Sharpest Lenses

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas

I must agree with your comments, Alex. For a few years, I've used my Sony NEX 7 along with a series of extensions and a Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 for duplicating slides and negatives. I used this lens because it was the sharpest lens in the focal range I needed for proper duplicate size. Then I had an occasion to buy a 55mm f/2.8. So I thought I'd do some comparison dupes with the 2.8. I was simply amazed. The difference was remarkable. And the 55/3.5, a lens that I thought could not be equaled, was retired, with a small amount of regret.

Doc Sharptail · Joined: 23 Nov 2020 Posts: 1162 Location: Winnipeg Canada

Nikkor P.C. 55mm f 3.5 micro on D-810

1/640 sec at f8, ISO 400.

Poor shooting conditions with very heavy overcast driving contrast down.
Not really designed for landscapes and it shows....

But...
90-95% crop of the above image shows the capabilities of this lens.
It also shows the slight barrel distortion alluded to in previous posts.
I'm not sure the 50mm f2 Nikkor is capable of same.

No p/p on these except for resize.
I may have an opportunity to replicate this shot with the 50mm in the next few days, as I will be going back to the area for appointment.

-D.S.

Ray Parkhurst · Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2022 4:25 am Post subject:

wolan · Joined: 30 Jun 2015 Posts: 576 Location: Zurich

Apart from the Nikkor 200mm f4 micro one the sharpest vintage lenses I ever tried is the Schneider Kreuznach Retina-Xenon 50mm f1 .9
Here is an example in my gallery https://www.flickr.com/photos/wizardofdof/51841566292/in/dateposted-public/

It is as sharp as modern lenses, even wide open so sharp that I have the reduce the peaking sensitivity.

Cheers.

Phalbert · Joined: 17 May 2009 Posts: 377 Location: Namibia

Hi Doc. Looking at your crop, it seems to me me that the pole is out of focus. The wall in the background looks sharper. Even some branches. ðŸ¤”

RokkorDoctor · Expire: 2025-05-01

I wouldn't really know how to answer the question of which is the "sharpest lens" (either in general or within my own collection).

I am not a pixel-peeper myself and therefore never really "test" my lenses as such, plus I rarely use a tripod. Hence I am reluctant to categorically state what my sharpest lenses are; I only get a general impression. To me, sharpness isn't all that important anymore (it used to be!). Sometimes it still matters but nowadays I mostly consider nearly all my lenses are "sharp enough" for me not to worry about it; a change in attitude I actually found quite liberating! Smile

But more importantly, how do you really define "sharpest lens"?

- Sharpness at minimum micro-contrast criterion? Some lenses look softish wide-open with limited micro-contrast because of SA, but have a very sharp core image.
- Sharpness across the whole frame? Many have a sharp center but soft corners
- Sharp at all distances? There are quite a few very sharp macro lenses for macro work that are not super sharp when focussed at a longer distances. Likewise, other lenses have been optimised for working distances near infinity.
- Sharp at what apertures? Again, some shine at medium apertures but have much poorer wide-open performance; others only have small apertures, does that count?
- Sharp and full-frame? Some circular fish-eyes have an exceptionally sharp center, but they do not image any corners at all!
etc., etc.

TBH, on theoretical grounds I would expect the "sharper" lenses in practical use to be the slow repro & enlarger lenses simply because of their design for fairly limited and specific magnification ratios, requirements for sharpness across the frame, no need for good bokeh, and the very stable setup in which they are usually employed. But then you might argue those don't count! Wink

D1N0 · Joined: 07 Aug 2012 Posts: 2530

My Agfa minilab enlarger lenses are probably the sharpest I have. But they are extremely slow and cumbersome and suffer from low contrast as they were never meant for photography but projection with a strong light source.

hasenbein · Joined: 15 May 2020 Posts: 93

What's up, guys?

Why did these two ridiculously sharp, high-resolution lenses not get mentioned (as far as I can see)?

1. Contax-Zeiss 35-70mm f3.4

2. Tokina AT-X 90mm f2.5 Macro

They surely surpass MANY of the lenses mentioned here.

Doc Sharptail · Joined: 23 Nov 2020 Posts: 1162 Location: Winnipeg Canada

Ray Parkhurst · Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2022 3:48 pm Post subject:

KEO · Joined: 27 Sep 2018 Posts: 772 Location: USA

For shooting with the aperture wide open, there's a clear winner in my hoard: the Zeiss 135mm Apo Sonnar f2.

martinsmith99 · Expire: 2013-11-18

stevemark · Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3930 Location: Switzerland

papasito · Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1659

My sharpest lenses

Ultron 50/1,8 Icarex mount
Xenon 50/1,9 QBM mount
Rollei Planar 50/1,8 QBM Mount
Minolta MDIII 50/1,4
Quinon 50/1,9
Sony 50/1,2 GM
Sony 135/1,8 Gm

All of them are first class

Ray Parkhurst · Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2022 9:57 pm Post subject:

Looks like a "clean" resurrection of a 12 year old thread. Maybe like Scotch, things get better after 12 years.

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas

Ray Parkhurst · Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2022 3:18 pm Post subject:

visualopsins · Expire: 2025-04-11

caspert79 · Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 3132 Location: The Netherlands

Samyang 20mm T1.9
SMC Pentax 28mm f/3.5
Minolta MD 35mm f/2.8
Mamiya EF 50mm f/1.7 (my sharpest standard lens out of many)
Mamiya Sekor 50mm f/2
Mamiya SX 55mm f/1.8
Nikkor ai 55mm f/3.5 macro
Nikkor ai 85mm f/2 (from f/2.8 on super sharp, also for landscapes)
Tokina at-x 90mm f/2.5 macro (from wide open on).
CZJ Sonnar MC 135/3.5
Mamiya SX 135mm f/2.8
Hexanon 135mm f/3.2 (unremarkable wide open, stopped down to f/5.6 brilliant).

Zuiko OM 90/2 macro is on its way. Probably belongs on this list as well.

cbass · Joined: 27 Jul 2019 Posts: 446

caspert79 · Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 3132 Location: The Netherlands

cbass · Joined: 27 Jul 2019 Posts: 446

My sharpest lens is my Mitakon 35mm f/0.95 version 2 lens with some caveats.

The lens is very sharp from wide open (f/0.95) which is amazing but seems to be optimized for close focus/portrait distances over infinity.
Next stop at f/1.4 and it's blistering sharp on the point of focus but falloff is aggressive.
Although shooting at close distances the sharpness is supreme at infinity or long distance the results are disappointing.
Corners also aren't great until about f/2.8.
From f/2.8 it starts to do very good at even infinity but the extreme corners aren't perfect yet.
From f/4 it's corner to corner sharp at infinity and at f/8 even better.

I have tested it against modern Fuji primes at f/8 and even against my other top lenses like the Zeiss Contax 35-70/3.4 and Leica R 35-70/4 and the Mitakon beats both of them in resolution, contrast, micro contrast, and corner performance. For those that are curious my Zeiss Contax zoom beats the Leica zoom, which is another surprise.

caspert79 · Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 3132 Location: The Netherlands

I'd like to elaborate a bit more on my list.

Samyang 20mm T1.9

In fact, the only modern lens I currently own. Bought it 'new in box' for 219 euro on Ebay in Alpha mount. I guess it was cheap because of the strange combination Alpha mount / Cinema version. The lens is very well built, and quite sharp already wide open. It suffers from some CA's in the extremities, but these disappear when stopped down.

fotosDSC09055 by devoscasper, on Flickr

SMC Pentax 28mm f/3.5

This is my favorite wide angle lens. It's sharp, contrasty, built like a tank, handles flare really good and has great color saturation. For some reason, it renders blue skies particularly well.

_DSC2467 by devoscasper, on Flickr

Minolta MD 35mm f/2.8
As sharp as modern glass, but in a very compact package. An absolutely steal for the quality.

DSC03784 by devoscasper, on Flickr

Mamiya EF 50mm f/1.7

Came out on top of several standard lens tests I did. Very sharp and contrasty, already wide open. A drawback of this lens is the coatings: it doesn't handle direct light sources well. Still an incredibly sharp lens, which can be found very cheap. You need an adapter with built in aperture though in order to adapt it.

DSC04825 by devoscasper, on Flickr

Mamiya Sekor 50mm f/2
Another absolute steel from Mamiya. Stopped down, this lens is very, very sharp from corner to corner, with no visible CA's.

AutoMamiya50f2DSC07941 by devoscasper, on Flickr

Mamiya (SX) 55mm f/1.8
Another incredibly sharp Mamiya lens. This image with wide open aperture:

AutoMamiyaSekor5518DSC08208 by devoscasper, on Flickr

Micro-Nikkor ai 55mm f/3.5
Very sharp and very cheap. A must have macro lens. I use it for my E-bay listings.

SB473 by devoscasper, on Flickr

Nikkor ai 85mm f/2 (from f/2.8 on super sharp, also for landscapes)
Underrated portrait lens. Some softness (but great detail) @f/2, but from f/2.8 and smaller this lens is razor sharp.Fits in your pocket.

Sweikhuizen074 by devoscasper, on Flickr

Tokina at-x 90mm f/2.5 macro (from wide open on).
Very sharp and contrasty from corning to corner, starting from wide open. Great bokeh at most settings. Not entirely free from CA's, but very versatile (macro/portrait/landscapes).

Bokina@25 by devoscasper, on Flickr

CZJ Sonnar MC 135/3.5
Mamiya SX 135mm f/2.8
Hexanon 135mm f/3.2 (unremarkable wide open, stopped down to f/5.6 brilliant).

Comparison 135mm lenses:
Click and scroll down:
http://forum.mflenses.com/leica-elmar-135mm-f-4-compared-with-others-t83362.html

Ray Parkhurst · Posted: Sat Jan 29, 2022 2:46 pm Post subject:

It always seems odd to me when people post a small photo, reduced perhaps 8x or more from the original pixel dimensions, in order to show how "sharp" the lens is that took it. This seems a very common practice on this and other forums. Such an image can indeed show certain qualities of the lens, such as depth of field, bokeh, distortion, and in a small way it can be indicative of certain aberrations, but it shows virtually nothing about sharpness. The images certainly can show how good a photographer someone is, how skilled they are at composition, timing, and critical focusing, and in many cases at image processing, but not lens sharpness. Perhaps folks are showing a "sharp" image and attributing that to lens performance? It baffles me, so I'd appreciate if someone could explain.