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

Sharpest Nikon AI / AIs lens ?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Sep 27, 2017 10:05 pm    Post subject: Sharpest Nikon AI / AIs lens ? Reply with quote
I'd like to know the sharpest Nikon AI / AIs lens you've used wide open ?


PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 2:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The sharpest AI lens I've ever used is the 55mm f/3.5 Micro-Nikkor. The Sharpest AIs lens I've ever used is the 55mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor.

By a fairly wide margin, in fact.

Far as that goes, the sharpest pre-AI lens I've ever used is the 55mm f/3.5 Micro-Nikkor.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 4:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
You might need to add some more parameters to your question in order to get a worthwhile answer.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 6:17 am    Post subject: Re: Sharpest Nikon AI / AIs lens ? Reply with quote
gat3keeper wrote:
the sharpest


Don't get lost in sharpness, there's so much more in photography to enjoy......


PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 6:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
my UV Nikkor 4.5/105mm, never seen any sharper


PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 9:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept" Cool


PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 9:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
What is the purpose of the survey?

You mean which lens exhibits best micro-contrast or resolution?

Ai/ai-s lenses characteristics are well known. What are your needs?


PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 4:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
TAo2 wrote:
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept" Cool


True...


But I don't want a picture of my kid's face that as if I need to wear glasses to view it properly. When I look at the photos, I don't know about you.. but I'd like a something that is so detailed as if I'm looking at the real thing specially in prints or IPS screens.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 4:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
visualopsins wrote:
What is the purpose of the survey?

You mean which lens exhibits best micro-contrast or resolution?

Ai/ai-s lenses characteristics are well known. What are your needs?



I only have limited budget so I would like to buy the best lens possible in terms of sharpness. I'll be using it more on portraits from half body to head shots.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 4:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
The sharpest AI lens I've ever used is the 55mm f/3.5 Micro-Nikkor. The Sharpest AIs lens I've ever used is the 55mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor.

By a fairly wide margin, in fact.

Far as that goes, the sharpest pre-AI lens I've ever used is the 55mm f/3.5 Micro-Nikkor.



Thanks for the input. Now I know the reason why it's expensive than normal.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 7:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
For crop sensor, 50/1.4. For full frame sensor, 85/1.8.

PS those are more expensive than micro-55/2.8/3.5, which imho is one of the best buys, bang for buck, than many other lenses. However, those are made for close-up micro -photography, not portraits, although those perform well for portraiture.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 2:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yep, 55mm Micro-Nikkor. Hard to beat across a wide magnification range.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Also depend from camera body, distance of subject , almost any lens super sharp with extension rings , wide open also relative
If a lens start F4 certainly sharper than those that start at 1.x ..
In my experience all Nikkor sharp enough to any one to all purposes. I did try almost all except very expensive ones.
But I like to use Zeiss and Minolta latest MD usually they are outperform Nikkors.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 9:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
Also depend from camera body, distance of subject , almost any lens super sharp with extension rings , wide open also relative
If a lens start F4 certainly sharper than those that start at 1.x ..

Not necessarily ... especially in the 50mm range. The Macro Rokkor 3.5/50mm is outperformed by several Minolta f1.4 normal lenses, at equal apertures and in the "1:50" - "infinity" range. The same ist true for the 3.5/55mm Micro Nikkor and the 1.4/50mm Nikkor.

Attila wrote:

In my experience all Nikkor sharp enough to any one to all purposes. I did try almost all except very expensive ones.
But I like to use Zeiss and Minolta latest MD usually they are outperform Nikkors.


Those approximately 30 MF Nikkors i own are a mixed bang, in my opinion. Some are excellent, such as the ED Nikkor primes or the AiS 3.5/35-70mm (67mm filter). The 2.8/55mm Micro Nikkor is outstanding as well.

Stephan


PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 9:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Listen to Attila, he actually uses his lenses for proper photographic tasks rather than shooting semi-pointless tests.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 11:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Listen to Attila, he actually uses his lenses for proper photographic tasks rather than shooting semi-pointless tests.


Thank you for your advice Wink

Stephan


BTW i'm actually making a living from photography ... aside from shooting semi-pointless tests, of course Wink


PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 1:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Photography is just a hobby for me, actually a hobby in support of another hobby (coin collecting), but my passion is to take sharpest possible coin photos.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 3:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Listen to Attila, he actually uses his lenses for proper photographic tasks rather than shooting semi-pointless tests.


Thank you for your advice Wink

Stephan


BTW i'm actually making a living from photography ... aside from shooting semi-pointless tests, of course Wink


A true professional knows that the lens is far from the most important factor in making a good image.

A little story worth remembering:

Legendary British guitarist Jeff Beck was hired by Jon Bon Jovi to fly from London to L.A. to record the lead guitar track for the song 'Blaze of Glory'.

Bon Jovi called Beck before he flew out and asked him what equipment he wanted to have ready for his arrival. Beck just replied 'a Marshall' meaning a Marshall amplifier.

A little taken aback, Bon Jovi asked 'is that it? nothing else?' and added 'what model of Marshall'?

Beck replies 'nah, just a Marshall, any will do'.

Then he flies out to L.A. cuts the track, pockets his hefty fee and gets on a plane and flies back home.

Point being, a true professional like Jeff Beck didn't need nor want anything other than his trusty old Stratocaster guitar he took with him and any old Marshall amp to plug it into because 99% of the job was how he played with the other 1% being the engineer hitting the record button.

Jon Bon Jovi - Blaze of Glory:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfmYCM4CS8o

Jeff Beck's 30 second solo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d11yIXP4xJ0

Now, transpose that principle to photography and the true professional would just use whatever good quality lens was available and wouldn't waste even a moment worrying about other, inconsequential matters, those are the preserves of those who don't have the talent nor insight to realise that 99% of taking a good photo is in the photographer's brain and the other 1% is the actual equipment.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 5:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:

Now, transpose that principle to photography and the true professional would just use whatever good quality lens was available and wouldn't waste even a moment worrying about other, inconsequential matters, those are the preserves of those who don't have the talent nor insight to realise that 99% of taking a good photo is in the photographer's brain and the other 1% is the actual equipment.


To support this point, I have a long running "El Cheapo lenses" thread on another forum where I espouse the virtues of very inexpensive lenses. In that thread, and a couple others, I have done "shootouts" that show for most work a "decent" lens can produce nearly the same sharpness as the very best lenses when the final published size is appropriate for forum viewing.

In fact for most digital cameras, it's hard to tell the very best lenses from the run-of-the-mill types. Most lenses out there will out-resolve the camera by a wide margin, especially when the camera has an AA filter.

That said, many areas of technical photography require better than "decent" in order to get the most detail in the shot for critical analysis. It is in this area that I tend to operate.

Now for Beck, he knows that Marshall amps all produce a similar sonic signature when driven at the same level of compression, and that's the sound he's looking for. An analogy for photography might be that the camera and lens just don't matter much when the photographer always uses Photoshop to make soft sepia portraits.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 5:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Good points there Ray.

I can see your need for obsessive scrutiny of a lenses performance as you are shooting in a technical field where image quality parameters are crucial.

On the whole though, like you say, there's not a whole lot of practical, real world difference between a great lens and a good one. For example, supposing you are out for a stroll one afternoon and come across a beautiful scene, say the light is slanting through the trees just right and making pretty patterns, does it really matter if the lens you have on your camera is the latest 5,000 dollar f0.75 APO-Super-SummiNoctiCronaLuxatarigon ED ASPH ULD or just a good old CZJ Tessar 2.8/50? Nope, just set the damn thing to a suitable aperture like f8 or f11 and worry about what matters, such as composing the shot.

I had an exhibition a couple of years ago and one of the prints I sold was a 20x30" BW that I had shot with a Minolta MD 2/45 that was full of fungus, a lens I'd just obtained and was testing out, happened to be what I had on the camera when I spotted the scene which was of the gable end wall and chimney of an old, abandoned factory that was striped diagonally by slanting deep shadows. I forget whether I shot it at f8 or f11, but it came out just right. Of course, I later cleaned the fungus out of that lens and still have it. Point being, that photo would not have been any better if I'd used a Zeiss OTUS 1.4/55 or any other high end expensive glass.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 8:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Now, transpose that principle to photography and the true professional would just use whatever good quality lens was available and wouldn't waste even a moment worrying about other, inconsequential matters, those are the preserves of those who don't have the talent nor insight to realise that 99% of taking a good photo is in the photographer's brain and the other 1% is the actual equipment.


Not a great fit imho.

Beck brought his selected lens. The camera didn't matter much...


PostPosted: Sun Oct 01, 2017 7:34 am    Post subject: Re: Sharpest Nikon AI / AIs lens ? Reply with quote
TrueLoveOne wrote:
gat3keeper wrote:
the sharpest


Don't get lost in sharpness, there's so much more in photography to enjoy......


What if you consider sharpness to be one of the most important things in photography? Case in point; watch old 1960's TV series in HD. Stunning images, (you see them now FAR better than those who watched the original broadcasts because old CRT's and crappy NTSC couldn't convey what 35mm film could show). Part of the reason for such fantastic sharpness and contrast was because they didn't use a lot of trickery back then much to subdue human flaws, like wrinkles. Jump to the 1980's, images on TV were God-awful due to ham-fisted soft-filtering and just plain rotten use of lenses and film.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 01, 2017 10:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ray Parkhurst wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:

Now, transpose that principle to photography and the true professional would just use whatever good quality lens was available and wouldn't waste even a moment worrying about other, inconsequential matters, those are the preserves of those who don't have the talent nor insight to realise that 99% of taking a good photo is in the photographer's brain and the other 1% is the actual equipment.


To support this point, I have a long running "El Cheapo lenses" thread on another forum where I espouse the virtues of very inexpensive lenses. In that thread, and a couple others, I have done "shootouts" that show for most work a "decent" lens can produce nearly the same sharpness as the very best lenses when the final published size is appropriate for forum viewing.

In fact for most digital cameras, it's hard to tell the very best lenses from the run-of-the-mill types. Most lenses out there will out-resolve the camera by a wide margin, especially when the camera has an AA filter.

That said, many areas of technical photography require better than "decent" in order to get the most detail in the shot for critical analysis. It is in this area that I tend to operate.

Now for Beck, he knows that Marshall amps all produce a similar sonic signature when driven at the same level of compression, and that's the sound he's looking for. An analogy for photography might be that the camera and lens just don't matter much when the photographer always uses Photoshop to make soft sepia portraits.


Ray makes the most salient point about final viewing size/distance. Additionally, for forum viewing the screen resolution remains much less than the sensor output. Thus differences between lenses is further erased.

Thus, any question about sharpest lens must specify final image size, viewing distance, and medium resolution, additionally camera resolution capability.

For comparing lens sharpness, a list of maximum print sizes should be used.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1