Chris Stolpe wrote:
I don't know if it's typical or not - certainly that example is dramatic.
But I do know there are Canon L lenses that are a hell of a lot sharper than
that, so maybe that's the worst of the lot. For example, the 24-70mm L is
widely considered Canon's best lens period, and many reviews state that it's
as good as any prime throughout its range. (I happen to be picking up that
lens before the month runs out, while Canon's rebate is still on, so I'll
post my own results soon.) I happen to own the Canon 70-200mm f4 L, and
though I've had it nearly a year, its sharpness continues to astonish me - I
mean, just astonish me at times. Sometimes I load up new pictures I've
taken with it, and just sit there with my jaw drooping at how gorgeous some
of them come out, exceeding my expectations even as I was taking the shot.
Mine is the f4, not the f2.8, but I understand the f2.8 is every bit as good
(just faster). I couldn't recommend it more - it's just that freaking
You talk about "probably a Sigma and not a Canon L", but maybe that's the
real difference right there. The Canon L lenses are tough to beat, and
certainly no Sigma lens is going to approach them, prime or not.
Sure, your style is definitely something to consider. I'm biased, because I
use a myriad of focal lengths, so primes are simply not for me.
Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com
Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com
Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks