Please name the sharpest Nikon lenses

The one the best photographer is holding.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit



"Bob G" <bobjames27.DeleteThis@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:32e00c61-6409-465c-b9e1-fe1943153fa6@34g2000hsz.googlegroups.com...
> 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.
>
> Thanks!
 >> Stay informed about: Please name the sharpest Nikon lenses 

"dullpain" <fac_187.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> 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.

--
Michael Benveniste -- mhb-offer.DeleteThis@clearether.com
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.
 >> Stay informed about: Please name the sharpest Nikon lenses 

acl <achilleaslazarides.RemoveThis@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Feb 20, 11:38 pm, Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgt....RemoveThis@sneakemail.com>

>> 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.
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%.

-Wolfgang
 >> Stay informed about: Please name the sharpest Nikon lenses 

On Feb 21, 7:49 pm, Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgt....RemoveThis@sneakemail.com>
wrote:
> acl <achilleaslazari....RemoveThis@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Feb 20, 11:38 pm, Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgt....RemoveThis@sneakemail.com>
> >> 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%.
 >> Stay informed about: Please name the sharpest Nikon lenses 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Please name the sharpest Nikon lenses 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Please name the sharpest Nikon lenses 

Michael Benveniste wrote:
> "dullpain" <fac_187 DeleteThis @hotmail.com> 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.
 >> Stay informed about: Please name the sharpest Nikon lenses 

On Feb 22, 6:26 pm, Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgt... DeleteThis @sneakemail.com>
wrote:
> acl <achilleaslazari... DeleteThis @yahoo.co.uk> 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).
 >> Stay informed about: Please name the sharpest Nikon lenses 

On 2008-02-20 14:25:09 -0800, "dullpain" <fac_187 RemoveThis @hotmail.com> 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
 >> Stay informed about: Please name the sharpest Nikon lenses 

acl <achilleaslazarides.DeleteThis@yahoo.co.uk> 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
 >> Stay informed about: Please name the sharpest Nikon lenses 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Please name the sharpest Nikon lenses 

On Feb 23, 6:42 am, Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgt... DeleteThis @sneakemail.com>
wrote:
> acl <achilleaslazari... DeleteThis @yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Feb 22, 6:26 pm, Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgt... DeleteThis @sneakemail.com>
> >> acl <achilleaslazari... DeleteThis @yahoo.co.uk> 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.
 >> Stay informed about: Please name the sharpest Nikon lenses 

acl <achilleaslazarides DeleteThis @yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Feb 22, 6:26 pm, Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgt... DeleteThis @sneakemail.com>
>> acl <achilleaslazari... DeleteThis @yahoo.co.uk> 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.
 >> Stay informed about: Please name the sharpest Nikon lenses