Sharpest Manual lens for 35mm

[mathjeff0]

I was working in a lab and we used the Micro Nikkor 55 f/3.5 as a reproduction lens for duplicating slides, it was very good at doing that. A couple of times I borrowed it for weekends, it became a much loved lens, but probably wasn’t that flash on infinity subjects, but still quite good at infinity.

The faster updated version the Micro Nikkor 55 f/2.8 was released in Australia around December 1979 I tried one and bought one for myself. It came with the PK 13 extension tube which enables you to take 1:1 images, although the front of the lens is perilously close to the subject when doing 1:1.

For a couple of years this was my take anywhere lens as it gave super sharp images pretty much for everything; the other reason for taking it everywhere was quite simple, it was the only lens I had for my Nikon body; I was switching from Pentax to Nikon.

The sharpest and best of anything I have shot in 35mm land, has been with the Micro Nikkor 55 f/2.8 and a very good tripod on FE2 and F3 bodies.

At f/5.6 to f/8 it is in another league to almost anything I have ever used. Add the sturdy tripod and the lens is so sharp it’s a wonder it doesn’t cut the film.

I bought my 55 f/2.8 lens brand new, it was never abused but it was worked very hard for about 10 years, then it was used far less as I had other Nikkor lens available. I did find on one extremely hot day, a bit of a problem. I had been shooting in portrait mode with a tripod and started to get shutter sticking, or so I thought. Turned out the lubricant on the helices had started to run into the aperture blades and gum up the works. I had the lens pulled apart and given a service and it has been good as gold ever since. I have heard these lenses do have this issue, so beware that you may require a service on one of these units.

The next best lens for sharpness and resolution I personally have used in 35mm land, is the Nikkor 85 f/1.4. This lens works extremely well at f/1.4 but is decadently sharp from f/4 to f5.6 and a half.

There are others, but these two are the stand out performers in my armoury of Nikkor and non Nikkor lenses.

Mick.

Awsome! Seems like macros are good! Ill give it a look

 

[mathjeff0]

All the lenses I use improve by being stopped down, even a little. Sharpness wide open is relative, things appear "sharp" until you compare the same image one or two stops down. Try putting a wide aperture lens on a d-camera in movie mode at base ISO, and filming a static object. It's one of the best ways of determining the character of a lens. It removes aspects like grain and developer acutance from the equation, and shows exactly where the image is sharp, and where sharpness falls away and vignetting begins.

As others have suggested, perceived sharpness can depend on centre sharpness relative to edge sharpness. If you're interested in very wide aperture lenses the character of the out of focus elements also play a part in lens choice. If the question is what wide lens looks good on a budget, the Canon FD 50mm 1.4 is a perennial reply. To my eyes the Nikkor 50mm f2 looks pretty good wide open. Lens sharpness is like HiFi, you pay exponentially more for diminishing returns to the point where the improvement is in the imagination of the perceiver.

Interesting.

Contax G lenses are supposed to be just about unbeatable in 35mm. To be honest though, if you’re obsessed with detail, I’d skip right over 35mm and look at a medium format camera. A lot of old folders will render more detail than the finest Leica lens. Step up to something like a Mamiya 6 or 7 and there will be no comparison.

I shoot 35mm for grain, character and as a fast ‘notebook’.

I've shot medium format for a little over a year and the results are fantastic, but it's come down to a point where portability is number one to me. Just one camera body and one lens is my aim. Contax G's are so expensive though

 

[mathjeff0]

I didn't vote because i would have voted for the Contax lenses as a system but it wasn't an option. Ive used plenty of Leica R lenses over the years and find them excellent but the best lens typically cost more than $500. The 50 Summicron is cheap and excellent, most people love it but i find it kind of boring but very sharp.

Consider the Contax 1.7 and 1.4 50mm lenses, most seem to prefer the 1.7.

I also have the micro Nikkor 2.8/55 and concur it has an uncommon evel of sharpness.

Very cool! Never really looked into contax cause they are so expensive!

A good thread. I love sharp images (I don’t know how to define that, but I know what I mean). I just bought a 55mm f2.8 micro Nikkor based on the responses so far.

Exactly! Its such a good budget lens and its been the most talked about lens here. I'm about to pull the trigger on one

 

[Jon Buffington]

I can't say which is the sharpest lens for a 35mm S.L.R. because I haven't tried them all, but the sharpest Canon FD lens I own is the 35mm f2 breech lock Thorium lens..

I concur. Bought mine beat to hell and back with a big old gash in the front element, paid usd $8 for it. That big, yellowed, radioactive, concave lens with the chrome nose. With that said, it is still the sharpest in the lot and that includes my micro nikkor 55/2.8, leica 40/2 summicron (though very nice), host of Minolta, canon fd and ef L lenses (plus others). The 50/1.4 ssc is growing on me though. Wide open, the 30/2 is sharp.

With all this micro nikkor talk, need to break mine out of the bag and shoot some rolls again.

Someone mentioned the 50 summitar...that lens renders beautifully. Not very contrasty but extremely sharp. I prefer the low contrast/pastel colors at or near wide open however contrast improves greatly stopped down and it is a blistering sharp image.

 

[Eric Rose]

I can't wait for this "shoot everything wide open" fad to run it's course. It's become so cliche and tedious IMHO. In video work you very often have to shoot wide open or near to it so I can see the exercise being worthwhile for that application.

For stills I'm a Leica and Nikon shooter so can't comment on the others you asked about. I don't think I have ever run into a lens that is tack sharp from centre to edge wide open in either brand. It's just a matter of what you can live with for the application you have. In the Nikon system I have found some of their moderate fast teles to be pretty outstanding.

 

[mathjeff0]

The wide range and variety of responses to your thread answers your question. As the answers show, even highly mathematically technical responses are in the end based on subjective premises. There is nothing wrong with this, it’s just the way it is.
Should you be in the market for a new lens or camera with a new lens, perhaps you should ask which lens would be best for your particular use for a lens.
And why exclude Leica? With persistent searching you should be able to find a “user” at a reasonable price.
Nonetheless, your question stimulated a great variety of informative responses and made interesting reading.

I was just curious what you meant. I posted this thread because I find absolutely nothing when I do research and I love hearing what people have to say given their experiences. And as for leica, I just cant justify purchasing it right now. They are a quality that is currently unattainable for me

 

[Chuckwade87]

It means that few photographers will use any camera to it's full potential.

Bingo

Worst lens as far as sharpness, (that I've had experience with), is the Nikkor 43-86,

 

[FujiLove]

Interesting.


I've shot medium format for a little over a year and the results are fantastic, but it's come down to a point where portability is number one to me. Just one camera body and one lens is my aim. Contax G's are so expensive though

The G1 is a bargain right now, and you can pick up a 28mm or 45mm G lens for a lot less than a summicron. I own both G1 and G2 bodies and would recommend a G1 to you for its smaller size and weight. They are all beautifully built cameras and lenses.

 

[Mackinaw]

Canon FD system:
- 35mm F2 Concave (Crome Ring Version)
- 50MM F1.2L
- 55mm F1.2 (Crome Ring Version)

As for Canon FD, the 35/2.0 concave is very sharp. The FD 55/1.2 is soft wide-open, but shapes up nicely as you stop down. The much more expensive FD 55/1.2 Aspherical is sharp at all apertures, as is the FDn 50/1.2 L.

Jim B.

 

[FujiLove]

Interesting.


I've shot medium format for a little over a year and the results are fantastic, but it's come down to a point where portability is number one to me. Just one camera body and one lens is my aim. Contax G's are so expensive though

I forgot to ask: which MF system have you been using? My Mamiya 6 is very portable with its 75mm attached and mount collapsed. Another option for you could be a Plaubel Makina 67. A bit bigger than the Mamiya, but very flat when collapsed.

Obviously neither are budget options, but would be a great long term purchase.

 

[ciniframe]

I had an OM mount something or other 3rd party lens that one of the bayonet lugs was machined right to a sharp edge. I actually cut my finger on it. So that was the 'sharpest' lens I ever had.
I gave it away to somebody, can't remember who, it was a $5 camera fair find.

 

[ciniframe]

I was just curious what you meant. I posted this thread because I find absolutely nothing when I do research and I love hearing what people have to say given their experiences. And as for leica, I just cant justify purchasing it right now. They are a quality that is currently unattainable for me

Your photography will not suffer if you can't afford Leica. If you have talent and imagination that will show through in your photography regardless of using a "lesser" camera and lenses.
If on the other hand you cannot take good pictures with a Nikkor, Canon, Zuiko, Hexanon, Rokkor, etc. then a Leica lens just ain't going to help. Look up the photographer 'David Burnett' and look at some of his work. He shoots with Canon gear, but also an old Speed Graphic 4X5 mounting an WW2 era Kodak Aero Ektar and he also uses a Holga. Photographs from all three cameras have been published and can be powerful images.

 

[Chuckwade87]

Leica 50mm summicron R is the sharpest I've seen.

And what about Nikon lenses that were made for Leica M39 screw mount?

 

[removed account4]

im probably not going to be much help but
sharpest 35mm film lenses i have are pentax lenses, then leekka
the electronic stuff are nikkon ED they are sharp.
mine are pretty sharp wide open too.
( in case you require bigger than 35 down the trail a bit
... my shnyder, but the wollensack vitax i had was sharp as nails.)
have fun !
john

 

[bimmey]

Here is a read that might help.

http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2007/02/great-50mm-lenses.html


My favorite 50mm lenses for overall best image qualities are the Zuiko 50mm 2.0 macro and the Zeiss 50mm 1.4 Planar in C/Y mount. Sharpness being one of the qualities.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I concur. Bought mine beat to hell and back with a big old gash in the front element, paid usd $8 for it. That big, yellowed, radioactive, concave lens with the chrome nose. With that said, it is still the sharpest in the lot and that includes my micro nikkor 55/2.8, leica 40/2 summicron (though very nice), host of Minolta, canon fd and ef L lenses (plus others). The 50/1.4 ssc is growing on me though. Wide open, the 30/2 is sharp.

With all this micro nikkor talk, need to break mine out of the bag and shoot some rolls again.

Someone mentioned the 50 summitar...that lens renders beautifully. Not very contrasty but extremely sharp. I prefer the low contrast/pastel colors at or near wide open however contrast improves greatly stopped down and it is a blistering sharp image.

I mentioned the Summitar, it's from '46 and came with some separation in the front pair, but flawless glass and coatings. "Blistering sharp" about sums it up, mine gives all the contrast I need at any aperture if I use the SOOPD hood. Cleaning out some almost invisible haze made a big difference wide open.
The rendering is as you say beautiful. I wouldn't trade it for a Summicron.

 

[Alan Gales]

This is what I was told before I bought my Contax back in the 1980's. The German's strived to make a lens sharp all over. The Japanese strived to make the lenses sharper in the center. What this means is that the German lenses were sharper in the corners but the Japanese lenses were sharper in the center. I don't know if this is true or just what I was told. I was also told that the Zeiss lenses had more inherent contrast so that when a negative was printed it appeared sharper.

From real world experience I will tell you this. I shot Zeiss lenses on my Contax camera. My 50mm f/1.7 lens was excellent. I owned a Canon before the Contax. I also sold and used other brands of 35mm cameras. All the 50mm lenses that I shot were plenty sharp for me. I never tested any to see which was sharper but I never felt I needed to either. I once bought a Minolta with 50mm lens to flip. I ran a roll through the camera to make sure it worked properly. I showed the 4x6 prints to a friend who was interested in the camera. He couldn't believe how sharp the photos were and thought that they were shot with my Zeiss. I told him that if he was unhappy with the camera that I would take it back. He bought it and loved the images he got.

We used to have a saying back in the day. If the 35mm lenses you were using were not sharp enough then move up a format.

Oh, I'm not saying that medium format lenses are any sharper. Just that you need to use the proper format for the amount of enlargement you need. That is, if you strive for ultimate sharpness.

 

[Alan Gales]

Go back to post #64. Click on stuff for sale at the bottom of John's post to find out why sharpness can be overrated!

 

[cooltouch]

For years I considered my 55mm f/3.5 pre-AI Micro-Nikkor to be tied with my Tamron SP 90mm f/2.5 macro as the two sharpest lenses in my collection. I determined this through a rather extensive set of tests, which included a few other supposedly best of the best macro lenses. I maintained this conviction until I bought an AIs 55mm f/2.8. I had been using my 55/3.5 for duplicating slides. When I tried out my new-to-me 55/2.8 AIs, I was very surprised to see a noticeable difference in the resolution of the slide's image. So, with a bit of sadness because that old 55 had been a member of my kit for over 25 years, I replaced it with the AIs 55/2.8. Now I can say with all honesty that this AIs 55mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor is the sharpest lens I own. And that's pretty dang sharp, cuz I own some excellent macro lenses.

 

[Pioneer]

I'm with you. I like portable a lot. Means I have a camera with me when I want it.

Over the years the lenses I have used the most don't make anybody's list for sharp so they probably won't ring your bell. But I'll post them anyway.

My two favorite lenses for 35mm are the Leica Elmar 50/3.5 and the SMC Pentax M 50/2. With the Leica III and the Pentax K1000 they are pretty compact and portable.

For medium format my favorite lenses by far are the Agfa Solinar 75/3.5 on the Super Isolette and the Tessar 75/3.5 on the Rolleiflex MX-EVS Automat. Very compact cameras that will give outstanding images. I will say though that the Agfa Solinar 85/4.5 on my old 1938 Agfa Jsolette is gaining fast on these other two.

Right now my favorite two large format lenses are the Schneider Kreuznach Symmar 150/5.6 convertible on my Intrepid 4x5 and the Schneider Kreuznach Angulon 90/6.8 on my Wanderlust Travelwide 4x5. Again, for the format, very handy and portable cameras.

But I have no idea where they fit in the sharpness competitions because I have never checked. But they do the job for me as long as I do the job for them.

EDIT - Maybe I am a closet Pictorialist.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

. Now I can say with all honesty that this AIs 55mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor is the sharpest lens I own. And that's pretty dang sharp, cuz I own some excellent macro lenses.

I agree with Mr. cool. I used a 55 f/2.8 for 15 years, and tiny details, such as distant bare tree limbs, rendered more crisply on K25 film than any of my other 50 lenses (Type 2 and Type 4 Summicrons, Summitar, 50 f/2.8 Elmar, 50 f/3.5 red-scale Elmar (LTM thread), Nikkor AiS 50 f/1.8, Olympus 50 f/3.5 Auto-Macro). But, a 1971 Super-Takumar on my wife's Spotmatic is almost as good. I think the Spotmatic suffers a little because there is no manual mirror pre-release. The Nikkor 55 f/2.8 disappeared in the mail. I sold it via eBay and it never reached its destination. The USPS paid me the insured amount plus postage. This was the only item I ever sent by Priority Mail that was lost.

 

[rpavich]

I have never tested one lens against another but I will say that I'm in the camp of "why?" Who cares which is just "that much" sharper than another lens?

I've owned Leicas, Minoltas, Pentax, Canon, Olympus and TONS of other cameras and lenses....some VERY expensive and do you know what I realized?

Sharpness is the least of what I should be worried about when shooting images. I'll take a blurry awesome shot over a perfectly sharp one where nothing is happening any day of the week.

I now shoot almost exclusively with an Olympus fixed 40mm lens point and shoot and it's the camera that's welded to my hand. I take it everywhere. Yes...I love shooting with it and love the results more than the Leica M that cost 100 times more.

Are the results sometimes blurry? Yep.
Do I care? Nope.

I'm looking for moments...not pixels.

 

[BMbikerider]

Come on Guys. Let us be really honest at the start of the new year. I recon almost any lens from the main manufacturers made today for 35mm will out perform their owners capabilities at any given time because a lens is a permanent object with no ability to change, whereas a human being can have a good day one day and a rubbish one the next. So whatever is the best, if used by an indifferent photographer may give only slightly better results than the simple lens fixed to a 1940's box camera.

 

[Alan Gales]

Do some of you remember when you showed your 35mm 4x6 or smaller prints to friends and family? They would all say, "Wow, they look like postcards!".

Do people still mail postcards?

 

[faberryman]

Do some of you remember when you showed your 35mm 4x6 or smaller prints to friends and family? They would all say, "Wow, they look like postcards!".

Nope. I guess my photos were not garish enough.