The science of light: is there a 'perfect' lens length

[ausguitarman]

50 1.4.

I need to spend some time with my new 100L as I have a feeling it may pip it at he post but I'm still not sure it will.

[David]

24-105L IS is my sharpest lens and the best I have had so far in general but for landscapes which I do mostly the 17-40mm L is an absolute ripper.

[PaulMac]

I can cut my finger on the images my 135mm l f/2 puts out.

[landteacher]

Favor by a slight margin my Tokina 12-24 F4 Mk11, over the never take an unsharp shot, 50 1.8. The Tokina never fails to surprise me with its performance, so much so that I have a special in camera shooting bank for it that has the sharpness & contrast turned down to 0.

Mick.G.

[sonofcoco]

My 70-200mm F4L.

[Xebadir]

Im going to agree with Ricktas here...my 24-70 is incredibly sharp.

[Jules]

So can we assume from the sheer variety of responses here that there is no obvious trend? (Ignoring of course, the completely unscientific approach we're applying.)

[Xebadir]

Jules, Amusingly there is no way to actually scientifically objectify a sharpness question. All comes down to sample size (variations from sample to sample due to glass variations and production variables), perception by different people as to what defines sharpness...no matter what common tests someone happens to use. Anyone who tells you different is probably a Psych person who will happily tell you that testing for a non-standard measurement based on quantitive approaches is possible and meaningful with sample sizes of 12 people as compared to the overall population/6.5 billion. Truth is that depending on the eye what may appear sharp to one may be horrendous to another.

[JM Tran]

Jules, Amusingly there is no way to actually scientifically objectify a sharpness question. All comes down to sample size (variations from sample to sample due to glass variations and production variables), perception by different people as to what defines sharpness...no matter what common tests someone happens to use. Anyone who tells you different is probably a Psych person who will happily tell you that testing for a non-standard measurement based on quantitive approaches is possible and meaningful with sample sizes of 12 people as compared to the overall population/6.5 billion. Truth is that depending on the eye what may appear sharp to one may be horrendous to another.

yup, pretty much

I have seen a 24-70 L not very sharp due to a bad sample, I have used another 24-70 L where I swore it was sharper than any primes Ive used.

Ive seen monitors showing photos more sharper than on other monitors.

Ive seen a person's standard of sharpness far differently than a professional or a pixel peeper.

Which aperture are we talking about when we mention our lens sharpness? Primes stopped down about 2 stops usually perform best at f5.6 on average, zooms at f8, and some will behave wildly different or opposite to the standard that I just mentioned.

Dont u just love variables

[TOM]

i don't think we'll get a clear indication if we include zoom lenses here. i think a 50mm lens has always been regarded as a "simple" lens to produce, relatively speaking, especially compared to wide angles. My sharpest lens is a 35mm, I don't own a 50mm, but my 75mm lens, which is a standard lens not a telephoto, is my favourite. It's sharp, not razor sharp, but so smooth.

[Colinc1]

For, me, the 24-105L is the sharpest lens i have

[geoffsta]

Lower light, my 18-105mm VR lens win out here.
On a medium to bright day my 150-500mm Sigma OS produces some good clear images. (Hand Held)

[unistudent1962]

I count 4 x Canon 70-200 f4Ls and another as a close second so far.

[scpleta]

i do not have any lens except for my 16 - 85mm VR lens. but i do consider this a good lens with a decent level of sharpness.