Sharpest lens ever (Page 2): Why are we calling people stupid? What's the point of that?? Isn't this blog about sharing the knowledge to beginners all the way to advanced?? I meant...

cony25

Why are we calling people stupid? What's the point of that??
Isn't this blog about sharing the knowledge to beginners all the way to advanced??

I meant prime lenses, (no zoom whatsoever) to telephoto or (zoom lenses) lenses that have different ranges.

RWR wrote:

Since cony25 posed the statement, I asked for his/her interpretation. Those who understand what they read got it.

jrb1213 Loc: McDonough GEorgia

Canon 100 f2.8 IS Macro. But I have never tried some of the lenses with god-like prices

mtparker Loc: Cape Charles & Springfield, Virginia

I do not know the exact nomenclature but it is the first Asahi Pentax SMC 50mm f1.7. Not an uncommon lens but many owners did not truly appreciate what they had. Certainly the sharpest 50 I've ever used ... yes Leitz and Zeiss, that includes you.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

scsdesphotography wrote:

Today in the world of digital any fixed focal length lens between 35 and 90 is considered to be a prime. Below 35 is considered to be a wide angle and above 90 is a telephoto. Zoom lenses are no longer junk and are usually as sharp as a prime at their middle focal length

Incorrect! A prime lens has a fixed focal length (as opposed to a zoom lens), ranging from extreme fish-eye to extreme tel-photo. There is no range limit for prime.
http://www.google.com/search?as_q=photographic+prime+lens+definition&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=any&safe=images&tbs=&as_filetype=&as_rights=#as_qdr=all&q=photography+prime+lens+definition&spell=1

scsdesphotography Loc: Southeastern Michigan

The question was "what was the sharpest lens you have used?." For me it's my 35 f1.8. No argument with the other lenses suggested here (can't afford the Zeiss ones on a retired man's budget). But at it's price point (and confirmed by lab tests) the Nikor 35 is one of the sharpest lenses out there.

As far as what constitutes a "prime" lens. I stand by the historic definition of the term (check any photography book on the subject). But if you want to call a 300mm lens a prime telephoto, that's OK too.

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

mtparker wrote:

I do not know the exact nomenclature but it is the first Asahi Pentax SMC 50mm f1.7. Not an uncommon lens but many owners did not truly appreciate what they had. Certainly the sharpest 50 I've ever used ... yes Leitz and Zeiss, that includes you.

that SMC 50mm f1.7 was sharp in its day, still use mine with extention tubes as a pseudo-macro.

donrent Loc: Punta Gorda , Fl

HEY ! I said I misred the post... YOU EVER DONE THAT ???

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

scsdesphotography wrote:

...
As far as what constitutes a "prime" lens. I stand by the historic definition of the term (check any photography book on the subject)....

Nikon should have a good idea of what constitutes a prime lens and here is what they say:
"What is a prime lens? Well, it's a lens that isn't a zoom. A prime lens has a fixed focal length which means it has only one focal length. Examples of NIKKOR prime lenses are the AF-S NIKKOR 35mm f/1.4G and AF-S NIKKOR 200mm f/2G ED VR II, and the new AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G. Some prime lenses are designed for specific uses, such as the Micro-NIKKOR (AF-S Micro-NIKKOR 85mm f/3.5G ED VR), Perspective Control (PC-E Micro NIKKOR 45mm f/2.8D), and Fisheye (AF DX Fisheye-NIKKOR 10.5mm f/2.8D ED) lenses."

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

cony25 wrote:

In your opinion, what is the sharpest lens that you have ever tried? Regardless if it is prime or telephoto.

canon 50mm fd 50mm 1.4

hangman45 Loc: Hueytown Alabama

I have a few very sharp do not know what is the sharpest ever but of the ones I have would have to say can not tell much difference
Lester A Dine 105mm Macro Very Sharp
Pentax M 1oo F/4 Macro also very sharp
Tamron 90mm Macro

mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)

scsdesphotography wrote:

Anything with a longer focal length was considered to be a telephoto. In those days zoom lenses were considered to be junk and were only used by amatures.

Today in the world of digital any fixed focal length lens between 35 and 90 is considered to be a prime. Below 35 is considered to be a wide angle and above 90 is a telephoto. Zoom lenses are no longer junk and are usually as sharp as a prime at their middle focal length

History aside, today there are prime, or single focal length, lenses and zoom lenses. Among prime lenses there are normal lenses, those with a 35mm equivalent of about 50mm*, wide angle lenses, those shorter than normal, and telephoto lenses, those longer than normal.
* The 'normal' range can be considered to be about 45mm to 60mm, although definitions vary.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

scsdesphotography wrote:

As far as what constitutes a "prime" lens. I stand by the historic definition of the term (check any photography book on the subject). But if you want to call a 300mm lens a prime telephoto, that's OK too.

NONE of my photography books restrict the length of prime lenses. The standard lens for my 4x5 is 150-mm, which projects the approximate Field-of-View as a 50-mm lens on a full frame digital camera, or a 35-mm film camera. A 150-mm lens on a digital camera would be considered a telephoto lens. Your distinction of range for prime lenses is arbitrary, and suggests that you have no experience with any other film formats.
Read scores of references here: http://www.google.com/search?as_q=photographic+prime+lens+definition&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=any&safe=images&tbs=&as_filetype=&as_rights=&gws_rd=ssl#as_qdr=all&q=photography+prime+lens+definition&spell=1

scsdesphotography Loc: Southeastern Michigan

Thanks oldtigger, I think Nikon's definition speaks to how much the relationship between camera's, lenses and image size has changed since film days. The 35mm film image was not the only one available, so what would be considered a prime lens for one would be different for another.

A prime for a digital point and shoot might be around 12mm, while for my Nikon it would be about a 24 and for a full frame it would still be a 35.

Today it's either a zoom or not. It just seems easier to say prime instead of fixed focus. But to say you have a 50mm prime lens is sort of redundant, what else would it be?

Tiny Tim Loc: Forest of the Pacific Northwest

cony25 wrote:

Why are we calling people stupid? What's the point of that??
Isn't this blog about sharing the knowledge to beginners all the way to advanced??

I meant prime lenses, (no zoom whatsoever) to telephoto or (zoom lenses) lenses that have different ranges.

Personally, I didn't see anyone calling people stupid. There is no point in that. But there's a difference between calling someone "ignorant" and calling them "stupid." There are SO MANY subjects I'm ignorant about, but I'd never call myself or anyone else "stupid" for not knowing the answer to a question. Ignorant people are never stupid, they just don't know the answer, therefore, IMHO, there are never any stupid questions nor are there stupid people.

scsdesphotography Loc: Southeastern Michigan

Thanks Nikonian72, you are correct about the term "normal," which had slipped my mind in this conversation. I sort of mixed the two together. Normal is the more proper term for a lens that matches the film or sensor size and prime does refer to a fixed lens of any focal length.