What is the sharpest lens Nikon ever produced?

Okay, lemme get this straight - one minute you're talking about art prints, but now, so you can feel smug about supporting your non-existent argument, you change over to a discussion of photojournalism ethics?

Two different worlds - I can see in PJ work that one might want to keep things a lot "closer to the line" in terms of any exaggerated post process work, but I guarantee you, nobody will be fired for frickin sharpening the image. And in the examples you cited, note that there are many threads and discussions about how much is too much and so forth - in the real world, things have ebb and flow, they are not quite as binary as the bits in our camera - and what "works" for one news organization might not work for the other.

Basically, if one were to follow your highly distorted logic, the following should occur:

a) Ansel Adams shouldn't have spent any serious time in the darkroom. H*ll, just give some 18 year old high school student the negative, plop it in the old Besseler 23C enlarger, drop a sheet of RC paper in it, and have an automated processor do the processing - no need for hand development, dodging, burning, paper choices or any of that nonsense

b) When Joe Sixpack comes home from the kids birthday party, he ABSOLUTELY has to make double darn sure that the folks who develop his film from his point and shoot run it straight - good lord, couldn't have any color correction or lightness/darkness correction - that would be post processing and ultimately illegal in your eyes.

As I've stated umpteen times - sharpening is going to be neccessary, and if you don't understand that, don't go out and spend megabucks on a digital camera at all.

I'm not arguing that some post processing isn't "over the top" - and if you possess reasoning skills and look at what others have done, you will soon realize where you lie on the gradient between "none" and "go for it" - but trust me, there has to be some - at least sharpening and modest contrast correction - it simply has to be that way in order to present a technically decent image - NOTE: photojournalistic requirements often do not include this level of technicality - so by the nature of it, most stuff you see in newsprint isn't shot nor processed to be technical grade quality images - it's flippin news.

I absolutely give up. I'd have better luck converting the Pope to devil worship than convincing you to think coherently.

-m

Out of what I have or have had (Nikon brand) I would rate the sharpest as...
1. 60mm 2.8D Micro
2. 85mm 1.8D
3. 50mm 2.0AI
4. 28mm 2.8AI
5. 120mm f/4.5 Macro

I also have the 35mm 2.0D, 35mm 1.4AIS, 50mm 1.4D, 50mm 1.4AIS, various 50mm 1.8's, 10.5mm, 17-55mm, ect. None seem too equal the bite of my favorite 5 (for me atleast.)
--
This space for rent.

He's obviously living in some fantasy world. Why bother? I've seen you post the equivilant of a book today and he still doesn't get it. Every photo editor and National Geographic is an unethical idiot. Every great (Ansel, HCB, take your pick) is an unethical idiot. Everyone that processes so they can create a scene in keeping with what they saw with their own eye is an unethical idiot. Use a flash? Cheating because you modified the light. Faster lens? Cheating because you are going to create dof effects that I don't get with my naked eye. End of story.
--
This space for rent.

anotherMike said:

I absolutely give up. I'd have better luck converting the Pope to
devil worship than convincing you to think coherently.

Click to expand...

It's obvious that this clown doesn't know what he's talking about, but in spite of himself, his posts were worthwhile. That's simply because you posted some excellent responses, refuting his silly notions, and that should help a lot of other people, that do have the capacity for rational thought. Well done, sir.

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root

Interesting how a simple request for help can turn into an ego show to try to prove how absolutely verbos a lurker can become in trying to educate us all. Please give it up.

DiscoBen:

Many of the ethical issues you raise of always been there. We each have to draw our own lines. In the case of PJ, your employer draws them for you and you ignore them at your peril.

But these issues have been around a REALLY long time. What about people who manipulate natural subjects (i.e., using a clothes pin to pin back a branch to allow a better shot of nesting birds)? What about those who use filters (anything from an 81A to a polarizer to the old tobacco colored Cokins to Galen's split density)? What about those who crop a picture (or position themselves) in a certain way to make a farm look rustic even though it is next to a freeway? What about those who burn and dodge when printing? What about using filters in enlarging? What about under or over exposing a scene (or in development or in printing)? What about you choice of film to make something look grainy or not?

These are all things that I think reasonable folks can disagree with. Where it crosses the line for me is when things are added or subtracted from the scene or when colorization is changed in a major way. Is that subjective? You bet.

If I had the space, I would probably be shooting 4x5 Velvia most of the time. And maybe you would be happiest with large format film doing contact prints. That is about as pure as you can get.

I guess what I am trying to say is this: Consider taking a step back from your rules. What principle are you protecting wth each one? How would you handle that issue with film? I look at USM as sort of a filter used when printing (to negate the AA filter on the sensor). Is burning and dodging ok with film? Then why not in digital?

For me, digital means that some PP is needed. It can happen in the camera or on my computer. And, from where I sit, they are ethically the same. Ditto with noise reduction software.

As for portrait lenses, I would suggest the 85 f 1.4.

Well, like I said, if you're into PP, all the better for you. Some people like BMWs and Porsches, some people like their Hondas with extra stickers and coffee cans. Some people like a real honest to goodness steak, some people like hotdogs. Some people like Mozart, some like their Crazy Frog remixes. Some people like the truth, some people are into Hollywood. To each their own... For me, if it didn't happen in the real world, it doesn't belong on my pictures.

No, I absolutely support your right in PPing up your art prints. I just wouldn't buy them.

Not trying to educate anyone. I'm just seeking the sharpest lens for the D200 short of using special effects or going with a Canon.

johnb23 said:

I presume the lens will be relatively fast (e.g. f1.4 to f1.8) and
'prime', but these are not requirements.

Click to expand...

Well it would definitely be a prime.

Regards
Terry

conorh said:

NOCT?

Click to expand...

The noct is not particularly sharp. It is just very well corrected for coma. And fast...

Hello DB:

discoben said:

For me, if it didn't happen in the real world, it doesn't belong on my pictures.

Click to expand...

There isn't a consumer camera made, film or digital, that has the dynamic range in a single exposure that the human eye has...Consequently what you see in your real world can NEVER be in your pictures without some manipulation or PP...If you can't see or accept this you might as well give up photography...

LW

discoben said:

Well, like I said, if you're into PP, all the better for you. Some
people like BMWs and Porsches, some people like their Hondas with
extra stickers and coffee cans. Some people like a real honest to
goodness steak, some people like hotdogs. Some people like Mozart,
some like their Crazy Frog remixes. Some people like the truth,
some people are into Hollywood. To each their own... For me, if
it didn't happen in the real world, it doesn't belong on my
pictures.

Click to expand...

I happen to agree with John Long, Ethics Co-Chair and Past President NPPA: (Do you think he knows what he's talking about?)

"In the two photos of the ladies on the parade float, the photo on the left has a set of wires running behind the ladies. In the photo on the right, the lines have been removed. It takes only a few seconds with the cloning tool in PhotoShop to remove these lines. Removing the lines is an Accidental change, a change of meaningless details. If we had changed the flag to a Confederate flag, or removed a couple of the ladies, this would have changed the meaning of the photo and it would have been an essential change. But if we just remove the lines, what is the big deal? Who is harmed? As far as I am concerned, we are all harmed by any lie, big or small.

I do not think the public cares if it is a little lie or a big lie As far as they are concerned, once the shutter has been tripped and the MOMENT has been captured on film, in the context of news, we no longer have the right to change the content of the photo in any way. Any change to a news photo - any violation of that MOMENT - is a lie. Big or small, any lie damages your credibility"

http://www.nppa.org/professional_development/self-training_resources/eadp_report/eadptxt.html

John Long, Ethics Co Chair and Past President of NPPA:

"The bottom line is that documentary photojournalism is the last vestige of the real photography. "

http://www.nppa.org/professional_development/self-training_resources/eadp_report/credibility.html

.
.
.

"In the photos of the ladies on the parade float, the first photo has a set of wires running behind the ladies. In the second photo, the lines have been removed.

.
.
.

It takes only a few seconds with the cloning tool in PhotoShop to remove these lines. Removing the lines is an Accidental change, a change of meaningless details. If we had changed the flag to a Confederate flag, or removed a couple of the ladies, this would have changed the meaning of the photo and it would have been an essential change. But if we just remove the lines, what is the big deal? Who is harmed? As far as I am concerned, we are all harmed by any lie, big or small.

I do not think the public cares if it is a little lie or a big lie As far as they are concerned, once the shutter has been tripped and the moment has been captured on film, in the context of news, we no longer have the right to change the content of the photo in any way. Any change to a news photo - any violation of that moment - is a lie. Big or small, any lie damages your credibility. "

http://www.nppa.org/professional_development/self-training_resources/eadp_report/photo_changes.html

--
http://www.localviewfinder.com/art/?rubi430

discoben said:

John Long, Ethics Co Chair and Past President of NPPA:
"The bottom line is that documentary photojournalism is the last
vestige of the real photography. "

Click to expand...

heh, well, that depends on whether or not you agree or even care what this man has to say. "Real Photography" is his by his definition and his definition alone? No, I don't think so.

Your argument falls apart, even in the slightest wind. Different cameras, different settings on the same camera, will render scenes differently, just like people's eyes. That, alone, is sufficient to throw your argument out the window.

Photojournalism and ethics aren't exactly the best words to be used in the same sentence anyway. Lot's of journalists, photo and otherwise, are rather less than ethical. Is sensationalism ethical? I don't think so. Is it okay to stage a scene to photograph? Again, I don't think so. But, either of them would be "capturing what you saw" according to your definition of photography. The recent blowup over that PJ that was staging scenes for sake of sensationalism, in the war zone, proves the point.

The act of sharpening a photo, whether done in camera or in post, isn't any different. The camera applies sharpening, among other adjustments, to the image.

Your inability or unwillingness to grasp these simple concepts is quite remarkable.

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root

Kerry Pierce said:

Your argument falls apart, even in the slightest wind. Different cameras, different settings on the same camera, will render scenes differently, just like people's eyes. That, alone, is sufficient to throw your argument out the window.

Click to expand...

How? What I'm saying is that as a PJ, it is unethical for me to alter the image any way after the shutter has been triggered. Anything less and it's Hollywood. It's fine for some. Not for me and Mr. Long. (And Mr. Long does have pretty good credentials.)

Kerry Pierce said:

Photojournalism and ethics aren't exactly the best words to be used in the same sentence anyway. Lot's of journalists, photo and otherwise, are rather less than ethical.

Click to expand...

And why is that so? Could it be because other PJs are altering their photos?

Kerry Pierce said:

Your inability or unwillingness to grasp these simple concepts is quite remarkable.

Click to expand...

My inability and unwillingness to betray my values is remarkable? Thanks, that's the best compliment I've gotten all day!

It's funny that Cartier Bresson was brought up earlier by brokenz because I believe HCB would agree with me:

"He believed in composing his photographs in his camera and not in the darkroom, showcasing this belief by having nearly all his photographs printed only at full-frame and completely free of any cropping or other darkroom manipulation -- indeed, he emphasized that the entire negative had been used by extending the area reproduced on the print to include a thick black border around the frame."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Cartier-Bresson

discoben said:

discoben said:

Your argument falls apart, even in the slightest wind. Different cameras, different settings on the same camera, will render scenes differently, just like people's eyes. That, alone, is sufficient to throw your argument out the window.

Click to expand...

How?

Click to expand...

People have already explained it to you, many times.

discoben said:

What I'm saying is that as a PJ, it is unethical for me to
alter the image any way after the shutter has been triggered.

Click to expand...

And you've been told that every camera will NOT record the scene as you saw it. Just because you "say" that you don't alter the image, doesn't mean that it's true nor is it an accurate representation of what you saw. For example, when you use flash, you ALTERED the scene. DUH!

discoben said:

Anything less and it's Hollywood. It's fine for some. Not for me
and Mr. Long. (And Mr. Long does have pretty good credentials.)

Click to expand...

I don't give a FRA about mr long or his creds. You interjected a bunch of BS into a perfectly innocent thread.

Glaringly absent is your response to my statements about sensationalism and staging photographs. So much for your ethics.........

discoben said:

My inability and unwillingness to betray my values is remarkable?
Thanks, that's the best compliment I've gotten all day!

Click to expand...

Typical, but rather low quality, spin doctor BS....

It's not at all apparent that you have any values or ethics. You don't use your real name. Instead, you hide behind an alias. How ethical is that? You have no website, post no photos, thus have no credibility at all. Now, see if you can twist that into a compliment.

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root

DiscoBen

To each his own. Here is the reality: no camera ever captures exactly what/how the eye sees it. Any digital camera has software that processes what the sensor "sees." Even raw.

In the end, it seems your criteria is mostly a process one -- if I pressed the button and this is the way it comes out then it is true. To me, there is no ethical difference to using sharpen in the camera versus in PS. Again, I view it the same as using a filter.

Regarding PJ:

The examples you point out, I would agree, cross the line. Erasing phone lines. Staging shots. Adding and sutracting people.

That said, the website you point out seems to say the opposite for things like USM. Their scorn is for things I would scorn as well -- staging shots, changing the CONTENT, etc.

"In one of the early Digital Conferences, the Rev. Don Doll, S.J. pointed out that there are degrees of changes that can be done electronically to a photograph. There are technical changes that deal only with the aspects of photography that make the photo more readable, such as a little dodging and burning, global color correction and contrast control. These are all part of the grammar of photography, just as there is a grammar associated with words (sentence structure, capital letters, paragraphs) that make it possible to read a story, so there is a grammar of photography that allows us to read a photograph. These changes (like their darkroom counterparts) are neither ethical nor unethical - they are merely technical.

Changes to content [he then goes on to some of your quotes]."

It seems to me like a little USM would be called technical (just as contrast was above). (And even in their forums I found no one stating that USM is a no no. ).

The Camera Is Not A Tape Recorder

As others have noted, it is impossible for a camera to replicate precisly what the human eye sees. Many tests show how this is true: a) look at a larger distant object (i.e., Mt. Rainier from 40 miles away). See how it still seems large. Take a photo with a 35mm lens. See that tiny thing? b) Take a photo of a swiftly flowing stream at 1 second shutter speed. Did the stream really look silky like that? c) Take a photo of a helicopter with a 1/5000 shutter speed. When you saw the helicopter, was the rotor really frozen in mid air like the photo; d) Go into a very dark room -- where you can't see any detail. Take a picture using a strobe. Was that what you really saw when you walked in?; e) Use a 10.5mm fish eye to take a picture of a car. Is that what the car really looked like?; f) Take a portrait at f 1.4 -- was the background really blurry in real life? Or was it all in focus? g) Find a scene that has things in full sun, some in partial shade and some in deep shade. Take a picture. You blow the sunny areas or have no detail in the dark shade. yet your eye could see it. h) Take a photo of buildings using a pc lens and a non-pc lens. They have different looks. Which one is "real" and which one is "fake."

If this is the new standard, better throw out the flashes and anything other than a 35mm prime lens (assuming an APS sensor).

I often wonder what Galen Rowell would have thought about the ethical issues in play. My guess is that things like USM -- used in moderation -- would be a no brainer. Adding or subtracting power lines would not. But that is a guess.

See http://www.mountainlight.com/articles/op2001.04.shtml and http://www.mountainlight.com/articles/op2000.12.shtml for some thoughtful discussions.

Go to Ken Rockwell webpage for NIKKOR lenses. I think he has tested practically ALL NIKKORS ever made.

Since you specify Nikkors (Nikon Lenses), try the Nikon website. I am sure you will get an unbiased factual information from the horses mouth.

--
ecube - 'cogito ergo sum'