Please name the sharpest Nikon lenses

Michael Benveniste wrote:
> "dullpain" <> wrote:
>
>> The worst Nikon lens is the 55-200, in any flavor, followed by the
>> 18-200.
>
> Before dismissing the 55-200mm VR, I suggest taking a look at a
> set of safari photos referenced here:
>
> http://snipurl.com/203a4 [www_nikonians_org]
>
> The worst Nikon lenses I've ever used are the original 43-86mm
> f/3.5 and the 120mm f/4.5 macro out of the "fun fun lens set."
>
> The worst constructed Nikon lens I've ever seen is the 30-60mm
> f/4~5.6 IX-Nikkor.
>
I had one of those 43-86 zooms. It would be the worst Nikkor lens that
I've ever used when it was in "original working order".
Soft, lots of CA, crazy distortion for a 2x zoom. Forgetting the optics
completely, it was pretty well made, except for zoom creep.

As far as the 55-200s go, the VR version is a gem. If it was to fall to
pieces in a few years, who cares? Optically it is quite good, and for
dx, there's nothing smaller and lighter that gives 200mm reach.
It is miles ahead optically of any of the 70-300 AF Nikkors - apart from
the new VR, and even that is not very good at the 300mm end, quite
expensive, and only a fraction of a stop less slow at 200mm than the
55-200 (F5.3 vs F5.6). I wish Nikon would make a 70-200 f4 VR, like the
excellent Canon lens. Half the weight of an f2.8, and 95% of the time
just as good.

 

In article <>,
"Michael Benveniste" <> wrote:

> "dullpain" <> wrote:
>
> > The worst Nikon lens is the 55-200, in any flavor, followed by the
> > 18-200.
>
> Before dismissing the 55-200mm VR, I suggest taking a look at a
> set of safari photos referenced here:
>
> http://snipurl.com/203a4 [www_nikonians_org]

Those samples are pretty sharp and good quality to my eye. Not the best,
but pretty good.

I remember Galen Rowell describing his occasional usage of the low-end,
cheap 80-200 and a wide-angle zoom (28-80, I think). He threw them on a
tripod and stopped down to f/8 or f/11 to create some of his beautiful
images. The moral - good technique is key and great photographers can
create great images without high-end lenses and bodies.

 

In article <>,
Tony Polson <> wrote:

> TH O <tho@tho.23.invalid> wrote:
>
> >In article <2008022010264416807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom>,
> > C J Campbell <> wrote:
> >
> >> Extremely wide and extremely small apertures will cause softness. It is
> >> no longer true that zoom lenses are softer than fixed lenses -- the
> >> extremely sharp 70-200mm f/2.8 AF-D and AF-S VR lenses being proof of
> >> that.
> >
> >It's no longer true with the best, most expensive zooms. However, we
> >also haven't seen many of the primes updated during these years. If the
> >primes were updated using the latest optical designs, they would
> >probably still end up on top.
>
>
> There is no real need to update them - they couldn't be any sharper,
> and their resolution is way in excess of any digital sensor we have
> seen from Nikon.
>
> Lenses such as the 24mm f/2.8, 28mm f/2.8D, 50mm f/1.8, 60mm f/2.8
> Micro, 85mm f/1.4, 105mm f/2.8 Micro and 180mm f/2.8 could not be
> improved upon - for sharpness. All are AF models.
>
> The 28mm f/2.8 non-D model is optically inferior to the D model.

The older lenses have not been optimized for digital sensors and do not
have the latest coatings for example. One example which comes to mind is
the 20mm 2.8. I haven't used it but I've read a few times of its
inferior performance on digital versus film bodies. I've heard similar
complaints about the 28 1.8.

 

On Feb 21, 7:49 pm, Wolfgang Weisselberg <>
wrote:
> acl <> wrote:
> > On Feb 20, 11:38 pm, Wolfgang Weisselberg <>
> >> Note: I am not saying Nikon lenses are bad, or that others do
> >> much better. I am merely saying that they simply don't outresolve
> >> the D200's sensor. And that many lenses do not even reach the
> >> sensors resolution, especially when used wide open or looking at
> >> the border performance.
> > That's true, but it depends on what you're measuring. I'm pretty sure
> > that any lens I've ever used can outresolve the d200 sensor if the
> > pattern has sufficient contrast,
>
> MTF patterns have 100% contrast, black and white.
>
> If you lower your standards enough, you may or may not get
> there.

In fact all I am saying is that all the lenses I've ever used do get
there eventually (in the sense, for example, that you can force a d200
to produce aliasing artifacts with any lens I've used). I've just
tried photographing a slanted slide rule, and all 7 of my lenses can
be made to produce aliasing quite easily.

> http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/mtf_100_0.gif
> Look at how much you see at 10% and less.
> Look how washed-out even 50% is compared to 100%.

 

"dullpain" <> wrote in message
news:cN1vj.2288$...
> The worst Nikon lens is the 55-200, in any flavor, followed by the 18-200.
You are totally fucking clueless.

 

acl <> wrote:

> In fact all I am saying is that all the lenses I've ever used do get
> there eventually (in the sense, for example, that you can force a d200
> to produce aliasing artifacts with any lens I've used). I've just
> tried photographing a slanted slide rule, and all 7 of my lenses can
> be made to produce aliasing quite easily.

http://weissel.smugmug.com/photos/257459720_BWekA-O.jpg
*severely* misfocussed, f/1.4.

http://weissel.smugmug.com/photos/257459723_tXG4s-O.jpg
Same image.
Threshold tool -- default setting.
See the aliasing?

See how much "be made to produce aliasing" is worth?

-Wolfgang

 

On Feb 22, 6:26 pm, Wolfgang Weisselberg <>
wrote:
> acl <> wrote:
> > In fact all I am saying is that all the lenses I've ever used do get
> > there eventually (in the sense, for example, that you can force a d200
> > to produce aliasing artifacts with any lens I've used). I've just
> > tried photographing a slanted slide rule, and all 7 of my lenses can
> > be made to produce aliasing quite easily.
>
> http://weissel.smugmug.com/photos/257459720_BWekA-O.jpg
> *severely* misfocussed, f/1.4.
>
> http://weissel.smugmug.com/photos/257459723_tXG4s-O.jpg
> Same image.
> Threshold tool -- default setting.
> See the aliasing?
>
> See how much "be made to produce aliasing" is worth?
>

Hmm.. Are you really misunderstanding what I am saying, or just
pretending to do so? For the last time: What I mean is that I can see
that there is detail above the sampling frequency of the D200 sensor
with all my lenses. Now to prevent the discussion being steered
towards a different direction which will make my comment look
irrelevant (although I doubt I'll manage to avoid that), I was
responding to your comment

> > Sure ... that's why nearly all the Nikon lenses at
> > photozone.de max out the MTF in all apertures?

by pointing out that this is at 50% transferred contrast, and that the
"lp/mm" thing will go up if you decrease the transferred contrast at
which you measure. Now I am sure you know all this, I know this, we
all know this. I was merely making a comment. So can we please leave
it at that? (probably not, but one can hope).

 

acl wrote:

> Hmm.. Are you really misunderstanding what I am saying, or just
> pretending to do so? For the last time:

LOL! For the last time you need to realize Wolfie is an idiot and is just
stringing you along.





Rita

 

On 2008-02-20 14:25:09 -0800, "dullpain" <> said:

> The worst Nikon lens is the 55-200, in any flavor, followed by the 18-200.

Highly questionable and I would like to see credible reviews that say
that. Both lenses are generally described by reviewers as surprisingly
sharp given their zoom range and prices. I think that I would prefer to
rely on credible reviewers like Thom Hogan before some anonymous dull
pain.

http://www.bythom.com/18200lens.htm
http://www.bythom.com/55200lens.htm

Glass snobs don't like these lenses. Fine. But being glass snobs does
not make them better photographers. Quite the contrary, in fact.
Whatever the glass snobs say, the 55-200 and 18-200 are good, sharp
lenses with above average optical performance. The only thing you
sacrifice is build quality.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

 

acl <> wrote:
> On Feb 22, 6:26 pm, Wolfgang Weisselberg <>
>> acl <> wrote:
>> > In fact all I am saying is that all the lenses I've ever used do get
>> > there eventually (in the sense, for example, that you can force a d200
>> > to produce aliasing artifacts with any lens I've used). I've just
>> > tried photographing a slanted slide rule, and all 7 of my lenses can
>> > be made to produce aliasing quite easily.

>> http://weissel.smugmug.com/photos/257459720_BWekA-O.jpg
>> *severely* misfocussed, f/1.4.

>> http://weissel.smugmug.com/photos/257459723_tXG4s-O.jpg
>> Same image.
>> Threshold tool -- default setting.
>> See the aliasing?

>> See how much "be made to produce aliasing" is worth?

> Hmm.. Are you really misunderstanding what I am saying, or just
> pretending to do so?

I am saying that unless you exactly specify what you mean by
"be made to produce aliasing", that term is completely
worthless.

> For the last time: What I mean is that I can see that there is detail
> above the sampling frequency of the D200 sensor with all my lenses.

I see.
With which camera with a higher sampling frequency than your D200
do you see that?[1]

>> > Sure ... that's why nearly all the Nikon lenses at
>> > photozone.de max out the MTF in all apertures?

> by pointing out that this is at 50% transferred contrast, and that the
> "lp/mm" thing will go up if you decrease the transferred contrast at
> which you measure.

It can go up, true.
Can it go up meaningfully?
How high can it go up meaningfully?
How do you measure it?
Do I get bonus if I was to claim that I actually saw the
contrast as per the 2 demo images above?

> Now I am sure you know all this, I know this, we all know this.

But I still don't know your methology. I am very interested
at exactly which level of contrast you count your lp/mm or
lp/ph.

-Wolfgang

[1] Unless you want to claim that Nikon manages to ignore
e.g. the sampling theorem --- or unless you mistake Moiré
patterns for detail.

 

Rita Berkowitz <> wrote:

> LOL! For the last time you need to realize Wolfie is an idiot and is just
> stringing you along.

Go ahead, Rita, make my day.

Please tell us again that adoramacamera.com isn't adorama.com.

Or post some of your ... valuable shots.

Or go ranting at Canon again. Rita-boy and Richie-boy make a
good team there, a match made in heaven.

-Wolfgang

 

On Feb 23, 6:42 am, Wolfgang Weisselberg <>
wrote:
> acl <> wrote:
> > On Feb 22, 6:26 pm, Wolfgang Weisselberg <>
> >> acl <> wrote:
> >> > In fact all I am saying is that all the lenses I've ever used do get
> >> > there eventually (in the sense, for example, that you can force a d200
> >> > to produce aliasing artifacts with any lens I've used). I've just
> >> > tried photographing a slanted slide rule, and all 7 of my lenses can
> >> > be made to produce aliasing quite easily.
> >> http://weissel.smugmug.com/photos/257459720_BWekA-O.jpg
> >> *severely* misfocussed, f/1.4.
> >> http://weissel.smugmug.com/photos/257459723_tXG4s-O.jpg
> >> Same image.
> >> Threshold tool -- default setting.
> >> See the aliasing?
> >> See how much "be made to produce aliasing" is worth?
> > Hmm.. Are you really misunderstanding what I am saying, or just
> > pretending to do so?
>
> I am saying that unless you exactly specify what you mean by
> "be made to produce aliasing", that term is completely
> worthless.

Well, I wrote aliasing and you interpreted it as stairstepping in
lines (as opposed to aliasing of frequencies above nyquist onto lower,
causing moire). So now it's my fault that you misunderstood. Typical.

>
> > For the last time: What I mean is that I can see that there is detail
> > above the sampling frequency of the D200 sensor with all my lenses.
>
> I see.
> With which camera with a higher sampling frequency than your D200
> do you see that?[1]
> [1] Unless you want to claim that Nikon manages to ignore
> e.g. the sampling theorem --- or unless you mistake Moiré
> patterns for detail.

No, I am claiming that you simply misunderstood what I was saying: I
was saying that I see aliasing (ie artifacts caused by undersampling),
therefore conclude that there is detail above the sampling frequency.
Being you, you'll now keep arguing rather than say "aha I see, I
thought you meant something else".


>
> >> > Sure ... that's why nearly all the Nikon lenses at
> >> > photozone.de max out the MTF in all apertures?
> > by pointing out that this is at 50% transferred contrast, and that the
> > "lp/mm" thing will go up if you decrease the transferred contrast at
> > which you measure.
>
> It can go up, true.
> Can it go up meaningfully?
> How high can it go up meaningfully?
> How do you measure it?
> Do I get bonus if I was to claim that I actually saw the
> contrast as per the 2 demo images above?
>
> > Now I am sure you know all this, I know this, we all know this.
>
> But I still don't know your methology. I am very interested
> at exactly which level of contrast you count your lp/mm or
> lp/ph.

No I've had quite enough. I just hate pompous idiots who never admit
to being wrong.

 

acl wrote:

>> I am saying that unless you exactly specify what you mean by
>> "be made to produce aliasing", that term is completely
>> worthless.
>
> Well, I wrote aliasing and you interpreted it as stairstepping in
> lines (as opposed to aliasing of frequencies above nyquist onto lower,
> causing moire). So now it's my fault that you misunderstood. Typical.

Yes it is! You are arguing with Navas's twin brother.

>> But I still don't know your methology. I am very interested
>> at exactly which level of contrast you count your lp/mm or
>> lp/ph.
>
> No I've had quite enough. I just hate pompous idiots who never admit
> to being wrong.

LOL! Wolfie has a natural way of doing that. He's your responsibility so
you can feed him.




Rita

 

Bob G wrote:
> I'm switching to Nikon and I would like you to list the three Nikon
> lenses (current or not, but AF only) you think are the best in image
> quality.

1. There is a difference between "image quality" and "sharpness"

2. AF usually compromises sharpness:
-hysteresis to allow the AF to work
-less 'drag' on the focus (for the motors) makes manual focus less certain
-viewfinder manual focus more difficult (absense of the focus prisms)

Others will tell you which Nikon lenses are particularly sharp or high
quality as they see fit, although one of the "greats" is the 105mm
Micro. (macro lens).

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

 

acl <> wrote:
> On Feb 23, 6:42 am, Wolfgang Weisselberg <>
>> acl <> wrote:

>> I am saying that unless you exactly specify what you mean by
>> "be made to produce aliasing", that term is completely
>> worthless.

> Well, I wrote aliasing and you interpreted it as stairstepping in
> lines

If your dictionary calls that not "aliasing", you need to
replace it.

> (as opposed to aliasing of frequencies above nyquist onto lower,
> causing moire).

Unspoken assumption: only "aliasing of frequencies above
nyquist onto lower" causes more. That assumption is wrong,
as I show below. And why didn't you say so first?

> So now it's my fault that you misunderstood. Typical.

If I'd drool "uga uga uga" and you misunderstood, yes, then it
would be *my* fault. Why should I cut yourself slack I don't
cut myself?


>> > For the last time: What I mean is that I can see that there is detail
>> > above the sampling frequency of the D200 sensor with all my lenses.

>> With which camera with a higher sampling frequency than your D200
>> do you see that?[1]

> No, I am claiming that you simply misunderstood what I was saying: I
> was saying that I see aliasing (ie artifacts caused by undersampling),

You see something you _think_ is "artifacts caused by
undersampling". That does not make it so. It'd be far more
convincing if you *showed* the raw data, how it was produced
and why you interpret what you interpret.

BTW: Stair stepping also is aliasing, caused by undersampling:
oversampling solves it. Try *correctly* scaling down and see
it disappear. QED.

> therefore conclude that there is detail above the sampling frequency.
> Being you, you'll now keep arguing rather than say "aha I see, I
> thought you meant something else".

Aha, I see, you _meant_ something else.

And yet! But Yet!
http://weissel.smugmug.com/photos/258125275_XhywQ-O.jpg
=> Lots of moiré --- the patterns that you see are simply not
there. But does it indicate that the lens resolution is better
than the camera?

http://weissel.smugmug.com/photos/258125277_8n7yy-O.jpg
=> Quite a bit moiré in th center ... does this lens outresolve
the camera?

http://weissel.smugmug.com/photos/258125270_5wbn6-O.jpg
=> I think everybody will agree that this is the sharpest, most
resolved one of the three. It's also what happens if you
focus the lens, instead of unfocussing it!!
(Oh, the vertical stripes? That's the monitor ... and if they
don't show up in the more blurred variants, that just might
tell you something.)[1]

Second --- how's your chroma subsampling these days?[2]

For bonus points:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Moiré_fringes_IMG_3712.jpg
beautiful moiré, completely independent of sampling frequency.


>> But I still don't know your methology. I am very interested
>> at exactly which level of contrast you count your lp/mm or
>> lp/ph.

> No I've had quite enough. I just hate pompous idiots who never admit
> to being wrong.

It's not my job to show you without any data from your side how
you are misinterpreting things and show you some cheap parlor
tricks which produce the results you so eagerly interpret.
Yet I go that extra mile, league and marathon.

Then I get called names when I ask for clarification!

Well!
I must say, my dear chap, you are a bit over the line.


-Wolfgang

[1] How to reproduce: Take a Siemens Star. Shoot it (I did it
of a monitor). Center crop (these are 100% crops). For the
ones above, simply defocus your lens. I used a 20D + 50mm
f/1.4 at 1/125s, f/2.5.

[2] If you do not understand, don't worry, it's just another
factor to overlook ...

 

Rita Berkowitz <> wrote:
[...]

Rita ... shut up.

-Wolfgang

 

On Feb 25, 12:19 am, Wolfgang Weisselberg <>
wrote:


> Well!
> I must say, my dear chap, you are a bit over the line.

Conversation is impossible unless a) there is an assumption that the
other party isn't a blabbering idiot, b) context is taken into
account, c) common sense is applied.

I could spend a lot of time and effort explaining in detail where each
of these conditions was violated in the previous exchanges, but it's a
complete waste of time, because you seem to enjoy building up
intricate arguments for the opposite of whatever your "opponent" is
saying. Since I don't have the time, patience or, for that matter,
motivation to argue with you, I give up.

As I said, I just cannot stand pompous fools.

 

acl <> wrote:
> On Feb 25, 12:19 am, Wolfgang Weisselberg <>

>> Well!
>> I must say, my dear chap, you are a bit over the line.

> Conversation is impossible unless a) there is an assumption that the
> other party isn't a blabbering idiot, b) context is taken into
> account, c) common sense is applied.

You fail on all 3 counts.

> As I said, I just cannot stand pompous fools.

Then don't look into mirrors.


Anyway, since you fail to produce reproducible facts ... your
claim's not worth manure, not even weeds will grow on it.
Substituting name calling for facts just doesn't do it.

EOD.

-Wolfgang

 

The 24-70 f/2.8 is sharper than the 28-70 f/2.8 at their sharpest centre apertures of f/4 or f/5.6 over the entire frame.

 

The Nikon 200 f/2 AF-S VR II @ f/4 is the sharpest lens currently made by Nikon. The Nikon 300 f/2.8 AF-S VR II and 400 f/2.8 VR II follow very closely. The Nikon 200 f/2 AF-S VR II is sharper than the Zeiss 100/2 MP and that is one sharp lens.

Somebody mentioned the 180 f/2.8 AF, well it's not even remotely in the same league for sharpness at any aperture compared to the above lenses.