What is the sharpest lens/aperture combo on crop body?

A lot of lenses will outresolve the XS sensor when stopped down, even crappy ones.
As soon as the sensor limit is reached, all lenses will be equally sharp.. technically.

...but there is more to lenses than sharpness.

The sharpest lens you can get is this:

http://www.adorama.com​/BA8023.html

without stable support, lens sharpness is meaningless. Add to that mirror lockup (or live view-mirror lockup is on by default), remote release, quality tripod head, and optimum aperture of lens (which you mentioned).

Chasing ultimate sharpness requires this discipline. If you can't be bothered, or what you shoot won't allow it, then forget about obsessing over sharpness.

hieu1004 wrote in post #12277059
Um, what's the point of this question.....?

I'll entertain even though I feel that your question (sharpness @ just a specific aperture) should have no weight in your decision making.

17-55mm @ f/4
70-200mm f/4 IS @ f/5.6
70-200mm f/2.8 II @ f/4
100mm Macro @ f/4
60mm Macro @ f/4-f/5.6

See the trend?

Having shot all those lenses (I also own 5 of the 6)... I don't necessarily agree that you need to stop 'em down 1-stop to win sharpness. I think that their true value comes from their ability to achieve critical sharpness EVEN wide-open.

nureality wrote in post #12279351
I think that their true value comes from their ability to achieve critical sharpness EVEN wide-open.

in that case Sigma and Tamron are sharper - is there any end to this "what is sharpest lens" answer?

man my 50 1.8 at 3.5 is pretty darn razor for a cheapy lens

o and my 17-55 is pin sharp wide open...it doesnt need to be stopped down at all...sharpness is the same from 2.8 - 9.0

bespoke wrote in post #12276199
Zeiss 100 MP ZE stopped down?

Yup. [end thread]

Over 3700 line-widths per picture-height according to Photozone.de at f/4 - a record IIRC. combine that with the micro-contrast and it'll shave your corneas clean off.

nureality wrote in post #12279351
Having shot all those lenses (I also own 5 of the 6)... I don't necessarily agree that you need to stop 'em down 1-stop to win sharpness. I think that their true value comes from their ability to achieve critical sharpness EVEN wide-open.

nureality, have you tested this one below since i am pretty sure aside from a few of the Leica M lower FL primes and the Leica R APO lenses from 90mm on up this is plenty sharp when used with the right sensor:

https://photography-on-the.net …php?p=3107191&p​ostcount=1

The Mamiya 300/f2.8 APO 645 is no slouch either.

Havent heard from gasrocks lately but im sure he could let us know his opinions which would be tried, true, & tested.

Canon i dont think holds a candle to any of these unless im mistaken. I own the 70-200 f2.8 MKII and some of my vintage cheapo MF lenses are equal to it at f2.8 thru f8.0

Regards,

hieu1004 wrote in post #12277059
Um, what's the point of this question.....?

+1...

EF-S 18-55m f/3.5-5.6 II @ 3.5 aperture. Sharp as a knife on any focal range.

my 100L is my sharpest lens I own.

I did a test with my 70-200 /2.8L Mk 2 and found it could resolve stars into a 2x2 pixel blocks on the 7D. There was very slight bloat in the deep violet. Afaik, this is as good as it _can_ get on a camera with a Bayer mask, interpolation and an AA filter.

In terms of absolute sharpness, there are several international astronomical surveys running which use arrays of the 200/1.8L lenses coupled to cooled CCD cameras. These lenses were selected both for speed and for image quality. Here's a link... to the SuperWASP.

DreDaze wrote in post #12279964
+1...

From a complete newbies prespective, not that the op is, but I read this and thought, "oh yeah, tell me exactly how to get the prettiest picture possible thanks". I admit that shamefully, but I'm still in the learning process so bear with me. Anyways, that's my take on the point of this thread.

CanonGrl01 wrote in post #12281650
From a complete newbies prespective, not that the op is, but I read this and thought, "oh yeah, tell me exactly how to get the prettiest picture possible thanks". I admit that shamefully, but I'm still in the learning process so bear with me. Anyways, that's my take on the point of this thread.

maybe...but my point is that the whole "sharpest" lens thing is way overblown...if the sharpest lens out there is a 100mm Zeiss like some have suggested then that has no use for you if you need a 50mm lens to get the shot...there are so many other factors that need to be taken in before jumping to sharpness in my opinion...at least have a focal length down first

people get too hung up on sharpness by looking at charts and test shots...i didn't buy my camera to shoot test charts

DreDaze wrote in post #12281669
maybe...but my point is that the whole "sharpest" lens thing is way overblown...if the sharpest lens out there is a 100mm Zeiss like some have suggested then that has no use for you if you need a 50mm lens to get the shot...there are so many other factors that need to be taken in before jumping to sharpness in my opinion...at least have a focal length down first

people get too hung up on sharpness by looking at charts and test shots...i didn't buy my camera to shoot test charts

Agree. Sharpness is not the only attribute in a great picture and if I'm honest probably one of the least important (I do remember reading an article somewhere about sharpness not being terribly important, it might actually have been Ken Rockwell *shudder*).

Althought to be fair I took the OP to only be asking about pure sharpness (with absolutely no regard for resultant images, subjects or photography skills) therefore I would remove that from the debate....

another
agree
+1
ditto
concur
word
this.