Simple lens question I canot seem to find an answer to!

[michael_pye]

Hi,

I was wondering in this day and age what the sharpest lens is available on the

market for standard use? Something around 50mm. I don't really bother with

sport e.t.c., more landscape e.t.c.

 

Would the Nikon AFD 17-55mm f2.8 fit the bill?

 

Thanks.

[erik_loza]

"The best/fatsest/sharpest" are not real criteria to purchase a lens by. There's "sharp" and there's "sharp enough". There are lenses with higher resolving ability, but if a prime won't get you the image you want, it is a liability, not an asset, and worth nothing.

 

I could make the 17-55mm do everything I wanted, and its resolving ability would be more than adequate for my needs, but that's just me.

 

Answer these questions:

 

1.) What lenses do I have now.

 

2.) What do I find myself missing in the field.

 

3.) How much do I want to spend.

 

If you cannot come up with a clear answer to each of these questions, then you will waste money on whatever lens everybody here tells you to buy. Let the need dictate the purchase, not criteria you "think" you should own. Good luck in your search.

[frank_skomial]

Since there is no consensus on the single "sharpest lens", you may need to ask Nikon about that. Send them an email and see if there is any answer. Few prime lenses are sharper than available zoom lenses. Most lenses are good for their intended purpose. I doubt that you will find definite answer to your question, but good luck on your quest.

[Ian Rance]

Easy!

 

55mm f2.8 Micro AI-S.

 

Seriously sharp, flat field and results that have 'bite'. Use at intinity as well as 1:2 for quality results.

 

Ian

[Peter_in_PA]

I'd get that lens, but I'd also through a 100-dollar 50mm f1.8 in the bag. AWESOME little

lens. or, if you can afford the 17-55, perhaps you want to add a 50mm f1.4 in, also cheap for

what it offers if you need the extra light. The abovementioned 55mm f2.8 is indeed an

amazing lens as well, as is the current 60mm f2.8 micro.

[Ed_Ingold]

Before we go too far, there is no answer to your question - sharpness of the lens is but one criteria, and seldom the most important. If you don't use a tripod and due diligence, the lens won't matter a bit.

 

The Nikkor 17-55/2.8 is very sharp, comparable or better than most of the wide-angle lenses it replaces. It is nearly perfect as a general-purpose, event/wedding or walk-about lens with a DX digital camera.

 

For pure sharpness in this range, including freedom from chromatic aberation, and high contrast, the 55/2.8 Micro certainly fits the bill. With internal moving elements (CRC) it works well from infinity down to half-sized magnification. The venerable 50/1.8 is also an high performer.

 

50mm works well for me with landscapes, but is a little long for general use and far less convenient than a zoom lens. The 55 Micro is the only lens I generally carry in addition to a set of f/2.8 zooms.

[frank_skomial]

About the 17-55/2.8:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00MaKY&unified_p=1

[ShunCheung]

The 17-55mm/f2.8 DX seems to be optically optimized for shooting from like 3, 4 meters away. It is great for events, weddings, etc. It is still very good at infinity, but it doesn't seem to be as sharp there.

[michael_hahn]

I have the 17 - 55. It is pretty good ... but for tack sharpness get the AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 12-24mm f/4G IF-ED (for about a grand). Really the sharpest Nikon lens I have used. Rivals some Zeiss equipment that I have.

 

Good luck.

 

Michael.

[bsd230]

50mm 1.8 is very hard to beat in sharpness and price. I just bought a Sigma EX 24-60 2.8 on Amazon for 179.95 normally 399.00 everywhere else, it's very sharp, for the price you won't find a faster, sharper zoom lens.

[michael_pye]

Thanks alot for your replies. All that is very useful. I have been checking out the NIKKOR 12-24mm f/4G IF-ED. Which is rather nice to say the least.

 

Does anybody know where there is a 100% crop of the 50mm lens?

[albertdarmali]

If you want sharp, just get a macro lens, although I'm not sure if it's really useful for you in terms of focal length. Zoom lenses, I personally think 18-70mm is sharp enough, but if you are looking for higher grade lens, I can say that 17-35mm is really sharp even wide open.

[sprouty]

Does it have to be a zoom? I have the 17-55mm Nikon and it does a very nice job but I think the Sigma 30mm/1.4 is subjectively better. And it's a heck of a lot smaller and lighter.

[bjørn rørslett]

Get a sample of the early '80s 50/1.8 AIS Nikkor ("long-nose" model). It fits your description exactly. Set it to f/5.6 and shoot away. Please note that this is a case in which "newer" doesn't entail "better", so specifically search for this model not an AF/AFD version.

 

The 55 Micro-Nikkor is great up close, but no match for the 50/1.8 at distance.