which is sharper, older MF Nikon primes or cheap tamron zoom?

[Giuseppe Pugliese]

Ok so this is a dumb question but...


Just had a debate and couldn't figure out any real numbers here...

Would a set of Nikon AI-AIS prime lenses (built in the 80s) have sharper image than a "new" Tamron 17-50mm built 2 years ago?


my logic would think the newer lens would be sharper, is that right or is there more sharpness in the "quality older glass"?

 

[Mike P.]

I would say the primes for sharpness, just because they're primes. I have a Tamron 28-75 and it kind of blows (softness and character). That said, my Nikkors' coatings don't do well with highlight/high-contrast (it's like they fringe or go specular a little abruptly and you can't see it until your looking at it fullscreen on a comp.)

 

[Nick Morrison]

I would say the primes for sharpness, just because they're primes. I have a Tamron 28-75 and it kind of blows (softness and character). That said, my Nikkors' coatings don't do well with highlight/high-contrast (it's like they fringe or go specular a little abruptly and you can't see it until your looking at it fullscreen on a comp.)

I'm going to agree here. By in large, IMHO, old lenses (even from the 50's) are rarely lacking in sharpness. They can frequently be VERY SHARP, especially in the center, and especially if they are primes from a venerable brand - think Nikon, Canon FD, Minolta, and in particular Leica and Zeiss. They are often plagued by other issues - soft edges (which you don't see anyway on non "full frame" sensors), CA, distortion, and older coatings handle flare and sharpness in totally different ways.

But sharpness? I'm sure old Nikon primes are razor sharp, and as they are specializer per focal length, they'll have a much greater chance of high performance than a even a modern zoom, which by it's nature sacrifices some performance for convenience.

 

[William Dempsey]

I got my Nikon mount the other week and put some older AIs Glass on it and they were very sharp. Now I also have some modern Nikon Zooms and They are not as sharp as the primes even on my Nikon Camera. Now Nikon is usually better quality glass than Tamron so I would agree that in terms of sharpness most primes new or old will be sharper. The only zoom I've tested on the Scarlet that comes close to prime sharpness so far is the Tokina 11-16mm. In a test I ran on lenses at a local rental place that lens was exceptionally sharp for a zoom. Totally blew me away. I should mention that that lens was tested on a Canon mount prior to getting the Nikon.

If I were you and this is important I would go down to a local rental place or camera store and run a test. Most places will let you put a lens on your camera and try it out.

 

[Giuseppe Pugliese]

Thanks so much, so I guess old primes win in the sharpness

 

[Mark Toia]

Less elements usually win the race for sharpness....
But that siad, I put a modern day Sigma ZOOM lens on the other day for a bit of fun and it was razor !!!!!

Lens technology has come along way.
Here is a $22k master prime Vs a $1100 dollar domestic bottle side by side.

So go figure...

 

[Giuseppe Pugliese]

See that's why I originally thought that technology of a 2 year old zoom in the $500 range might still hold sharpness to a 30-40 year old prime... Anyone else have any interesting insite?

 

[Ted Parkes]

You really need to test the individual Lens.. Especially for older glass not knowing how it was handled before you. Case in point I have a nikon 17-55mm 2.8 Mine is razor sharp but not everyone has the same experience. Many years ago I worked at Nikon and we would test lenses when they came in and buy the best of the shipment. Surprising how much that varied.