NR Blog NR Forum ebay Finds Nikon Deals Nikon Buying Guide Leica Rumors Pentax Rumors Photo Rumors Contact NR
›

What is the sharpest lens you have used on a D810 or D500?

13»

Comments

  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,745Member
    Ironheart, I wonder about comparing MTFS from different manufacturers though. Thoughts?
    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • BesoBeso Posts: 464Member
    For me the sharpest lenses I put on my D810 or D5 all begin with Z, as in Zeiss. The Otus 55 f/1.4 is closely followed by the Otus 85 f/1.4, the 135 f/2, the 100 f/2 and the 25 f/2 (with some limitations). The Nikon 200 f/2 is an exceptionally sharp lens and can pretty much hold its own against all but the best Zeiss. The Sigma 35 f/1.4 and 50 f/1.4 are also right up there. However I find the contrast using the Zeiss glass to render a more aesthetically pleasing image. The Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 is a surprisingly good performer, especially considering its a zoom lens. I have a fair bit of the best of other Nikon glass up to 400mm f/2.8 but some of it has been a slight disappointment.
    This list is certainly not based on laboratory bench tests but is my opinion based on results in the field. If I have time to manually focus and do not need a supertele I will more often than not reach for a Zeiss lens.
    Occasionally a decent image ...
    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • IronheartIronheart Posts: 3,017Moderator
    edited October 2016
    @WestEndFoto asked, "I wonder how the Otii would stand up against the superteles?"

    I realize it is crazy to compare, say an 85mm lens against an 800mm lens, and comparing different manufactures using self-published MTF charts is difficult, but what the heck, difficult and crazy is what we do here :smile:

    So here is the MTF for the Zeiss Otus 85mm @ 1.4

    (10,20,40 LP/mm)

    And here is the MTF for the Nikon 800mm




    Post edited by Ironheart on
    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,745Member
    edited October 2016
    That 800 has a crazy MTF. Would love to see a 50 like that.

    The thing is that a 50 in FX that could do that might be ten grand, but only have the price in a "50 equivalent" medium format.
    Post edited by WestEndFoto on
    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • IronheartIronheart Posts: 3,017Moderator
    You are only off by $23,200
    https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1233345-REG/leica_11_405_f_summilux_c_50mm_lens_feet.html
    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,745Member
    Hmmm....I think what I am saying is that you can spend crazy amounts of money getting the last bit of performance potential out of a lens given its format size, or increase the format size and settle for average in that format size. Sure, all things being equal a larger format is more money, but you don't have to be equal anymore if you increase the format size.
    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • IronheartIronheart Posts: 3,017Moderator
    edited October 2016
    Ah, got it. So what is the equiv of a 50mm on MF? 100mm? or 75mm... I'll figure it out :smile:
    Post edited by Ironheart on
    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,745Member
    Thanks Ironheart, I am looking forward to seeing what you come up with.

    In a perfect world I would have a medium format version of a D810 with a range of lenses optimized for landscape/architecture (say a 14, 20, 28, 40, 58) all in something like f/5.0 since I don't need a shallow depth of field and I would be using a tripod) and lenses optimized for portraits (say, 50, 85, 135, 300) in something like f/2.0ish. All focal lengths are 35mm equivalents). Tilt/shift would be a bonus for the landscape set.

    The landscape/architecture set would also be my "travel" kit. Weight be damned - I go on vacations to take pictures - not gawk at tourist traps or frolic in the sea.

    Then my "lightweight" FX kit would be a DF with a 35 1.4 and 58 1.4 and maybe a 24-70 2.8E with VR - plus the legacy lenses currently in my kit. Since the IQ on the FX kit would be mediocre compared to the MX kit, I would go for the DF despite only having 16 megapixels because it is more "fun".

    If I need even more lightweight, I have my Coolpix A.

    It would be a dream come true if Nikon came out with a serious "MX". By serious I mean a minimum crop factor of 0.5 and preferably 0.3 - not the "medium format light" being offered by Fuji and Hasselblad. Not to denigrate Fuji - the combination of their APS-C and medium format light will be a slick kit combo.

    I bet Nikon could do a fabulous job of medium format.
    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • paulrpaulr Posts: 1,176Member
    Ironheart said:

    Ah, got it. So what is the equiv of a 50mm on MF? 100mm? or 75mm... I'll figure it out :smile:

    Standard lens for a MF is 80mm

    Camera, Lens and Tripod and a few other Bits
    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • superfortresssuperfortress Posts: 4Member
    It is a nice topic
    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • DenverShooterDenverShooter Posts: 416Member
    I own the new Nikon 800mm lens. Its a monster. The biggest issue with its performance is the atmospherics that you are using it in. Indoors in a well air-conditioned venue without any localized heat sources you are shooting though it is incredible. Outdoors shooting over a lake thats 20 F warmer than the air and the distortion of the atmosphere will impact its performance. I haven't shot any portraits with it yet...

    Denver Shooter
    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • MegapixelSchnitzelMegapixelSchnitzel Posts: 185Member
    Ironheart said:

    You are only off by $23,200
    https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1233345-REG/leica_11_405_f_summilux_c_50mm_lens_feet.html

    Excellent! And I don't have to special order it, either.
    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.