What is the sharpest lens Nikon ever produced?

Go back and read my original reply.

I believe I made it quite clear that Canon doesn't have any "per pixel clarity" any more than Nikon had any "per pixel clarity". You've made that into something else.

What I'm (vainly) trying to do is stop the misinformed BS that is spread amonst these forums from folks like you who simply don't realize some of the basic truths about digital imaging. I am obviously a Nikon user, and yes, I do feel at low-ISO with the better Nikon glass I get better image quality than I would with Canon - very slightly. But you know what? I"ve often thought of becoming a dual system user, because, hey, guess what, no one manufacturer is the best at everything, and right now, for hi-ISO work, Canon is where I'd have to be at. My reply was much more about clarifying vast misconceptions than it was about brand defense - I could care less what you use - but I don't tolerate people makiing incorrect statements that mislead others.

So go ahead - tell me where I'm defending Nikon - I'm defending what most folks know but you haven't learned yet - sharpness is more than the lens - it's the whole bloody system - system resolution is the result of many parts, of which stable support, post processing, lens sharpness, etc, are all factors. It's really pretty basic.

-m

If sharpening is so required and so acceptable as much as you say, then why even bother buying a sharp lens? Heck, just buy all Tamron lenses and save yourself a bundle of dough!

I haven't learned that sharpness is more than the lens? So if not for sharpness, why am I using a tripod, stopping down, using MLU, and a remote shutter?

sigh......

I actually am working on printing today, so I am going to say that this answer isn't going to be the perfectly formed, well argued, 100% informative one that it might be had I the time to gather up the links and try to explain this to you.

Essentially what we are trying to do is get past the blurring that the AA filter gives us - the AA filter is (mostly) necessary because without it, we'd be suffering from Moire and also some other problems that in general are a greater pain in the you-know-where to fix than sharpening is. There is a general tradeoff that occurs - use a stronger AA filter, you'll have less chance of Moire but you'll require far more post process sharpening to get through it. Use a weaker AA filter, you'll have sharper "out of the box" results, but at the expense (and danger) of introducing moire and also some other artifacts. In the Nikon lineup - The D100 was mighty strong in this department, but the end result was most folks thought the camera was too soft. The D70 went the other way - it had a decent amount of zip out of the camera, and suffered Moire problems. In general the closer a DSLR body is to the "pro model" (or if it's the pro model), the more the camera manufacturer will aim to keep the images from being overly sharpened at the default settings - and of course note I said "general" which means it's not one setting either within or external to one manufacturer. The problem is that if you produce excessive in-camera sharpening, and you shoot jpegs, you're "stuck" - you can't undo the oversharpened artifacts. However, if you err on the side of "soft", it's easier to add sharpness back and this is the way it's usually done. Many shooters shoot with the in-camera sharpening turned off or on "low", in order to guard against over-sharpening, knowing full well they will have to do a bit more in post process.

So why not all use bad lenses? Because you can't get what you never had.... as a very rough example, try this - take a test shot out your backdoor, and in photoshop CS2, run smart sharpen at about 40, .8 on it. Now take the same shot, but defocus the lens so it's out of focus slightly and do the same thing - obviously the second shot will not be as good. But no matter what setting you apply - you'll never get to the level of sharpness as the first shot - you'll start to introduce sharpening artifacts - halos, etc, and you just won't get there.

I'm not sure of the science behind it and don't have time to research that for you - but we strive to use the sharpening to correct for the impact of the AA filter that lives in our cameras, but at the same time, to not overdo sharpening - and boy, I've seen that done too, where the images are not realistic looking and there are sharpening halos everywhere.

Total resolution is the result of all aspects being held to their best. Lens, support system, sharpening technique, etc. Yes - it's an apparent "bummer" that we need to use an AA filter (and in some high end digital backs, they forgo of one, but for consumer cameras that's not the best overall approach), and that's what we're getting around.

Trust me - proper sharpening won't be noticeable - and if you have correct technique, decent lenses, you'll be able to get really solid prints out of your D200, your 5D, or even a Nikon D50 or Canon 10D - I've often believed that it's more important to hone this aspect of photography - post processing first, before investing in tons of bodies and glass. Note that when I say "post processing", I'm not talking about adding cows or removing telephone lines - I'm talking about sharpening, density, color, and contrast control. In the film days, the post processing was "built in" - the film did NOT have the relatively linear response to light as digital sensors do, and both Kodak and Fuji (and Afga, Ilford, etc) tweaked their films differently. And then the processing also had some post processing "built in" as well - the automated machines certainly manipulated things. Thing is - in the digital world, WE, meaning also YOU, are now the photo lab. That's good and bad - it means if you don't want to take the time to learn the basics (the rules of the game, so to speak), quite bluntly, the technical quality of your work will suffer compared to those who DO want to learn such things. Ansel Adams spent far more time in the darkroom than he ever did shooting - think about that for a second.

-m

discoben said:

If sharpening is so required and so acceptable as much as you say,
then why even bother buying a sharp lens? Heck, just buy all
Tamron lenses and save yourself a bundle of dough!

Click to expand...

Mike is correct - digital images do require at least some sharpening.

There has been absolutely loads written on this subject but at the very least understand that the fundamental nature of the current state of the art of digital technology has consequences - one of which is that you need to apply some sharpening. If you don't understand why then you need to go back to basics and read up about Bayer sensors and how they work, the demosaicing process, and also anti-aliasing filtering, why it is necessary and why it softens your pictures. Plenty of useful info on all this stuff out there on the web.

anotherMike said:

you can't get what you never had

Click to expand...

Finally! We agree on something...

I'm not saying PP is all bad - there's a place (market) for it in the world. For art prints, I guess it's fine 1) it's blatantly obvious that's what you did or 2) if you're upfront with your customers and they understand that PP was used to make the image.

Thanks, Frank... I do understand the effects that a Bayer filter has on an image. What I'm saying is that, for me anyways, it'd be like going out and shooting with drug store brand film, scanning it, then going into PS and trying to make the image look like I had shot with Velvia. I'd rather have a soft image.

Back on topic, though, I'm open to buying the sharpest lens money can buy if it can let the d200 shine with all its 10.2MP as a 5D can with all it's 12.8. Right now, though, even with the 50mm 1.8 stopped down, on a tripod, MLU, etc., the image appears more like a 20d image with its 8MP bayer sensor. If this is as good as it gets, then it's as good as it gets.

I mean Bayer pattern...

well, pattern/filter... same thing in this case...

okay - let's talk art prints.

You buy an Ansel Adams print - an original one (btw, have you ever SEEN, in person, an original, of his work? - THAT is technical quality) - that print, while printed analog in the darkroom, VERY MUCH has had post processing done to it. He dodged, burned, toned, split-toned, bleached, etc all over the place if needbe.

The post processing I speak of is absolutely critical and can NOT be left out of the equation - for the reasons I explained. Digital sensors simply do not see light the way the eye does, and it is up to us to apply post processing to the images. There is absolutely no need to "disclose" this to a final customer if post work (which includes sharpening) is done in this manner. This is a mental barrier you MUST overcome - or you really need to go back to shooting film. We're not cheating someone out of anything here - what I speak of is essentially digital equivalents of what those of us who have printed in an analog darkroom could and usually have done (with the exception of sharpening). (in case you're wondering - yes, I have experience in both color and B&W darkrooms and ran an E-6 line for a bit many moons ago - I'm not just talking out of my hat here)

As I said before - we're not adding or removing things trying to cheat someone, we're trying to make the scene represent our emotions and feelings at the time we shot it.

I absolutely am not one to go for exaggerated post process in a landscape print - I even write notes in the field telling myself some references in terms of what I'm seeing/feeling and try like all h*ll to make sure that my final prints line up to something that is believable and acceptable. For my work with people - yes, at times I use quite extensive (and obvious) post process as a means to an end - in that work the image file is a mid-point in the creative process.

In shot - I think you're stuck somewhat in the film-world mentality and need to educate yourself a bit on the realities on the way things are in the digital world. I don't say that meanly - just plainly. There are a set of baseline "rules" I suppose one could say, that are done here - and arguing against those is every bit as futile as trying to tell a NYC city subway engineer that there is no such thing as a subway train.

-m

The Nikon 55mm F2.8 Micro (manual focus) AIS, Nikon 60mm F2.8 Micro, Nikon 17-35mm F2.8 AF-S, 80-200 F2.8 ED (early and latest versions).

The performance of these lenses has really stood out from the crowd.

P.S I can't afford the "real" exotics like 200mm F2!
--
http://www.MalcolmMay.com
http://www.photosofasia.com

Listen, if you're ok with PP, then more power to you. For me, I don't like it so that's why I'm searching for the best medium focal length lens money can buy (

And back to my original post, I'm not 100% sure that there's a lens out there that will yield better sharpness straight out of the d200 than with the 50 1.8 (short of using PP) since the d200 appears is more of the limiting factor and than the 50 1.8. (And like you guys are saying it's using a Bayer pattern sensor.)

My Nikkor-O 55mm f1.2 CRT lens is reputed to resolve 250 lines per mm.
(way more than most modern exotic lenses....let alone consumer grade)

The Ultra-micro nikkors ($$$$$$$$) are legendary in thier resolving power, heres a link to get you started:

http://homepage2.nifty.com/akiyanroom/redbook-e/index.html

Some of the Ultra-micro Nikkors resolve OVER 700 lines per mm; their use is industrial & nature photography.

Enjoy your search

PS: there's a 28mm f1.7e ultra-micro nikkor on ebay right now....prepare those $K !

--
Photos speak louder than words.....let's all post more photos.

One thing that we haven't discussed yet - what sharpening setting did you set on the d200? You can't compare one body directly to another - sharpening of "normal" on one doesn't mean it's the same on the other.

To be honest - if you can't see that there really isn't an option in terms of post processing (at least in terms of sharpening), then I have to bluntly suggest you move back to film - it isn't a matter of opinion here - sharpening, and some contrast adjustment, is simply necessary and that's simply that. This is not opinion - it's fact - and you have to understand that. Until you do, don't spend your money yet - you simply aren't at a point in the game in terms of photographic education where it will be worth it and it would be a shame for you to waste your $$.

If you can't accept that - then I'd say you are far better off to fund a purchase of the Canon 5D if you find in your testing that it produces the in-camera 'no post processing' look you want - but I'll be honest - you'll never know what your images will look like until you listen to me here... look, I started off this post a bit angry and I admit it - I see a lot of mis-truths on the forums and I tend to slam back pretty hard. I've been in photography for nearly 30 years, have a degree in it, shoot part time nearly 35,000 frames a year, and have done about every conceivable darkroom process and processing experiment there has been outside of dye transfer. I've shot every format short of 8x10, and have either seen or retouched images from Nikon, Canon, and Olympus cameras to name a few. Those who have seen my prints will agree they are of the highest technical merit. In short - I've got the qualifications to back up what I'm saying - and I'm not even saying anything that really is considered some far off opinion or discussing something arcane such as the microcontrast characteristics of lenses - we really ARE discussing the very basics, the ground floor here, and it actually astounds me that you are so unwilling to listen. Take a step back, and think why on earth it would serve me any good to mislead you. Take a look at what I've written, think about my background qualifications, and then go further - look around at the established experts on digital photography and see if what I'm saying is BS or, quite possibly, the way it is. I dare you - do the research. You're going to find a common thread theme in what I'm saying and what the other guys are saying. To ignore it is certainly your right - but it would be to your disadvantage to do so, and bottom line is, there is too much BS on the internet and in the forums and I've seen too many folks toss good money after bad just because they believed something they read without thinking about it.

Try to keep an open mind about it..... I could care less whether you end up with a Canon 5D, Pentax K10, or a disposable from Walmart... but you need to understand the basics of the digital photography world before you make some very expensive and incorrect mistakes due to your misconception of how things are.

That's all I've got to say on this for the time being - I just don't think I'm getting through and ultimately I'd rather spend my time helping someone who is at least willing to try and learn. You don't appear to be interested.

-m

yes i agree also with Mike i use a kodak dslrn and there is plenty of post work to get the best out of the lens and camera
--
trust me, i'm a Blacksmith

I'm shooting RAW. And that's the thing... How much sharpening is too much? Why not go and try to fix DR while you're at it since the camera can't see what the eye can? Low contrast? Distortion? Don't like the colors? Don't like the bokeh as it came out of the camera because that's not what your eyes saw? Want to create a tilt shift effect? PS can do a lot, sure.

What are you willing to risk?

http://www.newsdesigner.com/archives/002578.php

http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1963706

USM is a fairly old technique from the days of film that is all about increasing acutance and to some extent managing contrast to make high DR negatives printable.

That increase in acutance is really just a bit of trickery that convinces the eye that the image is sharper but it comes at a price of losing some high frequency detail. Ultimately, detail lost throught the necessary use of AA and Bayer interpolation can't be put back but fortunately our brain can be fooled.

Incidentally, the eye also does its own form of unsharp masking - look up Mach bands for an example and the Cornsweet illusion is a good example of how a change in acutance can radically affect perception of a larger image.

Hello aM:

anotherMike said:

I dare you - do the research. You're going to find a common thread theme in what I'm saying and what the other guys are saying. To ignore it is certainly your right - but it would be to your disadvantage to do so, and bottom line is, there is too much BS on the internet and in the forums and I've seen too many folks toss good money after bad just because they believed something they read without thinking about it.

Click to expand...

Yep, there is so much BS on this forum that such mis-information actually becomes fact after awhile to the naive...You have given the other poster some EXCELLENT information but you can't force the horse to drink, as they say...Kudos to you for trying as maybe a few others who are willing to listen will pick up on it...

LW

anotherMike said:

One thing that we haven't discussed yet - what sharpening setting
did you set on the d200? You can't compare one body directly to
another - sharpening of "normal" on one doesn't mean it's the same
on the other.

To be honest - if you can't see that there really isn't an option
in terms of post processing (at least in terms of sharpening), then
I have to bluntly suggest you move back to film - it isn't a matter
of opinion here - sharpening, and some contrast adjustment, is
simply necessary and that's simply that. This is not opinion - it's
fact - and you have to understand that. Until you do, don't spend
your money yet - you simply aren't at a point in the game in terms
of photographic education where it will be worth it and it would be
a shame for you to waste your $$.

If you can't accept that - then I'd say you are far better off to
fund a purchase of the Canon 5D if you find in your testing that it
produces the in-camera 'no post processing' look you want - but
I'll be honest - you'll never know what your images will look like
until you listen to me here... look, I started off this post a bit
angry and I admit it - I see a lot of mis-truths on the forums and
I tend to slam back pretty hard. I've been in photography for
nearly 30 years, have a degree in it, shoot part time nearly 35,000
frames a year, and have done about every conceivable darkroom
process and processing experiment there has been outside of dye
transfer. I've shot every format short of 8x10, and have either
seen or retouched images from Nikon, Canon, and Olympus cameras to
name a few. Those who have seen my prints will agree they are of
the highest technical merit. In short - I've got the qualifications
to back up what I'm saying - and I'm not even saying anything that
really is considered some far off opinion or discussing something
arcane such as the microcontrast characteristics of lenses - we
really ARE discussing the very basics, the ground floor here, and
it actually astounds me that you are so unwilling to listen. Take a
step back, and think why on earth it would serve me any good to
mislead you. Take a look at what I've written, think about my
background qualifications, and then go further - look around at the
established experts on digital photography and see if what I'm
saying is BS or, quite possibly, the way it is. I dare you - do the
research. You're going to find a common thread theme in what I'm
saying and what the other guys are saying. To ignore it is
certainly your right - but it would be to your disadvantage to do
so, and bottom line is, there is too much BS on the internet and in
the forums and I've seen too many folks toss good money after bad
just because they believed something they read without thinking
about it.

Try to keep an open mind about it..... I could care less whether
you end up with a Canon 5D, Pentax K10, or a disposable from
Walmart... but you need to understand the basics of the digital
photography world before you make some very expensive and incorrect
mistakes due to your misconception of how things are.

That's all I've got to say on this for the time being - I just
don't think I'm getting through and ultimately I'd rather spend my
time helping someone who is at least willing to try and learn. You
don't appear to be interested.

-m

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it's no BS that Patrick Schneider is out of a job...

discoben said:

No, I'm not trying to start a holy war. I'd like to be as

Click to expand...

Your posts do not bear this out.

discoben said:

objective as I can because I want my dollars to records the best
and truest images and prejudices just gets in the way of that. I

Click to expand...

Buy a film body. Even better is medium format. Your kidding yourself if you think a D200 or 5D can perform at the level of medium format yet. Best and truest within a reasonable budget? Your barking up the wrong tree with what you've got.

discoben said:

mean, it's just crazy how some people can stoop down to personal
attacks when other people question the abilities of their
equipment. My D200 is not perfect and neither is the 5d.

Click to expand...

Agree.

discoben said:

Currently, I'm trying to find the best portrait lens possible
that'll let the d200 show what 10.2 MP resolution should look like,
money not really a factor as long as it's under $2500. I'm kind of

Click to expand...

I really got where I couldn't take many more of your posts after this one so forgive me if you've already answered this but what focal length do you consider a portrait lens. There are so many valid reasons for using anything from a 35mm to a 300mm lens for portrait that it's hard too just throw out a recommendation.

discoben said:

stuck in Nikon b/c I've got quite a few lenses and I enjoy using my
Nikon. I am contemplating selling it all for a 5d and a 85 1.2L
but I digress.

Click to expand...

Don't. I've already abandoned my Nikon DSLR's (except for very specific things) and will probably get a 5D in the near future. Not for the reasons (and misconceptions) you'd think though.

discoben said:

As far as what you said, I'm not real keen on PP sharpening
because, you know, where do you draw the line? For me, it's like
if I were to buy an antique. One that's been restored/touched up
will not be worth as much as one in it's original condition that
has been stored and maintained properly. In other words, if it
didn't come out of the camera that way, for me, it doesn't belong
on the picture.

Click to expand...

Are you shooting RAW with your "borrowed" 5D and then making sure no sharpening is applied in PP? If not you are just kidding yourself.
--
This space for rent.