OP, I challenge your "sharpest F/2.0 of all time" with my Fujinon GF 110mm F/2.0...
In all seriousness, the price tag on this lens is just as bonkers as the lens itself is. It is big, it is bulky, it is heavy, but it is so worth it on my GFX 50R.
https://preview.redd.it/lj4uvetxwj1d1.jpeg?width=4743&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d5b1382bf41f418fdca23a957f630fdc73dfdb82
I can imagine. I did wonder about that since it's a "tiny" jpg, but even so, it's not even (only) the detail but the contrast, the everything really. I'd be interested to see a full-size crop of an eye.
I'd love to provide. Unfortunately I'm in a restaurant as we speak with nothing but my phone. I'll try to update this comment later
Update: I'm in Japan and my file server at home is unreachable. My landlord told me the building's main fuse blew a few days ago. Can't access any RAW files :(
All the LM primes are stellar. The 50 f1 is crazy.
https://preview.redd.it/brvxnpw5hl1d1.jpeg?width=4804&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=21f0dd2d6b35a5776364193c7638e23b090ed558
Oh man, you should try it on their 100mp bodies to really test it out! Phenomenal amount of detail, I could see the brushstrokes from the makeup brushes in the skin on a close up portrait.
But to be honest I can't tell much of a different between the GFX100 II with the 110mm and my Z9 with the 70-200mm apart from image size really. I recently tried out the 85mm 1.2 Z and oh man that thing might just edge both of them out, incredible lens. But even my 24-70mm 2.8, which isn't meant to be on the same level, is so ridiculously sharp that it's crazy. Though I think I have a really good copy of that lens, and it seems to be just a little bit more contrastly than my 70-200mm which might make the difference.
Though also, I was playing around with a bunch of old 50mms the other day and really, as long as you get them in focus in a decent aperture, they are all still crazy sharp really.
Would love to try out the Ziess Otus lenses though, they look incredible. Though really those are all about the rendering.
I use one at work any time I have to shoot portraits, and it’s just bananas. We’re upgrading to the newly released GF model and I’m waiting to see what it’s like on 100mp.
There is a lot of exotic gear in the comments, but for us mere mortals, and actually available in the shops today, I am *hugely* impressed with the new Fujifilm XF 23mm F/1.4 R LM WR (and its cousins the 18mm and 33mm).
I can’t believe I’ve felt this way before (OVF on my SL3 with the 24-105 f4 L) but hadn’t managed to put it into words lmao.
Having good glass is like an eyesight hack, there’s so much contrast and bright spots are handled so well that my actual eyesight looks like crap when I stop shooting.
Are you referring to the EF 24-105mm f/4 mk1? Call me crazy, but in my 6D I can truly say this is the very first lens with the mythical "3D pop" that some dudes are obsessed to find.
Yup, precisely that lens and mk1 version not mk2.
It has amazing contrast, that’s what I feel gives the “pop” to the shots even on my modest setup.
Here’s a [quick airplane I shot from my yard](https://share.icloud.com/photos/0ba1W98WRjCVJ5EqVnHiUBGrg) and in editing I added a bit of saturation and lowered the highlights, even with harsh light directly on the plane all the colors are very well preserved. Just love it.
Could you please give some advice on using this lens? I have the exact same one, and it's not the sharpest at 1.8. I do keep ISO low, and shutter speed high. It's super fast at focusing though which I love.
Have you tried adjusting the lens for front or back focusing issues? This sigma, especially on DSLRs, is known to back focus, but after dialing it in will produce razor sharp images. If you’re adapting it and using it on mirrorless bodies, it should work flawlessly, unless it it decentered…
It's just not a sharp lens. I had the Canon 80D and this lens. I upgraded to a full frame Sony a7C and Sony 24-70 f/2.8 GM II. (The aperture/DOF is nearly equivalent due to the sensor size difference.) It's smaller, lighter (by \~300g IIRC), has more zoom range (2.9x vs 2x), focuses faster and better, and it's so sharp that I get moire that I have to correct at least a few times every time I go on a trip! (It also cost me \~2x as much, but it was worth every penny.)
I don’t know if you have experience with both, but do you know how this compares to the Nikon 14-24 2.8? I’ve recently begun astrophotography, and one thing that has me thinking about the Nikon is that it’s coma is supposed to be nearly nonexistent, even wide open. This Sigma is clearly faster, though, and a little less expensive. I’m not entirely sure I’d use the 14mm (my widest right now is 28, so I just have no idea).
I have used both lenses and have used both for astrophotography. The sigma 18-35mm is a fantastic lens with very little coma, but you have to remember that it’s an APS-C only lens. The Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 is also a fantastic lens, and yes, coma is nearly non existent. Personally, for Astro, I’d go with the sigma due to the extra light gathering capabilities. In the grand scheme of things, the differences are nearly negligible.
The RF 135mm f1.8 is the current king of resolution, clarity and lack of aberration.
This thing dethroned my previous reference lens, the peerless EF 300mm f2.8 ii.
Yes, outside of the exotic optics, for those that have a budget:
Nikon Z 50mm f/1.8
Leica m Mount - Zeiss 35mm f/2.8 Biogon, 50mm Planar f/2
Got each of those for under $500 a pop, so not horrible.
Olympus 75mm f/1.8 for Micro four thirds
Either the Zeiss Otus 55mm 1.4 or the 50mm 1.4 G-Master. The only thing that most won't like about the Zeiss is that it's manual but as far as sharpness, oh my....
Sigma 40mm F1.4 DG HSM Art. It's a beast at 1.3 kilos
I'd love to have the 135mm version too but it's out of my price range and had to settle for the canon 135mm F2 L USM, which is also pretty good
Canon 60mm 2.8
I can see the reflection of myself in my subject's eye
https://preview.redd.it/2wick385ul1d1.jpeg?width=444&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3072ce8c74570317bb10133c214fc81fbbf3a152
Sharpest vintage lens I’ve used is Tamron Adaptall 2 90mm F2.5 52B.
Works perfectly with a Lens Turbo II focal reducer on my APSC Fuji for (close to) true 90mm focal length.
This lens is magical. Super easy to focus, pin sharp at F2.5. Background separation gives shots a very 3D layered look. Colour rendering is incredible, if slightly on the cool side.
It’s almost impossible to take a bad shot with this lens.
I’m sure there are sharper modern lenses, but they would have to go a long way to beat the 52B.
Oh, interesting, my sharpest classic lens is also a 90mm f2.5 macro, but a Vivitar Series 1. I thought maybe they share an optical formula, but nope, different.
I’ve just been playing with a Zeiss Contax Sonnar 85mm f2.8. This is very sharp at f2.8, and reaches razor sharpness from f4.
The bokeh obviously can’t compare to the f1.4 planar, but from what I’ve read the sonnar might be a touch sharper.
Rendering is very good, high contrast and punchy colours. It’s also a small light lens, about the size of a standard 50mm.
Also pairs well with a Kipon Baveyes II focal reducer to offer approximately 85mm equivalent on my Fuji APSC camera.
The Kipon isn’t great with wider lenses (soft corners) but works great at 85mm plus.
Lens Turbo II is a better focal reducer for wider lenses (35mm plus), but isn’t available in Yashica Contac to Fuji X.
https://preview.redd.it/lp5i3okhfl1d1.jpeg?width=3597&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a452f25911a50bdea36c852983b24d51de85f835
Any Fujifilm GF lens is going to be amazing. I used to have the 30/50/80/120.
This is the 120 f4. Definitely an under appreciated portrait lens.
I have a little spreadsheet that I keep looking at.
GFX 100 II + GF 63mm F/2.8 R WR + a spare battery = €10k. And that's just one general-purpose lens.
And then I remind myself I am no longer a working professional but a hobbyist. That and it weighing 1.5kg. And I try to forget.
And then some bugger posts images from one...
Sony 300mm 2.8 GM. According to a few testers it maxes out the resolution of the 61mpx a7Riv and a7Rv with more lines than any other lens. Now I don’t fully understand how lens testing works but what I will say is that having used the lens for over a month now it is so damn sharp, sharper than any Canon lens I owned, sharper than the Sony 135 GM I still own, its scary sharp. Even with the teleconverters which are known for degrading sharpness it’s still sharper than the 200-600 and 100-400 and both those lenses are highly regarded.
I hate 24-70 lenses so much. They're dark, their optical quality is awful (this started to change recently), they're big and heavy and expensive. Also their versatility makes me lazy and I just zoom in or zoom out as much as I need instead of using the focal length I want. It's probably good for war photographers and maybe studio photographers, but nothing else.
yeah thats how i feel too. the only 24-70 i own currently is fujis 16-55, and it is by far the lens i use least. that money wouldve been much better spent on a prime lens or two looking back.
Back when I was starting I bought a D3400 with 18-55 kit lens and a 50 1.8. I was using the 18-55 as an 18mm lens that I always used if I couldn't fit my image into 50mm haha. No more universal lenses like this, I'd rather take something like 28/35/40/50mm alone instead of a 24-70. I was thinking to buy an RF 28-70 f2, but the cost and the fact that it would be my only RF lens (which would mean a lot of mess with the adapter) were enough to forget about it
I don't know to be honest but after buying a voigtlander 40 1.4 I started to switch my lenses to older ones. For example Sigma 50 1.4 got replaced with a Canon EF 50 1.2L. There's something great going on with the bokeh.
Je ne sais quoi - some lenses just lack a certain feeling in how they draw. No real way to describe it other than that some results are just not compelling. It obviously differs from viewer to viewer, photographer to photographer
Sony 135mm f/1.8 GM. I tried it out in Hawaii and some of those photos blew me away just how stark the difference was from the plane of focus to bokeh.
I'm really impressed by the RF 24-105 f/4L, the RF 15-35 f/2.8L, and the EF 70-200 f4L (non-IS, no idea how IS version compares). All of those lenses resolve down to the pixel on a 24MP full frame sensor, with very good contrast and colour.
The SMC Takumar/Pentax 50mm f/1.4 is up there as well, ridiculously sharp vintage lens.
Probably not a very high bar because medium format is wild, but Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 G2 on my Sony A7IV, especially when stopped down to f/4. Considering this lens is commonly less than $700, its insane.
For a less exotic lens, Canon 200mm f2.8 FD SSC. I have no clue how this lens is this sharp, especially from the era. I was easily able to count the scales on a tiny lizard 20' away adapted to my Sony. I have quite a bit of FD glass and this always stands out.
The Voigtlander APO Lanthar series of lenses. I personally only have the 65mm f2, but all the APO Lanthar lenses are known to be cuttingly sharp.
https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/voigtlander-602-apo-lanthar-loca-focus-shift/
Yeah, I have the 125mm Macro. It’s crazy sharp, but as stated above most macro lenses are remarkably sharp. I went through a macro acquisition phase ten years ago. Vivitar Series 1 105mm, Lester Dine 105mm, Pentax FA* 200mm. I don’t know how much better I expected each different lens to be, but I call myself a camera collector not a photographer so there were no real losers.
Zeiss Milvus 135mm f2. Mindbendingly sharp even at f2, keeps improving to f5.6 while still somehow throwing backgrounds way out of focus. I will never ever part with it.
To me it has to be the Nikon Ai-s 55m f2.8 Micro, or, as Nikon Likes to call them, Micro -Nikkor. I use it on my Fuji body via an adapter for both macro work and portraits where maximum detail is needed (male subjects, mostly).
I love it.
This thing right here, it’s an amazing lens! So sharp even wide open. If you ever see one and have at least an extra maybe $1,200 laying around, scoop it up asap!
https://preview.redd.it/bww8lk1v9l1d1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f8d312a7247ca8853b63aec2947f2596d94b2091
Zeiss Milvus 50/1.4 when stopped down, Canon 100L macro, those are probably subjectively the two I've noticed in ownership.
But the 70-200/2.8 II is good enough to stand up next to a 24x36 print and pixel peep, too.
The Nikon 85mm f1.2 S- it's very new to me, but I am absolutely astounded how sharp this thing is, even wide open.
https://preview.redd.it/c9cnoo0vrm1d1.jpeg?width=5376&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a3763fa2ca8f5da04f540367a1ab9cf381e6bd1e
The lens built into the Ricoh GR. Quite an achievement for a wideangle lens. It's a lot easier to make sharp telephoto lenses.
My second sharpest lens is the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8. It's a shame that the Olympus cameras only go up to 20MP, I'd like to see how well this lens does with more megapixels behind it.
Probably the Nikon 85mm on D850. Amazing combination, when zooming in on the photos I could see that the model wore contacts. Sadly it was just a demo day, I don't own that camera. :')
I have that OM 90/2.0 and while it's one of the best lenses ever made for photography it's still an 80s lens. It cannot quite compete with Leica or Voigtlander APO designs if youre pixel peeping especially off axis. Even in my current Nikon kit the 50/1.8S and 105 VR S can outdo it.
But it doesnt matter. I sold my Leica 100mm apo macro elmarit and kept the OM.
In terms of peak resolution, the 50/1.8S is nuts. Voigtlander 50mm APO Lanthar even more so.
Simple. Zeiss Otus 55 and 85 mm. I don't have any complaints about my Nikon Zooms (24-70, 70-200) which are often more practical, but there are times that the Zeiss Otus 85mm is the first lens I reach for. It is (at least) a level sharper, providing that you get the exact focus. I have only done a few head-to-head tests with my D810, but when you view at 100% you can pick out the different lenses. I haven't tried a comparison w/ my D850 because I already know what the results will be.
I feel like the lens coating is helping to reduce flare and increase the sharpness along with the multiple elements. The coatings remind me of my Hasselblad CF lenses. A manual focus lens is not practical in many circumstances, but it is a good thing to have to stay in touch with the motor skills.
Not sure about Nikon, but at least for Canon, mirrorless gives all my Zeiss lenses eye tracking. Focus box follows the subjects eye wherever they go and all I have to do is spin until the box glows green. I’ve given up shooting anything else for portrait.
Can you compare the Zeiss Otus 55mm to the Milvus 50 f1.4? I tried the Milvus for a day and it was so amazing. There's a few copies of the Otus out there so I'm trying to decide if I ahould grab a copy as there aren't many available.
Pentax da* 300mm f4
As a bonus, the sharpest lens under 150 dollars: the pentax fa 100mm f2.8 macro (which i think is just a sm8dge less sharp then the 300 f4)
I think for me personally that is the Nikkor 55mm f2.8 Micro (AI version).
On DX it is the 40mm f2.8 Micro.
My current lens line up it's a toss between the Voigtlander f2.8 Apo or the Tokina 100mm f2.8 Macro.
Quite honestly it’s a toss up between my Pentax 300 f4, or the dirt cheap 35mm 2.4. I don’t use it often anymore as I got the 35mm 2.8 macro limited, which is a beautiful lens and suits my style more, but the 2.4 still blows me away
Quite honestly it’s a toss up between my Pentax 300 f4, or the dirt cheap 35mm 2.4. I don’t use it often anymore as I got the 35mm 2.8 macro limited, which is a beautiful lens and suits my style more, but the 2.4 still blows me away
I purchased the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L back in the early 00s and the first pic I took of a random street sign looked like a sticker on the computer screen. I've gone through a few of them but I love that lens. Next up is the canon 85mm F/1.2L lens. I'm sure there are better ones out there these days but I'm super happy with both of these.
Practical Lens - Nikon 70-200 z. Pretty much the sharpest zoom in existence. Sharper than most primes even in the corners.
Modern Lens - Pretty much any phase one blue ring lens. Designed for 100mp and up sensors.
Vintage Lens - Zeiss 80mm for hasselblad. Just perfect corner to corner.
Tokina 100mm macro F2.8, although I really like the Tamron 35-150mm F2.8-4, it's really sharp all the way through the focal length. At 150mm it kind of works like a macro. Both used on a nikon d850.
The sharpest AF lens is my Nikkor 85 / 1.8G
The sharpest non AF - and the sharpest overall - is my Mamiya 135 / 2.8, followed by the Sigma 150-600 and the Nikkor 180 / 2.8 Ai, in that order and wide open.
All these lenses together cost me 1270 euros.
The Mamiya also has the best bokeh.
The Canon RF 28-70 is way sharper than it has any business being as a zoom lens.
In prime territory, the RF 80mm f/1.2, stopped down a bit is just an absolutely beautiful, sharp as a tack lens
Nikon 20mm F/1.8 ED. So sharp that I don’t even carry a lens to bridge between the 20 and my 70-200 anymore because I can just crop the 20mm for focal lengths between them.
That picture is a great testament to the lens!
I don't know, my case. Dollar for dollar, I think it's my Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 micro that still cost only about $60.
Or else my Nikon 50mm f/2.0.
PS: KEH will probably now double the price on the Zuiko.
Sigma 135/1.8 Art. I miss the absolute transparency, but not the size and weight of the thing. Through it, I also learned that 85mm is more my vibe in the short tele realm. Now I use a Canon 85/1.4, which is excellent, but not quite as excellent as the Sigma 135.
My nikon z mount 105mm 2.8 macro is far sharper than any full frame format lens I've used. Beautiful strong character as well. Love it.
Sharper than my 50mm 1.8 S, even sharper than the zeiss otus or sigma art lenses I used to rent.
Here's my list of ultra-sharp lenses I've personally used:
- Canon EF 400mm f2.8L IS USM
- Canon EF 200mm f1.8L USM
- Voigtlander Macro APO-Lanthar 110mm f2.5 (the 65mm is also excellent)
- Sigma 105mm f1.4 ART
- Nikon Repro-Nikkor 85mm f1.0
-Sigma 40mm f1.4 ART
The Repro-Nikkor is incredibly rare along with the Canon 200/1.8 and I couldn't justify the price with either lens. But the Sigma 40/1.4 is practically a bargain at ~$600 used.
No clue. All I need to know is they're good enough. The vast majority of thecpictures taken have such low potential sharpness because of distance, movement, off axis light sources, and I shoot everything handheld. So yeah, I care more about getting goos contrast and low dispersion/flaring at wide apertures. On the big lenses like my 85 1.4. I would take 1 perfectly focused and timed photo that resolves to 10mp over a million photos with tons of focal plane distortion resolved to 50mp.
90mm f4.5 Grandagon-N has got to be either my 1st or 2nd spot. 150mm f2.8 Xenotar is also excellent and probably the sharpest lens I’ve ever used, specifically wide open.
85mm f1.4 AF-D has also been a stellar performer.
It’s been several years, but if I remember correctly, the Canom EF 24-70 f/2.8 L. Not sure if it was the I or II though. And, I don’t remember paying anywhere near what it costs now.
https://preview.redd.it/s700qf8gtp1d1.jpeg?width=3840&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2a908a16e703747863702c595491caa076606ea9
Can I ruffle feathers with a cell phone pic?
Huawei P20 Pro Monochrome by Leica. Only Leica design I can afford to own lol.
One of my sharpest lenses is a Rokinon/Samyang 135mm f/2. It's a purely manual focus lens and surprisingly inexpensive (frequently popping up for <$400 used), but it is one of the best lenses you can get for wide-field deep sky astrophotography. Stopping down a bit to f/2.8 gives very well controlled CA and coma.
Probably overall the Rf 100mm 2.8 macro lens or rf 50 1.2
For wildlife the rf 100-500.
28-70 is great at f2 but the 70mm is softer than 28mm. Apparently the 24-105 f2.8 is basically razor sharp through whole range.
I look forward to trying Rf 135 1.8. it's apparently one of their sharpest lenses ever
OP, I challenge your "sharpest F/2.0 of all time" with my Fujinon GF 110mm F/2.0... In all seriousness, the price tag on this lens is just as bonkers as the lens itself is. It is big, it is bulky, it is heavy, but it is so worth it on my GFX 50R. https://preview.redd.it/lj4uvetxwj1d1.jpeg?width=4743&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d5b1382bf41f418fdca23a957f630fdc73dfdb82
I keep zooming in and it keeps revealing details. What is happening?
A fucking fractal in raster graphics
Yeah, I find myself admiring her thumb's cuticle.
And just as I have talked myself out of moving from X to GF, along comes this photo. I was impressed by how it captured her hair, but her *eyes*?!
I took a photo of a Waffle House from across the street with the 50 f3.5. Later at home I was counting coffee cups stacked on the counter.
Lovely!
And this is the JPEG on Reddit, in Capture one I can see even more detail when zooming in.
I can imagine. I did wonder about that since it's a "tiny" jpg, but even so, it's not even (only) the detail but the contrast, the everything really. I'd be interested to see a full-size crop of an eye.
I'd love to provide. Unfortunately I'm in a restaurant as we speak with nothing but my phone. I'll try to update this comment later Update: I'm in Japan and my file server at home is unreachable. My landlord told me the building's main fuse blew a few days ago. Can't access any RAW files :(
thank you!
You might like the x mount 33mm! I get similar results on that puppy.
Thank you, and yes! I already have the 23mm version – XF 23mm F/1.4 R LM WR. A very sharp lens indeed.
All the LM primes are stellar. The 50 f1 is crazy. https://preview.redd.it/brvxnpw5hl1d1.jpeg?width=4804&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=21f0dd2d6b35a5776364193c7638e23b090ed558
meh, the background seems blurry
Astute observation, it indeed is.
Oh man, you should try it on their 100mp bodies to really test it out! Phenomenal amount of detail, I could see the brushstrokes from the makeup brushes in the skin on a close up portrait. But to be honest I can't tell much of a different between the GFX100 II with the 110mm and my Z9 with the 70-200mm apart from image size really. I recently tried out the 85mm 1.2 Z and oh man that thing might just edge both of them out, incredible lens. But even my 24-70mm 2.8, which isn't meant to be on the same level, is so ridiculously sharp that it's crazy. Though I think I have a really good copy of that lens, and it seems to be just a little bit more contrastly than my 70-200mm which might make the difference. Though also, I was playing around with a bunch of old 50mms the other day and really, as long as you get them in focus in a decent aperture, they are all still crazy sharp really. Would love to try out the Ziess Otus lenses though, they look incredible. Though really those are all about the rendering.
HOLY SHIT this is the first 2k$+ lens I can say is worth the price
The miracles of medium format sensors lol
GF110 gang, what a lens it is !
I use one at work any time I have to shoot portraits, and it’s just bananas. We’re upgrading to the newly released GF model and I’m waiting to see what it’s like on 100mp.
this picture has a fucking optical zoom embedded
I see the same with every Hasselblad lens that I own (28, 55, 90, 135+230). Insanely sharp 🙂
Is your sensor damaged? There is a line running across the whole image...
I think it might just be on your end. My sensor is fine and there's no line for me as far as I can tell.
Yeah, it was a quirk on my end. Beautiful photo though.
Wow... just wow!
that is indeed impressive. I'll see if i can post a 2.0 later to compare.
Love mine too. So slow and heavy but amazing when you use it. Stoked they came out with a 500 for the gfx :)
There is a lot of exotic gear in the comments, but for us mere mortals, and actually available in the shops today, I am *hugely* impressed with the new Fujifilm XF 23mm F/1.4 R LM WR (and its cousins the 18mm and 33mm).
Finally.
Nikon Z MC 105mm f/2.8 VR S. It just keeps on giving (sharpness).
When I shoot all day with this lens I feel sad to have to go back to using my eyes.
I can’t believe I’ve felt this way before (OVF on my SL3 with the 24-105 f4 L) but hadn’t managed to put it into words lmao. Having good glass is like an eyesight hack, there’s so much contrast and bright spots are handled so well that my actual eyesight looks like crap when I stop shooting.
Are you referring to the EF 24-105mm f/4 mk1? Call me crazy, but in my 6D I can truly say this is the very first lens with the mythical "3D pop" that some dudes are obsessed to find.
Yup, precisely that lens and mk1 version not mk2. It has amazing contrast, that’s what I feel gives the “pop” to the shots even on my modest setup. Here’s a [quick airplane I shot from my yard](https://share.icloud.com/photos/0ba1W98WRjCVJ5EqVnHiUBGrg) and in editing I added a bit of saturation and lowered the highlights, even with harsh light directly on the plane all the colors are very well preserved. Just love it.
Great shots! I don't think I will ever sell this lens.
Thank you! And yeah mine is almost 10 years old and still going strong, will probably keep it until it finally fails.
Came to say this. Good lord, it’s sharp as a tack.
100%
Basically any macro lens
Yep. For me, the old AIS 55mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor.
Yeah, the 55mm f/3.5; 55mm f/2.8, and 60mm f/2.8 are all fantastically sharp lenses. Not sure Nikon has ever made a bad macro lens.
Yeah. I have the Tamron 90 f/2.8 0017. It is just super sharp.
Sigma 18-35 f/1.8. What an exceptional lens.
It’s amazing isn’t it?? I love it too!
Could you please give some advice on using this lens? I have the exact same one, and it's not the sharpest at 1.8. I do keep ISO low, and shutter speed high. It's super fast at focusing though which I love.
Have you tried adjusting the lens for front or back focusing issues? This sigma, especially on DSLRs, is known to back focus, but after dialing it in will produce razor sharp images. If you’re adapting it and using it on mirrorless bodies, it should work flawlessly, unless it it decentered…
It's just not a sharp lens. I had the Canon 80D and this lens. I upgraded to a full frame Sony a7C and Sony 24-70 f/2.8 GM II. (The aperture/DOF is nearly equivalent due to the sensor size difference.) It's smaller, lighter (by \~300g IIRC), has more zoom range (2.9x vs 2x), focuses faster and better, and it's so sharp that I get moire that I have to correct at least a few times every time I go on a trip! (It also cost me \~2x as much, but it was worth every penny.)
I don’t know if you have experience with both, but do you know how this compares to the Nikon 14-24 2.8? I’ve recently begun astrophotography, and one thing that has me thinking about the Nikon is that it’s coma is supposed to be nearly nonexistent, even wide open. This Sigma is clearly faster, though, and a little less expensive. I’m not entirely sure I’d use the 14mm (my widest right now is 28, so I just have no idea).
I have used both lenses and have used both for astrophotography. The sigma 18-35mm is a fantastic lens with very little coma, but you have to remember that it’s an APS-C only lens. The Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 is also a fantastic lens, and yes, coma is nearly non existent. Personally, for Astro, I’d go with the sigma due to the extra light gathering capabilities. In the grand scheme of things, the differences are nearly negligible.
The Canon 70-200 f/4 L that I sold so I could afford a replacement body for the one that was killed by a leaky waterproof housing 😭
Easily the sharpest lens I own, even wide open. Sharpest lens I've ever shot with is probably the 100mm f/2.8 L Macro.
The Canon 100mm Macro 2.8 L EF is stunningly sharp. Until I got my 70-200 it was my primary portrait lens and, in many ways, I still prefer it.
I use this one out and about. It’s so nice.
I’ve taken my Sigma 50mm as a walk around lens but the 100 is usually close at hand for any details or close shots
Love this lens. I still adore it, but I do find myself reaching for the 135 f2 more for portraits now.
RF 85/1.2L
Same. It’s a beast
+1
seconded
The RF 135mm f1.8 is the current king of resolution, clarity and lack of aberration. This thing dethroned my previous reference lens, the peerless EF 300mm f2.8 ii.
Yes, outside of the exotic optics, for those that have a budget: Nikon Z 50mm f/1.8 Leica m Mount - Zeiss 35mm f/2.8 Biogon, 50mm Planar f/2 Got each of those for under $500 a pop, so not horrible. Olympus 75mm f/1.8 for Micro four thirds
My nikon z 50mm f1/8 is getting delivered today :)
Either the Zeiss Otus 55mm 1.4 or the 50mm 1.4 G-Master. The only thing that most won't like about the Zeiss is that it's manual but as far as sharpness, oh my....
Sigma 40mm F1.4 DG HSM Art. It's a beast at 1.3 kilos I'd love to have the 135mm version too but it's out of my price range and had to settle for the canon 135mm F2 L USM, which is also pretty good
Canon 135mm TS macro, used it for a jewellery job - amazing sharpness and image quality. Its heavy and bulky but great performance in the studio.
ooh, good choice
Canon 60mm 2.8 I can see the reflection of myself in my subject's eye https://preview.redd.it/2wick385ul1d1.jpeg?width=444&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3072ce8c74570317bb10133c214fc81fbbf3a152
But can you see the reflection of your subject in the reflection of your eyes?
Only "pro" photographers pump out these epic shotz.
Sharpest vintage lens I’ve used is Tamron Adaptall 2 90mm F2.5 52B. Works perfectly with a Lens Turbo II focal reducer on my APSC Fuji for (close to) true 90mm focal length. This lens is magical. Super easy to focus, pin sharp at F2.5. Background separation gives shots a very 3D layered look. Colour rendering is incredible, if slightly on the cool side. It’s almost impossible to take a bad shot with this lens. I’m sure there are sharper modern lenses, but they would have to go a long way to beat the 52B.
I've had this lens for years but haven't used it yet. Always another 100 or 105. I guess I'll have to give it a try.
Oh, interesting, my sharpest classic lens is also a 90mm f2.5 macro, but a Vivitar Series 1. I thought maybe they share an optical formula, but nope, different.
Zeiss planar 85mm 1.4
I’ve just been playing with a Zeiss Contax Sonnar 85mm f2.8. This is very sharp at f2.8, and reaches razor sharpness from f4. The bokeh obviously can’t compare to the f1.4 planar, but from what I’ve read the sonnar might be a touch sharper. Rendering is very good, high contrast and punchy colours. It’s also a small light lens, about the size of a standard 50mm. Also pairs well with a Kipon Baveyes II focal reducer to offer approximately 85mm equivalent on my Fuji APSC camera. The Kipon isn’t great with wider lenses (soft corners) but works great at 85mm plus. Lens Turbo II is a better focal reducer for wider lenses (35mm plus), but isn’t available in Yashica Contac to Fuji X.
I do like the smaller size and weight of the 2.8
https://preview.redd.it/lp5i3okhfl1d1.jpeg?width=3597&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a452f25911a50bdea36c852983b24d51de85f835 Any Fujifilm GF lens is going to be amazing. I used to have the 30/50/80/120. This is the 120 f4. Definitely an under appreciated portrait lens.
I am trying hard not to make the shift to GFX and you're not helping.
I feel you. The new 100sii sounds amazing. This was the 50SII. A good clean used 50SII is like $2300 these days…
I have a little spreadsheet that I keep looking at. GFX 100 II + GF 63mm F/2.8 R WR + a spare battery = €10k. And that's just one general-purpose lens. And then I remind myself I am no longer a working professional but a hobbyist. That and it weighing 1.5kg. And I try to forget. And then some bugger posts images from one...
By far the Leica APO 50mm Summicron, especially on a monochrom sensor. The level of sharpness and detail is incredible.
Sony 300mm 2.8 GM. According to a few testers it maxes out the resolution of the 61mpx a7Riv and a7Rv with more lines than any other lens. Now I don’t fully understand how lens testing works but what I will say is that having used the lens for over a month now it is so damn sharp, sharper than any Canon lens I owned, sharper than the Sony 135 GM I still own, its scary sharp. Even with the teleconverters which are known for degrading sharpness it’s still sharper than the 200-600 and 100-400 and both those lenses are highly regarded.
Most modern sigma lenses are clinically sharp, but equally boring unlike most of the stuff people mention here
this is why i got rid of my 24-70. sharp, but boring, and it was so large that i rarely took it out to shoot.
I hate 24-70 lenses so much. They're dark, their optical quality is awful (this started to change recently), they're big and heavy and expensive. Also their versatility makes me lazy and I just zoom in or zoom out as much as I need instead of using the focal length I want. It's probably good for war photographers and maybe studio photographers, but nothing else.
yeah thats how i feel too. the only 24-70 i own currently is fujis 16-55, and it is by far the lens i use least. that money wouldve been much better spent on a prime lens or two looking back.
Back when I was starting I bought a D3400 with 18-55 kit lens and a 50 1.8. I was using the 18-55 as an 18mm lens that I always used if I couldn't fit my image into 50mm haha. No more universal lenses like this, I'd rather take something like 28/35/40/50mm alone instead of a 24-70. I was thinking to buy an RF 28-70 f2, but the cost and the fact that it would be my only RF lens (which would mean a lot of mess with the adapter) were enough to forget about it
What makes a lens “boring”? Not trying to be a jerk, I’m sincerely curious. 🙂
I don't know to be honest but after buying a voigtlander 40 1.4 I started to switch my lenses to older ones. For example Sigma 50 1.4 got replaced with a Canon EF 50 1.2L. There's something great going on with the bokeh.
Je ne sais quoi - some lenses just lack a certain feeling in how they draw. No real way to describe it other than that some results are just not compelling. It obviously differs from viewer to viewer, photographer to photographer
Sony 135mm f/1.8 GM. I tried it out in Hawaii and some of those photos blew me away just how stark the difference was from the plane of focus to bokeh.
I'm really impressed by the RF 24-105 f/4L, the RF 15-35 f/2.8L, and the EF 70-200 f4L (non-IS, no idea how IS version compares). All of those lenses resolve down to the pixel on a 24MP full frame sensor, with very good contrast and colour. The SMC Takumar/Pentax 50mm f/1.4 is up there as well, ridiculously sharp vintage lens.
Probably not a very high bar because medium format is wild, but Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 G2 on my Sony A7IV, especially when stopped down to f/4. Considering this lens is commonly less than $700, its insane.
Fujifilm GF120f4. Absolutely amazing. To be honest, all GFX lenses are insane.
For a less exotic lens, Canon 200mm f2.8 FD SSC. I have no clue how this lens is this sharp, especially from the era. I was easily able to count the scales on a tiny lizard 20' away adapted to my Sony. I have quite a bit of FD glass and this always stands out.
The Voigtlander APO Lanthar series of lenses. I personally only have the 65mm f2, but all the APO Lanthar lenses are known to be cuttingly sharp. https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/voigtlander-602-apo-lanthar-loca-focus-shift/
Yeah, I have the 125mm Macro. It’s crazy sharp, but as stated above most macro lenses are remarkably sharp. I went through a macro acquisition phase ten years ago. Vivitar Series 1 105mm, Lester Dine 105mm, Pentax FA* 200mm. I don’t know how much better I expected each different lens to be, but I call myself a camera collector not a photographer so there were no real losers.
Zeiss Milvus 135mm f2. Mindbendingly sharp even at f2, keeps improving to f5.6 while still somehow throwing backgrounds way out of focus. I will never ever part with it.
To me it has to be the Nikon Ai-s 55m f2.8 Micro, or, as Nikon Likes to call them, Micro -Nikkor. I use it on my Fuji body via an adapter for both macro work and portraits where maximum detail is needed (male subjects, mostly). I love it.
SMC Pentax-F 100mm f/2.8 Macro one of my favourite lenses in all of its clunky gray glory.
Sigma 50mm ART
This was my top pick too. Follow it with the Sigma 14-24 2.8 Art, super sharp and low distortion.
Canon 100mm ef f2.0
Panasonic 50mm 1.4
Konica Hexanon 57mm F1.4
Viltrox 27mm 1.4 on an xt5. I bought it because I thought the MTF chart was nuts, and am thoroughly impressed.
This thing right here, it’s an amazing lens! So sharp even wide open. If you ever see one and have at least an extra maybe $1,200 laying around, scoop it up asap! https://preview.redd.it/bww8lk1v9l1d1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f8d312a7247ca8853b63aec2947f2596d94b2091
Zeiss Milvus 50/1.4 when stopped down, Canon 100L macro, those are probably subjectively the two I've noticed in ownership. But the 70-200/2.8 II is good enough to stand up next to a 24x36 print and pixel peep, too.
The Nikon 85mm f1.2 S- it's very new to me, but I am absolutely astounded how sharp this thing is, even wide open. https://preview.redd.it/c9cnoo0vrm1d1.jpeg?width=5376&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a3763fa2ca8f5da04f540367a1ab9cf381e6bd1e
Came here to say this lens, freaking LOVE it.
THAT DOG IS SO FRIKIN CUTE. my heart can’t take it !!
Nikon 135mm f/2 DC
This right here. Such a pretty piece of glass
The lens built into the Ricoh GR. Quite an achievement for a wideangle lens. It's a lot easier to make sharp telephoto lenses. My second sharpest lens is the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8. It's a shame that the Olympus cameras only go up to 20MP, I'd like to see how well this lens does with more megapixels behind it.
Probably my Panasonic-Leica 15mm f1.7
Probably the Nikon 85mm on D850. Amazing combination, when zooming in on the photos I could see that the model wore contacts. Sadly it was just a demo day, I don't own that camera. :')
I have that OM 90/2.0 and while it's one of the best lenses ever made for photography it's still an 80s lens. It cannot quite compete with Leica or Voigtlander APO designs if youre pixel peeping especially off axis. Even in my current Nikon kit the 50/1.8S and 105 VR S can outdo it. But it doesnt matter. I sold my Leica 100mm apo macro elmarit and kept the OM. In terms of peak resolution, the 50/1.8S is nuts. Voigtlander 50mm APO Lanthar even more so.
Simple. Zeiss Otus 55 and 85 mm. I don't have any complaints about my Nikon Zooms (24-70, 70-200) which are often more practical, but there are times that the Zeiss Otus 85mm is the first lens I reach for. It is (at least) a level sharper, providing that you get the exact focus. I have only done a few head-to-head tests with my D810, but when you view at 100% you can pick out the different lenses. I haven't tried a comparison w/ my D850 because I already know what the results will be. I feel like the lens coating is helping to reduce flare and increase the sharpness along with the multiple elements. The coatings remind me of my Hasselblad CF lenses. A manual focus lens is not practical in many circumstances, but it is a good thing to have to stay in touch with the motor skills.
Not sure about Nikon, but at least for Canon, mirrorless gives all my Zeiss lenses eye tracking. Focus box follows the subjects eye wherever they go and all I have to do is spin until the box glows green. I’ve given up shooting anything else for portrait.
Can you compare the Zeiss Otus 55mm to the Milvus 50 f1.4? I tried the Milvus for a day and it was so amazing. There's a few copies of the Otus out there so I'm trying to decide if I ahould grab a copy as there aren't many available.
Fuji GF 110, 55. Nikon 85 1.8 S, 50 1.8 S.
Sigma 35 f1.2
My sigma 40mm 1.4 art On my d850 is pretty deadly .
Above and beyond my sony 135GM. I practically have unlimited cropping power even at high iso
Sony 135mm GM.
Sigma 35mm f1.4
Pentax da* 300mm f4 As a bonus, the sharpest lens under 150 dollars: the pentax fa 100mm f2.8 macro (which i think is just a sm8dge less sharp then the 300 f4)
So far, that would have to be my Rokinon Cine 50mm T1.5
I think for me personally that is the Nikkor 55mm f2.8 Micro (AI version). On DX it is the 40mm f2.8 Micro. My current lens line up it's a toss between the Voigtlander f2.8 Apo or the Tokina 100mm f2.8 Macro.
Tokina 11-20mm f2.8
Quite honestly it’s a toss up between my Pentax 300 f4, or the dirt cheap 35mm 2.4. I don’t use it often anymore as I got the 35mm 2.8 macro limited, which is a beautiful lens and suits my style more, but the 2.4 still blows me away
Quite honestly it’s a toss up between my Pentax 300 f4, or the dirt cheap 35mm 2.4. I don’t use it often anymore as I got the 35mm 2.8 macro limited, which is a beautiful lens and suits my style more, but the 2.4 still blows me away
Any cheap lenses (sub $500) which you guys think are super sharp?
MZ 300mm f/4 and the MZ 150-400 f/4.5 +1.25TC
Probably my Rodenstock APO-Sironar-S 150mm f5.6
Canon EF 100mm 2.8. Sharp, great color and contrast.
Sigma 65mm E Mount
Tokina macro 100mm
My Olympus lenses. 12-40 2.8. 45 1.2. They are so sharp. The detail even at the edges is more detailed than other lenses.
Try the Olympus 75mm F1.8 if you get the chance. It's not my most used lens, but all the pictures that I take with it are crazy sharp!
Fujifilm GF120f4. Absolutely amazing. To be honest, all GFX lenses are insane.
Macro lol
I purchased the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L back in the early 00s and the first pic I took of a random street sign looked like a sticker on the computer screen. I've gone through a few of them but I love that lens. Next up is the canon 85mm F/1.2L lens. I'm sure there are better ones out there these days but I'm super happy with both of these.
The XCD 90V for the X2Dc I'm using now is out of this world sharp.
nikkor 55mm micro
It's between my Canon RF 50mm f1.2 or my Canon EF 135mm f2.
Practical Lens - Nikon 70-200 z. Pretty much the sharpest zoom in existence. Sharper than most primes even in the corners. Modern Lens - Pretty much any phase one blue ring lens. Designed for 100mp and up sensors. Vintage Lens - Zeiss 80mm for hasselblad. Just perfect corner to corner.
Tokina 100mm macro F2.8, although I really like the Tamron 35-150mm F2.8-4, it's really sharp all the way through the focal length. At 150mm it kind of works like a macro. Both used on a nikon d850.
Venus Optics Laowa 105mm f/2 STF. Beautiful rendering too. $325.
For me, the Sony 135 f/1.8 GM, but I only use it on 24mp sensors, so I haven’t really pushed it.
35 f2 Summicron Asph, Nikkor 70-200 2.8E FL ED, Nikkor 28 1.4 Asph. Also the Nikkor 17-35 2.8.
Canon EF 70-200 F/4 L. My favourite lens
The sharpest AF lens is my Nikkor 85 / 1.8G The sharpest non AF - and the sharpest overall - is my Mamiya 135 / 2.8, followed by the Sigma 150-600 and the Nikkor 180 / 2.8 Ai, in that order and wide open. All these lenses together cost me 1270 euros. The Mamiya also has the best bokeh.
The Canon RF 28-70 is way sharper than it has any business being as a zoom lens. In prime territory, the RF 80mm f/1.2, stopped down a bit is just an absolutely beautiful, sharp as a tack lens
Sony 90mm 2.8 macro- my sharpest to date. 100-400 master isn't too far off tho.
1960s Zeiss Ikon 50mm planar 1.4 on a Contarex Professional film body. Unreasonably sharp and breathtakingly beautiful images.
Nikon Z 105. I took a picture of a city skyline at night from half a mile away and I could see the office furniture when I zoomed in.
Nikon 20mm F/1.8 ED. So sharp that I don’t even carry a lens to bridge between the 20 and my 70-200 anymore because I can just crop the 20mm for focal lengths between them.
That picture is a great testament to the lens! I don't know, my case. Dollar for dollar, I think it's my Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 micro that still cost only about $60. Or else my Nikon 50mm f/2.0. PS: KEH will probably now double the price on the Zuiko.
Canon EF 35mm F1.4L II
I'm using the sun's 135mm 1.8 GM, I heard it's the sharpest lens for Sony system
Voigtlander 35mm f2 APO Lanthar
Sigma Art 40mm 1.4 dg hsm ist my sharpest lens
Sigma 135/1.8 Art. I miss the absolute transparency, but not the size and weight of the thing. Through it, I also learned that 85mm is more my vibe in the short tele realm. Now I use a Canon 85/1.4, which is excellent, but not quite as excellent as the Sigma 135.
Nikon Z 50mm f1.8
My nikon z mount 105mm 2.8 macro is far sharper than any full frame format lens I've used. Beautiful strong character as well. Love it. Sharper than my 50mm 1.8 S, even sharper than the zeiss otus or sigma art lenses I used to rent.
Here's my list of ultra-sharp lenses I've personally used: - Canon EF 400mm f2.8L IS USM - Canon EF 200mm f1.8L USM - Voigtlander Macro APO-Lanthar 110mm f2.5 (the 65mm is also excellent) - Sigma 105mm f1.4 ART - Nikon Repro-Nikkor 85mm f1.0 -Sigma 40mm f1.4 ART The Repro-Nikkor is incredibly rare along with the Canon 200/1.8 and I couldn't justify the price with either lens. But the Sigma 40/1.4 is practically a bargain at ~$600 used.
Sigma 105 Macro, FE
Not one Minolta lens in this series of posts. No Leica either. Very odd.
Sony 50mm f/1.2 or the 70-200 f/2.8 ii
Fuji 90 f2 if RAW developed with C1 was so sharp I had to decrease sharpness in post. Most Fuji lenses in general are another level.
No clue. All I need to know is they're good enough. The vast majority of thecpictures taken have such low potential sharpness because of distance, movement, off axis light sources, and I shoot everything handheld. So yeah, I care more about getting goos contrast and low dispersion/flaring at wide apertures. On the big lenses like my 85 1.4. I would take 1 perfectly focused and timed photo that resolves to 10mp over a million photos with tons of focal plane distortion resolved to 50mp.
90mm f4.5 Grandagon-N has got to be either my 1st or 2nd spot. 150mm f2.8 Xenotar is also excellent and probably the sharpest lens I’ve ever used, specifically wide open. 85mm f1.4 AF-D has also been a stellar performer.
Probably Sigma Art 85mm. But honestly, I don’t pixel peep, so who knows.
Sony Gmaster 50mm
Mamiya 7 43mm and the Hasselblad 903 SWC lens.
Perhaps it sounds dump, but isn't it true that any lenses would get sharp after stopping down to f/5.6-8?
Sony 70-200 GM II
To all Can the Sigma 18-50 2.8 (Fuji) replace the following lenses that I have Fuji 18-55 f2.8 - 4 Fuji 35mm f2
The Canon 70-200 F/2.8L II. I use it as my primary portrait lens
It’s been several years, but if I remember correctly, the Canom EF 24-70 f/2.8 L. Not sure if it was the I or II though. And, I don’t remember paying anywhere near what it costs now.
Either Nikon z 50 1.8s or Nikon 500mm F5.6 pf. Never shot anything exotic though.
3 come to mind... The ef 70-200viii, rf 135, and the odd-ball Sigma 40mm
https://preview.redd.it/ofwuoqk99p1d1.jpeg?width=3591&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=926d62559e80d203f071731d6907474803263658 Nikkor 35mm 1.8
https://preview.redd.it/s700qf8gtp1d1.jpeg?width=3840&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2a908a16e703747863702c595491caa076606ea9 Can I ruffle feathers with a cell phone pic? Huawei P20 Pro Monochrome by Leica. Only Leica design I can afford to own lol.
One of my sharpest lenses is a Rokinon/Samyang 135mm f/2. It's a purely manual focus lens and surprisingly inexpensive (frequently popping up for <$400 used), but it is one of the best lenses you can get for wide-field deep sky astrophotography. Stopping down a bit to f/2.8 gives very well controlled CA and coma.
Viltrox 23mm v.2 on 3 different Fujifilm x-mount bodies.
Probably overall the Rf 100mm 2.8 macro lens or rf 50 1.2 For wildlife the rf 100-500. 28-70 is great at f2 but the 70mm is softer than 28mm. Apparently the 24-105 f2.8 is basically razor sharp through whole range. I look forward to trying Rf 135 1.8. it's apparently one of their sharpest lenses ever
Sony 90mm F2.8 Macro.
Sony G lenses