These Are The Results Of Testing 110 Different Lenses
Most lenses are very sharp when shooting at an aperture of between of 5.6 and f8. However, the results of this test are designed around testing outside of those apertures for the very best performance. I know with my everyday lens (Canon 24-70mm f2.8) I’m frequently shooting at 2.8 to accommodate for indoor shooting. Sharpness at 2.8 is more important to me than the sweet spot of a lens.
GO TO THE NEXT PAGE FOR THE VIDEO
Pages: 1 2
Frost is obviously a Canon fanboy. I would’ve overlooked his bias if he’d placed any one of the Nikon/Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 lenses ever made on this list.
He has always been upfront that he doesn’t test Nikon equipment.
Then the title of his article is invalid.
Why? Canon is far superior to anything else. Lol.
Doesn’t that kind defeat the purpose of such claims. Kinda like a fastest car contest with no Ferrari in it.
Ferrari’s are not even the Fastest cars
You would not be able to claim that unless you had tested it.
Or Pentax! I remember reading at one point that their 50mm 1.4 was one of the best lenses ever made.
Shhh, the P word is forbidden in mainstream photography.
-clutches his K10D fearfully-
I have used a lot of different brands including Canon for 10 years and was never satisfied with my search for sharpness untill I tried Nikon with Nikkor lenses. Happiness finally acheived.
Maybe it’s because it’s a list of “the sharpest affordable lenses” and your Nikon isn’t affordable.
The Nikon 50 mm 1.8 is around $220 i find that very affordable …and certainly should be included in this list.
I’ll be the first one to say that Nikon lenses are not generally affordable, but he doesn’t say anything about affordable in the title. Incidentally, I got that same Nikon 50mm lens for $50 used, at a shop, no less. Perfect condition. I agree, that a title of the sharpest lenses available with no Nikons in it is a little misleading.
I shoot Canon, but some of the sharpest photos I’ve ever seen came from a 300mm 2.8 Nikon
A more appropriate name for this article would have included “…for Canon Bodies”.
Robert Henson
Kayla Brown Cooper Charles Kuntz
Nicely done…
You get what you pay for. It’s not genius to recommend expensive lenses. Canon 24-70 2.8 is a fantastic lens if you have $1800.
Hard to believe that the Canon 70-200 f4 beats the 2.8. I have the 2.8 IS, and it is sharp as a tack. I have the 24-70 2.8, and it is horrible.
Have you tried micro adjusting the lens Pam. I had to micro adjust my 70-200 2.8 because it was front focusing just ever so slightly.
How do you macro adjust? I feel like my Canon lens all front focus! Ugh!
I was going to suggest that as well. Calibrating the focus is very important. The focus pyramid is just $20.00 and made a huge difference in both my 70-200 -2.8 and my 28.70 -2.8.
Looking forward to my D500 coming tomorrow. It has a built-in lens adjustment.
Thank you so very much for your suggestion. Slightly blurry pics have been driving me crazy, I use a tripod when possible and those seem to be fine however using my monopod or handheld, forget it. I can understand it may be me but I don’t have a problem with my MACRO and that is really where it should show. Now, I can’t wait for the pyramid to arrive.
where or how you do that
This article will give you more details on the subject: http://modernlensmagazine.com/fix-common-camera-malfunction-causes-blurry-images/
I’ve tried adjusting it to the body.. it’s been a while since I went through all of the different things to try and get it right. It’s never processed light in a “pretty” manner. I know a lot of people who LOVE the lens, but I got one of the not-so-great ones. I need to send it to Canon to let them go through and calibrate and refurbish it. Just never seem to have a break to do it.
I was just out with my wife and son shooting with the Canon 24-70 2.8 and mine works well. Sorry to hear your having that problem
Don’t believe it Pam! I’ve been a pro for years, and have tried many of the one’s listed here. I can’t speak to the Canon because I shoot Nikon, but if they are wrong on the third party stuff, it stands to reason they missed the mark on the Canon. Samyang doesn’t make one lens that’s up to pro standards when it comes to sharpness, and Sigma is sub-par as well. I find it really funny that there’s not one Tokina listed when the 100mm f/2,8 macro (for one) beats both Nikon & Canon in sharpness AND price. I don’t think these guys do any actual testing, rather relying on ‘what some people report’.
I concur, the list is somewhat fanciful, I too got the ATX-Pro 100mm Tokina and have been blown away by its performance, certainly better than the Nikkor offering
You are very wrong, Russel. Sigma, particularly their Art series’ lenses, is not at all sub-par. In fact multiple reviews all over the Internet have compared Sigma’s Art lenses with Zeiss Otus’ lenses and found that Sigma compared favorably with near identical quality while costing 1/4 the price of the Zeiss.
As Russel noted… comments based on third party reviews. The lenses quality is primarily reflected by it’s glass. Comparing one lucky(assuming accuracy) bench test of a Sigma compared to a Zeiss is insane. If you want to go by test specs, suggest DXO as only reliable source.
Sigma 18-35 f1.8 is razor sharp! I own it and I love it!
Agreed, and amazingly sharp on Nikon as well. (D7100)
Great points, I have tried Sigmas, and returned them as soon as I looked through viewfinder. I have had wondeful experiences with Tokinas, which have been around(and constantly perfecting) since the 1970’s. They have the best wide angle zooms; the only one’s with decent resolution.
Agree with tokina macro comment. Wonderful lens!
My 70-200 f4L is a spendid piece of glass; lighter and $1000 cheaper than the 2.8, as well as sharper.
I agree with you 100% it’s Half the weight and Half the price and performs superbly !
I’d put my Tamron 70-200 2.8 up against anything….that lens is a dream come true…not white with a red ring but it’s amazing….
canon’ s 200mm 2.8 was mentioned in the top ten over the F4
They’re the same.
The original 24-70 2.8 was terrible. My copy, at least. Apparently, the newer one is better, but I can’t bring myself to spend the $
i love my canon 70-200 2.8 |(no IS) but it’s sharp…heavy to carry. i do a lot of photography. i am looking at a 24-70..can you tell me why you don’t like it. i want to find out before i spend the money..thanks
70-200 f4 does not beat the 2.8. I’ve used both. 2.8 version is not only sharper but faster. Any report to the contrary is inaccurate.
YES, I own one also, tried both the IS and Non IS, I picked the 70-200 f:2.8 IS, love it!
Also the newer 24-70 f:2.8 II it is forever sharp.
Well said Pam!
You left out the Sony 135mm 1.8 Zeiss.
And a lot more from Leitz, Zeiss, Fuji, Olympus, Konica etc. that equal or better than the listed ones. Most tests and articles are limited to Canon and Nikon only because those brands are the most promoted not because they make the best lenses.They advertise wherever you look, pretty soon even on toilet tissues. All photo magazines start with the worn out and annoying brain wash question: Which one is better, Canon or Nikon? Because they want you to believe others don’t even exist. Other companies invest much more in new concepts and technologies not in advertising and they gonna win. I’ve used and still use them all so I can compare.
Kinda hard to believe much here when they can’t even post a pic right . When did camera builders start making Left handed cameras
LMAO. Im sure it was shot in a mirror, bet yes you are 100% correct. I haven’t found anything on here that is close to being very true. Isn’t the Canon 55-250 basically a kit lens? Yet no mention of ANY Zeiss lenses or Nikon lenses.
Canon made a left handed camera for a very short period of time.
Exaktas in the 1930’s
This had to have been written by a Canon FanBoy since there isn’t one Nikon lens in the bunch.
Really? They didn’t have the 14-24 in there? Wow! And I’m a Canon person.
The testing was done on “lenses affordable by mere mortals” or something like that. So I’m led to believe that this is NOT a test of all lenses without regard to price. Misleading title, don’t you think? 🙁
Got you to look though didn’t it? They got their site hit, and since they give the results on a different page you have to click on to see, they get double clicks. Im sure they have a pretty good Adsence deal where they get paid per click.
And now I block their ads.
All my Nikon lenses focus sharp as a tack. I have no problem with any of them, and I have quite a few of them.
Lenses aside, why is the photo flipped?
Why would Nikon shooters be upset? They didnt test nikon lenses. If you want to see the actual sharpest lenses go here, and sort by SHARPNESS. Canon lenses dont show up for a while, but Nikon lenses do.
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Ratings
This is fairly inaccurate. The third lens on the list doesn’t even exist?! Why are Nikon Lenses excluded? Why are Sony And Carl Zeiss excluded?
The actual sharpest lenses http://www.dxomark.com/lenses#hideAdvancedOptions=false&viewMode=list&yDataType=rankDxo
You trust DXO? Sheeple!
actually scientific… not fanboy junk…
My sharpest lens is a Zeiss, my second sharpest is a Tokina, 3rd was a Canon 17-55, not an L lens.
and pentax lens,,,,,,,,,,,
Why not properly title this to “the sharpest lenses for Canon on a budget?” Another misleading and limited review.
I’m curious as to why no one has said a word about the image used in this post. It’s been flopped. Unacceptable!
No Zeiss or Nikkor? Should be titled “MY Sharpest Lenses”
I find no credibility in this article. Not a single Nikkor lens? Really? I’d put my 70-200 VR or my 105 Micro up against any of these comparable lenses.
The article is based on opinion. Although I don’t necessarily agree with some of the lenses such as the Sigma, Tamron and Samyang, I’m fine with this article because it’s based on their own test and experiences and they wanted to share their opinion. If you wanted to the test on Nikon, Sony, or Ziess lenses and share your opinion then go do it. Just don’t bash the person about their choices. Now, regarding DXO Mark, I don’t trust them. They are NOT reliable. They never publish on how they do their testing, only putting results of camera and lenses in a control environment test. Nearly everyone in the professional photography world know DXO Mark testing is pure crap.
I agree with your DXO comment.
This guy must live in a state where pot is legal.
Ryan Paulsen dat sigma doe…
First thing I reach for when I need a shave in the morning.
My list:
Canon 100L macro
Canon 35L 1.4ii
Canon 135L 2
No zooms.
And last but not least 400L
purely biased article and obviously you have not tried any of the Nikkor glasses.
yup, no mention of the Nikon 200mm 2.0, 300mm & 400mm 2.8, 105mm macro, 14-24mm 2.8, and that’s just the ones that I can think of off the top of my head.
where’s the Carl Zeiss lenses or Leica’s ???? i would safely say Zeiss and Leica’s are possible the sharpest lenses you can buy today
lmaooooo. this is a joke. my zeiss 100mm f2 will poop on that list..and where the hell is zeiss otus?
yea like you fools know anything about photography
Emily Allanson
Tracey Hofer
No Pentax lenses? This list is beyond suspect.
firstly, Sigma does not make a 35mm f1.8 ART lens, it is a f1.4. Yes they are indeed sharp.
Agree he is a Canon fanboy.
It would be normal to see a mix of Nikon, Canon, and Ziess lenses in this list, not just Canon.
Really shouldnt be a worthy “test” to be published
Uryelle Dimailig
Ooo awesome! I’ll take a look, thanks for the tag Ashlee!
Incredibly misleading and extremely subjective. Will hide Modern Lens Magazine from my feed because of this. My first term in photography school we were taught how to test lenses in a scientific and objective manner.
Also, heading should point out that your tester does not test Nikon lenses, nor “expensive” lenses.
Extremely disappointing. Goodbye.
Not a bit of useful information here. Nothing. Welcome tot he age of click-bait…
Here what most photographer should have in bag, I’m a canon guy:
Two bodies
Canon 24-70mm mark2
Canon 70-200mm mark2
Canon 100mm Macro L series.
The rest in my opinion are just extras or back up lenses… with this 3 lenses you get the job done in my opinion.
Older 24-70 here.. the Mark II came out a year after I got the other.. until I got the 7D Mark II though, the 24-70 was too slow focus for me.. if only I’d waited a year but I like the 24-70 with the 7D Mark II .. use it a ton now at basketball games, when it didn’t come out of the bag often before this body (shooting sports, will never go full frame with 90% sports shooting)
My 70-200 is a Sigma lens.. had it for 8 years now and it only comes off FOR the 24-70.. either basketball or outdoor weather stuff
If you are a wildlife photographer that list isn’t good enough.
You’re right Matthew Deibler but I’m shot special events and most are Wedding
As a landscape and wildlife photographer, these aren’t wide enough or telephoto enough depending on my subject. So maybe the caveat to your comment should be “if you’re a wedding or portrait photographer”.
Correct Aly McTowlie as a mention on my last comment, my opinion is about wedding photography
My choice? NIKKOR 50mm 1.4, 24-70mm 2.8, 70-200mm 2.8, and my “go to” fashion lens? The amazingly SHARP 80mm 1.4 prime! Despite what the article shows, the off-brand glass never (with a few exceptions) performs as well as the real thing. I love NIKKOR glass BECAUSE of their legendary build quality and sharpness. Canon performs as good in my findings, but I love NIKKOR sturdiness AS well as the sharpness. Interesting article, but not very accurate.
You prefer an 80 to the 85?
Rob, I had intended to say 85mm. The 80 was a typo. Thank you for pointing that out.
Try zeiss lens..
Love my 70-200
I have a Tamron SP 60 macro, and I can’t imagine a sharper lens. And it’s hard to imagine a Nikkor lens not being on this list.
I hate when they decide that the photo would be better “flipped” left to right, to fit the page without considering what will be backwards. Look carefully at the camera in the photo accompanying the article. Also she is a model, not a photographer from how she is holding the camera with her index finger across the screen 🙂
I’m a Nikon guy. Two camera bags. D300s and D700 with a D90 backup. Nikon lenses most frequently carried: 50mm f/ 1.4, 85mm f/1.4, 24-70mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8. Two SB-900 Speedlights. Laptop. Plenty of charged batteries…and a sandwich and drink.
dang lester….i have all that in my bag but i got the d7000 and d750 in my bag….
Russell Crawford …”The Nikon Brothers” 🙂
Lester Gray yes sir………………….
Lester Gray I am curious. I just upgraded my camera and considered getting rid of the other one. Since you have more than one body can you give me an example of when you shoot with both or is the second one there incase the first stops working?
I used to photograph motorsports professionally, for 3 racing seasons, at a local NASCAR short track. I often had 2 cameras around my neck…one with an 18-200mm telephoto and the other with a fixed (fast) 50mm. The action was fast-paced, so there was no time to change lenses. Also, there was so much dust in the air, changing lenses multiple times would only expose the inner parts of a body to a lot of airborne dirt. I never switched lenses under such conditions, thus 2 cameras were used. Any other gear I may have needed was carried in a photographer’s vest…Speedlights, extra batteries, lens cleaning kit and etc., etc. Hope this is helpful for you, Nikki.
go lester…woot woot!…hey do you have a facebook page with your work?
No, I don’t have a Facebook page dedicated to my photography, at this point in time, but I do plan on starting one that’ll be dedicated to wildlife photos I’ll be doing this coming Spring. For now, here is another race car photo.
Russ, here is an example of my wildlife photography…
What kind of sandwich?
Alan Beane …LMAO…Ham and Swiss on Rye.
Wonderful. I wanted to know what lasts all day.
That’s my cool weather sandwich. My warm weather sandwich I stop at a sub shop for.
That’s the mark of a true professional
Ugggg really guys – there are definitely a few solid lenses on this list but come on…..I’m a Canon shooter and even I’m mystified by the title of the article that there is no Nikon glass on this list! Nikon is an optics company for crying out loud. Change the article title to the following “Sharpest Bargain Lenses” take out the Canon 85 f1.2 and it would be a more accurate list.
But doesn’t he say that at the very beginning? He mentions that these are reviews on lens that a normal mortal photographer can afford to buy. Or did I misunderstand him?
I shoot on a Pentax K3ii, so I can’t really comment on most of the lenses he mentions.
Yes I’m just saying the title was misleading.
Not a single Nikon lens and Nikkor glass is amazing. Wtf is this garbage?
I carry a 50mm 1.4, 24-70mm 2.8, and the 70-200mm 2.8 VR and am pretty good to go on about every situation. I would like to add a couple more primes at some point, but that’s about it.
Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G is a great prime. I also have the Nikkor lenses that you listed, and I am very satisfied with that selection, too. 🙂
Yeah, the 85mm is definitely next on my list. Well, maybe after I upgrade to a D810 so I have two nice bodies.
I’m curious as to whether some of the art primes are worth the extra $$$. What exactly is the benefit? An even creamier bokeh?
I have tried Sigmas and think they are universally trash.
Same could be said about Canon, or even Zeiss since they’ve been thinking they’re a good “wedding setup” lens company.
This list makes no sense! I’m a Canon shooter and I’m amazed no Nikon no Zeiss no Leica no Schneider…… Very amateur analysis!
He mentions those lenses at the beginning, saying “everyone already knows they are terrific lenses”. Also, that this is of lenses that ‘normal, mortal photographers can afford to buy’… or words to that effect. 😉
That is true but the list is still very one sided. Except for Zeiss (every thing is costly) all the other manufacturers have very competent inexpensive glass! Pentax Olympus Fuji and others there is no representation across the board……
The guy is obviously a Canon fanboy. Zero credibility when I see almost all Canon/3rd party and no one else.
Sharpness is overrated. It’s about lighting and expression.
Sharpness is a thing. You don’t have to shoot sharp lenses sharp you know.
Not if you’re shooting wildlife. Then sharpness is just as important.
Almost all for Canon? I’m all about Nikon. I agree that the Nikkor 50mm 1.4 should be on this list
The part that makes the article laughable is failing to mention even one Leica camera lens. The Nikon 55mm Micro Nikkor has greater resolving power than any lens listed. This is an article about affordable lenses that fit a Canon camera.
No nikon…. Seriously…
Thanks Lester. Interesting Vid clip. I’ve been thinking of getting a Sigma Or Tamron 100-600 lens but still can’t decide. I saw this video and was pleased to see that the ‘kit’ lens that came with my Canon t5i got honorable mention (55-250mm IS) I have told everyone it is a great lens. Crisp clear photos. It is my goto lens. I have a Canon 100-400 IS lens but have been disappointed with it’s performance. Pics come out a bit fuzzy & in low light very fuzzy.
You can start a website and say all sorts of official sounding stuff, haha!
Find hot-button topic, put ads on your article, post on internet, hope to make money while sitting on butt.
He couldn’t quite get the lenses right. For example, I think he meant to say Canon 135 (not 100) mm. f/2L. I think someone who states their opinion on photo gear should post their best 3 photos of their entire career. Then you’d know if they were just a gear head or a real photog.
I have two of them… Sigma 50mm and Sigma 18-38mm. They are wonderful!!!!!
i went with the Canon ef 135mm f/2L USM for my portrait lens. well see how it holds up soon enough!!! 🙂
Yes, sharp lenses are very important. I personally love my Canon 24-105 and my Canon 100mm. I use them at every wedding I photograph. They are very sharp. However, please remember that you can take great, very sharp photos with the kit lens. Plus, and most importantly, remember that the best photos ever taken (the Pulitzer Prize winners) were very often slightly soft or a little blurry. It’s the content that makes a photo interesting, not how tack sharp it is.
Follow
This list is horrible! Obviously a Canon Fanboy wrote this! I’ve been shooting Canon and Nikon off and on for years. Nikkor lenses are and have been some of the best glass you can buy! Shame on MLM for publishing such crap! The lenses listed are fine, but not even the Nikkor 50mm 1.4 was in it! Whatever!
cannon not nikon
No Zeiss Otus? Seriously?
Exactly! the sharpness of the Otus, or for matter, the Zeiss lens built for Sony (35 1.4 Distagon and 85 Batis) are like knives.
Canon
Those SIGMA “ART” lenses are pretty amazing 😉
No Fuji or Olympus primes. The Fuji XF 23 1.4, 35 f/2, and 56 f/1.2 would put most of the zooms in this list to shame with sharpness. For you full frame folks, that’s 35, 50, and 85mm’s respectively. And no Nikons? This list is bogus.
agreed, I shoot both Canon (6d & 40D) and Fuji ( XT-1), I have Canon’s 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.8, 24-105 f4 & 70-200 F2.8 Fuji’s 35mm f2, 56mm f1.2, 18-55 kit & 55-200 kit and they all shoot as sharp or sharper than the Canons
hahaha the comment on the left handed camera was gold .
Nikkor > Canon lenses. Just ask NASA.
Nikon is known for the best glass. Obviously a skewed opinion.
The list clearly have never used a Zeiss lens and one above all the Otus line…specifically Carl Zeiss 85mm f1.4 and the Sony 90mm f2. These two lenses are the sharpest on earth by a considerable margin.
Love my sigma 50 1.4 art!!!!!! Best ever!
Wasted time reading this
I have checked out the videos they referenced, Christopher Frost ….he only tests lens compatible with a Cannon, which what he shoots with….so in his results there would be no Nikon lens. I shoot Nikon and think they have some great glass. If a publication is going to endorse a specific reviewer or brand at least be up front about it so readers can be aware of the brand(s) bias.
Love my tamron 2.8 24-70 and nikkor 2.8 70-200 even my nikkor nifty 50 1.8
i find this list very informative and accurate.
Now, an easy exercise; Go to a photo site as Flckr or others, and try to guess what kind of lens or camera a good picture was done.
I try that for a month, and I was wrong 99.9% of the time.
Thats mean nobody will guess or minded with witch lens a picture is done.
I do have the full frame Sigma 35mm f/1.4 and it is amazing, also the 24mm Sigma Art.
To me high tech is getting an inexpensive adapter so I can continue to use Zeiss or Leica glass on cameras with digital sensors. I have tried many lenses on the list and am most disappointed by auto-focusing or attempts to manually focus by wire. What matters most in a lens is the glass. Sorry no one has yet beat the optical quality of the best lenses of the last century.
this list is one sided, there are so many great lense’s out there that are better than what he has listed, Nikon I think leads the pack followed by Tamron and Tokina. than sigma ( worked for Ritz Camera and all their len’s were made by Sigma) But every one has their fav’s A canon user will praise his, a Nikon user the same, I have a manual lense I use on my D 200, the Nikon 105 f2 that one is legendary. and the 70 to 140 Tamron 2.8 vari- soft .. so keep a open mind and you be the judge
Leica and Zeiss
I’ve been using the Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 for several months now. I absolutely LOVE it…it has become my go-to lens for any longer shot. Sharp with less chromatic aberrations than the comparable Canon lens (I shoot Canon) and I do NOT buy “stabilized” lenses…I almost always use a tripod. The Tamron is half the price of Canon and gets better reviews. I now own 3 Tamron lenses…the 70-200, a 17-55, and a 90mm macro…and have gotten excellent results with all of them. I don’t get into the Nikon vs Canon thing…there are things that Nikon does better than Canon, and things that Canon does better than Nikon. In a perfect world, I’d own both. But I can’t afford both, so I stick to what I’ve got. But Tamron has come a LONG way since they first started producing lenses…
Sony FE G Lens 90mm Macro f/2.8
Sony Zeiss FE 55mm f/1.8
Sony Zeiss 135mm f/1.8
Sony G Master FE 85mm f/1.4
Sigma 35mm f/1.4
Sigma 24-105 f/4
Not one Olympus lens, but Sigma and Tamron? What a joke. Zuiko makes some of the best lenses. I’ve seen reviews and read posts that said the 75 1.8 was the sharpest lens they have EVER used of any brand.
Eventhough my Tamron 18-270 mm zoomer is not one of the sharpest lenes, I enjoy it’s versatility. I can record something near to me or afar and the cost was reasonably practical for my pocket.
My list would be
Leica 120mm Apo-macro Summarit-S
Leica 50mm Apo- Summicron
Leica 90mm Summicron
All of which out perform those listed.
I have to disagree with the Canon 85mm f1.2L II USM as the older Canon 85mm f1.2 USM is actually sharper than the newer model, by a significant amount.
I personally dislike articles like this as all they do is feed people’s GAS; also sharpness is only one factor to consider when looking at a lens.
Those complaining that the list is Canon-centric, well duh, it was stated at the beginning that he only tested Canon mount lens. Thos complaining he did mention Carl Zeiss or Leica, again duh, it was said that these are lenses most people could afford…
this is a complete joke, you have got to be kidding
Been nice if the title said 10 sharpest Canon lenses…
Bit offputting to find he was only rating Canon lenses. I presume that perhaps he thinks that the only brand of lenses there are.
My Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is the sharpest lens in my bag. Comes within a fraction of the performance of the Nikon 17-55 f2.8, and costs about one third of the price.
And is review came off experience? Please? Label it correctly a Cannon review. Your review seems like it came off of a cracker jacks box label? I have never owned a Cannon. Never will. Sorry but NIKON welcome to the dark side. 14-24, 24-70, 70-200. 200f2, 200-400F4V2, 300-800 SigMonster, 50-500 Sig BigMoma, Nikon 85 1.4. 50 1.4, several others not mention. D2x, D3, 2-D300, D4, D500, D5. 150,000 frames a year. In business since 1976. In photographer since 1970. 15 years USAF photographer retired 1992. Just keep on shooting, Doing what I enjoy.
Yeah, there’s a reason the 50mm used to be/still is called a “normal” lens. It’s both the normal view (very roughly same angle of view as the human eye, on 35mm film and on FX cameras), and, the one lens everybody used to own, before zoom lenses (with their benefits and their compromises, both of which are well known and don’t need to be argued here) became all the rage. I have several zooms but still wouldn’t want to be without my 50mm f/1.8 Nikkor lens (or the equivalent fast prime normal lens if I were to use any other system). This isn’t about brand preferences but about vision.
This is hilarious…must be working for canon…..
This is hilarious, Canon Fanboi all the way.
Sorry, your lenses do not hold a candle to either
Sony Zeiss 55mm f1.8
Zeiss OTUS 55mm f1.4
As a Canon and a Nikon shooter I would agree with the list above. Nikon just don’t have the crispness in their lineup at present.
There is only one pre-eminent company that truly knows how to accurately test lenses and their list is here:
Top lenses tested from DXO Mark: https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Ratings
It annoys me that in North America they often do not even consider Olympus lenses on some of these comparisons. Now if this was SE Asia then that would be another matter.
Good God people he is just giving his opinion on ten good lenses. Why must you argue about everything!!! Take a pill and get a life
Keith normally I would agree with you but this article is so misleading in so many ways. The biggest is there is no universal testing done. Even that is somewhat subjective if it is done. Instead of shilling for one or two companies I would like to see a real world comparison with actual pictures, real measurements on the light transmission etc, as well as multiple peer review.
No one even mentioned the legendary Nikon Noct series. As far as affordable goes that is in the mind of the individual. I’m retired so have to make choices. That doesn’t mean I cant get what I want maybe just not immediately.
Well this “list” is obviously just a Canon ad – not that Canon are bad – but there are many lenses out there that are better (Nikon) or at the very least comparable… How this made a side bar is beyond me 🙂
a list of sharp lenses without any nikon?! it’s almost sarcastic