Sharpest Lens Ever under $4000 ??

[splitimageview]

I have yet to see a moving photograph that required a sharp lens...

 

[Nomad Z]

How do we tell when a lens can resolve a point to a size that is substantially smaller than the pixel size? If there are several lenses that can out-resolve the pixels in question, then there are several 'sharpest' lenses.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . It doesn't mean anything. Just idle curiosity. A "displacement activity", you know, like when you tell everyone on the internet what you ate for brunch when in fact you should be working. 🙄

True enough. But at least, at that point, I am not asking an unanswerable question. Let alone one with an arbitrary $4000 price limit. Why not $10,000?

Cheers,

R.

 

[gb hill]

The new Canon 24-70 f/2.8 LII is considered by many to be the sharpest lens made to date.

 

[Texsport]

Considering the original question further, if you are defining "sharpness" in terms of corner to corner sharpness, an OMD using a legacy lens would have an advantage because the smaller sensor of the OMD only utilizes the center of a legacy 35mm lens, the sharpest part of any lens.

Also, the OMD has in camera image stabilization which further improves the chances for a sharp image.

We all know that there's more to a great photo than lens sharpness, but it's an interesting conversation.

Texsport

 

[Frontman]

Sharpness often has less to do with the lens than I has to do with technique. The first step in getting a sharp photo is to use a tripod. You can get a lot of tripods for $4000.

A sharp lens is sharpest when used at it's optimal aperture. Some lenses are soft wide open, and become sharper when stopped down. My Nikon 50/1.2 is sharper stopped down to f/1.4 than a Nikon 50/1.4 at the same aperture. My Canon 50/.095 is dreamy wide open, but is also surprisingly sharp at f/1.4.

Some cameras create vibration or motion when fired that can affect the sharpness of images. The motion of the mirror, or the momentum of the shutter curtain accelerating and suddenly stopping, or even using a heavy finger to push the shutter button.

In the end, sharpness is not ultimately relevant, especially if you shoot handheld, use smaller formats (35mm), don't process carefully, or use a garden-variety Fuji or Nikon enlarging lens when making prints. Why spend $4k on a pre/post aspherical super-secret-sauce lens and then make your prints with a $100 Nikkor EL in your enlarger?

 

[Marc G.]

The new Canon 24-70 f/2.8 LII is considered by many to be the sharpest lens made to date.

i seriously doubt that a standardzoom can beat a dedicated macro lens in 35mm or a larger format lens (best options there of course)

i even doubt it can beat the 135mm L

 

[raid]

I would expect a Nikkor micro to be very sharp.

 

[DNG]

Insofar as the two are compatible. What sort of subjects do you like to shoot? Do you always use a tripod, the optimum aperture and the optimum ISO? If not, what does your question mean?

Cheers,

R.

Again, it is just to find the sharpest lens as per the criteria. It does not matter what f/stop it is achieved at. And the subject is not relevant, since the Lens/Optics/Design/What the maker wants to achieve in sharpness is controlled to sell at a certain price point in most cases.

A lens can be made to resolve more or less, depending on the consumer they are marketing to. Hence, many makers have 2 or 3 lines, each resolves 20% or so more than than the previous line at a lower price... Leitz and Zeiss are 2 exceptions I know of, since they offer one line, regardless of the consumers wants or needs.

 

[DNG]

How do we tell when a lens can resolve a point to a size that is substantially smaller than the pixel size? If there are several lenses that can out-resolve the pixels in question, then there are several 'sharpest' lenses.

The camera that will be used for the compaction can resolve in the 2500+ LPPM, So far in the native m4/3 lenses... that would be the Olympus 75mm f/1.8 at f/4 center. but, it stays above 1900 LPPM at all f/stops.

But, we know other makers in other formats can resolve just as high or better.

 

[DNG]

The new Canon 24-70 f/2.8 LII is considered by many to be the sharpest lens made to date.

The Panasonic G/X 12-35mm f/2.8 is tested sharper in the MTF charts...!!! (24-70 fov as the C/24-70)

 

[DNG]

I would expect a Nikkor micro to be very sharp.

Yes, they are... I have the last version of the 55mm f/3.5 non-Ai, and it is good and sharp.

 

[John E Earley]

I would expect a Nikkor micro to be very sharp.

This. Some of the sharpest images I've seen were produced with a 55mm Micro-Nikkor.

You can pick one up for under $150

 

[raid]

I have two 55/3.5 micro lenses. They are awesome indeed.

 

[DNG]

Again, this is for a competition that a fellow photographer was asked to bring one lens that they consider to be one of the sharpest.

• Cost: No more than $4000
• Must be a Prime Lens
• An m4/3 High End house will be used so that any make can be mounted... m4/3 to 35mm sensor size
• Any f/stop is qualified
• Any Focal Length is qualified

A Olympus OMD E-M5 will be used because the sensor has a 12.6 DR at ISO 200, and can resolve 2500+ LPPM

 

[kxl]

Canon EF 200 mm F/1.8 USM L Lens is probably one of, if not the sharpest lenses ever made, strictly going by MTF. I think it costs right around $4000

The modern Nikon 200mm/2.0G AFS VR II gives it a run for its money. However, I think price is a hair above $4k

 

[Jack Conrad]

1959 Asahi Auto-Takumar 55/2. Cost: $5.00 😛
Actually, it really is surprisingly sharp wide open... a terrific lens.

The Konica Hexanon AR 40/1.8 is no slouch either. Cost: $10.00

Well ok, these are currently "my" sharpest 35mm lenses, not necessarily "the" sharpest. 😀

 

[Nomad Z]

The camera that will be used for the compaction can resolve in the 2500+ LPPM,

What's that in terms of pixel size?

 

[Jamie Pillers]

Scientific measurements not enough

Scientific measurements not enough

I guessing MTF Charts and practical use. 😉

I just copied this off of Bjorn Rorslett's great Nikon lens assessment website, Naturfotograf.com:
"...on its own, MFT testingcannot predict the pictorial outcome of any lens. Thus, MTF tests will not show all problems from field curvature, colour fringing, flare and ghosting, the variability in performance that arises from near or distant focus, the subjective 'feel' of the images and in particular the out-of-focus rendition (given the buzz word of 'bokeh'), the way a lens handles under actual use, and so on. MTF data can just indicate there is a problem with a lens, or that a particular lens might be an excellent piece of glass. All of this information can be obtained as easy (but likely not as fast) just by shooting pictures with the lens. Averaging MTF numbers to arrive at a single value in order to rank lens quality is simply impossible and largely a waste of time."

As many others have said here, lens assessment is a very subjective endeavor.

On another related matter, you should also realize that if you stick the lens onto just about any digital camera, you automatically de-sharpen it by some factor due to the anti-aliasing filter effect. This effect would not be present in a film camera. But then I guess you get the SLR mirror slap effect. 😛

 

[redisburning]

in the center the 25mm biogon is diffraction limited at f4

gonna be hard to beat that.