Your sharpest lenses at full aperture

[Belgarchi]

By sharpest, I mean high resolution and high contrast everywhere (taking into account the maximum aperture; of course, a f/2.8 lens has an easier job to be 'sharp' then a f1.4). The ones that floor you.

Just an informal list, based on your practice.

My list:

- Contax Zeiss 28/2.8 MM

- Leica 28/2.8 R (newest version)

- Canon 35/2.0 FDn

- Leica 35/2.8 R

- Minolta 50/2.0 MD-III

- Nikon 55/2.8 Macro AIs

- Contax Zeiss 60/2.8 Macro MM

- Minolta 85/2.0 MD-III

- Contax Zeiss 85/2.8 MM

- Leica 90/2.8 R

- Tokina 100/2.8 Macro AT-X

- Contax Zeiss 135/2.8 MM

 

[Craig268]

The rare and seldom seen Minolta Rokkor APO 400mm f5.6.

 

[Rol Lei Nut]

Adding to your list:

- Tokina 90 2.5 Macro

- Canon FD TS 35 2.8

- (A bunch of Canon EF lenses - not sure if they fit the context)

- Contax Zeiss 35 2.8 MM

- Contax Zeiss 100 3.5

- Contax Zeiss 100 2.8 Macro

- Contax Zeiss 80-200 4.0

- Contax Zeiss 100-300

- Olympus OM 90 2.0 Macro

- Rollei (CY) Zeiss 85 1.4

- Rollei Zeiss 85 2.8

- Zeiss ZM 85 4.0

- Leica M Tele-Elmar 135 4.0

- Leica R 60 2.8 Macro

- Leica R Apo-Telyt 180 3.4

- Voigtländer Apo-Lanthar 180mm 4.0

It seems to be a lot easier for lenses in the 60-135mm range to be sharp all over wide open.

By sharpest, I mean high resolution and high contrast everywhere (taking into account the maximum aperture; of course, a f/2.8 lens has an easier job to be 'sharp' then a f1.4). The ones that floor you.

Just an informal list, based on your practice.

My list:

- Contax Zeiss 28/2.8 MM

- Leica 28/2.8 R (newest version)

- Canon 35/2.0 FDn

- Leica 35/2.8 R

- Minolta 50/2.0 MD-III

- Nikon 55/2.8 Macro AIs

- Contax Zeiss 60/2.8 Macro MM

- Minolta 85/2.0 MD-III

- Contax Zeiss 85/2.8 MM

- Leica 90/2.8 R

- Tokina 100/2.8 Macro AT-X

- Contax Zeiss 135/2.8 MM

 

[F-1]

I started shooting a bit of Canon FL/FD lenses recently not long ago and the ones I find sharp at full apertures are;

Canon FD 28mm F2.8

Canon FD 35mm F2 Concave

Canon FD 35-105mm F3.5

Canon FL 50mm F3.5 Macro

Canon FL 135mm F2.5

I was surprised to see the 35-105 zoom lens bringing in great sharpness.

 

[ThomasB]

Most of my many lenses are sufficient sharp for wide open usage. Generally speaking: The slower they are, the better they are.

IMHO it only makes sense to compare lenses at same wide open aperture and yes, there are huge differences, not only in resolution and contrast ("sharpness").

However, I've done a comparison of my very fast F1.1 and F1.2 "normal" lenses recently to check which ones are able to deliver the "best performance" wide open:
http://forum.mflenses.com/ultra-fast-normal-lenses-on-a7r-ii-t79965.html
When scrolling down, also my newest acquisition was added: Fujinon AX 50/1.2; it's most probably the best legacy lens in this class.

--
Regards, Thomas Bernardy
----------

 

[ProfHankD]

Sharpness isn't a well-defined thing, but some mix of resolution & contrast....

That said, all my macro lenses qualify (although a few only qualify at close focus distances).

Wide angle lenses tend to have curvature of field that makes them so-so at edges near infinity, but many are actually sharp across the frame -- it's just they aren't at the same focus distance all across the frame. Some 24-35mm lenses are still fine, but few wider. Despite that, some slowish relatively modern ultrawides are very crisp because their DoF covers any curvature (e.g., Sigma 8-16mm APS-C lens).

Fast fifties are often sharp from wide open, but glow from SA can kill contrast. The f/1.8-f/2 ones are often better... perhaps they are essentially stopped-down "sections" of faster designs? The Minolta 50mm f/2 is a good example of that (with unfortunately mediocre bokeh).

Short telephotos, 85mm-135mm, tend to be easy designs to make very even across the frame, and most of mine are. Then again, their absolute resolution and contrast often aren't awesome, and those issues tend to get worse the longer the focal length. I have nothing longer than 300mm that I'd call excellent, and by 200mm the IQ of the "average" lens has already dropped quite a bit. Perhaps I'd do better if I spent thousands per lens, but that's hard to justify given how little I use long lenses.

My single sharpest lens wide open? Probably the Sony 100mm STF... a native E lens which arguably isn't really wide open when the aperture is wide open. ;-)

 

[Belgarchi]

Most of my many lenses are sufficient sharp for wide open usage. Generally speaking: The slower they are, the better they are.

IMHO it only makes sense to compare lenses at same wide open aperture and yes, there are huge differences, not only in resolution and contrast ("sharpness").

However, I've done a comparison of my very fast F1.1 and F1.2 "normal" lenses recently to check which ones are able to deliver the "best performance" wide open:
http://forum.mflenses.com/ultra-fast-normal-lenses-on-a7r-ii-t79965.html
When scrolling down, also my newest acquisition was added: Fujinon AX 50/1.2; it's most probably the best legacy lens in this class.

Looks to me that the Minolta 58/1.2 is the best of these.

 

[sensiblename99]

I have a few of the lenses mentioned by the OP, (Contax Zeiss 28/2.8 MM, Leica 28/2.8 R E55, Nikon 55/2.8 Macro AIs) and I'd agree they are all very sharp wide open but I think this can really be said of many lenses, especially modern lenses.

I have a few very sharp enlarging lenses, specifically Rodenstock APO-Rodagon 4/80 and 4/75, also Schneider APO-Componon HM 4.5/90 but many other EL's are pretty close, Schneider Kreuznach WA-Componon 5.6/80 comes to mind.

Although not an adapted lens, I find the Sony 1.4/50 ZA to be my sharpest F1.4 lens (wide open) with no fringing or bad stuff. It does have a special look wide open ONLY but this is gone when stopped down. Overall the Sony Sonnar 1.8/55 ZA is easily the sharpest wide open 50ish lens I own (including Canon SSC Aspherical, Minolta 1.2/58, Hexanon 1.2/57, Yashica ML 1.2/55, Leica R 2/50, Contax 1.4/50 and a bunch of 'lesser' 50's). This Sonnar is the reference against which I compare all other 50's (for sharpness) as at F1.8 it's sharpness (across most of the frame) is about as good as most lenses at F5.6.

The Canon 1.2/50L deserves a special mention IMHO as I think this is the sharpest F1.2 50ish lens I own (wide open and across most of the frame), HOWEVER, it's purple fringing is abhorrent and makes the lens unusable for many applications.

My stand out, head-and-shoulders-above-the-rest for wide open sharpness, would have to be the Leica R 2/180. Wide open there is no lack of contrast or glow and there is very little if any difference in sharpness when stopped down a little.

 

[Alan WF]

It's not quite the question you asked, but I feel no need to stop down my New FD 28/2.8, 200/4, and 100-300/5.6L lenses to increase sharpness.

Regards,

Alan

 

[Belgarchi]

It's not quite the question you asked, but I feel no need to stop down my New FD 28/2.8, 200/4, and 100-300/5.6L lenses to increase sharpness.

Regards,

Alan

Of these 3 lenses, I have the Canon 200/4.0 FDn. Except for CA, it is the best 180/200 I know (and I tried / own many many), it is very convenient (short minimum distance, internal focusing, telescopic hood, light weight) and is sold for a song on ebay.

I don't understand how it is possible: taking into account its qualities, it should sell for $500+ and be rare!

,

 

[E Dinkla]

It's not quite the question you asked, but I feel no need to stop down my New FD 28/2.8, 200/4, and 100-300/5.6L lenses to increase sharpness.

Regards,

Alan

Of these 3 lenses, I have the Canon 200/4.0 FDn. Except for CA, it is the best 180/200 I know (and I tried / own many many), it is very convenient (short minimum distance, internal focusing, telescopic hood, light weight) and is sold for a song on ebay.

I don't understand how it is possible: taking into account its qualities, it should sell for $500+ and be rare!

,

Victims of the 70-200 etc 4.0 zooms. The Minolta MD 200mm 4.0 versions are in the same category and cheap too. The Pentax / Rikenon PK mount 200mm 4.0 differ little either.



Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
No photographer's gear list is complete without the printer mentioned !

 

[ThomasB]

It's not quite the question you asked, but I feel no need to stop down my New FD 28/2.8, 200/4, and 100-300/5.6L lenses to increase sharpness.

Regards,

Alan

Of these 3 lenses, I have the Canon 200/4.0 FDn. Except for CA, it is the best 180/200 I know (and I tried / own many many), it is very convenient (short minimum distance, internal focusing, telescopic hood, light weight) and is sold for a song on ebay.

I don't understand how it is possible: taking into account its qualities, it should sell for $500+ and be rare!

,

I've compared my 200mm/F4 lenses and the most common problem are the CA's when used fully open. Sharpness is generally very good. My best (and oldest) lens with no visible CA's wide open is the Leitz Telyt for M39/Visoflex.
However, my Minolta AF H.S. APO zoom 80-200mm/F2.8 beats them all already at F2.8. ;-)

--
Regards, Thomas Bernardy
----------

 

[Alan WF]

Of these 3 lenses, I have the Canon 200/4.0 FDn. Except for CA, it is the best 180/200 I know (and I tried / own many many), it is very convenient (short minimum distance, internal focusing, telescopic hood, light weight) and is sold for a song on ebay.

I don't understand how it is possible: taking into account its qualities, it should sell for $500+ and be rare!

Victims of the 70-200 etc 4.0 zooms.

True; I got the 200/4 as stop-gap until I can get an nFD 80-200/4L.

I've found it a lovely lens to use, and it has found a place in my "compact travel prime" set of nFD 24/2.8, 50/1.4, 100/2.8, and 200/4. No doubt, though, that it's not as flexible as a zoom; for social photography I ditch it and the 100/2.8 for a nFD 75-200/4.5, despite the zoom not competing in image quality.

Regards,

Alan

 

[Alan WF]

It's not quite the question you asked, but I feel no need to stop down my New FD 28/2.8, 200/4, and 100-300/5.6L lenses to increase sharpness.

Writing this made me realize how much I miss shooting with my 28/2.8 as a 40/4-equivalent, first on a GM5 with a focal reducer and then on a a6000 without a focal reducer.

I find 40-equivalent is very useful focal length for people -- long enough for portraits but wide enough for small groups -- and f/4-equivalent is fine as long as the light is good.*

So, I've fished out a old plain adapter and have mounted my 28/2.8 on my a6000 in anticipation of the kids opening presents in the morning. I mean, that's what this is all about, isn't it? Taking photos we enjoy with equipment we enjoy too?

Regards,

Alan

* Yes, I need to get a 35/2.8, which would be almost a 40/2.8-equivalent on my a6000 with a focal reducer. It's on the wish-list.

 

[Lightshow]

Most of my macros

Topcor 58's(1.4, 1.8, 3.5 Macro), 85, 135/3.5, 200/4

Leica R 60, 100 APO, 180/3.4

Canon FD 35/2.8 T/S,

SMC Pentax K 28/2, 50/1.4

Rokkor MC 28/2.5

 

[Beatsy]

That's a super-easy choice. Zeiss Otuses (all of 'em) and Zeiss 2/135 APO Sonnar. None of my other lenses can match these wide open, but a few narrow the gap pretty quickly stopped down.

 

[M_digicapt]

Of these 3 lenses, I have the Canon 200/4.0 FDn. Except for CA, it is the best 180/200 I know (and I tried / own many many), it is very convenient (short minimum distance, internal focusing, telescopic hood, light weight) and is sold for a song on ebay.

I don't understand how it is possible: taking into account its qualities, it should sell for $500+ and be rare!

Victims of the 70-200 etc 4.0 zooms.

True; I got the 200/4 as stop-gap until I can get an nFD 80-200/4L.

I've found it a lovely lens to use, and it has found a place in my "compact travel prime" set of nFD 24/2.8, 50/1.4, 100/2.8, and 200/4. No doubt, though, that it's not as flexible as a zoom; for social photography I ditch it and the 100/2.8 for a nFD 75-200/4.5, despite the zoom not competing in image quality.

Regards,

Alan

Have you tried the 200mm f4 with m43? Is the CA performance acceptable?

I use the nFD 28mm f2.8 by itself or focally recuded as a walk-around lens often too...

 

[QuietOC]

By sharpest, I mean high resolution and high contrast everywhere (taking into account the maximum aperture; of course, a f/2.8 lens has an easier job to be 'sharp' then a f1.4). The ones that floor you.

Sony DT 16-50 F2.8 SSM -- especially at 24 mm

Sigma 30 F2.8 DN Art

Sigma 60 F2.8 DN Art

Sony 28-75 F2.8 SAM

Sony Distagon 24 F2 SSM

Sigma 28 F1.8 Aspherical High Speed

Rokinon AF FE 35 F2.8

Canon EF 85 F1.8 USM

My macro lenses seem sharp wide-open until compared with the EF 85 F1.8 at the same aperture. My MD 85 F2 doesn't compare well at all.

The APS-C lenses are sharper than the full-frame lenses.

 

[Belgarchi]

Of these 3 lenses, I have the Canon 200/4.0 FDn. Except for CA, it is the best 180/200 I know (and I tried / own many many), it is very convenient (short minimum distance, internal focusing, telescopic hood, light weight) and is sold for a song on ebay.

I don't understand how it is possible: taking into account its qualities, it should sell for $500+ and be rare!

Victims of the 70-200 etc 4.0 zooms.

True; I got the 200/4 as stop-gap until I can get an nFD 80-200/4L.

I've found it a lovely lens to use, and it has found a place in my "compact travel prime" set of nFD 24/2.8, 50/1.4, 100/2.8, and 200/4. No doubt, though, that it's not as flexible as a zoom; for social photography I ditch it and the 100/2.8 for a nFD 75-200/4.5, despite the zoom not competing in image quality.

Regards,

Alan

Have you tried the 200mm f4 with m43? Is the CA performance acceptable?

I use the nFD 28mm f2.8 by itself or focally recuded as a walk-around lens often too...

With an Olympus camera, the Canon 200/4.0 is superb at f/4.0 as long as you don't take a very high contrast subject (due to CA), and superb for all subjects at f/5.6 or f/8.0. Edge to edge. At infinity or close.

 

[M_digicapt]

Of these 3 lenses, I have the Canon 200/4.0 FDn. Except for CA, it is the best 180/200 I know (and I tried / own many many), it is very convenient (short minimum distance, internal focusing, telescopic hood, light weight) and is sold for a song on ebay.

I don't understand how it is possible: taking into account its qualities, it should sell for $500+ and be rare!

Victims of the 70-200 etc 4.0 zooms.

True; I got the 200/4 as stop-gap until I can get an nFD 80-200/4L.

I've found it a lovely lens to use, and it has found a place in my "compact travel prime" set of nFD 24/2.8, 50/1.4, 100/2.8, and 200/4. No doubt, though, that it's not as flexible as a zoom; for social photography I ditch it and the 100/2.8 for a nFD 75-200/4.5, despite the zoom not competing in image quality.

Regards,

Alan

Have you tried the 200mm f4 with m43? Is the CA performance acceptable?

I use the nFD 28mm f2.8 by itself or focally recuded as a walk-around lens often too...

With an Olympus camera, the Canon 200/4.0 is superb at f/4.0 as long as you don't take a very high contrast subject (due to CA), and superb for all subjects at f/5.6 or f/8.0. Edge to edge. At infinity or close.

Thanks