Which is the sharpest Nikon lens ever made??

[david_h._hartman]

I think any of the 55/3.5 Micro-Nikkors will do 100 lines per

millimeter at their best reproduction ratio. Thats also at

a wider aperture than most will use, probably f/5.6. Bjorn

Rorslett mentions f/11 with a number of Micro-Nikkor but Im

pretty sure he doesnt mean "sweat spot" as

diffraction at f/11 very probably precludes 100 lines/mm. This

would be a compromise between resolution, contrast and DOF. Maybe

he does mean resolution but that would be by his test methods.<br>

<br>

You have to take the published prime reproduction ratio found in

the manuals with a grain of salt. Nikon never changed the copy. I

believe they all say 1:10 but early Micro-Nikkors with convoluted

aluminum focus rings are great close and dogs at infinity. The

later 55/3.5 performed better towards infinity than the early

ones.<br>

<br>

I sometimes test on charts but Ive only measure lines per

millimeter once. This was from an insurance photo taken on the

end of a roll of Tech Pan. The taking lens was a 55/2.8 AIS Micro-Nikkor.

The subject was a 135/5.6 Schneider Componon-S enlarging lens.

The shot was probably at or just before f/5.6. It was hand held

with a speedlight. Lucky given DOF, I noticed the extreme

sharpness of the negative and wracked my enlarger up and made a

print that was a crop of a 16x20 maybe more. Then I counted the

tooling marks using a needle, tooling marks from turning the

aluminum barrel of the lens. I measured the barrel with calipers,

the print and calculated 110~115 lines per millimeter. I repeated

the count several times. This is not necessarily maximum

resolution of the lens on that film. All I can say for sure is at

least 110 lines/mm.<br>

<br>

On charts I found my 50/1.8 AI Nikkor edged my 55/2.8 AIS at a

distance of 2m. I never measured the resolution. My test started

as a comparison of 105mm Nikkors and grew all of my lenses at the

time. I wanted to know what the best aperture center and center

to edge was for my lenses. I found most Nikkors hit their sweet

spot at f/4.0 to f/5.6. With some lenses you can see center

sharpness go down as edge goes up. This happens around f/5.6 to f/8.0.<br>

<br>

Most of us know that sharpness is not the only measure of a fine

lens. No one needs to remind me.<br>

<br>

---<br>

<br>

<em>"I have an old Micro-Nikkor 55/3.5, how do I know if

this is the lens you are referring to ?" --Wayne Harridge<br>

</em><br>

The best way is to take the lens off your camera and uncap both

ends. Set the aperture to f/5.6. Now turn the focus ring from

infinity to 1:2 while looking in the front. You will see the iris

leaves open. The aperture ratio will be 1:5.6 when you start and

1:5.6 when you end. The lens was designed for use with external

and hand held light meters. It should not be AI(ed). That way you

double meter compensation.<br>

<br>

You can also flip the lens over and look in at the rear. Over by

the locking notch there is a curved thing with a straight or

diagonal slot in it. If its diagonal slot then the lens is

a compensating aperture version. If you turn the aperture control

ring you can clearly see this slot controls the lens iris.<br>

<br>

Here is a link with a scan of the old Nikkor and a link to a 55/3.5

CA manual...<br>

<br>

<a

href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007S5z"

target="_new"><u>http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007S5z</u></a>

<br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

[david_h._hartman]

<em>"On charts I found my 50/1.8 AI Nikkor edged my 55/2.8

AIS at a distance of 2m." --DHH<br>

</em><br>

I should say this was slight (I guess edged implies that) and

these lenses stood alone as my best for resolution. This might

easily be mixed around depending on focus distance and sample

variation.

[wharridge]

Thanks David, I checked my 55/3.5 micro when I got home from work - not the CA version, but at least I now know what they are.

 

...Wayne

[akira]

Thanks David, and sorry, Wayne,

 

I just didn't realize that this thread had grown so much since I posted my last message!

[uncle_joe_bob]

Silly question but drum roll please...28 mm f/1.8 Ultra-Micro-Nikkor. Originated from a series of industrial lenses optimised for extreme sharpness up to 1,200 lines/mm resolution. Very expensive and limited use. So what good does the answer do you?

[finn-nyc]

you guys - jesus! my two cents: i do have had very good and amazing sharp results with the 50mm 1.4 D and i love the 60mm2.8 micro D - just bought the 35mm 2.0 D - and what i've seen so far: very nice. indeed. just go ahead buy one of these fairly inexpensive lenses and you'll get awesome results -- just don't forget to start shooting!<div></div>

[scott_murphy5]

>Any of them in the hands of a good photographer.

 

... and on a tripod.

 

Do you lug a tripod with you everywhere you go?

[scott_murphy5]

The 55mm f/2.8 AIS Micro Nikkor is extraordinarily sharp, but so is the 105mm f/2.8 AIS Micro Nikkor. I have both and they both still get a lot of use both not only in macrophotography but in general use. My 105mm f/2.8 is my go to lens for inside portraiture, even over my 105mm f/1.8 AIS Nikkor. In most cases, with women especially, I have to tone down the sharpness with the D850. Women are not particularly fond of being able to see every single peach fuzz hair on their upper lip or chin.

 

I would call it a draw.

[Mary Doo]

Women are not particularly fond of being able to see every single peach fuzz hair on their upper lip or chin.

Did they specify to you that they are not fond of being able to see every single beautiful peach fuzz hair on their beautiful upper lip and chin? Did the men tell you that they would like to see every wrinkle? ;)

 

I (and other wildlife photographers), on the other hand, try to avoid the appearance of people (fuzz or no fuzz, wrinkle or no wrinkle) to "ruin" a shot.

[JDMvW]

One of these "shards" is pretty sharp.

[mike_halliwell]

The new Z 105mm macro.....hands down.

[Sandy Vongries]

Speaking of Z, another Zombie Thread. 2004, 2005, and 2008, cobwebs apparent! Edited August 5, 2021 by Sandy Vongries

[rodeo_joe1]

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)

+1 to the 55mm f/3.5 Micro-Nikkor. Measured as resolving over 200 lppmm @ f/5.6.

 

This chart was shot at twice the standard distance, so the lppmm figures need to be doubled.

Inset is the full-frame.

 

WRT the 50mm f/2 Nikkor H.C. - not in the running judging by my two samples. Good, but not class-beating.

 

Edit

Speaking of Z, another Zombie Thread. 2004, 2005, and 2008, cobwebs apparent!

Darn!

Suckered in by the resurrection men.

Oh, well. It's posted now. Might as well let it join the children of the night.

 

optimised for extreme sharpness up to 1,200 lines/mm resolution.

Yeah, right. Defies the laws of diffraction then?

[georg_s1]

The in real-world-use sharpest Nikkor-lenses I use on a regular basis are the AF-S 14-24 and the AFS- 200/2. I've never shot test-charts, so this is based on working with every-day-subjects. The 45 PC-E seems to be amazing in the micro-contrast-area.

[gabriel_heyman]

+1 to the 55mm f/3.5 Micro-Nikkor. Measured as resolving over 200 lppmm @ f/5.6.

 

This chart was shot at twice the standard distance, so the lppmm figures need to be doubled.

 

Interesting.

It is not often that resolution is shown as the combined result of both lens and sensor, so what body did you use (or was it film - I guess not, judging by your presentation)?

A 36 Mp body would have a resolution around 205 lpmm, would it not? Did you use a higher resolution body than that?

[rodeo_joe1]

Interesting.

It is not often that resolution is shown as the combined result of both lens and sensor, so what body did you use (or was it film - I guess not, judging by your presentation)?

A 36 Mp body would have a resolution around 205 lpmm, would it not? Did you use a higher resolution body than that?

The chart was shot using the pixel-shift facility of a Sony A7Riv camera; giving an effective 240 megapixel image with a linear 'resolution' of 528 pixels per millimetre. However, it takes two pixels to resolve one cycle or line-pair (resolution is measured in cycles or line-pairs per millimetre). Therefore the theoretical resolution limit is 'only' 264 lppmm.

 

A 36 megapixel camera has a theoretical resolution limit of 102 lppmm.

 

Film? No way! You'd be pushing it to get a clean 100 lppmm resolved on any commercially available B&W stock, let alone through the thick multilayers of a colour emulsion.

 

And any film fanboys that think differently are welcome to post examples - not manufacturers' pie-in-the-sky, madey-uppy figures!

Edited August 7, 2021 by rodeo_joe|1

[glen_h]

(snip)

Film? No way! You'd be pushing it to get a clean 100 lppmm resolved on any commercially available B&W stock, let alone through the thick multilayers of a colour emulsion.

(snip)

 

Kodak 649F, which used to be available in glass plates, and 35mm bulk rolls,

is supposed to be good to 2000 lp/mm.

 

As an SO film, maybe that means not commercially available.

And of course it has been discontinued years ago.

 

I had an optics class which used the 35mm version (SO-253) to generate diffraction

gratings, exposing it to an interference pattern from a laser.

 

I can't find an actual Kodak data sheet for 649F or SO-253, though.

[Mary Doo]

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

Most current Nikon lenses are sharp enough for most uses, though I can see needing a sharper lens for macro and wildlife photography. Think the better question may be "which is the least-sharp lens that needs to be avoided"? ;) However I am not aware of any particularly unsharp ones in the Nikon family that I had tried. Some are probably not very sharp at the extreme end of the zoom but probably not that critical when one is aware of the imperfection. Bear in mind, too, that there are excellent sharpening software tools.

Edited August 19, 2021 by Mary Doo

[Erik-Christensen]

the least sharp lens I have had was the DX 18-200mm, which was the first lens I had for D200/300. Today I am happy, that I do not have any lens, I want to avoid.

[Mary Doo]

the least sharp lens I have had was the DX 18-200mm,

This versatile Nikon lens is perhaps not as sharp compared to some of the others. I don't have it any more but I never disliked it. Now my son-in-law uses it with a D300 and makes interesting photos of my grandson with it.

[Kent T]

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)

 

Agree highly with both thoughts. 50/f2 Nikkor in a multicoated version. And for close up the old 55/3.5 Micro-Nikkor with compensating aperture would be hard to top.

[Rick Helmke]

I don’t know about sharpest ever but I continue to be happy with the manual focus 180/2.8 ED, 135/2.8 and 50/1.4 and the 80-200/2.8D lenses. The 105/2.5 is superb and the really old 85-250/4.5 has a look all it’s own, nothing else like it.

 

Rick H.

[rodeo_joe1]

Kodak 649F, which used to be available in glass plates, and 35mm bulk rolls,

is supposed to be good to 2000 lp/mm.

Yet another pie-in-the-sky, madey-uppy figure!

 

2000 lppmm implies a clearly-defined feature width of 0.25 microns - smaller than the wavelength of blue light, and in fact well in the hard UV region of the EM spectrum. Therefore only achievable with invisible and near-monochromatic 'light'.

 

When I worked in the semiconductor-production sector, we had to use Lippmann plates (flexible film just couldn't be got flat enough) and UV exposure to achieve a feature size of around 1 micron (~= 500 lppmm). And even that needed expensive and specialised equipment to produce cleanly. Therefore, in the light of that experience, I call total BS on a claim of 2000 lppmm with any flexible-based film, shot in visible light.

 

If that sort of resolution were practically and regularly obtainable, then the semiconductor industry would have been able to continue using optical-masking production for maybe another 5 years, instead of going over to ion-implantation and other more expensive and esoteric techniques.

Edited August 25, 2021 by rodeo_joe|1

[mike_halliwell]

Therefore, in the light of that experience

Really?...:D

[glen_h]

Yet another pie-in-the-sky, madey-uppy figure!

 

2000 lppmm implies a clearly-defined feature width of 0.25 microns - smaller than the wavelength of blue light, and in fact well in the hard UV region of the EM spectrum. Therefore only achievable with invisible and near-monochromatic 'light'.

 

When I worked in the semiconductor-production sector, we had to use Lippmann plates (flexible film just couldn't be got flat enough) and UV exposure to achieve a feature size of around 1 micron (~= 500 lppmm). And even that needed expensive and specialised equipment to produce cleanly. Therefore, in the light of that experience, I call total BS on a claim of 2000 lppmm with any flexible-based film, shot in visible light.

 

If that sort of resolution were practically and regularly obtainable, then the semiconductor industry would have been able to continue using optical-masking production for maybe another 5 years, instead of going over to ion-implantation and other more expensive and esoteric techniques.

 

It is the same emulsion used for holography glass plates, except on polyester film.

 

I can't find the actual Kodak data for it, but it definitely does 632.8nm from HeNe lasers. (And is red sensitive.)

 

It seems to be usual to quote the 50% point on the MTF graph, which is probably farther out than they really should.

 

I suspect for semiconductor masks you can't go out to the 50% point, as it won't be sharp enough.

But for holograms and diffraction gratings, a nice sine in density is fine.

 

It seems that the Agfa version is 10E70, which I also can't find the data sheet for.

 

Kodak publication P9 is also supposed to have some about 649F, but I also didn't find that one.