2.8 is my best and favorite lens hands down. Yes I love it even more than the bokeh machine, its that damn good!

 

[Idahophoto]

I'll be going all primes real soon. At least till I can affrod the 3 Zooms I really want. 16-35 2.8, 24-70 2.8, and of course the 70-200 2.8 with those 3 I would not need any other lens, though I am sure there are plenty I would still want lol

 

[Neil S.]

I would highly recommend you start with at least a few primes for L glass, below are some reasons for this.

1st - They are capable of the absolute best image quality possible.

2nd - They are generally faster, which of course has its advantages.

3rd - The more shallow DOF(shooting wide open) forces you to learn how to focus better. In general they will help you improve your skills.

4th - As we discussed earlier in this thread, they can be had for very descent prices compared to zooms. The obvious big exception to this is the 85 1.2 which costs a fortune.

5th - You will get mad respect from people like me lol. :thumbup:

 

[Neil S.]

I'll be going all primes real soon. At least till I can affrod the 3 Zooms I really want. 16-35 2.8, 24-70 2.8, and of course the 70-200 2.8 with those 3 I would not need any other lens, though I am sure there are plenty I would still want lol

If the lenses you have listed in your sig are all you own, I recommend you get the 135L 1st, then the 200 2.8L 2nd.

Thats what I would do.

Another option would be to save for a 70-200 2.8.

Of course if you are really interested in bokeh shots and portraits, just save for the 85 1.2.

The 35L has some descent bokeh, but the focal length isnt that useful for those types of shots.

Get some primes though, you won't be sorry you did.

 

[AlexL]

18-55mm EF-S LOL

Only if it is the 18-55mm EF-S IS

 

[Neil S.]

18-55mm EF-S LOL

Only if it is the 18-55mm EF-S IS

Is there both?

I just know if the IS kit lens.

I don't think that lens quite lives up to L standards for build quality.

Doesn't it have a plastic mount lol?

 

[Garbz]

Bah the truly outstanding Noct-Nikkor AI-S 58mm f/1.2 was left off your list. Disappointing.

 

[Neil S.]

Bah the truly outstanding Noct-Nikkor AI-S 58mm f/1.2 was left off your list. Disappointing.

Hmm I didn't really know anything about this lens....

I just looked it up, does seem to be a legendary one. :thumbup:

It was released in 1977 it looks like.

It seems unlikely that it would be anywhere near as well corrected as some of the newest Nikon/Canon lenses. I may be wrong though.

 

[Mishel]

JamesMason avatar is so funny :lmao: - I voted for the Canon 70-200mm F2.8L, why? - Because I read reviews about it and It is quite affordable, compared to the prime ones. A subjective vote, but this is one vote only.

 

[Neil S.]

Guys the Canon 70-200mm 2.8 and the Nikon 200mm f/2 are tied in the voting lol.

Go go Canon! :thumbup:

 

[Garbz]

It seems unlikely that it would be anywhere near as well corrected as some of the newest Nikon/Canon lenses. I may be wrong though.

This thing goes second hand for way more than the modern offerings from Nikon / Canon does new and with very good reason. This thing was tac sharp fully open. A truly legendary lens. Don't assume old means "not well corrected". After all the physics for lenses have been known practically for the past century. This was one of the few aspherical lenses of it's time.

 

[Neil S.]

It seems unlikely that it would be anywhere near as well corrected as some of the newest Nikon/Canon lenses. I may be wrong though.

This thing goes second hand for way more than the modern offerings from Nikon / Canon does new and with very good reason. This thing was tac sharp fully open. A truly legendary lens. Don't assume old means "not well corrected". After all the physics for lenses have been known practically for the past century. This was one of the few aspherical lenses of it's time.

Hmm you make an interesting point.

I guess other than UD/ED/fluorite/etc. things havent really changed that much in lens construction over the last 30 years or so.

What I don't know though is how much of a difference these new fancy elements really make.

I believe they reduce CA, and things of that nature? Do they do anything for sharpness as well?

I know some of the modern lenses like the Canon 60 macro are known for being extremely sharp, and they have no fancy elements. This would lead me to believe that they arent necessary for a sharp lens.

 

[Garbz]

CA and sharpness are more of a product of lens design and construction. The coatings do wonders for flaring and contrast by minimising the reflections and scattering of light as it bounces through the lens.

 

[angel2oo7]

Bah the truly outstanding Noct-Nikkor AI-S 58mm f/1.2 was left off your list. Disappointing.

Hmm I didn't really know anything about this lens....

I just looked it up, does seem to be a legendary one. :thumbup:

It was released in 1977 it looks like.

It seems unlikely that it would be anywhere near as well corrected as some of the newest Nikon/Canon lenses. I may be wrong though.

The Noct-Nikkor is amazing, no fast lens is sharper wide open. It should be there. You can judge by yourself.

Wide open:

 

[pbelarge]

I'll be going all primes real soon. At least till I can affrod the 3 Zooms I really want. 16-35 2.8, 24-70 2.8

I do not know if I can say which lenses are optically the best, my skill level is not there yet.

But, when I am in NYC, I take the Canon 10-22, 16-35, and 24-70. I am constantly changing the lenses. Why. I am having lots of fun learning how to shoot them and seeing the results.

...so, I vote for the 10-22 as the most fun




Although the 16-35 seems to be the fastest/sharper of the lot.