Lenses That Out Resolve the Nikon D7000

[john_reynolds10]

<p>There has been much discussion about the Nikon D7000 outresloving many lenses. But which lenses make good use of the camera's capabilities. How about the 35/1.8 or 50/1.8. Or 55-200mm/4.0-5.6 VR or AF-S 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR? Or does one have to spend thousands?!</p>

[andylynn]

What do you use now? Are you having problems with your current lenses? And what are you looking for - normal

prime, tele zoom, both?

[michael_bradtke]

<p>I would think that the super zoom lenses (18-200 and the like) are going to compromise image quality the most<br>

If you are talking about shooting wide open none of them do. If you are talking about shooting each lens at its sharpest aperture most of them will do just fine. Its not just resolution that makes a great image.</p>

 

[bob_sunley]

<p>As always, the sharpest lens is a good solid tripod and head.</p>

 

[peter_pigott]

<p>I have the Nikon D5100 which has better resolution than the earlier D7000. According to reliable information the D5100 has 2490 lines of resolution, the D7000 2390. I recently purchased a Bell & Howell Fish-Eye lens. It is totally manual, although it gives a histogram and LCD image. My images, printed in 8 x 12 inch size by Walmart, are excellent in sharpness and colour balance. (I use F 5.6, 8 and 11 for best results). The lens also comes labelled Pro-optic. It is an 8mm lens. The cost? Not $700 nor $2,000 as are the Nikon Fish-Eyes, but $269(US), the Pro-Optic goes for $289. I saved 20 bucks.<br>

There is a relationship between the resolving power of the lens & the resolving power of the sensor. The sensor may rebel against a low resolution lens and magnify its imperfections. However this relationship may be exaggerated for a guy who gets wonderful enlargements from Walmart!</p>

 

[pcnilssen]

<p>I'm now scanning slides that once were super sharp, in yesterday's measures. Today it would get a beating from most P&S's. I think this is a never ending competition. Both lenses and cameras get better all the time.</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<blockquote>

<p>But which lenses make good use of the camera's capabilities.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, have a look at photozone.de for some useful data. As an arbitrary example, compare the 35/1.8 G at f/4.0 to the 16-35/4.0 at 35/4.0, both on the D7000. You'll see a significant difference (although, FYI, at 24mm and wider, the zoom is almost as sharp as the 35/1.8).</p>

<p>http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/628-nikkor3518dx?start=1</p>

<p>http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/683-nikkorafs1635vrdx</p>

<p>Now compare the Nikon 35/1.8 to the Tokina 35/2.8, again on the D7000:</p>

<p>http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/640-tokina3528prodx</p>

<p>The Tokina looks to be a superior lens, partly because it goes down to f/22 and keeps a good resolution up until f/16 (and look how much better the Tokina is at f/11). It is a bit more expensive, though, but we are not talking thousands for either. Not even close.</p>

<p>Needless to say, a little bit of research keeps regret at bay. I haven't yet found the highest resolving lens on Photozone's site, but I'd say one of the primes that I mentioned is getting pretty close. I hope that this was useful!</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Some of my lenses continue to work well on my D7000, such as the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR II, 300mm/f2.8 AF-S, etc. The 70-200 is still very sharp @ 200mm, wide open at f2.8. My 500mm/f4 AF-S is no longer that great on the D7000. Previously on film and 12MP DSLRs, it was great wide open; now I need to stop down to f5.6 to get the best results on the D7000.</p>

<p>You don't have to buy very expensive lenses, but you need to use your lenses carefully. For example, it is unlikely that you'll get great results from the 50mm/f1.8 @ 1.8 simply because the depth of field is narrow. When you stop down to f5.6, it should be just fine on the D7000. Using a good tripod and good technique such as a shutter cable or 1-second shutter delay for static subject should also help.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>There has always been a wide range of performance among lenses. The best lenses are not necessarily the most expensive. Some conveniences lead to expense. With a camera like a D7000 or D3X you at least have the ability to push the photographic envelope to make stunning images printed at 24 x 36 and up. Putting lenses with lower resolution on a high resolution body is not going to "damage" the image in any way, it's just that the better lenses will allow you to enlarge the image more than the typical sizes of 8x10, 11x14, and 16x20.</p>

<p>To keep control over your lens budget, while striving to push optical limits, watch out for pitfalls like VR and DSLRs without autofocus motors. In many cases VR adds a great deal of expense to a lens without adding optical resolution. VR helps in very specific and rare situations, so chose VR wisely. Many current Nikon lenses and many discontinued lenses, that are available used, that do not have autofocus motors built in, are excellent performers. For even more specific requirements there are many excellent manual focus lenses available too. For instance I will not be able to afford, or at best justify, a current 400/2.8, in my lifetime, so I make superb images with a manual focus 400/2.8 AIS, at 1/6 the price, on my 21 MP 5D II.</p>

<p>If you do get hooked on image quality it can become a nasty obsession. I have gone through thirty lenses over the past 27 years to get to the six superb ones that I have now. Thankfully most of them were bought used so I have kept financial losses to a minimum. Not all these lens changes were based on image quality, some were to satisfy a specific need at a particular time in my life, where convenience took precedent. Yes, there are times when convenience of photographing is more important than creating an image that can be displayed beyond 11x14. Have fun and good luck!</p>

<p>P.S. I failed to mention my forays into 6x6 and 4x5 film photography, in search for image quality as well, that I will never go back to. That was another two bodies and 8 lenses! Still didn't lose too much money in the end! Gee, no wonder my wife and friends think that I am nuts!</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>According to their specifications the D7000 and D5100 have the same sensor size and resolution. In fact they probably use the exact same sensor. Anyway, both have a theoretical resolution limit of just over 100 line-pairs per millimetre, and most halfway decent lenses will be able to match this in the centre of the frame at their optimum aperture. It's only when you start to look critically at the edges and corners of the frame and at close to maximum aperture that the differences between a mediocre lens and a top-quality one become apparent.</p>

<p>So the answer to "which lenses outresolve the camera's capabilities" depends on where you look in the frame and how closely. It also depends on whether you're willing to accept any degree of colour fringing or not, since this is another issue quite apart from pure resoution. If you're only willing to accept the absolute maximum sharpness that the sensor is capable of resolving, from corner to corner of the frame and with no discernible colour fringing, then the answer is that you do indeed have to spend thousands. In fact you probably have to spend thousands <em>and </em>cherry pick from several samples of a particular lens. But let's get real and go by final print quality rather than what can be seen by pixel peeping. If you "only" print up to A3 size (11" x 16"), then most lenses on the market today will give perfectly acceptable results at normal viewing distances.</p>

<p>If a picture is aesthetically good enough, then people will step back to admire it, rather than stick their noses up to it to criticise how sharp it is. A picture that only has its technical quality going for it ain't much of a picture!</p>

[dan_south]

> As always, the sharpest lens is a good solid tripod and head.

 

Combined with accurate focus, which is not easily achieved.

[georg_s1]

<blockquote>

<p>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2071900">Dan South</a><a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Dec 26, 2011; 10:19 a.m.</p>

 

<p >> As always, the sharpest lens is a good solid tripod and head.</p>

<p >Combined with <strong>accurate focus</strong>, which is not easily achieved.</p>

<p > </p>

 

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>

 

<p >So true. Especially with fast lenses (I shoot a lot of sports with a 85/1.4 and 200/2) nailing the focus is the most important part of getting really sharp results.</p>

<p >I prefer a perfectly focused shot with a not so good lens over a slightly mis-focused shot with the razor-sharp 200 /2 VR by a wide margin.</p>

<p >That said - I really like the AF-S 35/1.8 on the D7000 and some other „consumer”-lenses.</p>

<p >Happy shooting, Georg!</p>

 

</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>John (OP),</p>

<p>Are you worrying too much?</p>

<p>How do you use your photos? If you aren't printing above 5 x 7 or 8 x 10, or if you're mainly viewing on-screen... I bet even some of the "weak" lenses will give you just fine results.</p>

<p>That said, I would avoid buying new glass that isn't up to the challenge at this point, but if you have one of the "weak" lenses, and the pics look okay to you, go for it!</p>

<p>one caveat: You bought a serious camera. So avoid all those plastic-mount lenses. The plastic mount is an indication that they're not that great inside.</p>

[johne37179]

<p>The whole question of the resolving ability of a lens/camera system for me is largely -- well, unresolved. Back in the day when you could see the grain structure of the negative on the print, you knew that the resolving power beyond that grain structure was not coming into play. Jump forward to the dozen or multi dozen megapixel sensor, the dual 27 inch monitors, the ability to cram as many pixels per inch onto the screen as your software and hardware allow and you can nearly count the angels on the head of a pin. But does it all mean anything? Peter Hamm wisely asks "How do you use your photos?" if you make an 8X10 print you need resolving power sufficient to be imperceptible at that level. However, if you were to fill that space with just 1% of the image captured, you would be orders of magnitude further down the road. Film grain used to be the lowest common denominator beyond which resolution was purely academic. It seems now that the purely academic has become the realm of the possible. <br>

Are we reaching some Moore's law limit of optics and ones and zeros? Do I need or want to capture all that my eye can conceive on a single image the size of a postage stamp so that I can project it on the side of a building? <br>

Do practical limitations matter anymore? Now that I think about all this, I wish I hadn't stopped to ask the question.</p>

[johncrosley]

<p>I have shot sharp, supersharp and absolutely stunningly sharp photos with some of the finest equipment Nikon has offered from the widest of the wide to the super telephotos, and my mainstay, go-to lens often was the 70-200 f 2.8 which I always had on one camera together often with a $3,000 or $4,000 camera.</p>

<p>Today, a $350 refurb D5000 can make a better image -- at least at higher ISOs than a D2Xs that sold for thousands just a few scant years ago -- and same for the lower rent 10 megapixel D200, which had somewhat more sensitive sensor.</p>

<p>The D300 sensor and the D90 sensor nowadays are outmoded when it comes to high ISO shooting; today I shot with a D3100 in a shop and it produced stunning images at lowest ISO. Of course, the build quality, menus, controls, etc., were far less than the highest quality, and it was plastic, but one can make stunning images now with Nikon's lowest, entry-level DSLR.</p>

<p>Sharpness certainly is a laudable goal, but it is not the be-all and the end-all of good shooting; the most important thing is image viewability.</p>

<p>For Ansel Adams and fellow members of the f64 club, shooting landscapes, having best image resolving power was an admirable attribute, but for most shooting, it's only one of several admirable attributes.</p>

<p>I have attached here links to several images that have received major attention from the Photo.net community, (and in one case a world-renowned critic) even though none is at all sharp.</p>

<p>The first is decidedly blurry. (my vibration reduction feature on my 70-200 f 2.8 was inadvertently switched 'off', while I was shooting indoors at a convention at very low shutter speeds. </p>

<p>The linked photo has just shy of 1/4 million 'views' and is my 'MOST VIEWED PHOTO IN MY ENTIRE PORTFOLIO' (clearly it has other attributes than sharpness going for it):</p>

<p><a href="../photo/5442703&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/5442703&size=lg</a></p>

<p>Here's another photo, taken with a D2Xs at a very high ISO, far beyond the D2Xs's ability to create a decent, true-to-life, realistic image that equals roughly what your eye sees. It is taken in the aftermath of a 'street fair' for youths at which drinking was encouraged; the youth lays drunk, probably passed out, across the female -- see what the high ISO has done both to the color rendition and to the sharpness (taken with a 'PRO' lens, a Nikkor 17-55 f 2.8):</p>

<p><a href="../photo/11509850">http://www.photo.net/photo/11509850</a></p>

<p>The following was taken with a D3000 (backup camera borrowed from a friend) with a not highly regarded zoom, the 24-120 f 3.5-5.6 which could be had last summer for about $305 (camera then sold for about $290, both refurbished.) Photo taken, handheld, at a full one second exposure, vibration reduction on ('If They Were Wings')</p>

<p><a href="../photo/13120532&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/13120532&size=lg</a></p>

<p>The Fourth Photo, taken on New Year's Night (not Eve) a year ago, is also about a one-second hand held photo taken with a wide angle lens, and its exposure is so slow people are caught walking though the frame. It's good either as color (here) or black and white (See 'Black and White, Then and Now' folder):</p>

<p><a href="../photo/12177670&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/12177670&size=lg</a></p>

<p>It's full of blurriness, and focus is certainly wanting, in part because the skull-masked man was caught at nearly a full second's exposure, and didn't hold his position for the full second exposure -- candid shot.</p>

<p>Over my objections, because I then didn't understand the 'fine art' market, a world famous 'art/photo critic' with highest credentials who reviewed and curated my work several years ago, suggested this photo, which is composed entirely of blurry and shaky lines, belonged in a highest quality ART gallery (not photo, but ART gallery such as the Gagosian chain of galleries which are in Beverly Hills, NYC, London, Paris, Rome, Hong Kong, and eleven galleries in all according to Wikipedia.)</p>

<p>The following photo didn't do well on this service, but on another where it's posted, one for 'fine art' photographers --no beginners allowed -- it's one of my highest-viewed photos.</p>

<p><a href="../photo/11539731&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/11539731&size=lg</a></p>

<p>The point?</p>

<p>Sharpness is great.</p>

<p>I've used some of the sharpest lenses ever made including some classics. I began shooting with what I just learned was a classic, the Nikkor manual 50 mm f 2.0 -- and it produced wonderful results year after year; even though I longed for a f 1.4, not realizing it was softer throughout, and not the classic I inadvertently started with.</p>

<p>I've owned at least 10 70~200 f 2.8 editions and not a bad or flawed one to the bunch. One of the very sharpest was a 105 V.R. Nikkor macro with special coating -- I doubt if anything could out resolve that lens at least on a flat plane. (I've only owned one lens with a back focus problem out of maybe 100 lenses or more owned, and that was exchanged on the spot by the dealer --- within minutes).</p>

<p>I've also owned the 12-24 f4 Nikkor (numerous copies), and in most I never even needed to sharpen my images without worrying about producing over-sharpened looks.</p>

<p>I've owned the 24-70 f 2.8 and the 14-24 f 2.8 (dangerous to carry around because of its bulbous front element and the danger of running it into something that would scratch or crack that element.)</p>

<p>I am not advocating for unsharp lenses; I've made ample use of sharp lenses.</p>

<p>Two of my best portraits ever I made with not a 'soft' portrait lens but with the legendary, supersharp 85 f 1.8 AI lens, one of Nikon's best, and both on the same roll of film at 3:00 a.m.</p>

<p>I am, however, suggesting that it is entirely possible to make wonderful images without even owning one sharp lens.</p>

<p>I don't know what lenses Gordon Bowbrick (Gordon B.) used or has used, but his images are mostly purposely out of focus, sometimes shaken or otherwise blurred.</p>

<p>He does have great need for stunning image contrast -- he works in color primarily, and color contrast is essential even if good focus is not always. He often has less need for image sharpness.</p>

<p>He has had a wonderful, world class portfolio - among the best in the amateur realm, in my opinion, and is an outstanding PN member (and FLICKR member too, I understand). Look at his work taken 'in motion' and other purposely blurred work.</p>

<p><a href="../photodb/member-photos?user_id=3770455">http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?user_id=3770455</a></p>

<p>Taking a great shot with a sharp lens can be wonderful, and if sharpness is called for, that is magnificent -- the ability to blow up to largest size now is getting better and better because of the amazing resolving power of today's lenses and today's cameras.</p>

<p>But a photo which succeeds because or in spite of lack of sharpness such as some of my less sharp ones, or some of Gordon B's., can also be blown up -- maybe infinitely -- because there is no issue of resolving power -- they begin unsharp and because they're somewhat impressionistic (some at least) they do not suffer from lack of resolving power - they gain from it.</p>

<p>(I still treasure sharp lenses, however, when called for, and if I were a commercial, product photographer, I wouldn't be caught dead without the sharpest lenses available, for when the occasion calls).</p>

<p>This is just to put things in perspective. </p>

<p>Sharpness and resolving power are great topics, but they have limits which are not acknowledged enough in these fora, I feel.</p>

<p>In other words, it's easy to go on a quest for sharpness, but one can produce great images without the least bit of sharpness; sharpness is not all there is.</p>

<p>john</p>

<p>John (Crosley)</p>

<p> </p>

[johncrosley]

<p>Here's another illustration of why we sometimes spend too much time worrying about 'sharpness' and 'resolving ability':</p>

<p><a href="../photo/2180049&size=lg" _mce_href="../photo/2180049&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/2180049&size=lg</a></p>

<p>Film, taken with one of the older 'kit' zoom film lenses without large aperture, at low shutter speed, camera panning with subject, for effect. 'Sandblaster' at work in boatyard, posted within first six months of my becoming a member here, taken just because of my new membership (not something dredged up from long ago).</p>

<p>Sometimes, too, it pays to break the rules: conventional wisdom is that portraits should not be taken with sharp or supersharp lenses -- e.g. softness flatters (not always so!)</p>

<p>Consider this photo taken with an 85 mm manual f 1.8, film at 3:00 a.m. close to wide open -- look at her eyes for sharpness (and color contrast -- for which this lens is legendary):</p>

<p><a href="../photo/2325140&size=lg" _mce_href="../photo/2325140&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/2325140&size=lg</a></p>

<p>[i believe 'rules' are guidelines only and do what it takes to get the image, not what some guideline tells me I should do -- that's for "Photography for Dummies' or some 'Introduction to Photography 101' class taught by somebody well meaning but completely out of touch with how really to create wonderful images. There are plenty of those people. Mostly they teach people to create pedestrian images that look like everyone else's.</p>

<p>[it takes a 'fine arts' degree to teach photography; I don't qualify at all, and I'd put my best work up against many university 'fine arts' photography instructors and professors and certainly more so against those who teach at the community college level -- they got their 'fine arts' degrees; I have nothing of the sort - I just bought a Nikon SLR at age 21 and never looked back. </p><p>[Within weeks I was published by NY Times, NY Daily News, Time, Life, AP, UPI and so on. According to academia's standards, I'm completely unqualified, unless later being an AP photographer and photo editor editing Pulitzer material somehow bootstrapped me.]</p>

<p>I started out just like most of the new members of Photo.net, without anything more than a new camera and a dream.</p><p>Nobody told me I couldn't do it, so I did. I had one good lens and two old ones, bought for $28 each, not sharp at all, but they got images stil worth looking at today and people do. They're maybe museum bound.</p><p>I went to Viet Nam with a camera and fancied myself a 'combat photographer' without a sponsor, so I was 'freelance' and within weeks I had worked my way over there on a ship and one day 'voiila', I was a 'combat photographer'.</p>

<p>Sharpness is great, but don't sidetrack those dreams just because you can't achieve maximal sharpness; maximal sharpness is no substitute for creating great images that cause others to overlook just how sharp your photos are, provided your work is interesting and view worthy.</p>

<p>Some of the Pulitzer winnera have been grainy, blurry, and GREAT!</p>

<p>Make great enough photos and few are going to be complaining they are not sharp enough.</p>

<p>Gordon B. (Bowbrick), knows this well. Look at his photos, linked in my comment above; don't just take my word for it.<br>

He spends time figuring out how to make 'art' from the unsharp and the blurry.</p><p>And he succeeds.<br>

john</p>

<p>John (Crosley)</p>

[jack_the_hat]

<p>Good grief, this nonsense comes up every time a new DSLR body with higher MP goes on sale. People have been saying this since at least the Nikon D2x first appeared. Get over it, your lenses are fine.</p>

[anura1]

<p>Thanks Jack, Cant agree with you more !!</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<blockquote>

<p>[Within weeks I was published by NY Times, NY Daily News, Time, Life, AP, UPI and so on. According to academia's standards, I'm completely unqualified, unless later being an AP photographer and photo editor editing Pulitzer material somehow bootstrapped me.]</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thou doest speake excellently, sir. I have always seen photography degrees as unnecessary (though not 'bad') simply because a 'qualified photographer' is a meaningless term (and not what I call 'education'). Is a photographer good or not? That is the question. Full stop.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Good grief, this nonsense comes up every time a new DSLR body with higher MP goes on sale. People have been saying this since at least the Nikon D2x first appeared</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm glad it does as it provides useful information. And it will happen again with the newest FX cameras, too. I'm surprised that you do not see the utility in such discussions, even though they may appear to be repetitive to you.</p>

[pcnilssen]

<p>Why this neverending quest for "sharpness"? Doesn't the motive and the story matter more? We salute "old" photographers like HCB, Karsh, and all "the guys", but they had not lenses (nor cameras) with the technical standards as we have now. Even though, they are almost worshipped. <br>

Do you throw away the first images of your newborn just because you trembled and the shots became blurry? I don't think so. I'd prefer story to sharpness any time!</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>Why this neverending quest for "sharpness"?</em></p>

<p>Sharpness has always been possible if you use a big enough camera, enough light, and careful enough technique through all stages of the process, but the process is slow and inconvenient. The quest for better quality in very small formats <em>is</em> probably neverending because when people start achieving what they want in a bigger format, they will then choose a smaller camera start over. So in that sense it will never end because if cell phone cameras become good enough then people start asking for cameras that are so small they can be in e.g. eyeglasses and operated by thought.</p>

<p>Since personal finances are limited people will want to avoid costly mistakes in lens purchases, which is why they ask these questions here. And often they get some good information (along with the scornful remarks of some). My tidbit: when I used the D7000 I found the 70-200 II, the 200mm Micro, and 85mm PC-E to be both very useful and perform very well on that camera. But these are all quite expensive lenses, so I am not sure if it helps the OP much. The 35/1.8 and 50/1.8 should both be very good also, but I didn't try them on this particular camera. Generally, and especially when using a fast lens, stopping down 1-2 stops with a high pixel density camera will improve sharpness a lot.</p>

<p><em>I'd prefer story to sharpness any time!</em></p>

<p>Why should they be mutually exclusive? If a photograph is not sharp, the emotion of the subject (assuming a person) is not clearly delineated. You can always make a blurry picture if that's what you want, even with a sharp lens, but the opposite may not be possible. At least to me, the emotion and communication between people is a top priority in many of my images and sharpness in key parts of the image is often necessary to communicate this properly. I often photograph people indoors in sometimes quite low light (i.e. 1/50s, f/1.4, ISO 3200) and with any camera, achieving the goal can be difficult in such circumstances, and lens quality certainly plays a big part there. Should I simply resort to obtaining blurry pictures so that the people are not recognizable, and they appear to be shaking, or not photograph these events at all? I do not think so.</p>

 

[john_reynolds10]

<p>Thanks for the all the responses - they have helped to define more concretely the 'out resolving' issue in my mind. Plus there have been a few good resources and specific recommendations from personal experience which will prove invaluable. Personally, in my own practice, I would always <em>aim</em> for the best technical quality in the capture knowing that blurriness and other forms of artistic degradations can be performed out of the field in the quietude of Photoshop. Print size as well is an artistic choice and is not necessarily dependant on high resolution for a good result. Practically speaking though when lens size, weight and cost come into play the issue becomes finding the best possible lens to suit my own personal requirements - and information presented in this thread will definitely be guiding my choices.</p>

[pcnilssen]

<p>Ilkka, of course you can have both if you want - and it is NOT mutually exclusive. What I meant, and I have been there..., is that sometimes we strive for technical perfectness, and we forget that we also want to tell a story or keep memories.</p>

<p>For example,<br>

When my daughter was born - my images were unsharp and far from perfect - and I almost deleted them all in sheer anger and irritation. But today, I am very happy that I kept them.</p>

 

[ivan_j._eberle1]

Generally speaking, the further from a normal 50mm a lens is, the more expensive to design it to be sharp and rein in all the aberrations. Most 50mm's today will be very good, but not necessarily performing at the limits of a sensor that records beyond 100 lpmm; too there may be issues with digital with older lens designs. I'm thinking of the the AF-D Nikkor f/1.8 I just sold had an issue with reflecting back onto the sensor with blotchy blue color shifts on faces being evident. Sharp lens though. Build quality left a lot to be desired. Looked as though it was disposable (e.g. no front element retaining ring and probably unrepairable if it ever fell out of spec). Relatively cheap but also rather worthless to me.

Most all high performance lenses today are using exotic apochromatic glass and they can be quite expensive. My 105VR is such a lens that uses APO glass, and hits over 100 lpmm. ($900+, now).

The Nikkor Micro lenses should be capable of recording detail beyond the limits of any current sensor, but not under any and all conditions. When lenses do hit 100 lpmm or more (high contrast light is needed, typically) it will typically be in a narrowly prescribed range of apertures, typically f/4-f/6.7 or f/8. (Though exotic teles are designed to be sharpest wide open.)

 

My 17-35mm f/2.8 AF-S and 200-400mm f/4 VR-G appear sharper than the limits of my D300, and also look to be astoundingly macro sharp on films like Astia, though I've not run an actual resolution test, a quarter century of pro shooting says they're often resolving 100+ lpmm. The 70-200mm f/2.8 VR I owned also was critically/professionally sharp. But these are all exotic and expensive.

 

Photographers who've only ever shot amateur glass (and especially zooms) may not realize just how good the pro glass is these days. The bar is raised for everyone by this, and if you're shooting professionally, you will need to be on equal footing.