Which wide/medium zoom is sharpest at infinity?

Hello,

 

I'm both a photographer and cinematographer. I'm planning on doing a series of time lapse sequences in the Colorado Rockies this spring. I'll be shooting with a Canon 5D mk iii and an intervalometer. Because Canon EF lenses control the aperture electronically, I'm wanting to use a non-G Nikon lens with an adapter to ensure aperture consistency and avoid flicker. I'll be rendering 1080 x 1920 video from from the Canon's 22 megapixel RAW stills. The small size of the final videos will give me a lot of latitude in being able to re-frame in post from the much larger RAW stills, *provided* the lens(es) I shoot with are sharp when focused at infinity. I'm attaching an image to illustrate to what extent I can crop when using these RAW stills in an 1080 x 1920 timeline so you can see if I decide to take it that far, why the lens would have to deliver very sharp images (the image is not mine by the way, I'm just using it for demonstration purposes).

 

I'm going to be out in the mountains, sometimes hiking long distances. I need to keep my equipment weight and volume to a minimum. However, I need the lens(es) I take to be sharp optically, especially at infinity.

 

So my queston is, do I take three or four manual nikon primes with me (probably something like 20mm, 28mm, 50mm, and 105mm lenses) to ensure sharpness but also provide enough range of focal lens to be able to adapt to any situation to get the look I want (especially when considering the effects compression has on the relative size of distant mountains)? OR do I choose one or two zooms to carry? If I were to go with a zoom or two, they would need a manual aperture ring and would ideally be a twist zoom, not a push-pull zoom. The lenses would NOT have to be fast. I don't need f/2.8 or anything like that. Are there any Nikon zooms that can compete with primes to keep my weight down while out in the mountains?

 

Because Canon EF lenses control the aperture electronically, I'm wanting to use a non-G Nikon lens with an adapter to ensure aperture consistency and avoid flicker.

Is that really a problem? Over the last few years Nikon started to move away from mechanically stopped-down lenses to electronic apertures (E lenses) to ensure aperture consistency and avoid flicker. I would have thought that Canon lenses were already good in this regard, but I'm not a Canon shooter. Having said that, having a manually controlled mechanical aperture is probably the best way to ensure consistent exposures.

 

Assuming you are working with apertures around f/5.6-f11, most AI or AIS primes (manual focus with aperture ring) would suit your needs.

 

For 20mm, the AIS 20/2.8 is probably the best all-round performer. The AI and AIS 20/3.5 are more resistant to flare and ghosting but are weaker in the corners at infinity, although I have achieved very good results at f/8-11.

 

At 28mm, the AIS 28/2.8 has very low barrel distortion, it is very good at close to medium distances, performance at infinity is good but not quite as strong. The AI or AIS 28/2 has mild barrel distortion but has good flare resistance and good performance at distance. Note both these lenses have floating elements implemented through the front group which are susceptible to knocks so there is some sample variation. The AI 28/2.8 is another option, it does not have floating elements, so close performance is not as good but it is fine at infinity and distortion is very low like the AIS model.

 

For 50mm, I would go for the AI 50/1.8 or 50/2. Both have low distortion and very even performance especially at medium apertures.

 

At 105mm, the AIS 105/2.8 micro is (surprisingly) very good at infinity, but maybe not so good shooting into strong light (use a hood). The AI or AIS 105/2.5 are also good options. In this range you might also want to check the Series-E 75-150/3.5, which is relatively compact for a tele-zoom, I find it covers a useful range and is a good performer.

 

You can identify Nikon lenses by serial number here: Nikon Lenses

Good luck with your project!

My biggest concern would be the camera's shutter. Time lapse can raise the shutter count fast.

Hi Roland,

 

Thanks so much for your reply, I'll defenately look into those lenses you mention. I may end up going with a set of primes if they'd be sure to deliver much better results, but if I can find a zoom that is sharp enough that would cover the focal lengths of 2-3 of these lenses that would be ideal because it might free up space for things like water and food, but we'll see.

 

As to your question about the issue of flicker while shooting time-lapse sequences, the way I understand it works is that even though you might have a Canon EF lens (or any other brand) whose aperture is controlled electronically set to a particular aperture, lets say f/8 in this case, between each shot, the aperture opens back up, and then stops back down to f/8 for the following exposure, and it does this again and again hundreds of times for each sequence. Unfortunately, because of real-world physics and unavoidable variability, no two electronically determined f/8s are exactly the same. Some will be very slightly larger, and some smaller, but even a slight inconsistency in exposure results in a visible flicker when rendered into video which can be time consuming to minimize in post (using software like LRTimelapse). I suppose inconsistencies in shutter speed and maybe even ISO might also cause thier own problems, but those caused by aperture can be solved by using a non-G Nikon lens on a Canon body as once you set the aperture to f/8, there is no link, electronic or mechanical, between the Canon body and the Nikon lens' aperture mechanism. So while the camera is doing its thing, the aperture stays motionless throughout and between every shot. I have a Canon 24-105mm f/4 L and a Canon 70-200mm f/4 L. These would very nearly be all I would need if I could be sure as zooms they were sharp enough at infinity (and I'm not even sure how useful I'd find the 70-200mm focal range to be honest) if it weren't for the electronically controlled shutters. So yeah, the quest remains to find a sharp Nikon zoom if possible. If no non-G Nikon zoom is really sharp enough to do what I need, then I'll resort to a set of Nikon primes.

Edited January 22, 2018 by ericjhall

My biggest concern would be the camera's shutter. Time lapse can raise the shutter count fast.

 

Hi Peter,

 

For sure, time lapse is unkind to shutters. Even video-centric cameras like the Panasonic GH5 is designed to open/close it's shutter for every shot when in time lapse mode. And most time lapse sequences I shoot probably average about 400 actuations (resulting in 16 seconds of video at 25fps). Until they change the technology, it is what it is unfortunately.

Edited January 22, 2018 by ericjhall

It's by no means small, but I'd have thought the Zeiss 21mm Distagon would be in the running, having been a benchmark lens at its focal length for a long time. I'm not sure whether it's particularly good at infinity compared with the smaller Nikkor, though.

Eric, di you also consider to have a look at Samyang ( cine ?) lenses ?

Some of them are quit good and o not require any adapter since they are already "Canon mount"..

Link : Samyang Optics

Sharpest lenses are the Sigma ART, if that's what you're looking for.

 

 

Kent in SD

Sharpest lenses are the Sigma ART, if that's what you're looking for.

 

Kent in SD

 

I often agree (or possibly the Zeiss Otus range, depending on length). But they're big and, more importantly for this, G lenses - so Eric can't get the "locked aperture" effect he's after, as he can with non-G Nikkors and the older Zeiss glass (or cine lenses).

It's by no means small, but I'd have thought the Zeiss 21mm Distagon would be in the running, having been a benchmark lens at its focal length for a long time. I'm not sure whether it's particularly good at infinity compared with the smaller Nikkor, though.

 

Yes, and I love the Zeiss lenses. I have the Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 Planar. Getting the 21mm (or the 18mm?) Is an option for sure, but it is a chunk of change, and if I'm going with a set of primes, I'll have to spend quite a lot more. I could get a Nikon equivalent for a few hundred dollars.

Sharpest lenses are the Sigma ART, if that's what you're looking for.

 

 

Kent in SD

 

Hi Kent,

 

I've heard the Art lenses are excellent, but I think they lack aperture rings unfortunately.

You might be between a rock and a hard place when it comes to choice of wide zooms.

 

All of Nikon's zooms that have an aperture ring are quite old designs, and those old designs aren't terribly sharp. Using just the central section of the image is going to help though.

 

However, if you turn to the MF primes, most of them are extremely sharp centrally. The Ai-S 28mm f/2.8 Nikkor performs superbly at distance, and the 20mm f/2.8 is very good centrally as well. OTOH the 24mm Nikkors are not so hot IME, unless they're stopped down a fair way.

 

Samyang's 14mm gets good reviews, although I've only had a brief period handling one myself. From a couple of quick test shots its IQ looked pretty good. Worth investigating.

The Op's question was/is : "Which wide/medium zoom is sharpest at infinity?"

 

But what is "infinity" , at that distance there is no sharpness, after a certain distance , depending on atmospheric circumstances no sharpness is possible no matter what lens is mounted.

 

"The small size of the final videos will give me a lot of latitude in being able to re-frame in post from the much larger RAW stills, *provided* the lens(es) I shoot with are sharp when focused at infinity."

 

When at infinity, close by subjects will never be sharp, hence my question "what is meand by infinity ?" wher does it start, and where does it end ?

 

More latitude is provided by lenses set at at hyperfocal distance , which is never at" infinity" , but this setting may provide "center sharpness" but seldomly also "edge sharpness" in most lenses

 

Looking at the provied example picture , at the part in the red rectangle, almost any wide or normal zoom wil do, there is need for the most expensive super dooper lens if this is the sharpness required, i guess ..

For the wide zooms, the only lens I could think of that could be an option is the AF-S 17-35 f/2.8D. It's neither small nor cheap, but a credible performer. But wide angle lenses seem to have seen the most improvements, so the older designs simply do not compare brilliant to more modern ones.

 

An odd-ball option could be the AiS 25-50 f/4. I've got no experience with this lens myself, but most reviews of it are quite positive. It's not as easy to find as the primes from that era, though.

I recently bought used, good condition copies of the AIS 25-50 f4 and the 28-50 f3.5 AiS lenses for fun. On the D850 the 25-50 had acceptable corners only after f8. The 28-50 was horrifying in the corners up to f5.6 and got to ok by f8-11. I really wanted to like one of them but decided not to use them. They are inexpensive.

If one wants a zoom, I wouldn’t go for any manual-focus AI-S lenses. Zooms were generally poor from that era, especially anything wide, but the 80-200 AI-S teles maybe ok.

 

The Zeiss ZF lenses are modern with an aperture ring, but they don’t make zooms.

An electronic diaphragm is unlikely to introduce flicker. They are more consistent than mechanical couplings. Changes in the light over time (e.g., sun behind a cloud) will cause annoying flicker. The solution is to operate in manual mode - aperture, shutter, ISO and focus.

 

Video resolution, even 1080p, present no challenge to modern lenses, zoom or prime. More important is distortion and focus breathing and jerky zoom action if recorded in real time. That shouldn't be an issue if you are building a video from single frame images.

 

A Canon 24-105/4 is a fairly good lens, but not particularly video-friendly - long zoom extension (balance), non-parfocal, objectionable focus breathing. For wider shots, perhaps a 16-35 would be a good companion to that lens. My experience is that zoom ranges for still photos aren't ideal for video, and require a lot of lens swapping.

 

I'm a Sony driver, and recently purchased a Sony PX 28-135/4 strictly for video (up to 4K). I'm not sure I would pack a 2.5 lb lens into the boondocks (I'm actually not into "boondocks" of any sort at my age). For interviews and newsers, I'll make do with a Sony/Zeiss 16-35/4. Canon makes some very good video lenses, but very expensive for full frame or Super-35. Nikon watches from the wings.

 

Depending on your application, you might not need a huge number of shutter clicks. Use key frames to crop, pan and zoom within the same image, spread over time.

Although it gets mixed reviews and is mostly a relic from the early digital days, I really liked my AF-S 17-35 f/2.8 before it took an unfortunate tumble.

 

This is a beast of a lens. It's not a lot lighter than the 14-24 f/2.8G, and the latter continues to hold up well even on a D800(36mp). The 17-35 performed well for me on my D600(24mp) but IMO was lacking a bit on the D800.

 

I did find it to be appreciably better optically than the 18mm f/3.5 AI-S that I sold. In particular, it vignettes DRAMATICALLY less.

 

I mostly bring up this lens because it it does in fact have an aperture ring. This was significant to me as a reason why I bought it, it works as well on my DSLRs as it does on my F2AS and FM2n. It might be worth your consideration, though. I'm planning on replacing mine one of these days.

Have you considered the possibility of using "un-ringed" AF-S Nikkors on your Canon via one of the more elaborate Nikon>Canon adapters that has its own built-in aperture ring? The settings aren't quite as precise as the genuine aperture rings on non-AFS lenses, but once set will remain locked in place as you prefer. One example, by Fotodiox, is shown here. Such an adapter would permit using the excellent 14-24 AFS Nikkor on your 5DII.

 

You may need to compromise one of your requirements against the others. Very few (if any) superlative F or EOS mount lenses are small or lightweight. Truly good wides like the Nikkor 14-24 and Zeiss Distagon 21mm are monsters. The 17-35 AFS (with its own aperture ring) might let you dispense with carrying a 50mm if jumping from 35mm to 105mm is ok. Smaller manual-focus Nikkors in the 20mm-24mm range aren't tack sharp along their entire distance range, esp if you expect to make numerous random crops. Even the 28mm Nikkors can be dicey: the legendary 28mm f/2.8 AIS isn't so legendary at infinity, the 28mm f/2.0 may or may not be better depending on sample variation. The newest 20mm and 28mm f/1.8 AFS primes are improved, but quite large (if lighter) and suffer from focus shift (the 28mm especially). The mf 50mm f/2 Nikkor is small, cheap and excellent, ditto the 50mm f/1.8 mf. Most mf Nikkors in the 105mm range are worthy choices. The 200/4 AIS version is very good for compression shots.

Zooms were generally poor from that era, especially anything wide

 

I might quibble with the word poor, but there's no quarrel at all that the newer zooms are substantially better after the turn of the century.

If budget is a concern, follow Roland's advice on the Ai/AiS Nikon primes. If you choose to go this route, be sure to acquire the lenses well ahead of time, so that possible bad or damaged copies can be weeded out and replaced.

Alternatives to the old Nikon primes might be the recent Zeiss ZF/ZF.2 primes for Nikon. The 21/2.8, 25/2.8, 35/2, 50/2, and 100/2 are all optically AOK, but significantly heavier than the comparable Nikon manual focus primes. Zeiss ZF/ZF.2 18/3.5 and 28/2 are great lenses, but have quirks that might make them less than ideal for your purpose.

A note on the Nikon AF-S 17-35/2.8 zoom: This lens is weakest at the 35mm focal length, even stopped down. The sharpness falloff at the sides of the image at 35mm would, IMO, be unacceptable for your use. At 17(stopped down a couple of stops), 21, 24, and 28mm it a decent lens.

Edited October 5, 2018 by keith_b|1

This thread is from last January - while the last few posts make some interesting points, I suspect they'll be a bit late for the original poster's purposes!

 

Otherwise, how about the 28-70 f/2.8?