Sharpest Nikon lens

<p>Yes you've seen it before... but this time I plan to actually tell you what I need it for!<br>

I have the AF-S Micro Nikkor 105mm 1:2.8G ED and it's super sharp on my D300. I use it almost exclusively for macro work with flash.<br>

Now I want to have a slightly wider angle lens (50 to 60mm) for exactly the same job. I don't need the VR feature but I do want super good sharpness at the f22 side of things. I have a DX camera but wouldn't rule out a full frame lens.<br>

I know I could just use the 105 on a D700 but my budget isn't that flexible :(</p>

<p>So what's my best bet, I'm sure there's a lens out there much cheaper than my 105 that could do the job easily?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>How about the AFS 60mm Micro? one of my favorites.</p>

<p>Since you have a camera with an onboard AF motor, hunt around for the previous version of the 60/2.8 Micro (the AF-D flavor). Razor sharp. Or, get the more recent AF-S version, if you like the way that technology focuses better - but I'll bet you focus manually much of the time anyway, right?<br /><br />I use the 60/2.8 Micro all the time on a D300, and it's a favorite. I don't really hear the new AF-S version calling to me at all, actually.</p>

<p>My Nikon 55mm f2.8 Micro-Nikkor AIS manual focus lens did very well at f22 on my D700:<br>

<br /> <img src="http://hull534.smugmug.com/photos/743655311_Q88Xm-L.jpg" alt="" /><br>

December 4, 2008, Seattle, Washington</p>

<p>If you really want sharpness, I would avoid f22 or even f16, especially on the DX format. Diffraction will rob some sharpness from the optics.</p>

<p>Shun is correct. Most lenses reach their peak at f8. I sometimes will shoot f22 or f32 when I'm actualy trying to soften an image.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>I've been really impressed with the micro nikkor 55 f3.5. It's the only lens I have ever had that was almost too sharp to shoot people. </p>

<p>Although the Pigeon and the mountains required at least f16 if not f22. Sometimes you just have to do what you have to do, and obviously a superb lens will be better at f22 than a non-superb lens.</p>

<p>I only came here because I thought we were voting for the sharpest Nikon lens. My answer would have been any Nikon 200mm f2 since I have the first Ai version but I am afraid I do not know about macros. I suspect I would choose the 55/2.8 AIS but you have to be careful to find one without aperture problems, but then again at the bargain basement prices I guess it would not matter.</p>

<p>I have the 60mm f/2.8 D and believe me when I say I am a novice. I also use it on a D300<br>

I find it an very sharp lens and in the hands of someone with experience, well, it would be incredible.<br>

Attached it is what I have been able to do in the learning phase - </p><div></div>

<p>Many have observed that the 55 and 60mm Micro Nikkors are pretty well known for declining performance at the small(16, 22)stops due to diffraction. I've had both 55's, but not the 60's, and this has been my observation as well, on film and D200/D2Xs/D3. Still, because they're so relatively inexpensive, it might be worth it to test the 55/60 lenses on your camera...see if you can extract the performance you need out of them.<br>

The finest performance I've seen from a 50mm so far has been the Zeiss ZF50/2(on Nikon D3). I was really surprised the first time I saw a few shots made at f/16 and f/22. I've never seen the perfomance of a any lens at any focal length decline <em>less </em>at f/16 and f/22. Alas, the ZF is not cheap. BTW, it's fully useable wide open as well. </p>

<p>Well I found the performance of my Nikon 55mm f2.8 Micro-Nikkor nothing short of outstanding, despite people saying never shoot at f22. The Micro-Nikkor lenses are highly engineered for precision images, and you decide how it looks, don't let anybody here tell you what is what. You don't need a Zeiss to achieve good results in my opinion. Nikon lenses have always been and will always be nothing short of outstanding.</p>

<p>The Nikon AFS Micro-Nikkor 60 mm f/2.8 ED G is a very, very sharp lens.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Diffraction at or near minimum aperture hasn't always been a significant problem with the 55/3.5 Micro Nikkor on my D2H so I'll stop down to f/22 or f/32 when I need the depth of field. Depends on the subject matter. There are occasions when maximum resolution without adequate DOF appears "unsharp", so I'll stop down when needed. I haven't tried focus stacking yet, tho', which might be useful for preserving maximum possible resolution and maximum DOF. But that technique doesn't seem to lend itself well to subjects that aren't perfectly stationary.</p>

<p>In my experience the "sharpness" at f22 in macro work is about the same for all real macro lenses.</p>

<p>While differences in resolution (between lenses) become apparent at f4.0 to f5.6 you are, as said above, limited by diffraction (and not the lens) at the small iris openings, especially with the sensor of the D300.</p>

<p>I suggest to get an old 55mm Micro Nikkor, perhaps an f3.5 or an early f2.8 version, usually a very cheap buy. If in the future "sharpest" is perhaps not the most important criterion for a lens or an image you have one of the best macro lenses available that will give you flat field and excellent resolution when shooting near f5.6.</p>

<p> </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=24372">Shun Cheung</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Moderator" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/mod.gif" alt="" title="Moderator" /> <img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" title="Subscriber" /> <img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" title="Frequent poster" /> </a> , Dec 17, 2009; 09:38 p.m.</p>

 

<p>If you really want sharpness, I would avoid f22 or even f16, especially on the DX format. Diffraction will rob some sharpness from the optics.</p>

 

<p>I've been really impressed with the micro nikkor 55 f3.5. It's the only lens I have ever had that was almost too sharp to shoot people.</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=39504">Kent Staubus</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" title="Frequent poster" /> </a> , Dec 17, 2009; 10:07 p.m.</p>

 

<p>Kent in SD</p>

 

<p>Shun is correct. Most lenses reach their peak at f8. I sometimes will shoot f22 or f32 when I'm actualy trying to soften an image.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My photography tends toward the forensic and away from the artistic. When I shoot a flower or tropical fish (my main subjects generally) I want the whole flower or fish in focus. Since no lens on the planet has a DOF high enough to keep the flower sharp as well as the background at closest focus, I don't have to worry about 'artistically blurring' the background. F22 and flash on the subject not only blur the background, they generally darken it for you as well.<br>

So you can see why I want to use f22... DOF on most lenses at closest focus is horrendously low, so I need f22 at a minimum. F57 would be my first choice, but physics ensures that all lenses turn to mush at such small apertures. Certainly the 105 is still reasonable at f22 but rubbish any higher.<br>

I like the sound of the Zeiss, but it looks like it costs more than my 105.<br>

I will try to find an AF-D 60/2.8 Micro.<br>

My thanks to all contributors to this thread.</p>

 

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1782992"></a></p>

<p>I can see why you'd want f22 as well. In fact, for some reason I get acceptable (but not sharpness-optimal) results at f22 with my 55mm f3.5 on a D50, but I get unacceptable (non-soft) results with any of my other lenses at f22.</p>

<p>You are going to use a lens at f22, and even those that are acceptable at that aperture are not at their best, you don't need the sharpest lens, you need one that will at least behave itself at f22. I'd stick with a micro. The 55mm f2.8 and f3.5 variants, and both the 60mm f2.8s are good micros.</p>

<p>I normally say the sharpest lens you have is a sturdy tripod, but with flash, less important.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=5822316"><em>Patrick Hamlyn</em></a><em> When I shoot a flower or tropical fish (my main subjects generally) I want the whole flower or fish in focus.</em><br>

<em></em><br>

It sounds like you may be better off with a PC macro lens such as the 45 or 85 if you are looking to keep the entire flower or fish in focus. <br>

<em></em></p>

<p>Patrick, it makes no difference what your photography interests are; the same physics still applies: if you need the depth of field at f22, you sacrifice sharpness. You simply cannot have it both ways as your original post suggests.</p>

<p>However, there is now a different option: focus stacking -- <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_stacking">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_stacking</a><br>

You can bracket your focus and capture multiple images with the focus at different points and then use software to merge the different sharp areas from those images into one final image with a lot of "depth of field." But since there are multiple original images, if your subject moves (e.g. flower blowing in the wind) or your light source is not constant, it makes the process difficult.</p>

<p>Indeed. One of the new PC-E's is THE tool for that job.</p>

<p>Getting back to the original question, I don't know if this may help but I have been experimenting with some older Nikon manual prime lenses (AI, AIS) and the sharpness I've been getting from a 28mm (2.8), 50mm (1.8), and 105mm (2.5) are unbelievably sharp on my d200. Sharper than any of the DX and VR lenses I have used. I know a lot of younger photographers don't have the patience for manual focus and rely heavily on the camera to do it for them. Maybe it's just that I have always had good eyesight, but even when I focus visually through the viewfinder (in manual mode) I've learned that the focus indicator isn't always giving you accurate results. I ignore it and trust my eyes instead. If you have great eyesight I recommend buying a few good manual primes. They're so affordable now than everyone has been moving to digital.</p>

<p>If you can't use a PC lens then you still have some other choices. You can get a bellows like the PB-4 which has movements in its front standard and/or you can consider using enlarging lenses. The longer ones are rather slow to begin with and may stop down to f/32 or f/45 so using them at f/22 wouldn't cause as much diffraction. The shorter PC type lenses which have longer back focus can be used with a little extension without getting you too close for the magnification you need. I have a 55/2.8 AIS as well as a number of 55/3.5 Nikkors from the black front Micro Nikkor Auto with the compensating feature to the AI. They are not at their best at f/22 but are still acceptably good for most purposes. I sometimes use a Minolta Auto Bellows III with a Minolta X-700 and an enlarging lens. By using a lens made for enlarging MF I have extra coverage for the movements which that bellows offers. </p>

<p>Patrick, I have the 60 2.8D and it is super sharp. I note that it stops down to F32, so using it at F22 is certainly feasible, but clearly there are diffraction issues at that aperture. Because of the new AFS version the D lens is very reasonable. However, if you are thinking of getting one I'd do some research first. Not everyone likes it. It's a variable aperture lens, for one thing. Also it's not IF.<br>

Good to hear from you by the way!</p>

<p>50/1.2 AIS. And if that's not good enough there's always the Zeiss.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1496569">Alastair Anderson</a> , Dec 18, 2009; 10:43 a.m.</p>

 

<p>Patrick, I have the 60 2.8D and it is super sharp. I note that it stops down to F32, so using it at F22 is certainly feasible, but clearly there are diffraction issues at that aperture. Because of the new AFS version the D lens is very reasonable. However, if you are thinking of getting one I'd do some research first. Not everyone likes it. It's a variable aperture lens, for one thing. Also it's not IF.<br /> Good to hear from you by the way!</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Howdy Alastair!<br>

How goes it in icy London.<br>

Yes I'm a bit confussed as to what all the slightly and not-so-slightly older lenses will do on my D300. I want to set the aperture manually, focus manually and set camera mode to Aperture Priority, pop up the flash and have one, two or three SB-600 wireless flashes magically give me the correct exposure using Nikon's CLS.<br>

Presumably this will only work if the lens is clever enough to report back to the camera the correct aperture setting.<br>

And of course, it needs to keep the aperture wide open while I focus.<br>

I know really old lenses won't do this, so I have to be a bit careful on Ebay...</p>

<p>For the people suggesting a PC-E lens... one or two *tiny* quibbles:<br>

1. They cost double what my 105mm cost and that wasn't cheap<br>

2. One of the reasons I want greater DOF is that these little fishies move so fast I can't get them focussed exactly. Trying to line up several extra tilt/shift parameters at the same time would require about three extra pairs of hands!<br>

And as for bellows... I have no idea what you mean, but I suspect it's not going to be practical.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=24372">Shun Cheung</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Moderator" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/mod.gif" alt="" title="Moderator" /> <img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" title="Subscriber" /> <img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" title="Frequent poster" /> </a> , Dec 18, 2009; 08:54 a.m.<br>

Patrick, it makes no difference what your photography interests are; the same physics still applies: if you need the depth of field at f22, you sacrifice sharpness. You simply cannot have it both ways as your original post suggests.<br>

However, there is now a different option: focus stacking</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not trying to defeat the laws of physics, I just want a lens that performs as well as can be expected at that end of the F-range. I have little or no use for the wide-open end of the F-range so if I can avoid paying for a lens which does both well I will. Of course lens makers don't typically cater for my whims.<br>

Yes I have tried focus stacking but it's a still-life sort of thing. I only ever had a fish sit that still once, and I spent the time taking an 11000x3000 pixel close-up panorama instead.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<blockquote></blockquote>

</blockquote>

<p>I only do a little macro work, but I *love* my vintage factory AI-converted Micro-Nikkor 55mm/3.5.<br>

Believe the abovementioned posts: it is very sharp. AND it has no barrel or pincushion distortion. It works great on my D300, and makes a nice portrait lens at that.<br>

eBay might be a sensible choice. A lot to gain, little to lose.</p><div></div>