Awsome! Seems like macros are good! Ill give it a look
Awsome! Seems like macros are good! Ill give it a lookI 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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..
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.
It means that few photographers will use any camera to it's full potential.
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
Canon FD system:
- 35mm F2 Concave (Crome Ring Version)
- 50MM F1.2L
- 55mm F1.2 (Crome Ring Version)
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
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.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
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.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 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.. 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.
Nope. I guess my photos were not garish enough.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!".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?