shaper than modern SLR glass

[los]

i picked up a used nikon n80 for a song on craigslist. i have a 28 f2.8 and 50 f1.8 that i've been using on the dslr. i've made some prints and compared them to prints from my canon VT and 35 f/1.8. this lens in very sharp in the center, but is soft everywhere else at f 1.8, and it still seems miles sharper than the nikon 50 (a well known performer) at 1.8. the 28 wide open is useless. i did not do side by side comparsion tests, so i thought i'd ask if anyone else had the same perception about the old canon rangefinder glass versus the modern slr glass. at f4 the canon 35 seems to have a lot more resolution and sharpness compared to the nikon 50 on an 8x12 print.

 

[jlw]

It's tough to compare prints made from a digital camera with ones from a film camera and conclude that the film camera's lens is superior -- there are so many differences along the whole image path that I'm not sure it can be localized to just one thing.

However, I can tell you about a somewhat similar experience I've had using a 20/2.8 AF Nikkor on a Nikon DSLR (D100, then D80) compared to using a Kobalux 21/2.8 on an Epson R-D 1. This is a much closer comparison, since both are digital cameras, and the D100 was even a 6-megapixel camera like the R-D 1.

What I observed was that the 20/2.8 Nikkor just wasn't very good at full aperture. Images I got from the Kobalux were drastically superior. The Nikkor picked up hugely at smaller apertures, though, so I wonder if it's possible that Nikon optimizes its wide-angle lenses for moderate-aperture performance rather than full-aperture performance...?

 

[los]

nwm,

i have the 50/1.8 AF (chinese). several reviewers on the net gave this lens high marks for performance and noted its cost economy. my prints from the 50 were "good", but not near what i was getting on average from the canon 35/1.8.

jlw,

all the prints i'm comparing were made from film negatives in the same lab from film cameras, N80 and canon VT.

i suppose the focusing may not be as accurate on the SLR as on the rangefinder. half the time, i feel like i'm guessing with the N80 when it comes to focus. also, the corrections for aberrations on the 50 make for edge to edge consistancy at f1.8, but even at wide open on the 35, much greater sharpness in the center. i assumed the newer glass would perform as good if not better than the 1950's lens. at f4 the 35 is really amazing.

i had read about the retrofocus design tradeoffs before. didn't think it could be so obvious.

i know that a lot of people here shoot with SLR's in addition to rangefinders. anyone seen anything like what i'm describing?

 

[Leighgion]

Don't own any Canon rangefinders so I can't say anything about direct comparisons. I do shoot Nikon SLRs though, and have both a 50mm f1.8 AF-D and a 50mm f1.4 AIS. While the 1.4 looks and feels a lot more solid, I can't say I've found it notably optically superior. Both have done very well for me.

No 28mm f2.8 here, so I got nothing to say about that.

Every sample of a lens design is going to be a variable and the camera body will add something as well.