Which lens is sharp?

[jon_josh_chua]

The manufacturer of nikkor lenses never review the resolution of

lenses.

 

1) Is there a way to calculate lens resoulution?

 

2) I have to get feedback from other user, seems like most

photographer always agree on those few lenses... Is this the only

way to find out what lens is sharp? Or maybe just by looking at the

price of the lens?

 

3) Is Prime lenses necessary Sharper than zoom lenses?

How is sharpness determine...

 

4) is there any difference between AF and Manual lenses in terms of

sharpness?

eg. 50mm F1.4, there's manual and AF version

[paul compton]

this site is quite good for all things Nikon, well worth a look . http://www.bythom.com/

[cham_saranasuriya]

Hi Jon,

 

Reliable, practical infor by a working pro on http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

 

Cheers,

[richard_milner2]

1) Is there a way to calculate lens resoulution?

 

Yes, it is done by photographing standard resolution charts (which contain patterns of black and white bars and so on). This gives you a lines per millimeter resolution. Many magazines such as the UK's Amateur Photographer publish comparative tests of lenses.

 

 

2) I have to get feedback from other user, seems like most photographer always agree on those few lenses... Is this the only way to find out what lens is sharp? Or maybe just by looking at the price of the lens?

 

Sharpness in the real world is different to sharpness in the lab, and depends on film used, the subject of the photo and so on.

 

User opinions are subjective, so that people may support a lens just because they have one, or because everyone else says it is good.

However, if there is general agreement among experienced professionals that a particular lens is good, that is a reasonable recommendation. Bear in mind, though, that pros don't necessarily care about sharpness, they care about getting the job done.

 

 

3) Is Prime lenses necessary Sharper than zoom lenses? How is sharpness determine...

 

Prime lenses' main advantages compared to zooms are; 1. lightness and compactness, 2. better widest aperture, 3. less prone to flare. I don't know if they also tend to be sharper, but I would not be surprised. Whether it makes any difference apart from academic interest is another thing.

 

 

4) is there any difference between AF and Manual lenses in terms of sharpness? eg. 50mm F1.4, there's manual and AF version

 

Most of the AF lenses use the same optical formulation as the earlier manual version, and should give the same results.

[lachaine]

Prime lenses are sharper than zoom lenses. It's inevitable since zoom lenses have some many more lens elements in them. My own testing made this obvious, even with a zoom that is reported to be among the sharpest - and so I'm very confident in saying this (but I'm not trying to convince anyone). Sharpness is not one single quality of a lens, but a combination of things. It's more than just academic. Many pro jobs don't require absolute sharpness from a lens. As long as the photos are good enough for the format they will be published in, that's all that matters. Getting paid is the important thing. For a serious amateur, there's enough difference between primes and zooms to matter. Sometimes though, having a zoom on the camera is the difference between getting a shot that just pops up, and not getting it, and absolute sharpness isn't that important. So you have to decide what's more important for you.

[ky2]

I wouldn't take tests of resolution charts too seriously. They do measure maximum resolution, but they do so normally at an arbitrary distance, and by using b/w film. Each lens, prime or zoom, has many parameters to consider, and only one of which is "maximum resolution":

 

a) FOCAL LENGTH.

b) Speed (fstop range)

c) distortion

d) handling

e) build

f) color rendering

g) out-of-focus rendering

h) close focus capability

i) sharpness (wide open and closed)

j) comma and flare resistence

k) if autofocus-- autofocus speed.

 

The sharpest lenses are normally pre-set macro lenses, but they're totally unusable in real world photography.

 

I used to have zooms, but now own none. Are primes sharper? they mostly are, but zooms get very close. If you stop down, you won't see a difference. I owned both the legendary 80-200/2.8 AFD and the 180/2.8 AIS, and the prime is sharper open wide.

 

Manual focus vs. Auto focus: manual focus lenses generally handle better (not surprising) when manually focused. Optically, they're about the same for equivalent models. Sometimes, there are no equivalent models in AF for the same price (105/2.5, 35/1.4, 24/2), and sometimes, the AF version has a new and improved formula (28/1.4, etc.).

 

You really got to figure out WHAT you want to photograph, and what is your budget... The best lens for under $200 is undoubtly the 105/2.5 AI, manual focus, that can be had for under $100.

 

Cheers,

[charles_miller]

Jon,

 

In past decades, very sharp and fine-grained films like Panatomic X and Kodachrome II provided a way to enjoy extreme lens sharpness. And until recently, K-25 and RG-25 were close enough in sharpness to those earlier films. But now those films are gone too, and the films for sale today are not quite as sharp as in the past. So if you are thinking of getting very sharp lenses for a 35mm format camera, and then making large high-quality prints from the negatives or chromes, you are absolutely too late. In other words, spending a lot of money to get extreme sharpness is subject to the law of diminishing utility, sorry. On the other hand, if you use good technique and work with a good lab with a Frontier or similar printer, color control is better now than ever before, and this opportunity offers it's own set of rewards.

[richard_cochran]

The sharpness of a lens depends not only on its optical design,

but also on the execution of that design. An element that's slightly

out of alignment or mis-centered can make the difference between a

super lens and a mediocre one. Often, that's the factor limiting

lens sharpness. When you realize this, you understand why

quality control and build quality are so important. This

fact also tells you why you can't "calculate" resolution based

on some theoretical design performance; you've got to measure

the resolution by testing an actual sample (or several samples)

of the lens.

<p>

Quality control is important to be sure that the lens which YOU buy

will be as nice as the average copy of that lens design, and/or

as nice as the one which was tested and reviewed by the major

magazine or website. Build quality is important to make sure

that your lens will be as sharp after a few years worth of

jostling around as it was when new.

<p>

It varies among the different lenses, but in many cases, there's

a difference between the build quality of the older all-metal

manual focus lenses and the newer plastic AF lenses. This

may not translate into a sharpness difference during the

first month of use, but it may well result in a sharpness

difference after several years of hard use.

[jon_josh_chua]

Thanks!!!