Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

What are the two sharpest lens you own
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The new Zeiss Distagon 2.8/25 ZF that I had for a test is a darn sharp lens, too.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sharpest I've used are:

Contax Planar 85/1.4
Contax Makro-Planar 100/2.8

Sharpest I own are:

Sears 55/1.4
Rokkor PG 58/1.2
Flek 20/4


PostPosted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 8:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
No one mentioned Zeiss Planar 1.4 50mm

and i confirm that the Minolta MD 1.4 50 is also very sharp Cool


PostPosted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 8:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
all my lenses are sharper than the 5DII, will have to wait more to know the sharpest Crying or Very sad


PostPosted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 9:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
all my lenses are sharper than the 5DII, will have to wait more to know the sharpest Crying or Very sad

I thought that film was much better than digital. Why don't you test on film then? Wink


PostPosted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 9:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Carsten wrote:
I thought that film was much better than digital. Why don't you test on film then?

because I don't have a research microscope
I use the 5DII to scan film, and it doesn't have enough resolution for my negatives Crying or Very sad

this is the limit I get scanning a 200 iso negative with the 5DII, but the lens is still sharper than that Crying or Very sad
this correspond to a dslr of 50Mpixels, the 5DII is used to photography a crop of the negative
http://forum.mflenses.com/tessar-the-sharp-t15468.html

crop of this


Last edited by poilu on Sat Jun 26, 2010 8:25 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 10:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
Carsten wrote:
I thought that film was much better than digital. Why don't you test on film then?

because I don't have a research microscope


It's not a big problem - I invested a 12 $ and a part of old enlarger to build a microscope to look at my negatives - I can clearly see the grain and smallest details.
I need it because it's very useful to see what I get from different film/developer combinations.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 26, 2010 8:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
mr_Equator wrote:
poilu wrote:
Carsten wrote:
I thought that film was much better than digital. Why don't you test on film then?

because I don't have a research microscope


It's not a big problem - I invested a 12 $ and a part of old enlarger to build a microscope to look at my negatives - I can clearly see the grain and smallest details.
I need it because it's very useful to see what I get from different film/developer combinations.



I don't think your 12$ microscope can get the details of my crop who correspond to a 50Mpixels dslr
even Zeiss have to use a research microscope to inspect negatives
Zeiss wrote:
the negatives were inspected directly on a research microscope. No other process involving projection (through even the best enlarging lens) or digitizing (in today’s best currently available scanners) is capable of transferring such high resolution values

http://www.zeiss.com/c12567a8003b58b9/Contents-Frame/024b91f46d590a3fc125711c00693b3f


PostPosted: Sat Jun 26, 2010 9:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
If it matters, surely you could simply use higher magnification when examining your neg with your dSLR. A reverse-mounted Flek 35 will give something like 3x magnification on the sensor, stick a tube on it and you can get up to 6x. The resolution of the sensor isn't the limiting factor, is it? The limit will be defined by the resolution of the lenses involved and the magnification they supply... or am I missing something?


PostPosted: Sat Jun 26, 2010 9:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
PaulC wrote:
If it matters, surely you could simply use higher magnification when examining your neg with your dSLR. A reverse-mounted Flek 35 will give something like 3x magnification on the sensor, stick a tube on it and you can get up to 6x. The resolution of the sensor isn't the limiting factor, is it? The limit will be defined by the resolution of the lenses involved and the magnification they supply... or am I missing something?

this is logical and I was thinking the same until reading Zeiss article about research microscope
I get more details using the 5DII than the 40D, check the 20Mpixels scan with the 40D

I have to admit that the real resolution of film is not what I see with a loupe or by scanning with a dslr as each new dslr give me more details with the same negative Rolling Eyes


PostPosted: Sun Jun 27, 2010 11:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
mr_Equator wrote:
poilu wrote:
Carsten wrote:
I thought that film was much better than digital. Why don't you test on film then?

because I don't have a research microscope


It's not a big problem - I invested a 12 $ and a part of old enlarger to build a microscope to look at my negatives - I can clearly see the grain and smallest details.
I need it because it's very useful to see what I get from different film/developer combinations.



I don't think your 12$ microscope can get the details of my crop who correspond to a 50Mpixels dslr
even Zeiss have to use a research microscope to inspect negatives


You are mystified by the word "research"?

You can call my microscope "research microscope" too Laughing

Seriously, You dont even need a high magnification to look at negatives.
I bought 3 objectives for my system 10x 20x and 40x - and I use only 10x to look at negs- it's the most convenient.

BTW, the Zeiss message was that limiting factor is scanner matrix resolution and the enlarger lens.
In your case it is resolution of the matrix of your DSRL, theoretically it it might be your lens, but I dont think you will reach this point in near future.

My system is free of these limitations.


PostPosted: Sun Jun 27, 2010 11:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
mr_Equator wrote:
I bought 3 objectives for my system 10x 20x and 40x - and I use only 10x to look at negs- it's the most convenient

I would like to check your negatives with your research microscope Wink


PostPosted: Sun Jun 27, 2010 11:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
You are most welcome!



Very Happy


PostPosted: Sun Jun 27, 2010 6:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
My sharpest lens are:

S-M-C Takumar 55/1.8
Vivitar S1 105/2.5
Voigtlander APO-Lanthar 180/4 SL II

No testing Leica 180/2.8 II and looks very sharp wide open.


PostPosted: Sun Jun 27, 2010 6:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
my most lenses are almost the same at f8-f11 (I use this fstop in studio),
I have used canon 100macro, its definately enough sharp at any fstop; for wide open, I would say canon ef 50mm 1.4 was sharper than takumar or planar; for wide angle, my zeiss 20mm 2.8 is really nice, even wide open

But I was never that obsessed with sharpness, If I need sharpness I use less open fstop, or borrow fulframe. Every lens is much sharper on FF


PostPosted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 12:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well it depends on the application, focal length, aperture... but my average sharpest lenses are:
Contax S-Planar 100mm f4
Biogon 25mm f2.8 (ZM)


egidio wrote:
If I need sharpness I use less open fstop, or borrow fulframe. Every lens is much sharper on FF


Why is that?


PostPosted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 1:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Vivitar Series 1 90mm f/2.5 Macro - made by Tokina
Mamiya Sekor 55mm f/1.4


PostPosted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 5:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The sharpest "normal" MF lenses in my collection for EOS 5D MKII are:

1. Leica Elmarit 2.8/35mm E55 Version
2. Canon FD 1.2/55mm SSC converted to EOS Mount

Also my Makro Elmarit 2.8/60mm, my Summicron 2/90mm are very sharp.

There are lots more.. Hard to make a decission..

Cheers
Henry


PostPosted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 6:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
woodrim wrote:
Vivitar Series 1 90mm f/2.5 Macro - made by Tokina
Mamiya Sekor 55mm f/1.4


I second the Vivitar and Tokina version also.
Both I have for sale b.t.w. for those interested.

http://forum.mflenses.com/fs-tokina-atx-90mm-f2-5-nikon-mount-bokina-t29858.html


PostPosted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 6:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
hm, not sure, would be interesting to test that out
anyway I think the
- Auto Takumar f2/55mm
- Tele Kominar f3.5/135mm
( or Makro Tak f4/50, SMC 1.8/55 )


PostPosted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 9:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Carlsson wrote:
Well it depends on the application, focal length, aperture... but my average sharpest lenses are:
Contax S-Planar 100mm f4
Biogon 25mm f2.8 (ZM)


egidio wrote:
If I need sharpness I use less open fstop, or borrow fulframe. Every lens is much sharper on FF


Why is that?


just glass resolution, if you compare the same photographic frame on crop or ff, its less CA and other stuff too, ofcourse if you post-crop image it would be the same


PostPosted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 10:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
S-M-C Takumar 50/1.4 and Kiron 105mm macro. Granted I dont own a lot of lenses Smile I'm pretty amazed by the Takumar, even if I put a all my three extension tubes on it, it's still very sharp can't do that with any of my other lenses.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 10:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
My two sharpest lenses in practical use:
Nikkor 18-55mm
Nikkor ED-IF 50-300mm


PostPosted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 3:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
My sharpest two:

Zeiss ZF 2/35
CV 125/2.5
Leica R 2,8/100 APO

Yes, I know I listed three but the 2 macros are SOOOO bitingly sharp, I couldn't show disrespect to either by excluding one.

Last edited by james on Thu Jul 01, 2010 12:20 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 12:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I agree, my S-M-C Takumar 50/1.4 is seriously sharp f8-13, I compared it to some other modern lens and it was better
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4