-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Sharp Lens?
- Thread starter David Jo
- Start date
J
JohanP
Guest
Well..
Hubble.. maybe... ;-)
The Contax, Carl Zeiss, lenses is always very good and expensive. The Tamron 90 Macro has received very high MTF readings.
Regards
Johan
Hubble.. maybe... ;-)
The Contax, Carl Zeiss, lenses is always very good and expensive. The Tamron 90 Macro has received very high MTF readings.
Regards
Johan
Snap Happy
Senior Member
For the S2, Nikkor 28/1.4 I would guess?
Jonathan Kardell
Senior Member
For close work (within 15 feet or so) the Nikkor 60mm micro is a contender, and is still sharper then most zooms at infinity.
Another contender (again in Nikon mount) is the 85 1.4. For wide angle work, the mighty Nikkor 17-35 zoom has been rated as good as any prime wide angle except for some flare issues with filters while shooting into the sun.
The 180 2.8D is very sharp but has poor low light autofocus and slow focus at best (older style of lens).
No first hand experience with the longer Nikkors.
I am not familiar with the specifics of the Canon mount lenses, but there are also a few world class lenses there.
Best regards,
Jonathan Kardell
--
It's all good, but some stuff is better.
Another contender (again in Nikon mount) is the 85 1.4. For wide angle work, the mighty Nikkor 17-35 zoom has been rated as good as any prime wide angle except for some flare issues with filters while shooting into the sun.
The 180 2.8D is very sharp but has poor low light autofocus and slow focus at best (older style of lens).
No first hand experience with the longer Nikkors.
I am not familiar with the specifics of the Canon mount lenses, but there are also a few world class lenses there.
Best regards,
Jonathan Kardell
--
It's all good, but some stuff is better.
Arthur Dent
Forum Enthusiast
Thats a good candidate, also the 85 1.4. Kind of hard
to put Zeiss lenses on a Nikon mount too, don't you
think?
Arthur Dent
Forum Enthusiast
The 17-35 is decent, but I can tell you first hand it isn't in the
same galaxy as the 28 1.4. I'm sure other primes are sharper
also, zooms have to be a compromise in optics given the demand
on design.
Jonathan Kardell
Senior Member
Interesting input, you may be right, but my experience has shown that the 17-35 is right there with the 60 micro. I understand that there can be manufacturing variance with the 17-35, so perhaps that was what you experienced. There are a couple of other sites (who's work I respect) that also claim that the 17-35 is the only zoom to equal a prime in sharpness.
I am not calling you a liar, just trying to reconcile experience plus all input including yours.
Best regards,
Jonathan Kardell
--
It's all good, but some stuff is better.
Arthur Dent
Forum Enthusiast
Jonathon, think about it. No zoom has ever equalled a top
notch prime. Yes, the 17-35 is good, but its still a zoom, and
has all of the optical compromises necessary in the design of
an optic that contains lens elements that are move along the
barrell of the lens. The 60mm Micro is a nice lens, but it
isn't the sharpest in the Nikon lineup, so I wouldn't use only
it as a standard of reference. Look at the MTF curves on
Photodo, and you can figure it.
That depends on what you are going to use it for....and if you know how to use it.
If you take pictures of resolution targets you will have a endless quest and will never find the perfect lens. If you take real life pictures most of them will be sharp at f8....
Boris
http://public.fotki.com/borysd/
Jonathan Kardell
Senior Member
Justin, you have a rational argument, however I also have the 85mm 1.4 which you seem to respect as one of Nikons sharpest lenses. I find that the 60mm is the equal up to around 15ft of distance, getting softer toward infinity (but still sharper than most zooms). So, using each lens within it's best zone, you wind up with comparable results.
With the 17-35, if you keep it between f5.6 and f8, you will get sharpness that is very similar to the 85mm 1.4. The big difference here is that the 85 has excellent sharpness from f2 to f16. Probably due to the inherent limitations of zoom mechanisms as you pointed out. This does not mean that you can not get comparable sharpness out of the 17-35, you just don't have as much leeway in fstop. There are also variations in sharpness at different zoom settings. I have gotten extremely nice results at 17mm, although tests I have seen show best sharpness beginning around 24mm and up.
I have no doubt that the 28 1.4 has a much wider range of fstop where it is at excellent sharpness. While this does not put the 17-35 in a different galaxy, it is an important difference. I guess you could say that we are in violent agreement
Best regards,
Jonathan Kardell
--
It's all good, but some stuff is better.
ajs2107922
Leading Member
If I renember correctly is a conon lens Canon EF 2001.8L USM which rates at MTF grade 4.8 out of 5. Which i guess is not much hekp to you. If you want real sharpness at all costs the large format is for you.
Sharpness is not every thing and choosing a lens need to be put into context i.e what are you going to shoot!
If you don't know what your going to shoot and what lens you need. It might be better so buy a cheap lens covering 28-200 range . Tamron, Sigma both produce quite good lens in this range. When you know what you want, then purchase sharp lens in this range.
Sharpness is not every thing and choosing a lens need to be put into context i.e what are you going to shoot!
If you don't know what your going to shoot and what lens you need. It might be better so buy a cheap lens covering 28-200 range . Tamron, Sigma both produce quite good lens in this range. When you know what you want, then purchase sharp lens in this range.
OlaE Hofshagen
Forum Enthusiast
--
Well, the Tamron SP90 f2.8 Macro is certainly the sharpest lens that I have.
Hofshagen
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum