the sharpest of the sharp line up

<p>hi folks, <br>

until now i haven't been a huge advocate of the "sharp" debate. it's always been "content trumps sharp"... <br>

now i find myself pondering a shuffle of sorts with the end game being a selection of primes, maybe 4 in total, with SHARP being the motivating factor. i want sharp stopped down AND as sharp as i can get wide open!<br>

my thoughts right now are... nikon 180mm f2.8 (own it already and love it), nikon 50mm f1.8 (i own the made in japan vs. that is as sharp as i have seen, even at 1.8), nikon 35mm f2 af-d (need to buy) and probably a zeiss zf 25mm f2.8 (need to buy).<br>

i run a d700 and d3 (if that matters) and shoot documentary and press work. i am from the school of "90% can be shot on a 35mm and a 50mm".<br>

i guess what i am asking is for advice from any of the "lens guru's" out there. any substitutions? suggestions? before we head that way i am NOT interested in any multiple focal length lenses.<br>

thanx in advance!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>hand held? then the sharpest lens might be whichever one has VR for documentary and press photography. Sharp doesn't matter if you're shooting at 180mm with a lens with no VR that's super-sharp, and the guy next to you is at 200mm on a cheap 70-300 VR zoom and he has VR on and you both have to shoot at 1/200 sec.</p>

<p>on a tripod? We all know the sharpest lens is a good sturdy tripod...</p>

<p>I did the same thing you are thinking of a year ago and bought four so-called "primes." I just wasn't that impressed. Honestly, I wasn't. The lens designs are ~25 years old. At one time zooms just weren't there for top quality. A LOT has changed since then. Aspherical elements, computer design, robotic element grinding, and most important modern lens coatings. Some of the latest zooms, such as the Nikon 14-24mm, very clearly beat the single focal length lenses in every way except price & size. I personally don't get the emotional attachment to 25 yr. old lenses, unless it's partially nostalgia. I'll throw one more thought out there. Lens comparisions are typically made with only one of each lens. We all know there can be a lot of variation between the same model of lenses. I would assume that especially true with older lenses not made with computerized robitics. I've not seen any meaningful lens tests done, and by "meaningful" I am thinking tests where 10 samples of a single lens were tested and analyzed. Just analyzing one sample may not mean that much in the end. The rammifications of what I just wrote--sample variations for each lens model, probably means that a "sharpest lens line up" does not even exist.<br /><br />In the end, it seems the way to maximize image quality (which is more than simply sharpness) you have to take it lens by lens. I personally won't have anything to do with the older design lenses because they give my kind of photography nothing but trouble with CA and sometimes added flare. Like Peter Hamm, I too have come to think that maximum sharpness comes from a pro quality tripod and head. If you aren't using a tripod, talk of lens sharpness becomes moot. When I tested some of my bigger lenses on a low quality vs. high quality tripod head to head, the difference was sometimes stunning! I also agree with Peter that sometimes modern technology, such as VR, will trump inherent lens sharpness in some situations, such as when you can't use a tripod. For example, if needing a 400mm lens, I'd go with the Nikon 200-400mm f4 VR ANY TIME over the Nikons 400mm f5.6, 400mm f2.8 if I could not use a tripod. I'd take the 200-400mm over the 400mm f5.6 even if tripod was used--it's a superior lens. Finally, if absolute sharpness was my ONLY criteria for a lens, I would forget DSLR and go for digital medium format. The DSLR format is all about speed, flexibility, compactness, so I make lens choices to maximize that. For maximum sharpness, especially at great enlargements, I would dump DSLR system and go for digital medium format.<br />Kent in SD</p>

<p>I love sharp lenses too, but my problem with this quest is that some of my sharpest lenses are too contrasty for my tastes.</p>

<p>My guess is that the Zeiss 50/2 is the sharpest 50. I've handled one, but haven't made side-by-side comparisons though. It's actually pretty sharp at large apertures, something that Zeiss lenses usually are and Nikkors usually are not. The 50/1.2 is for the moment my favorite 50 for large apertures; contrast may be low, but the resolution is there and with digital contrast is most of the time not a big deal.<br>

For 35, the 35/1.4 is an interesting animal, but it's not that easy to handle. The Zeiss 35/2 is well regarded. It can be said, though, that SLR lenses are not that exciting when going to wideangles compared to the latest non-SLR wideangle lenses.<br>

I hear that the 200/2 is well regarded. You leave quite a gap though between 50 and 180, but it's your choice.</p>

<p>It really depends on what you're trying to achieve. The 25/2.8 ZF is great stopped down a bit but it's not as sharp as the 24-70 at 25mm when the picture is taken at f/2.8. The 24mm PC-E is better than either when stopped down to f/8.</p>

<p>The 35mm f/2 ZF is much sharper than the 35/2D AF Nikkor especially at wide apertures towards the corners. The 50/1.4G AF-S Nikkor is better at wide apertures than the 50/1.8D and about equal stopped down. Any list of sharp lenses is incomplete without the 100mm ZF which leads the list.</p>

<p>While VR can help get "acceptable" images when operating hand-held at marginal shutter speeds, high shutter speeds or a tripod yield better results than using VR. This is one of those features that I'd not pay a single dollar to add to my lenses.</p>

<p>tripods and press/documentary work are not really a viable combination. i can't even remember the last time i used a tripod? truth be told the 180 collects a lot of dust. it's a "just in case" piece of gear that i rarely use. i would say that 90% of my shooting is done at focal lengths under 50mm.<br>

a digital medium format system would of course be brilliant but sadly no where near appropriate for what i do. i will be in africa for two months this spring covering the prison system and my understanding is that digital medium format not the realm of high iso work. long focal lengths are not really my gig, i suppose i should have cleared that up. VR hasn't quite made inroads into the wide prime market for obvious reasons.<br>

i don't mind manual focus in the sub 28mm range as i have only recent come from full time rangefinder use. scale focus utilizing depth field is a concept i am very comfortable with. combine that with the d700/d3 high iso capability and it's quite simple really. i can move fast, use decent dof and still keep the shutter up where i need it to be.<br>

so let's "tailor" the original post a tad. looking for sharp, sub 50mm primes that maintain decent edges when shot wide open. comfortable with manual focus in the sub 28mm category. tripods and different format are not really options.<br>

cheers</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Per Jeremy, "My sample of the 85 f/1.4 AF-D is frighteningly sharp as well."<br>

Ditto.......</p>

<p>Jon, two notes: The Nikon 35/2 AF is...if I may paraphrase Ilkka, not that great. For small and light plus 'sharp' I'd recommend the mid-1970's Nikon 35/2.8---the 6-element version(some are AI, some will need to be adapted). A superb lens which can usually be got cheap. The ZF 35 is very nice also. I've got both of these.<br>

As for the ZF 25, you'll find that the outer third of the image really doesn't come into full performance until you stop it down several stops. If you're looking for 'corner-to-corner' sizzling sharpness, it's basically a f/8 lens. I may dump mine when I've got either the new ZF 21mm or the new CV 20mm. BTW all this in reference to how they perform on the D3 camera.</p>

<p>hi keith, between the zf 35 and nikon 35 f2.8 which do you think offers the best build quality and sharpness. 35 is pushing the limit of where i want to go with manual focus lenses but it isn't totally un-thinkable. how about the zf 28? any experience with that one? <br>

i have tossed about the idea of the 21 or looming cosina/vc 20mm (well they are all cosina i suppose). it really requires you to be right in peoples faces but i can deal with that. </p>

 

<p>The Nikkor 35 f2.8 does not get very good reviews, although I have no personal experience.</p>

<p>I own the 35 f2, which has excellent sharpness and nice out of focus rendition.</p>

<p>But the Nikon 35 f1.4 is supposed to be the best of all.</p>

<p>Yeah I did this exercise to build up my prime kit, knowing that I would transition from DX to FX and get to use them again. Sharpness is not so much focus sharp by resolution sharp. Something that only pixel peepers see. Its so much more. Some others, much more learned than me suggest these:<br>

20/f4 AI, or the current 20/2.8<br>

28/f2.8 AIS, not E series.<br>

35/f2 AIS and AFD (New DX version seems nice)<br>

50/1.8 Both AIS and AFD (the 1.4 loses sharpness at f1.4<br>

85/1.8 ditto<br>

105/2.5 AIS Combines sharness with great bokeh.<br>

The earlier fixed f2,8 and F4 at 200mm.<br>

Some of todays zooms are as sharp, but not over the extent of their zoom or f stop range.<br>

Go to Bjorns tests...he's runthless: http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html</p>

<p>When I moved to the D300 I bought these and am very happy as I need sharpness:<br>

Tokina 11-16/2.8 (could not afford the Nikon 12-24) (DX only)<br>

Work also on FX...<br>

Nikon 18-70/3.5 Good value and sharp, plus good coverage between the Tokina and:<br>

Nikon 70-210/4.0<br>

AF speed is not important to me. Beautiful images are.</p>

 

<p>This topic was a walk down memory lane. It reminded me of twenty years ago, when I was doing PJ & PR work for a university. I had an F3 HP, an 8008, an FA, and five lenses, all AIS Nikons. There was the 35/1.4, my 50/3.5 macro, an 85/2, a 135/2, plus my trusty 75-150/3.5 Series E zoom. Mostly bought used, I don't think I spent over $300 on any one of them. But looking back, I think most would agree that they all were notably sharp lenses. I'd recommend any one of them. I know I was happy with my 11x14s, and a few of my 16x20s. </p>

<p>Jon, 2 of the sharpest lenses I've ever used are the 60 AF-S micro and the 105 micro VR. They are sharp wide open, have good bokeh, and are extremely sharp at f/4 to f/8 (I rarely step down further). These two lenses are sharper than the famous 50 f/1.8 at f/8 and the 24-70 f/2.8 at f/8; although thoses two lenses are already excellent in terms of sharpness. </p>

<p>As of now, I own the 105 VR; and since I shoot DX, the lens essentially gets used the same way you would use the 180. (Maybe this will be a strange FL for you) The 60 is very sharp, but it's slower than the 50 f/1.8, larger, and more expensive. The 35 f/2 is the only AF 35 that works on FX, so there's really no other non-zoom aternatives. I can't think of a good non-zoom lens within the 20-30mm FL range (other than the now exotic 28 f/1.8).</p>

<p>I essentially had the "normal" range covered with a 24-70 f/2.8; while a cheap 18-55 VR is used when WA coverage is needed. I guess that's not really a feasible solution for you.</p>

<p>The MIcor Nikkor 55mm AF f2.8 and the Micro Nikkor AIS 105mm f4 are both lenses I own that I can personally attest to as being very sharp both close up and at distance. I recently got my 105 out and mounted it on my D200 to try out at a distance. All photos were sharp. One was startlingly sharp. (I put the rest down to focussing error givenm this is a MF lens.) There are very few Nikkors that I have tried that I would say are not sharp. But occasionally one will jump out an bite you on the nose it is so sharp - thats how I perceived the 105. Its not popular becuase of its slow aperture but I cannot speak highly enough of it.</p>

<p><em>so let's "tailor" the original post a tad. looking for sharp, sub 50mm primes that maintain decent edges when shot wide open.</em></p>

<p>The 35/2 ZF probably has the best corners wide open of any of the fast wide angles. The 28/2 Ai-S has soft corners at wide apertures but for all but the extreme corners, the image definition is good to excellent (stopped down a bit) and the lens has very good resistance to flare and ghosting for a wide angle. The 35/2 ZF has better sharpness overall, and it's very contrasty but flare/ghosting resistance is not as good as with the 28/2 Ai-S. The 35/1.4 Ai-S I don't have personal experience with. For superwide the 20/3.5 Voigtländer and 21/2.8 Zeiss are new lenses worth considering, though they're so new that there are only limited reports on their performance (both the Zeiss ZF and Cosina Voigtländer lines have reputations for high quality, I think they're safe buys).</p>

<p>About the 28/2 ZF; I have not used one myself, but you might want to check the comments on this lens in the www.nikongear.com/smf forums. I read that it doesn't have the same flatness of field that the 35/2 ZF has. There is also the 28/1.4D AF Nikkor if you have money to burn and are willing to get 2nd hand. If you need AF for 35mm FL, the 35/2D AF Nikkor has it. It is not a bad lens in any way although it seems to get a lot of negative comments from people who use manual focus primes; I've used the 35 AF(-D) from 1994 to 2007 and my main objections to it are that it's difficult to manual focus precisely at wide apertures and the corners could be better. However, it has excellent color rendition and by f/4-5.6 it's quite sharp.</p>

<p>I think from all these lenses considered, my ideal lightweight prime kit for the short FL range would be 20/3.5 Voigtländer (small size), 28/2 Ai-S Nikkor, the 50/1.4G AF-S, all three lenses are very compact. For the absolute best quality cost be damned I think the 21/2.8 ZF, 35/2 ZF, and 50/1.4G AF-S would be a good selection, but especially the 21 is pricey. Do consider adding the 24-70/2.8 AF-S Nikkor so you have some redundancy (=backup!) and autofocus also for wide angle. I don't think any PJ would regret getting the 24-70. I'm not a big fan of zooms myself but sometimes one is needed and this is as good as they come. Sometimes your eyes may be tired of manual focus, or you're working an event which is rapidly changing and the features of the 24-70 do come in handy.</p>

 

<p>Jon,<br>

I'm of a similar mind to you when it comes to gear. I do 90% or more of my work with 28 and 50mm lenses. I recently switched back to Nikon after working at a paper that provided me with Canon gear for the last 6 years.<br>

I decided to go with the D700 and mostly Zeiss primes. I have a 180/2.8D, which I use as you do, once in a while when I need it but not all that often. I also have a manual 300/2.8 that I rarely use but keep around for certain jobs. <br>

I have the zeiss 28/2, 35/2, 50/1.4 and 85/1.4. All of them are quite sharp, built very well and have great smooth focusing. The 28 is my main lens and it's stunning, great wide open, it focuses very close and the images have a great look. The 35/2 is also extremely sharp and all the zeiss lenses share the same build quality. I generally work with the 28/50 combo so the 35 is more of a backup and street photography lens for me. <br>

I just got back from Brazil where I was working on a project, and I found that I shot the vast majority of the time with the 28mm, did some portraits with the 50mm and the other lenses I brought stayed in my room for backup most of the time. The new work will be online soon at www.noahaddis.com <br>

I would take a long look at the zeiss 35 if you like that focal length. It's much better than the Nikon version which I have also owned. But also check out the 28 if you want to go a bit wider. <br>

As for your wider lens, I haven't heard much about the 25ZF, but I decided that a 24/25 is a bit close to 28 for me, so I'm looking at my options for a sharp 20mm. One thing I've found in shooting overseas a lot, especially if you plan to shoot in homes (or jail cells) is that the rooms are smaller than you might expect. So while I generally find 20mm a bit too wide, if you're looking to capture people in context in small rooms it can be helpful. I'm looking at the new voigtlander 20, since it's tiny. <br>

But if you really like the 35 as a primary lens, the 25 seems like it would be a good match for wider work.</p>

<p>Here are two examples with the Zeiss 28/2. I can't state enough how much I like this lens, and after checking out your site it seems like it would suit you well. I was a bit worried about being stuck with a manual focus lens, but with the D700 I find the lens very easy to focus. The first is wide open, the second at F/4.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Second one:</p><div></div>

<p>yeah baby! that's what i'm talking about noah! i will take a long hard look at the zf 28 and the 35 thanx to mr nissila's comments. thank you very, very much folks!<br>

noah your comments about small spaces is spot on. the new vc is on the list to check out... truth be told i am headed oversea's in about 45 days so i am not sure if it will be out in time thus my interest in the 25mm. sort of a compromise i suppose. i am thinking it's going to be the zf 35, zf 28 (with a good long look at the 25), the nikkon 50mm f1.8 af (japanese version) in the bag. <br>

to respond to your zoom comment ikka i do hold some of the nikkor zooms in high regards. i just find they aren't my gig. in end up using them like a prime at their widest focal length. it mostly certainly doesn't speak to the quality of the lens... more to my inability to learn new tricks. i run two bodies when shooting press work and it seems to work for me.<br>

i'll be checking out he brazil project noah! nice bit of work up above^^^!</p>

<p>Jon--thanks. There is another post on here about the Voigtlander 20. Apparently Stephen Gandy at CameraQuest has them or will have them soon.<br>

I'm thinking for me that a 20/28/50 combo would be tough to beat and I plan to pick up the SLII 20 soon. But I'm in no rush, thankfully.<br>

While the Zeiss 35 might have a slight edge in absolute sharpness over the 28, I find they are very similar in practice and you should decide based on your focal length preference. I like the wider view, especially combined with a 50mm.<br>

I agree about zooms. Some people love 'em and do great work with them. I either leave them at one extreme or the other, OR if I do use them they make me lazy and I zoom when I should be using my feet to change perspective. Either way, I do better work with primes. </p>

<p>hmm... the 20/28/50 seems like good mojo my friend. i'll pop over to gandys site and take a peak at the 20. any idea of a price point yet?</p>

<p>$549 it is!<br>

i'm a canuck so if anyone has any hints as to who is going to carry it in this neck of the woods feel free to chime in!</p>

<p>I know you said you are "not interested" in any zoom lenses - and I know exactly what you mean - with only two exceptions:<br>

#1. The Nikon 24-70 f2.8 is probably the sharpest lens you will ever use. Bar none - including Macros and Zeiss fixed focal length primes.<br>

#2. The OLD Series E 75-150 - was and probably still is if you can find one; perhaps the sharpest (with the exception of the <br>

new 24-70 f2.8). <br>

The 14-24 f2.8 is absolutely incredible as well - but the 24-70 is by far the sharpest Nikon lens I've ever seen. And believe me when I tell you - I've used every lens worth a darn ever made by Nikon - over the past 40 years.</p>

 

<p>James--I can't speak for the OP but everytime I ask a prime lens question I get at least a few recommendations for zooms.<br>

I don't prefer prime lenses purely because of sharpness (though speed is an issue, since I prefer F/2 or faster lenses). It's more about my method of shooting. Like I said I either use them at their widest extreme, or if I do zoom I do so when I would have been better off moving my position instead. I know some photographers use zooms to their true potential. I just don't get along well with them.<br>

It's difficult to really get to know a lens. Once you do you understand how it renders an image, you learn the perspective it gives you and how sharp your background will be at a given aperture, and most importantly you learn how the image will look once enlarged to the print size you want. This seems to me infinitely harder with a zoom, since it's really a bunch of lenses in one.<br>

Also, zooms tend to be larger and more obtrusive, though I'll admit not in every case. But the 24-70 and 14-24 are huge pieces of glass.<br>

I like to keep it simple. Now that I've thought about it, I think I actually shoot more like 90 percent of my work with a 28mm, 5 percent with a 50 and the remaining 5 percent with the rest of my lenses.</p>

<p>Good luck Jon. I hope you'll share your work once you return from your trip!</p>

<p> </p>