Sharpest Non-SSM Lenses for the A-mount?

[zoltan_arva_toth]

<p>The recent film announcements (Fujichrome Velvia 50, Kodak Ektar 100) have rekindled my interest in film photography, and I've already shot a few rolls with various manual-focus cameras and lenses. However, I would also like to shoot film using auto-focus lenses, and thankfully we still have an auto-focus film SLR, the Minolta Dynax 505si. This camera is a step above entry level, but it is definitely not compatible with SSM lenses. In your experience, what are the sharpest non-SSM auto-focus lenses available for the A-mount? Brand can be anything from Minolta to Sigma to Tamron to Sony (excluding those made specifically for APS-C DSLRs, of course).</p>

[ricardovaste]

<p>SSM and sharpness aren't related, so i wouldn't worry about that. Most importantly, what are you shooting!? It's useless picking a high res lens for landscapes, when your camera can't lock up the mirror. Likewise, the 400/4,5 G is one of the 'sharpest' about, but not so useful for portraits. In honestly, I wouldn't worry about sharpness. Even a cheap first gen. Minolta zoom will give you highly detailed prints at 12x8 inch. How big do you print?</p>

[zoltan_arva_toth]

<p>I know SSM is not related to sharpness, but if I only asked what the sharpest A-mount lens was, someone might suggest a lens that happens to be SSM and my camera cannot auto-focus with those. That is why I said non-SSM.</p>

<p>Honestly, part of the reason I am interested in sharpness is that I would like to explore what Kodak Ektar 100 really is capable of in terms of resolving power, and I would need a sharp lens for that. We only have the Minolta 28-80mm kit zoom and a Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 telezoom and neither is a great choice to test the resolving power of the film.</p>

<p>You are right though, I need to be more specific. I guess I am looking for a prime lens in the 28mm to 135mm range - anything you think qualifies as the sharpest lens in that range would be interesting. As long as it isn't an SSM lens... ;-)</p>

[ricardovaste]

<p>Well I hope you get on well with the experiment anyway :-). I haven't had the patience for film for quite some time. I'm just so adapted to digital now that it just doesn't seem to suit my style anymore. I will have to force myself to use some tomorrow!</p>

<p>The 28/2 Minolta lens is incredibly sharp/high resolving. As is the 35/2, 35/1.4, 50/1.4, 85/1.4, 100/2, 100/2.8, 135//T4.5, 135/1.8... Some of those are quite expensive though. Do you have a budget in mind ? ;-)</p>

<p>As said before though, to get the ultimate sharpness/resolving power you really need a camera with mirror lock up, which the 505si does not have. So this may not be such a enjoyable experiment...</p>

[jiun_der_chung]

<p>Zoltan, Ektar is the best of the negative films in terms of grain and resolving power. The slide films like Velvia 50 & 100 are better than any negative film.<br>

Someone did a test of Ektar and Velvia in comparison to the A900. Here is the link, but basically the conclusion was that the A900 out resolved Velvia slightly. Here is the link:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.boeringa.demon.nl/menu_technic_ektar100.htm">http://www.boeringa.demon.nl/menu_technic_ektar100.htm</a></p>

<p>But as far as lenses go, I would think pretty much any of the good Minolta primes would do the job for you. I would add the 24/2.8 and the 28/2.8 to the list that Richard gave you. You can get them pretty cheap. The shorter focal length would help with the lack of mirror lockup. Or you can buy a camera with mirror lockup, film bodies are pretty cheap these days.</p>

<p> </p>

[joe_oliva]

<p>The sharpest A-mount lens? That's an easy call. The Carl Zeiss 135mm f/1.8 is so sharp, it litterally makes my eyes bleed when I use it. Combined with the Sony A-900, the results are nothing short of breathtaking.<br>

It is not a SSM lens, but still focuses incredibly fast.</p>

<p>All the Best.</p>

[jcoffin]

<p>It kind of depends on what you mean. The 135/1.8 is the most dependably sharp -- at any aperture, anywhere in the frame, it's always sharp (though, of course, the center is always a tiny bit sharper than the corners, and it's sharper at f/2.8 than at f/1.8).</p>

<p>The 50/1.4 is rather the opposite: wide open, it gets a little soft at the center, and <em>quite </em> soft at the corners. On the other hand, if you stop it down to f/4, the center of its image is sharper than the 135/1.8 can duplicate -- though in all honesty, the difference is pretty small.</p>

<p>The next best are <em>probably </em> the macro lenses. The 100/2.8 macro is similar to the 135/1.8: always pretty sharp, and (especially at f/4 or so) there's almost no difference between the center and the edges. The 50/2.8 macro is more like the 50/1.4: sharper at the center, but not quite as good at the corners.</p>

<p>The 135 STF is also extremely sharp. It's quite a bit like the 135/1.8 -- it's always sharp, corner to corner, even wide open -- though marginally less sharp throughout than the 135/1.8. The 100 f/2 is also quite sharp, though not quite up to the 100/2.8 macro. One other that bears mentioning in the 100/2.8 soft focus -- this has a control for variable "softness", and at the sharpest setting, it's right up there with the 100/2.8 macro.<br>

<br /> Some of the other lenses that have been mentioned really aren't in the same league. The 35/1.4 and the 85/1.4 (as well as the 135/2.8 that hasn't been mentioned) are all a bit less sharp. The 28/2.8 is another step behind those.<br>

<br /> There's also a zoom that's probably worth mentioning: the Minolta 28-135 f/4-4.5 is a downright superb zoom that can directly compete with quite a few primes of the same focal lengths. In my experience, it's a bit sharper than the 28/2.8, and about even with the 85/1.4, 100/2.8 or 135/2.8 at the same aperture.</p>

 

[wayne_naughton]

<p>disagree a bit with Jerry, 35mm F1.4G is plenty sharp for me. Others include the 100mmf2.8 macro and 135mmf2.8 STF. The standard 50mm f1.7 is sharp enough for most purposes.</p>

[jcoffin]

<p>If you look back at the original post, what he asked was "what are the sharpest non-SSM auto-focus lenses available for the A-mount?" He did not ask which ones are sharp enough for any particular purpose, but which ones were the sharpest -- that's a fairly specific question with a fairly specific answer. I have a 35/1.4 and a 50/1.7 (and a 100/2.8 macro and 85/1.4). They're excellent lenses, and I'm very happy with all of them -- but I feel quite confident in saying that the 50/1.4 and the 135/1.8 are sharper than any of them.</p>

<p>If the question had been "which lenses are really sharp", I'd agree that they'd all be great answers -- but to the question of which one is <strong>the </strong> sharpest, they're simply wrong answers.</p>

[wayne_naughton]

<p>fair enough.....i suppose i should have prefixed my post with "In my experience...." <G></p>

[jiun_der_chung]

<p>Actually Jerry, the question was in regards to getting the most out of Ektar, a negative film. I would stand by the suggested lenses in that they would be more than capable of getting excellent results with negative film. To be honest, I think good technique and a camera with mirror lockup would be far more important than the differences between any of the lenses.</p>

[drjedsmith]

<p>Pick up a used Minolta 50mm macro. Also the 100mm macro is really close...shoot them at f5.6 and you will have sharpness rivaling the Zeiss optics at a fraction of the price.<br>

Jed</p>

[alanbrowne]

<p>Hands down, the Minolta 100mm f/2.8 macro.<br>

The Sony Carl-Zeiss 135 f/1.8 is razor sharp too.<br>

I expect the 85 f/1.4 (Carl-Zeiss) to be very good, but I'm waffling between that and getting the 16-35 f/2.8 Carl-Zeiss.<br>

I've been using a Hasselblad 80 f/2.8 of late on the Sony a900 and the results are nothing less than superb.</p>

<p> </p>