The sharpest lens according to DXOMARK

The sharpest lens according to DXOMARK

The sharpest lens according to DXOMARK

Unexpectedly, the 'sharpest' lens, according to DXOMARK website, has become a Chinese autofocus lens for full-frame mirrorless cameras Yongnuo YnLens YN85mm F1.8S DF DSM (Sony E mount).

53

Sort by DXOMARK website by sharpness. increase.

In the general rating of lenses Yongnuo YnLens YN85mm F1.8S DF DSM lost only to super-titans Nikon Nikkor Z 58mm 1: 0.95 S Noct и Sigma 85mm 1: 1.4 DG | A (Art).

Leave your thoughts on this rating in the comments.

Materials on the topic

  1. Full frame mirrorless systems... Discussion, choice, recommendations.
  2. Cropped mirrorless systems... Discussion, choice, recommendations.
  3. Cropped mirrorless systems that have stopped or are no longer developing
  4. Digital SLR systems that have stopped or are no longer developing
  5. JVI or EVI (an important article that answers the question 'DSLR or mirrorless')
  6. About mirrorless batteries
  7. Simple and clear medium format
  8. High-speed solutions from Chinese brands
  9. All fastest autofocus zoom lenses
  10. All fastest AF prime lenses
  11. Mirrored full frame on mirrorless medium format
  12. Autofocus Speed ​​Boosters
  13. One lens to rule the world
  14. The impact of smartphones on the photography market
  15. What's next (smartphone supremacy)?
  16. All announcements and novelties of lenses and cameras

Comments on this post do not require registration. Anyone can leave a comment. Many different photographic equipment can be found on AliExpress.


Material prepared Arkady Shapoval. Training/Consultations | Youtube | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Telegram

Add a comment:

 

 

Comments: 22, on the topic: The sharpest lens according to DXOMARK

  • Human

    I shot them for canon, I didn’t seem to complain. On the other hand, I didn’t hold neighboring lenses for 1000 bucks in my hands ..

  • Lensmaster

    There are a lot of thoughts and experiences, on the one hand - 300 bunnies, and here you are, purely mathematically, you have a top in your hands.
    On the other hand, now I’m right under tension, raised the surveyor for Jupiter, once again looked at Yura Leo’s photos, at the classics from the 83rd year and at the 10th stump.
    It is possible and imperishable for firewood, which is rare - bravo, Yura, by the way.
    Or endless firewood, as on this site, mostly in buttercups / flowers, on imperishable.

  • Alex

    Checkerboard sharpness is too subjective. And other conditions are “greenhouse”. In such a test, only a frankly bad lens will fail. More or less normal will show the same result. And the champion in sharpness, the photographer will suck out of his finger.

    • i is glorious

      Well, why can't some Carl Zeiss Otus 85 / 1,4 show such a result?

      • Alex

        Because the tester wants the sharpest lens to be Yong. And that's it.

  • Sandro

    Interestingly, someone from photographers who hang out here at least once in their life rejected a photo for lack of sharpness?
    Even with Helios-44 ...

    This parameter was important to me once in my life when I shot reproductions through a format adapter with “gluing”.

    • Lensmaster

      Sandro, you won’t believe it, but at one time a sign was posted in one of the German reviews of manual optics. Not everyone noticed, but those who noticed did not fail to save themselves. What was right, the original source has sunk into oblivion.
      You can have different attitudes to the metering methodology, resolution, sharpness, and so on, but here you are to study the folios.
      In the reviews of Arkady and in the voting, they came to the conclusion that Jupiter 135 / 3.5 is the best of the Soviet portraits. Let's see what the Germans were testing?)))

      • Lensmaster

        Avanar 2,8 / 135mm 23 47
        Canon FD SC 2,5 / 135mm 48 68
        Canon FD SC 3,5 / 135mm 47 67.3
        Carena Super-Carenar 2,8 / 135mm 46 66
        Chinon MCL 2,8/135mm 46 66
        Enna Tele-Ennalyt MC 2,8 / 135mm 20 43
        Fuji EBC Fujinon-T 2,5 / 135mm 51 70
        Fuji EBC Fujinon-T 3,5 / 135mm 52 70.8
        Hanimex Auto MC 2,8 / 135mm 39 61.3
        61 Konica Hexanon AR 2,5 / 135mm 51 70
        Konica Hexanon AR 3,2 / 135mm 48 68
        Leitz Elmarit-R 2,8 / 135mm 63 77.9
        Mamiya/Sektor CS 2,8 / 135mm 53 71.5
        Mamiya/Sektor SX 2,8 / 135mm 39 61.3
        Minolta MD Rokkor 2,8/135mm 48 68
        Minolta MD Rokkor 3,5/135mm 47 67.3
        Nikon Nikkor 2 / 135mm 72 83.3
        Nikon Nikkor 2,8 / 135mm 66 79.8
        Nikon Nikkor 3,5 / 135mm 72 83.3
        Olympus Zuiko MC 2,8/135mm 49 68.7
        Olympus Zuiko MC 3,5/135mm 48 68
        Optigon Macro 2,5 / 135mm 37 59.7
        Panagor Auto Tele 2,8 / 135mm 41 62.8
        Pentax SMC 2,5 / 135mm 56 73.5
        Pentax SMC 3,5 / 135mm 51 70.1
        Porst Tele Auto MC 1,8 / 135mm 40 62.1
        Raynox Rubimat 2,8/135mm 43 64.4
        Revue Auto-Revuenon 2,8 / 135mm 41 62.9
        Rolleinar-MC 2,8/135mm 54 72.2
        Sigma Pantel 2,8/135mm 29 52.9
        Soligor CD 2 / 135mm 56 73.5
        Soligor CD 2,8 / 135mm 59 75.4
        Soligor Tele-Auto 2,8 / 135mm 42 63.6
        Tamron Adaptall 2,8/135mm 45 65.9
        Tokina SL 2,8 / 135mm 47 67.3
        Vivitar AT 2,8 / 135mm 47 67.3
        Vivitar ATCF 2,8/135mm 51 70.1
        Vivitar Serie-1 2,3 / 135mm 43 64.4
        Voigtländer C-Dynarex AR 2,8 / 135mm 56 73.5
        WEP Auto Telon 2,8 / 135mm 44 65.1
        Yashica ML 2,8 / 135mm 51 70.1
        Zeiss Planar T 2 / 135mm 56 73.5
        Zeiss Sonnar T 2,8/135mm 56 73.5

        ....
        Reading the board correctly
        Name - lines along the edges - lines in the center.
        It is important that the initial tests were carried out at aperture 5.6.
        As far as I understand, the authors tried to cover all of the 135ok that they managed to include in the test. Read what was available. Well done, what, indicative. And in general I agree.
        Of all the things that I personally twisted and rebuilt, the Nikkors are really animals, the Takumaras are just love, and the untried C/D Soligors are extraordinarily good. What do you think?

        • Lensmaster

          From myself, I’ll also note that the overclocked Series 1 is objectively not worth the money now. Naturally, take a pair of identical lenses from 30-50 years ago, they will definitely differ from each other. His biography, storage conditions, condition, etc. Here is more about the expansion. Nikkors, Olippuses, Pentaxes and Soligors, as for me, are better assembled. Revuenons had a simply catastrophic expansion in assembly / optical properties from a lens into a garbage can to a surprisingly good product.
          What do you think? :-)

          • Lensmaster

            And that's quite from myself, if you will.
            To whom it is given, he will also shoot on the old Jupiter, read Helios / Zenitar / Practice for a penny on the old 6-10 megapixel crop of ten / fifteen years ago.
            Whoever doesn’t, then at least collect the entire L or G, there will be no effect.
            But, somehow, in the old fashioned way, you still want to, focusing with pens, for example, on the next female face in the eyes, so that the picture comes to life and hair to hair.
            In order not to suffer, conditionally, with the Australian Honeymex, as for me, and wait until the plastic bushing of the diaphragm once again falls apart with very mediocre initially optical characteristics, it is easier to work with what a - likes and b - gives out on top. Like Nikkor and Takumar. Did a good job once and forgot. And then the buzz from the process itself. And a strange twinkle in the eyes of the model, which instead of another pipe at 2.8 sees something in front of it))). Which, I must admit, still delivers. Well, that's it, I guess.

    • i is glorious

      Yes, I was told for the soap in the pictures from the Sigma 24 / 1,8 SLR.

  • B. R. P.

    “Sharpness is a bourgeois prejudice.” © )))

  • Oleg

    And not one width or super-wide in the list, and sharpness on portraits is not the most important thing.

    • Viktre

      How is it “none”, there are a lot of them)

      • Oleg

        Porridge from different focal lengths and aperture measured in parrots. Another nonsense from dxo

        • Viktre

          Your claims are incomprehensible, to be honest))

          Lenses are generally quite diverse and are “a mess of different focal lengths and aperture ratios” by definition)) What does DXO have to do with it?

          What exactly do you see as “nonsense”, especially, “another one”?))

          • Oleg

            So 85/1.8 is sharper than 50 by 0.95 or 90 by 2.8. Different focal lengths, different apertures. In the top, there are mostly portraits for whom sharpness is not the most important thing. And if sigma or yango are not friendly with autofocus, then there is no sharpness

            • Viktre

              So what does the different focal points have to do with it?)))

              As for “different apertures” - you would read something about the testing methodology, and how they get the “Perceptual Megapixels” indicator

              Not satisfied with the technique - give an example who has a better base, and the results, in your opinion, are more correct)) Well, or make your own version of DXO. With blackjack and… well, you get the idea.

              In the top “mostly portraits” because they are in the top, according to the test results. It just is, and you need to accept it, although “sharpness is not the main thing in portraits”.

              • Arkady Shapoval

                Portraits are in the top for a different reason. All of them, though short, but telephoto. Making a sharp short telephoto is as easy as shelling pears, all sorts of 135 / 3,5 since the 50s have been hoo in resolution, and with modern technology it is even easier to do. But making a good width is much more difficult (the same 24 1.4 cat cried).

  • Nicholas

    In the summary rating of lenses on this site, not all lenses tested by them are presented, change the filters by selecting the carcass on which this yong showed such sharpness, and we will see a completely different picture, perhaps more familiar, where the sharpest in the FE system on a 61MP carcass showed a native macro from Sony, and the Chinese, although not bad at maximum, is inferior to at least 5 tested lenses. And if we put sharpness at the forefront, then compare lenses of the same mount for the right result, and this is not a reproach to the dxomark site, I myself have been using their work for a long time and, as a rule, their results do not contradict my own experience.

  • BlackProfessor

    Medium format not covered, specifically Fujinon GF series lenses. And there, almost all the glasses are extremely sharp.

  • Thierry

    Le meilleur c'est le Sony 90 f/2.8 macro G OSS car si on le compare avec les 2 premiers de la liste mais testé avec le même appareil qu'eux, soit le A7RIV et pas le A7RII, et bien on obtient en “ sharpness” le score de 61, ce qui est le max absolu tous objectifs confondus…

Add a comment

Copyright © Radojuva.com. Blog author - Photographer in Kiev Arkady Shapoval. 2009-2023

English version of this article https://radojuva.com/en/2022/09/top-sharp/

Version en español de este artículo https://radojuva.com/es/2022/09/top-sharp/