Which is the sharpest Nikon lens ever made??

Hi All!

Sharpness has always been for me the first thing I want from a lens,

so all I want to know is which is the sharpest nikon lens ever made?

 

Thank You for your Time!

 

Gabriele

105 mm DC f/2D AF Nikkor

Old MIcro-Nikkor 55mm f3.5 with compensating aperture. (this applies only for the close-up, though)

 

For general use, maybe the 50mm f2. (multicoated versions)

This is a silly question. What good is a sharp telephoto to you if you shoot with a wide angle, or vice versa?

 

At very minimum, you should ask, what is the sharpest lens between Xmm and Ymm. Even then, the sharpness if the photo is dependent on so many other factors. I've read research that says you won't usually get more than 40 lp/mm on your film/sensor from a 100 lp/mm lens anyway, handholding.

 

If sharpness is what you're into, spend your money on a tripod and a cable release before you worry about lenses.

A tripod is not necessary for excellent sharpness but you do have to use very high shutter speeds if you hand-hold. At 1/1000 s with normal focal lengths, there would be little difference between tripod or hand-held. And the best lenses give a very sharp image at fairly wide apertures (f/4), giving the opportunity to use high shutter speeds.

Like Akira said, old 55mm f/3.5 micronikkor at 1/10X and f/5.6, to be specific. > 100 lp/mm resolution. Yes, you can handhold the camera, as Ilkka mentions, if you are using high shutter speeds or a flash.

 

There were quite a few (much) sharper lenses made by Nikon for non-F mount: http://homepage2.nifty.com/akiyanroom/redbook-e/

 

Vivek.

If sheer image resolution is your primary concern you shouldn't be in 35mm at all (and you ask this regardless of focal length!), no Nikkor I own outresolves the 65mm/5.6 lens on my Fuji GSW-III with a 6*9 frame. Anyway you may have a look at www.naturfotograf.com for Bjorn Rorslett's compilation of best of best nikkors, if I remember correctly he thinks ais 28/2.0, ais 28/2.8, ais 35/1.4, AF 85/1.4, 105/2 DC, ais 200/2.0 are among the very best.

>>Which is the sharpest Nikon lens ever made??

 

Who ever did a side-by-side comparison of all Nikon lenses?

 

None of the above posts are quite right. The sharpest Nikkors are the ones that I own!

"Who ever did a side-by-side comparison of all Nikon lenses?

 

None of the above posts are quite right. The sharpest Nikkors are the ones that I own!"

 

Arnab, That is very true! I do test the lenses "I own" and I do not go with anyone else's preferences or list. Based only on resolution, among the F-mount lenses, the micronikkor 55mm f/3.5 (for the given mag, aperture) is the sharpest. Several years ago, this lens was dumped on me by my neighbour (not for free!). He tested it for infinity and deemed it to be the worst lens he had. I went through several rolls of film with it. When I picked out the sharpest photos from those, they all seemed to fit a pattern. One or two years later, I got hold of the original Nikon data that reinforced what I found accidentally. Much later, controlled tests with a proper resolution target confirmed all the suspicions.

 

When it comes to "real life" photography, however, 55mm f/3.5 is not the best choice IF you are going to shoot with this lens at f/11 and the like. You are better off hanging a large format lens at a even lower aperture.

 

Vivek.

Photodo has tested several Nikkors and some of the best were very comparable to each other. So there was no clear winner in their tests.

 

You also have to consider sample variation and condition.

 

Optical design is another factor. Some Nikkor formulas were changed throughout their production run, sometimes altering overall performance, sometimes altering performance only within a given range.

There probably isn?t enough information in your question to give you an answer. What distance? What aperture? What about <I>perceived</I> sharpness of a 3 dimensional subject from extreme selective focus versus <I>on-paper</I> sharpness of a flat test chart?<P>

 

For me, I would choose my 55mm f/2.8 AIS Micro-Nikkor at about f/5.6-8 or my 35mm f/1.4 AIS at the same apertures are my sharpest, most contrasty lenses on-paper. However, a medium telephoto like my 85mm f/2.0 or 105mm f/2.5 can <I>look</I> sharper if the background is blown out by selective focus.

This is an absurd, abstract question. Probably the sharpest Nikkors ever made were the very expensive, very rare Macro (not Micro) Nikkors: 19mm f/2.8, 35mm f/4.5, 65 mm f/4.5 and 120mm f/6.3:

 

 

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_spec.html

 

 

But so what? These lenses are cumbersome to shoot and can be used only for ultra-close-up work.

 

 

As Lex noted, Photodo has done some fairly objective MTF testing on a number of Nikon lenses generally available to consumers. The best rating a Nikkor lens received was 4.4 on Photodo's scale. This distinction was shared by the 50mm f/1.8 AF, the 55mm f/2.8 AIS Micro, the 85mm f/1.4 AIS and the 105mm f/1.8 AIS:

 

 

http://www.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html

 

 

That having been said, as Lex also noted, Nikon lenses suffer somewhat from sample variation. So mileage may vary.

"This is an absurd, abstract question. Probably the sharpest Nikkors ever made were the very expensive, very rare Macro (not Micro) Nikkors: 19mm f/2.8, 35mm f/4.5, 65 mm f/4.5 and 120mm f/6.3"

 

The question is vague. This answer is wrong. The 120mm f/6.3 Macronikkor, for example is for 1:1 mag. At this magnification, wide open, the effective aperture is f/12.6. This implies that with a 546nm monochromatic light one can achieve a MAXIMUM of 100 lp/mm or so (if the lens is only limited by the laws of physics). There are lenses (some Nikon) that resolve > 200 lp/mm at this magnification.

 

With the 65mm f/4.5 (5X mag), 35mm f/4.5 (8-10X), 19mm f/2.8 (20X), the effective apertures further plummet, resulting only in much much lower resolutions at their given magnifications.

 

Vivek.

Wow, that was some speculative mumbo jumbo. You hypothesize but don't actually know the resolution of these lenses, no?

No speculative mumbo jumbo and am not quoting anyone either. I do have these lenses, use them, compared them with others which out perform them under identical conditions.

As others have already said, the question that launched this thread is, um, ill-considered.

 

Sharpness is nice, but in practice film is limiting, poor technique even more limiting. As Chris Perez, who's tested a lot of medium and large format lenses, has commented, the sharpest lens is a tripod.

 

With the best technique, including using the lenses at their "best" apertures, the differences in resolution on film between good lenses of the same focal length and maximum aperture is pretty trivial. Pretty trivial means a couple of lp/mm one way or the other, a difference that makes no difference in practice.

 

About Vivek's comments, I'm not sure I agree. I got group 7, element 6 on a transilluminated Edmund NT38-257 (USAF 1951 on glass) target with the following, all wide open: 16/2.5 Luminar s/n 4189491 @ 27:1; 10x Beck flat mount microscope objective, NA 0.17, @ 25:1; 19/2.8 MacroNikkor s/n 19061 @ 15:1; and a 19.5/3.85 B&L microfilm reader lens @ 27:1. Group 7, element 6 = 228 lp/mm.

 

Cheers,

 

Dan

If you analyze the patent prescription for the 55mm f/2.8 Micro Nikkor (U.S.Patent 4,260,223 example #1) you will find that it is fully diffraction limited (Strehl ratio > 0.9) at f/2.8 on-axis for monochromatic blue light (470nm). Under these conditions the lens will just barely resolve about 700 line pairs per millimeter.

 

Ask a silly question, get a silly answer . . . .

Someone please define what sharp is? :-P

 

Perhaps resolution in lines /something at some wavelength monchromatic parallel light in phase at a certain minimal level of contrast? Or perhaps: hey this looks very sharp to me? Before we start to compare apples to oranges we should give Gabriele a chance to define what sharp is. Perhaps its some synonym to the "best lens"? So we just give some suggestions of what lenses we like and do not get excited.

Thanks Walter, this is what I really need.

 

Sorry for my question, I know it's pretty vague.

I'm lookin for something between 35 and 60mm...I usually keep the aperture wide open like 1.8 or 2.8 or 4...

Probably the meaning of "sharpness" is not well known to me...all I mean is great contrast and sharpness or better generally speaking great quality of the image. A picture well defined in all its particulars and really luminous!

 

Sorry again, but I'm not expert with it, I'm just tring to use my own words...just hope to give you an idea of what I mean!

I'm more than a little disappointed by all the negative responses on this thread. Perhaps there is no practical or definitive answer...so what? Questions/conversations such as this are just as valid as debating the best movie or heavyweight fighter ever. While I know it isn't true, I'm tempted to assume that those who responded so pessimistically do not have university educations, as a major tenet of the university is "knowledge for the sake of knowledge."

 

Gabriele, I wish I had an answer for you, but I don't. Good luck in your quest!

The 55mm f/2.8 AIS would be the lens

between 35mm and 60mm which has the highest

resolving power shot wide open at f/2.8 and

which is also still easily found in

new condition. I'm guessing that you'd like

to find a lens which you could actually acquire.

Dan,

 

Your target tests that give >200 lp/mm values, as I have already mentioned to you, does NOT take in to consideration the magnifications involved. By your measure, the higher the magnification the better the resolution.

 

It is academic. But resolution values quoted for a given lens is standardized, taking in to consideration the magnifications involved.

 

Here, I do not see anything wrong with the discussion, though it is going in many different directions. Nonetheless, it is all about photography, imaging, lenses and Nikkors.

 

Vivek.

My Nikkor-W 240mm f/5.6 produces sharper images than any other lens I own (and I have quite a few, for different formats). I've heard that the Nikkor-SW 90mm f/8 is really really sharp (it's been measured at about 15000 lines per image height on film).

 

Oh, maybe you were asking about 35mm lenses. If sharpness is what matters most to you, you definitely shouldn't be shooting 35mm.

 

*wink*

Here you find a best of best list.

Go to lenses and the look for the best of best list .-)

 

http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

 

hows that for a start.

I am surprized that nobody has mentioned the Ultra Micro Nikkor Barrel lenses. They were the sharpest Nikkors ever made and came with certification for the resolution of each lens made. If you have large stack of cash laying about, I think that you might be able to find some, but it will take some patience. They are also barrel lenses so they will require extensive modification before they can be mounted on a camera.

 

Here are a few links that I "googled", interesting, and way over the top, romantic descriptions. This guy isn't just obsessed about these lenses, he is in complete "love".

 

http://homepage2.nifty.com/akiyanroom/redbook-e/ultra/um165.html

 

http://homepage2.nifty.com/akiyanroom/redbook-e/ultra/ultrafamily2.html

 

Here is another page list theoretical resolution limits and more descriptions. It's obvious been translated but does make for some very interesting reading. Following is one part of the text, just for a teaser.

 

"Also, Ultra-Micro-Nikkor can say the same thing.

No one sets this lens to old printing machine again. It is better to use this lens in the Japanese four seasons.

This lens may have a healing power."