Minox 8x11 lens resolution::
9 postsMinox TLX not only has the sharpest photographic lens, but also has by far the highest performance index of 17 vs only 4 of Leica of M6
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000KCoHOME |
Heard that 135 F1.8 ZA (Carl Ziess) lens is the sharpest lens, well, i don't know about others though, and it is more biased towards Sony & Minolta.. How about other brand?
Your personal experience is needed though..
Rgds,
I remember a story about a guy who made big prints, up to a metre, and people believed he was using medium format and admired the sharpness, often asking what the lens was. His answer: An old Canon AE-1 35mm and a Canon 70 - 210 zoom.
He went on to point out the importance of things like correct exposure and processing, and choosing the right lighting, using a tripod, etc. This produces an "apparent sharpness", which is clearly extremely important because itīs what you or the viewer will react to, and may not be directly related to the technical "resolving" power of the lens.
Apparent sharpness is a matter of contrast and is independent of lens construction/resolution. All things being equal, increasing "apparent contrast" will produce a sharper image with a better lens.
Shady marketing. At infinity, wavelength is negligible.
...
Why do you say that? It's perfectly normal to give chromatic aberration data for infinity, because the effect of wavelength is not negligible.
Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS Lens Review::
The Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS Lens is not the sharpest lens out there. While the center of the frame is not bad, the mid-way and edge portions of the
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/Canon-EF-S-55-250mm-f-4-5.6-IS-Lens-Review.aspxHOME |
Best,
Helen
The 60 mm f/4 UV-Vis-IR APO Macro, by Coastal Optics &
JENOPTIC is the sharpest lens...
...Not only because it is one of the best ever, but because it is
also sharp from UV, through visible light, to IR, with no focus shift.
As no other lens can do it, it can claim the title of 'The Sharpest
Lens'... :wink:
Take a look -
http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/free/CoastalOptics60f4/ (http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/free/CoastalOptics60f4/)
http://www.coastalopt.com/ (http://www.coastalopt.com/)
News Flash: All true APO lenses are like that. That's what APO means.
Maxwell House coffee can with a pin hole~ :shrug:
If sharpness doesn't make a photograph, you don't have to blow your dust, or clean your lens.. and you dont have to focus!~ focus (to get sharp pictures) is not needed!~ period.
It has to be something about everything.. I like sharp pictures, it gives the feeling of "whoah~" no one prefer blur pictures..
Way to completely miss the point.
:thumbdown:
More importantly where? All lenses suffer diffraction which makes them less sharp at higher apertures, and in ideal situations kit lenses like the Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 is every bit as sharp as the Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8.
Every lens has a sharp sweet spot that would hit the performance limit of most sensors, and every lens suffers diffraction too, so there is no "sharpest" lens.
I have no idea what "the" sharpest lens is... I doubt there is such a thing, since it is relative to the camera bodies the lens is on.
Confusion over sharpness-lens aperture::
10 posts - Last post: Sep 7, 2003Talk about Confusion over sharpness-lens aperture.
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t242917-confusion-over-sharpnesslens-aperture.htmlHOME |
The sharpest lens I own is a 105 Macro Nikkor.
[Ben-71 (http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/member.php?u=29987)]
To the best of my knowledge, no other lens does this.
I'd be glad to learn something new.
Please point to a lens that does it, and which does it as well
as the Coastal Optics' 60 mm f/4 UV-Vis-IR APO Macro does.
[Alpha]
Shady marketing. At infinity, wavelength is negligible. Did you
notice that all of their graphs of UV and IR light are for focusing
at infinity?
It's just like statistics. Easily manipulated "data" that appear
valid to the untrained eye.
I agree with you that 'APO' is sometimes used "loosely" for marketing
reasons.
However, even if focus shift (from UV to IR) at infinity was negligible,
then we're talking about the '60mm f/4 UV-Vis-IR APO Macro' lens,
which is specifically made to meet critical sharpness demands, with
any two - or all three - frequency ranges (UV-visible-IR), in the same
photograph.
I didn't find any other lens that does this.
The tests can tell you a lot about what "the sharpest" lens is...but as mentioned earlier, there are many factors that influence the result. The most important test is how it looks...
from Photonet:
Lennart Estrvm (http://photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=21124) , Jun 20, 1999; 01:25 p.m.
Hi! I think that lens tests might do the work in some cases, but I believe more in what I see with my own eyes, in practical tests. Everyone who has tried a Leica knows that their lenses are of a very high standard, perhaps the best 35 mm lenses on the market. But I have seen tests that placed Leicas Summicron 35mm in second place after a low budget lens, a Soligor! Who can believe in that? It was a line/mm test, such as the one you refer to. I4ve tried both Soligors(which I believe is not made anymore) and Leicas and I4ve noticed a big difference in performance between the two. If you4re satisfied with how Pentax lenses perform, use them! Tamron SP 90 AF F2.8 Reviews at Dyxum.com::
Probably the sharpest lens ever on my camera (and I've owned some good ones). Beautiful bokeh! The focus action is silky smooth, and the built in hood is
http://www.dyxum.com/reviews/lenses/reviews.asp?IDLens=366HOME |
Digital Photography: Apertures For Photo Sharpness?::
Here's a tip for doing that: shoot at your lens' sharpest f-stop. That means you set your f-stop higher by about two f-stops. If you have an f/2.8 lens,
http://digital---photography.blogspot.com/2007/06/apertures-for-photo-sharpness.htmlHOME |
35mm Leica M-Sumilux.
Ah but just wait till you get into MF/LF. Then you can see for yourself how the sumilux compares to the biogon...
Pentax FA 31MM limited is one of the best lenses ever made. The 77 MM limited is no slouch either... http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-05-02.shtml
Shady marketing. At infinity, wavelength is negligible. Did you notice that all of their graphs of UV and IR light are for focusing at infinity?
It's just like statistics. Easily manipulated "data" that appear valid to the untrained eye.
Resolution tests are done in monochrome, where the light is ideally a point source of constant wavelength. This makes apochromatism or superachromatism independent of resolution in LPI.
I just have lots of problems with this lens you've linked to and using its specs to qualify a "sharpest lens ever" claim. The resolution in LPI, for starters, which I'm sure is lower than some other lenses on earth. Second, you're putting too much weight on the CA issue in judging sharpness. An APO-EL Nikkor, for example, is also a true APO lens, but that doesn't mean it's sharper necessarily than some other non-enlarging lens that may or may not be true APO or even APO at all. Third, the specs on this lens, from a materials standpoint, aren't as convincing to me as they're made to sound. For example, true UV lenses are supposed to be made out of quartz because of the UV filtration issues of normal glass (which are independent of coating). Would you, for example, claim that this lens you've linked to is sharper than the UV-Nikkor for UV or near-UV photography? I certainly wouldn't.
Maybe, just maybe, if I only shot IR, would I think about buying this lens to avoid focusing adjustments. But if I took an IR shot with a higher resolution lens and adjusted focus, it would still make for a sharper image than this thing, which simply obviates the need for the focusing adjustment. It's doesn't make in-focus shots of non-visible light sharper. But further, if I were a serious UV shooter, I'd be looking at that Nikkor. And for practical purposes, a really tack sharp lens built primarily for visible light would be probably be my choice over this thing, regardless of its coating.
Maxwell House coffee can with a pin hole~ :shrug:
I don't like the build quality of the new ones, they are substandard, you have to get an old one for any real quality.
Obviously a prime will have less artifacts than a zoom but a zoom lens can still be sharp. Sharpness and distortion are two completely different animals. Thus zooms cannot be excluded from the equation.
Most lenses are pretty darned sharp around f8-f11 - even the soft lenses.
The question is - what are your parameters for asking such a vague and subjective question?
why do you ask? sharpness doesn't make a photograph.
why do you ask? sharpness doesn't make a photograph.
If sharpness doesn't make a photograph, you don't have to blow your dust, or clean your lens.. and you dont have to focus!~ focus (to get sharp pictures) is not needed!~ period.
It has to be something about everything.. I like sharp pictures, it gives the feeling of "whoah~" no one prefer blur pictures..
anyway, ziess, zeiss boigon, leica & 105 macro nikkor are on the list..
any others? :wink:
My Canon FL 135mm f/3.5 is pretty damn sharp when I can get off my lazy but and focus it.
Actually, the question is easily answered:
A broken one.
Can give you a nasty cut can one of those.
The 60 mm f/4 UV-Vis-IR APO Macro, by Coastal Optics &
JENOPTIC is the sharpest lens...
...Not only because it is one of the best ever, but because it is
also sharp from UV, through visible light, to IR, with no focus shift.
As no other lens can do it, it can claim the title of 'The Sharpest
Lens'... :wink:
Take a look -
http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/free/CoastalOptics60f4/ (http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/free/CoastalOptics60f4/)
http://www.coastalopt.com/ (http://www.coastalopt.com/)
The tests can tell you a lot about what "the sharpest" lens is...but as mentioned earlier, there are many factors that influence the result. The most important test is how it looks...
from Photonet:
Actually, the most important test is optical resolution, usually measured in LPI (or some other unit besides inches if you prefer). It's a quite objective measure of a lens's ability to distinguish between two lines a particular distance from each other. A lens that can distinguish two black lines 1mm apart, for example, has higher resolution or resolving power than one that can only distinguish two lines if they're, say, 2mm apart. This also depends upon distance from object to lens, as well as contrast ratios (which I won't bother going into). And although in practice raises questions of whether lens resolution matches or exceeds film/sensor resolution, the lens itself does have a discrete/finite resolution that is wholly independent of a viewer's ability to make the same distinctions.
For people with poor eyesight or low resolution film/sensors the difference may not be obvious and so people tend to lean on the law of diminishing returns given the resolution specs of their eyes and media. But for example the same photo taken with the same lens on a 20D vs a 1ds MKIII differs mostly because the more powerful sensor is better able to take advantage of the lens' native resolution. Whereas two sensors with resolutions grossly below or above the lens' resolution won't detect much of a difference. That doesn't, however mean it isn't there.
From a technical standpoint, a lens with a higher native resolution will always produce an image with a higher resolution at a given viewing distance or magnification, even if it isn't readily apparent to the viewer. From a practical standpoint, as your bodies/sensors/films get better over time, the difference will become clearer to the viewer.
Alpha (http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/member.php?u=4154)
"Resolution tests are done in monochrome, where the light is ideally
a point source of constant wavelength. This makes apochromatism
or superachromatism independent of resolution in LPI.
I just have lots of problems with this lens you've linked to and using
its specs to qualify a "sharpest lens ever" claim.
The resolution in LPI, for starters, which I'm sure is lower than some
other lenses on earth.
Second, you're putting too much weight on the CA issue in judging
sharpness.
An APO-EL Nikkor, for example, is also a true APO lens, but that
doesn't mean it's sharper necessarily than some other non-enlarging
lens that may or may not be true APO or even APO at all.
Third, the specs on this lens, from a materials standpoint, aren't as
convincing to me as they're made to sound. For example, true UV
lenses are supposed to be made out of quartz because of the UV
filtration issues of normal glass (which are independent of coating).
Would you, for example, claim that this lens you've linked to is
sharper than the UV-Nikkor for UV or near-UV photography?
I certainly wouldn't.
Maybe, just maybe, if I only shot IR, would I think about buying this
lens to avoid focusing adjustments. But if I took an IR shot with a higher
resolution lens and adjusted focus, it would still make for a sharper image
than this thing, which simply obviates the need for the focusing adjustment.
It's doesn't make in-focus shots of non-visible light sharper.
But further, if I were a serious UV shooter, I'd be looking at that Nikkor.
And for practical purposes, a really tack sharp lens built primarily for
visible light would be probably be my choice over this thing, regardless
of its coating.
This lens was made to meet specific demands in forensics and some labs,
and it meets those demands beautifully.
I agree with part of what you say.
Please notice that there was a smiley in my first post, which was supposed
to suggest that I was playful rather than "debateful".
We can't seriously determine which "the sharpest lens" is, because it would be
one that's made to give maximum sharpness for a very narrow frequency band,
at a fixed distance.
And then, there's no point in comparing it to another lens that's made to give
maximum sharpness for a different wave frequency at a different distance.
e.g., there's no point in comparing the sharpness of a super-sharp lens for
projecting micro circuits using monochromatic light, to an aerial camera lens
with which you can read a newspaper from many miles away.
We can meaningfully compare only lenses of the same type,
e.g. two 105mm Micro lenses, or two 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses.
Therefore, what I posted was in fun mood, and not argumentatively.
As nominating the sharpest lens without specifying its type & use is pointless,
I offered the 60mm f/4 UV-Vis-IR APO Macro lens, because it is very good over
a wider frequency range than any other lens that I know of (UV to IR, 315 nm
to 1100 nm).
At the end of this nomination, there's a smiley...: :wink:
[quote=Alpha]
News Flash: All true APO lenses are like that.
That's what APO means.
Certainly not every APO lens is corrected from UV (315 nm)
to IR (1100 nm), .
Some include the visible spectrum and UV, but not IR as well,
and not w/o focus shift over the whole range.
In practice, the term 'APO' typically regards the visible spectrum.
To the best of my knowledge, no other lens does this.
I'd be glad to learn something new.
Please point to a lens that does it, and which does it as well
as the Coastal Optics' 60 mm f/4 UV-Vis-IR APO Macro does.
My lens is so sharp it'll cut you.
Legend has it that the Zeiss Biogon lenses are "the sharpest ever made," particularly the medium format ones, but I've also heard stunning things about the Biogon series manufactured for the Contax 35mm systems. Reportedly, the MF biogons even put Leica glass to shame.
Nikkor AF-S DX ED 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6.
I remember a story about a guy who made big prints, up to a metre, and people believed he was using medium format and admired the sharpness, often asking what the lens was. His answer: An old Canon AE-1 35mm and a Canon 70 - 210 zoom.
He went on to point out the importance of things like correct exposure and processing, and choosing the right lighting, using a tripod, etc. This produces an "apparent sharpness", which is clearly extremely important because itīs what you or the viewer will react to, and may not be directly related to the technical "resolving" power of the lens.
expensive! ;)
Hmm....
I never have put much stock in lens graphs. I prefer my eye.
A lot of measurebators claim the 17-85IS isn't that great. While there is a little distortion at each end it's not too bad and I'm very happy with this lens. It's my lens of choice for weddings.
35mm Leica M-Sumilux.
we have a winner!
Actually, the question is easily answered:
A broken one.
Can give you a nasty cut can one of those.
Eh, it's a tough call as far as my equipment goes...
I'd say it's right there with my Nikon 60mm f/2.8 AF-S Micro and my Nikon 200-400mm f/4. The 70-200mm f/2.8 is no slouch though.
macro nikkor are on the list..
any others? :wink:
Macro? Don't you mean micro?
Add a vote for the Nikkor 70-200VR. From personal experience, it does some pretty amazingly sharp shots under the right circumstances. My 105mm Sigma macro prime is right up there, though. These two lenses are not used often, but every time I use them, I am always impressed with them.
I cannot comment about Zeis or other brands short of public perception and reputation.
Zoom lenses are automatically disqualified.
 Red Hat's Rough Recovery From CFO Exit
 Windows Live Finds a New, Pre-installed Home
|
HOME