SHARPEST lenses for Nikon DSLR's

[andre_noble5]

I own the Nikon 300 AFS F2.8 (version I). It is hands down the most impressively sharp lens I have ever

owned (I have owned about 40).

[photo_galleries]

Kiron 105mm/2.8

[flaviosganzerla]

All I can say is my Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 outperforms by a great margin both 50mm f/1.8D AF and 105mm f/2.5 AI I have...

[sjmurray]

All my Nikkor lenses are sharp. I did have a "freaky" sharp cheap Vivitar pre AI 28mm lens for my Nikon Ftn in the late 60's. On a tripod I compared it to all me Nikkor lenses and it was the sharpest of the bunch. Because it was a cheap lens it eventually developed some loose elements and I quite using it. I figure this lens was an anomaly and probably just by chance had a perfect set of lenses and build. I bought another like it used in hopes it would be as sharp, but alas, it was not that good. Here's an example of this super sharp 28mm Vivitar, taken in the early 70's. http://www.photo.net/photo/4283534&size=lg

[beac]

As a general rule of thumb, is there a particular f stop or range of f stops that universally give the sharpest images with a given lense? I keep seeing f8 mentioned.

[lex_jenkins]

Brian, the simple answer is that for lenses designed for miniature or small format (35mm film or sensor and smaller) usually reach optimal "sharpness" by f/8. Apparent sharpness is a combination of factors: resolution, contrast, etc. It also involves some boring technical stuff such as the reduction of internal flare.

 

Not all small format lenses need to be stopped down to f/8 for good to excellent sharpness. Some improve dramatically only one or two stops down from maximum aperture. A tiny handful are intended to be used wide open and actually get worse stopped down (I can't afford any of these exotic lenses).

 

My old 50/2 AI Nikkor is extremely soft wide open but seems like a different lens stopped down to f/2.8. My 105/2.5 AI Nikkor is sharp wide open but lacks contrast. Stopping down to only f/2.8 visibly improves "sharpness" because contrast is improved, in part by minimizing internal flare. It doesn't get significantly sharper between f/4-f/8; only depth of field changes.

 

As lenses are stopped down beyond the middle aperture range many begin to suffer from softness caused by diffraction. The effect is most noticeable in pinhole cameras, which have extremely deep depth of field but mediocre overall sharpness. With small format lenses the effect varies. Some lenses become too soft beyond f/16 for good results; some don't. My 55/3.5 Micro-Nikkor is softer at f/32 than at f/16, but the softness is not unacceptable for some applications where maximum DOF is more important than absolute resolution. I've owned other lenses that were pretty much like the bottom of a soda bottle at f/22.

 

If you visit the photozone.de website's lens tests you can see easily interpreted charts and graphs for many popular lenses. (Be sure to see the actual tests, not just the user opinions.)

[35mmdelux]

FWIW I shot product shots with 50mm/1.4 Zeiss ZF and D200, and was amazed at the sharpness although its not a macro lens. The best results on tripod and avail light -- sharp sharp.

[beac]

Lex- Thanks for the great reply. I essentially have two lenses right now for my D80, a 50mm/1.4 Nikkor and an 18 - 200/ 3.5-5.6 dx, which is my "leave on lense". I really like the 50mm but the DX crop factor sort of limits it use for what I think it is intended for. I also have gotten some less than sharp pics from it, which sort of surprised me, although others have been fantastic. I will check out the web site you referred to and see if I can determine where the sweet spots for my two lenses are. Trial and error will work too!

[conrad_smith]

Bjorn Rorslett's lens evaluations are dead on for each of the 15 or so Nikkor's I've owned (from 10.5mm DX to 800/5.6). For example, the 400/3.5 is superb on film but terrible with D200 (especially with teleconverters) because of greater CA. I like Bjorn's lens evaluations because his comments go beyond lab sharpness to address many of the user considerations referred to in this thread, including varying sharpness at different apertures, lens contrast, digital vs film performance, varying lens quality at different distances, flare, ghosting, etc.

 

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

[t_du_vernet]

<p>This question is a fishing tease. You will get every response from arm chair "experts", casual wanna be pros to nerds to do nothing but test lenses. Sharpness is both a subjective and qualitative character of an image. Who cares whether a lens is "sharp". It is the result that matters. There are so many other characteristics to consider. Most Nikon lenses have pretty wonky distortion. Compared to the Zeiss Planar, Nikon lenses are wobbly and crude. For your next experiment, put on a converted Summicron 90 f.2 to see the 3D like quality of smoothness and colour really look like. For my money, the sharpest lens is the 45mm perspective control lens or a Tamron 24 - 70 f.2.8 (much sharper and a whole lot cheaper than Nikon). Check out the distortion and edge vignetting on the 50mm lenses. They are awful. Another fun experiment, put on a 80mm or 120mm Hasselblad Planar. Wow! Real glass.</p>

[borgis_karl_johan1]

<p>Paradigm of a "fishing tease" : the last post.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>not to mention the resurrection of an almost SIX YEAR OLD TOPIC!</p>