What's sharper than a Nikon 24-85 f2.8?

[yellowwoodguiding]

I have been shooting with a Nikon 24-85mm f2.8 - 4 and its a great all around

lens. I use it for macro to landscape and everything in between.

 

For landscape shots I find I want more sharpness in the 24 - 65mm range

shooting f16 - f22 or above. I'm using the lens on a D200 ISO 100 -200, always

on a tripod and I just want to move from a Pro-sumer to a Pro lens as I'm

starting to show my work in a few locations and I need another landscape lens

for my business anyway.

 

I'm open to everything AIS to brand new, manual or Auto. Sharpness at f16 and

up and focal distances from 50 ft - infinity is goal #1.

[tonybeach]

You are diffraction limited shooting beyond f/13 on a D200. No lens will be much sharper than any other lens at the apertures you are using, they will all be soft -- especially on a higher resolution DX sensor.

[jorgen_udvang]

From 24-65mm, your lens is sharpest between f4 and f8. There's no reason to stop down further than that unless you have objects in the very near foreground requiring a lot of DOF.

 

If you want a lens that is considerably sharper than the 24-85, you would have to look at primes, preferably the Zeiss ZF's. Within your range, they're available as 25mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2 and 50mm f/1.4. They are not cheap though.

[jerry thirsty]

Play around with the online dof calculator:

 

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

 

Based on the default values for CoC, you don't need f/16-22 to have enough depth of field to get 50ft to infinity; f/8 will give you everything from 44 to infinity, even at 65mm. Granted, it depends on whether you like their number for CoC, but it's a good starting point. Due to the diffraction problem, I would think you would be better off with a sharp prime like the 35 or 50 at f/8 or 11. Your next biggest problem then will be the native resolution of the sensor.

[edward_lee6]

Hello,

 

I know your feeling as I too bought 24-85mm f2.8-4D lens for my D200. After a month of use I decided to get 28-105mm, which has Macro too. And I find it a tad sharper overall and color slightly better compared to 24-85mm, or at least to my eyes. And it's not that expensive if you can find one. The only thing is the pictures tend to come out darker because it's a darker lens of course. If you like to have just one lens with Macro/zoom combo it's worth a try - the lens is much better suited for outdoor shooting.

[jose_angel]

... and I`m using now an AF-S 24-85/3.5-4.5, which I found sharper at the longer focal than my previous AF-D 28-105/3.5-4.5 which I have used extensively on Velvia film.

 

Obviously the 24-85 doesn`t end at 105mm, but the portraits at 85mm looks sharper than the ones I have taken with the 28-105 (sometimes I missed that 105mm!). If you want to improve your lens at the 24 to 65mm focal lenght, there isn`t another lens, thought. IMO the macro feature on the 28-105 lens is as good as the lack of it at the AF-S 24-85 (it focuses very close).

 

At the rest of focal lenghts, IQ seems to me almost the same. AF speed on F6 is almost the same on both lenses (although I prefer the quietness and design of the AF-S). Didn`t use them on the D200 yet. The AF-S lens use a petal-type hood (that`s a great difference!).

 

I suppose the AF-D 24, 28, 35 and 50mm lenses would give overall better sharpness than consumer zoom lenses for landscapes. The AF-S f/2.8 pro-lenses are in the same league, thought. I use my Nikons almost exclusively for people and products.

[Ed_Ingold]

If you're looking for a "pro" lens, one of the Nikkor f/2.8 zoom lenses or the 12-24/4 should meet your expectations. These lenses are generally as good or better than the prime lenses they replace. This is particularly true of the 17-35/2.8 AFS. Expensive, yes! That's the price of admission.

 

If you want to shoot macro, then any of these lenses (including the f/2.8 zooms) offer poor to mediocre performance. You need a dedicated macro lens. The 55/2.8 AIS is such a lens, and yet has outstanding performance at any distance. I use one for many landscapes and stitched panoramas, for optimum performance with a D2x. You don't need AF for a macro lens, nor for landscapes. If not for macro, the a 50/1.8 is another inexpensive yet superlative lens.

[bob_cook]

"The only thing is the pictures tend to come out darker because it's a darker lens of course."

 

What do you mean? Because it's an f4.0 instead of f2.8? Never have had that experience. Do you mean "darker" in the viewfinder, or the actual photograph? Just curious.

[charcoal]

To give you an idea of the degradation that occurs at smaller stops, here are shots taken with the 55/2.8 Micro Nikkor. The pictures are extracted from the corner of the overall picture.<div></div>

[charcoal]

Well, some shots didn't load. I'll just send the one at f/11 for comparison.<div></div>

[pge]

Donald

 

Very interesting comparison

 

Jared

 

One of Edwards suggestions was a 50mm f1.8. Honestly you won't get much sharper than that, and for under $100.

[yellowwoodguiding]

Thanks for all the info. Shooting wildlife mostly places me on the other end of this spectrum loving the 1.5 factor in realms of 1500 - 2000mm. I knew of diffraction but didn't make the connection with sensor size which makes me resent the 1.5 factor a bit now. After reviewing the responses I went through my files and find I would get the most use out of a 24mm and 35mm prime and not a single image over f16 was sharp.

[tonybeach]

"I knew of diffraction but didn't make the connection with sensor size which makes me resent the 1.5 factor a bit now."

 

Keep in mind that f/13 on DX sensor gives you the same DOF as f/19 on a 35FF if you are using equivalent focal lengths to get the same FOV and the same distance from the subject. The advantage of 35FF actually is at the other end of the DOF spectrum as it allows narrower DOFs than what can typically be attained shooting in a smaller format.

[ned1]

The sharpest lens I own in my Nikkor 50mm 1.2 manual.