# The sharpness curse!



## Ruined (Jun 21, 2014)

To me... sharpness is a curse!

Let me explain. For me, it is frustrating when I see individuals, be it on a review website, youtube channel, or forum, conduct a sharpness test on a lens and then write-off whichever lens is less sharp as the inferior lens. I have seen this happen time and time again. It is true, that some lenses may be simply bested by others, but generally sharpness is only one factor of this equation.

I do understand the importance of objective tests. With objective tests, we can determine if a lens is optically _different_ than another lens. I struggle to say improved, as I have seen many examples of a lens that falls short on the standard array of optical tests (sharpness, falloff, CA being the ones I see most discussed) yet end up delivering subjectively fantastic results.

For a personal example, I will go back to a lens I like to discuss a lot - the 50L. This lens is by far my #1 favorite lens bar none, no comparison. If I was only allowed to have one lens, it would be the 50L. Now, I have a lot of lenses that are sharper than the 50L (i.e. 24-70 II, 70-200 II, 100L come to mind). But, there is something about their output that subjectively I do not like as much. I also love the subjective output of the 85L II, but I'd still rather have the 50L because the 85L II requires too much working distance for many photos - so with the 85L II I would miss a lot of opportunities. 50L can do pretty much everything, and make it all look beautiful. 

I also find it frustrating when lenses without a red ring get ignored simply because they don't have a red ring. For instance, the new 24 IS, 28 IS, and 35 IS are all brilliant lenses. The 24 IS is one of Canon's best landscape lenses in the entire lineup, because at f/11 it is ultra sharp AND virtually free of flare even when shooting into the sun (no L can claim this) - plus it looks great subjectively and is extremely portable! If I was a landscaper, this would be a *must have* lens for me. But I often see it ignored, and I think its because its not an "L". The 35 IS is finally appearing to get some credit thankfully with pro reviews declaring it overall superior to the aging 35L 1.4, which I agree with despite both being excellent. The old 35L's bokeh just isn't as good when its not wide open - the 35L does still have a purpose for those who need f/1.4, but it really needs an update IMO. 

Again, I think objective tests are important. Perhaps our tests are not yet advanced enough to fully describe a lens' output, and that is the issue. And, I do appreciate the objective tests to learn more about a lens' characteristics. But, I think that is only part of the process, and wish more "reviews" and discussions of lens quality focused an equal amount of time on subjective factors - as it appears the objective tests simply are not there yet.

But sharpness is easy to understand, easy to test, and easy to see differences in... Making it an easy thing to get hooked into and focus on almost exclusively. But remember, in the end, while some of us are documenting things where sharpness is the #1 priority, others are capturing moments in time where sharpness is not the most important factor. If you are not doing clinical work that really does require edge to edge sharpness, remember that in the end its not about sharpness - its about capturing the moment. Might save you a bit of money over time too


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jun 21, 2014)

I think it is a bad habit that digital photography has imposed photographers. ??? Any image when viewed at full size on a large monitor, looks like it could be "a little more" crisp.  Sharpness is never enough for pixel peepers. :-X How could anyone not feel like an idiot, to find that 36 megapixel NO produces much more sharp images than 18?


----------



## tayassu (Jun 21, 2014)

I think it is important that everyone is ok with the results his lenses get him/her. Pros love the 24-70II because of its excellent sharpness and fast AF - they need it and journalistic photographers don't need a specific look, they need to capture a moment, not its feeling. If you want to do that, understandably, you choose the 50 due to its specific look and that is totally ok, because then the 50 is the right lens for you. But for some people, sharpness is extremely important, and that is also ok, because then, the 24-70II is the perfect lens for them. Let everyone choose as he/she wants and hope that in the future there will be a lens with the look of the 50 and the sharpness of the 24-70 :


----------



## sanj (Jun 21, 2014)

Nice post.


----------



## surapon (Jun 21, 2014)

sanj said:


> Nice post.



+100 for me too, Dear Friend sanj.
I agree with you, Sir. I have learn from my great teachers/ the PRO that, The great pictures/ Photos are created by the great Artistic Photographers, who have a great Artistic ability, Great Technical Know how, Great Point of views, Great Story teller---And The Most important Factors , that they know how to use their equipment 120% of it's ability, such as the sweet spots of their lens/ F. Stop---To create the best sharp of the lens that they have in their hands.
Yes, My great teacher teach me that, We ( 99% of all photographers) not need to enlarge the photos for Street poster/ Bill Board that = 20 feet high X 48 feet long. just need to get 24 X 36 inches for display at local Museum or Exhibition hall only ( Ha, Ha, Ha ).
Great post, Sir, Dear Mr. Ruined----Thanks for start the great post like this.
Have a great weekend.
Surapon

Here are the Masterpiece photos by disposable camera with plastic lens, from the PRO.

http://blog.flickr.net/en/2014/05/27/disposable-camera-shots-from-jordan/


----------



## RavePixel (Jun 21, 2014)

Here is one of my "unsharp" 50L favorites I shot:
http://www.ravepixel.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/IMG_2848-2.jpg

The emotion conveyed is stunning


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Jun 21, 2014)

Nice post by Ruined! I also enjoyed the photo by RavePixel - it's a good example of the very shallow DOF portrait style - you can really see how the glasses and the teeth stand out. I presume it was shot wide open.

Personally, I don't like the DOF to be quite that shallow, so if I shoot wide open for bokeh, I usually stand a bit farther back from my subject (With my old Sigma 50 classic) Or, I stop down to about F/2.

One of the reasons it is so much fun to talk about lenses is because our artistic preferences give us endless variations of opinion. Sharpness is just a small part of the equation. And let's not forget other qualities like my favorite: accurate autofocus!


----------



## keithcooper (Jun 21, 2014)

Well said .. there is some utter nonsense talked about sharpness in many places. ;-)

My general feeling is that (for some) it's much easier to explore sharpness and other technical craft issues relating to image 'quality' than address the fact that their photos just aren't that great, and that concentrating on technical issues is just a way of avoiding concentrating more on the image content, or other less quantifiable/tangible aspects.

Of course this isn't new - photography has a long history of people spending a lot of effort on technical differences very few would ever notice. I'd just note that this behaviour becomes much easier with digital ;-)

The technical aspects (refining my 'craft') are important to me, but only as part of the whole image creation process. The technical has a vital part in my commercial work, but I know that very few clients are ever going to ask for it by name - to them it's primarily about the content of the image and representation of ideas. 

Colour management is another area I see a lot of this, with a spurious desire for 'perfection' and 'correct' colours for applications where no-one could ever know (there are times for great precision, but not for photographic work I do)

Curiously enough, I only ever find such behaviour (in colour management and photography) in men ;-)


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jun 21, 2014)

I kind of agree with Ruined.

As long as 'sharpness' and the lack of aberrations sells lenses, lenses will tend to become more 'clinical', which is good for some. Not so for others maybe - but then there's always older lenses with more 'character' that will stay around for a long time. I'm hesitant about the new Sigma 50mm for example, and would really say I prefer the old EX version exactly because I like some of the subjective qualities of that lens.

So optical perfection is one side of things, but if you like the more 'artistic' side (extreme examples like lomography and heavily processed instagrams come to mind), then the camera is brought back down to earth as a mere tool, not an optical instrument designed for scientific purposes. And it's for everyone to see what tool best fits their needs. 

Often it's the advanced amateurs in any discipline that have the 'best' and 'newest' gear, simply because they think that's absolutely needed or through marketing and forums like these, they are led to believe they will be less of a photographer without it. It's the real 'pro's/artists' on the other hand who can do with 'less' and still get 'more'. Maybe it will help us to focus on photography once we let the relative 'importance' of our gear go. 

For fun, I like to play around with vintage lenses on my NEX. The less than perfect optics can create really interesting effects, or sometimes I like to try my best at shooting 'photography' even with a cheap compact or whatever inspires me at the moment. The limitations sometimes bring out the better in me. Will that save me from the sharpness bug? Well... at least it brings the notion of gear perfection into perspective.

Mind, I'm not preaching that I know it all, cause after all I'm not quite there - GAS afflicted as I am.

So while on the subject, where in the world is that new, stunningly SHARP 100-400L? I absolutely _need_ it to improve my photography! ;D


----------



## surapon (Jun 22, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> I kind of agree with Ruined.
> 
> As long as 'sharpness' and the lack of aberrations sells lenses, lenses will tend to become more 'clinical', which is good for some. Not so for others maybe - but then there's always older lenses with more 'character' that will stay around for a long time. I'm hesitant about the new Sigma 50mm for example, and would really say I prefer the old EX version exactly because I like some of the subjective qualities of that lens.
> 
> ...




Ha, Ha, Ha my dear friend/ Teacher mrsfotografie 
You are wrong " stunningly SHARP 100-400L? I absolutely need it to improve my photography! "---NO, NO, NO, You Just have the " GAS." Illness, You are already great Photographer = In my Eyes/ My Heart----No, You do not need new $ 12,000 US Dollars toy---BUT ME = Yes, I will dump my 8-9 years old 100-400 mm to my son, and get the new one= With out Pump action shotgun and 3 feet long at 400 mm.
Good night Madam
Surapon


----------



## dak723 (Jun 22, 2014)

I wouldn't even list sharpness as an attribute of what makes a good or successful photo. Composition, lighting, contrast, color (when applicable), capturing the essence of the subject matter or the mood are the attributes that are judged in a photo or other visual works of art, in my opinion. Too much sharpness can be a distraction if it becomes more noticeable than the previously mentioned attributes. But there is that allure. It is the easiest way to compare lenses. Personally, I think virtually any lens can take a successful and sell-able picture in terms of having enough sharpness.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 22, 2014)

dak723 said:


> I wouldn't even list sharpness as an attribute of what makes a good or successful photo. Composition, lighting, contrast, color (when applicable), capturing the essence of the subject matter or the mood are the attributes that are judged in a photo or other visual works of art, in my opinion. Too much sharpness can be a distraction if it becomes more noticeable than the previously mentioned attributes. But there is that allure. It is the easiest way to compare lenses. Personally, I think virtually any lens can take a successful and sell-able picture in terms of having enough sharpness.



It very much depends on the type of image you are taking, but I agree. Just go look at a Steve McCurry print exhibition to realise sharpness is way down the list of attributes. Come to think of it, go to your local Victoria Secrets and look at the big B&W prints there, none of them are sharp either but they are really nice images.

Sharpness is dramatically over rated a lot of the time. However try doing anything with a blurry image of a bird and you will see not everybody has the same viewpoint.


----------



## dgatwood (Jun 22, 2014)

Sharpness really isn't critical beyond a certain point, so long as you have the right length lens for the job and have time to perfectly compose the shot. Where sharpness starts to matter is when you don't have that chance, and you have to crop after the fact. So basically, I care a lot about sharpness in whatever lens I choose to keep on my camera by default, and I don't care nearly as much about sharpness on the other lenses in my arsenal—except for the long zooms when I'm taking photos of birds; then I care again, because I don't own a $14,000 behemoth lens....


----------



## GaryJ (Jun 22, 2014)

I find that the 'sharpness curse' is a manifestation of the digital age,I have just gone through my records of my film days starting in the late 70's,the silver halides[I could only afford B/W]could only resolve so much and that was it. Some images of mine sold very well without the 'sharpness' of todays gear,back then I think we understood circles of confusion better and shot accordingly for an image that was acceptably sharp and left it at that ,once those grains looked at under the loupe on the baseboard were crisp that was it,this of course depended on the film stock rating as to what was defined as crisp


----------



## ejenner (Jun 22, 2014)

Sharpness is always nice IMO, but it has never been the primary reason for me buying a lens nor for choosing one lens over another when out shooting. I think most experienced photographers realize this at some point. Plus now, even most of the cheaper lenses are pretty darn sharp - although there are some exceptions and some that get pretty soft in the corners for landscape shooting.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 22, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> Sharpness really isn't critical beyond a certain point, so long as you have the right length lens for the job and have time to perfectly compose the shot. Where sharpness starts to matter is when you don't have that chance, and you have to crop after the fact. So basically, I care a lot about sharpness in whatever lens I choose to keep on my camera by default, and I don't care nearly as much about sharpness on the other lenses in my arsenal—except for the long zooms when I'm taking photos of birds; then I care again, because I don't own a $14,000 behemoth lens....



Absolutely right about the superteles. You use them because you can't get close to your subjects, especially birds, and the images have to be razor sharp to allow very heavy cropping. The subject bird typically occupies less than 5% of the frame. Here is a detail of an insect in the beak of a robin I took yesterday. The whole crop is only 356x285 pixels from the 22 Mp full frame. Sharpness might not be necessary for an artistic shot or a portrait, and Cartier Bresson once wrote "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept", but you need the ultimate sharpness for some jobs. With a softer lens that insect would have been too blurred.


----------



## fragilesi (Jun 22, 2014)

Hmmm, most reviews I read on the net include sharpness as one of many considerations . . . bokeh, autofocus, distortion, CA, flare, price, ergonomics etc etc. It seems odd to me that some people are making huge assumptions . . . a fascination with sharpness is just a way of trying to compensate for a lack of ability? Really?

Thankfully as a number of people have pointed out for some photography sharpness is massively important. I've just ordered the 135L. My considerations there were low light performance, a little bit more reach than I have now, fast AF and yes great sharpness made it what I think will be an excellent choice. I'm sure I can still take "capture the moment" photos with it but what I can't do is take sharp pictures with a lens that doesn't have that as a quality.

I love detail in photos a lot of the time . . . birds, sports, concert photography and often (not always) I am striving for it. And while I'm a beginner compared to many on here that's not necessarily a bad thing to do. You can't tell sportsmen and animals to come close to your lens to capture their expressions. A sharp lens is a very important tool in "capturing the moment".


----------



## benperrin (Jun 22, 2014)

Sharpness to me is the cherry on top. It is an important consideration when choosing a lens but like others said not the only thing to think about. Obviously things like lighting, exposure and composition have a far greater impact on an image than sharpness but sharpness will make a great image that extra bit better. 

I was just looking through an image from a recent wedding with the second shooter. We both loved an image (shot with the 24-70 2.8ii) and were remarking how clear and sharp it was even when zoomed way in. Then we started discussing how the 24-105 would've never produced an image so good. The point is that I'll always pick the image with the extra bit of sharpness if everything else is in order.

It gives me peace of mind that I don't have to worry about the quality of the lenses that I use. I focus on what I am shooting and just try to make the best image I can. But that's me and I can certainly understand when others say that it's not a consideration for them. I will say this though, all these modern lenses aren't going to make a great deal of difference if you are just viewing your images via laptop or dare I say, a smart phone. Get those images to the print lab and enjoy your work on display for everyone to see!

Cheers,
Ben


----------



## Berowne (Jun 22, 2014)

Sharpness is important. Remember for instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_f/64. Photographers used big format and apertures around 22-64 to reach maximal sharpness. The members of the Group f64 set themselves in opposition to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pictorialism. With contemporary fast lenses we can choose between the two styles. Wide open you can create Pictures in "pictoralistic fashion" and in using optimal aperture around f4 you have maximal sharpness. 

Ansel Adams would shurely have been happy to work with any kind of our modern equipment.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 22, 2014)

f/64 on a full plate camera has the same Airy disk relative to its size as f/11 on a FF.
A 210mm lens on a full plate is equivalent to a 50mm on an FF. 
The hyperfocal distance of a 210mm at f/64 on full plate is 10.1 m, which means setting it at 10.1 m has everything sharp from 5.05 m to infinity.

A 50mm on FF has at f/11 a hyperfocal distance of 7.42 m. So, everything from 3.71 m to infinity will be sharp.

Yes, Ansel Adams would have loved a 5DIII or 1Dx!


----------



## Berowne (Jun 22, 2014)

AlanF said:


> f/64 on a full plate camera has the same Airy disk relative to its size as f/11 on a FF.
> A 210mm lens on a full plate is equivalent to a 50mm on an FF.
> The hyperfocal distance of a 210mm at f/64 on full plate is 10.1 m, which means setting it at 10.1 m has everything sharp from 5.05 m to infinity.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the calculation. According to his autobiography Adams used in 1927 a 6.5 x 8.5 - inch Korona view camera with a 8.5 inch Zeiss Tessar lens for shooting the famous Half-Dome Pictures in Yosemite National Park. His camera pack weighed fourty pounds. 

Greetings Andy


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jun 22, 2014)

surapon said:


> Good night Madam
> Surapon



My dear friend Surapon, you forgot I'm male (MRS are my initials)- but what's in a name 

Many people here make the same mistake, so I updated my avatar awhile ago as a hint to my gender


----------



## surapon (Jun 22, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> surapon said:
> 
> 
> > Good night Madam
> ...




Sorry, Sir, Dear friend Mr. mrsfotografie.
Sorry, Sorry and Sorry.
Have a great Sunday afternoon, Sir.
Surapon


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jun 22, 2014)

surapon said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > surapon said:
> ...



Haha no problem, dear friend Surapon  have a nice sunday!


----------



## AlanF (Jun 22, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> surapon said:
> 
> 
> > Good night Madam
> ...



Why do you have 38Ca (isotope of calcium with half life of 440 ms) in your avatar?


----------



## thepancakeman (Jun 22, 2014)

I can whole-heartedly agree. In terms of vision, sharpness is generally targeted for 20/20. After my lasics surgery, my vision was 15/20 (i.e. really sharp.) 

However, if I had to do it all over again, I'm not sure I would do it because the loss in contrast and dynamic range, the halo's on lights, etc. are a pretty big sacrifice just to get "sharpness".


----------



## keithcooper (Jun 22, 2014)

"A 50mm on FF has at f/11 a hyperfocal distance of 7.42 m. So, everything from 3.71 m to infinity will be sharp."

Good to see the 'precision' of hyperfocal calculations making an appearance here ;-) 

Total mush at 3.70m I suppose? ;-)

Whilst an understanding of HF focus principles are useful to know, any calculations to centimetre accuracy should be an immediate warning flag.

Unfortunately it's rather too easy to conflate numerical precision in such results with actual utility or relevance.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 22, 2014)

Sharpness simply gives us many more options. Who is sillier--somebody who pays $1k plus for a lens and doesn't care if it's a little blurry or the person who expects sharpness?

Would you buy a car and accept that it pulls to the right? An oven that doesn't give quite the right temp? A gun that just misses most of the time?

Oy.


----------



## Ruined (Jun 23, 2014)

YuengLinger said:


> Sharpness simply gives us many more options. Who is sillier--somebody who pays $1k plus for a lens and doesn't care if it's a little blurry or the person who expects sharpness?
> 
> Would you buy a car and accept that it pulls to the right? An oven that doesn't give quite the right temp? A gun that just misses most of the time?
> 
> Oy.



Well, if you are trying to say sharpness is a defect, unfortunately no lens exists that is free of all defects.

For instance, the popular and super sharp 24-70mm f/2.8L II that many laud for its edge-to-edge sharpness has a 'defect' of unattractive onion bokeh:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=18712.0

Given the popularity of this lens, to answer your question - yes people will buy lenses that have imperfections.

You can't have everything, and sharpness is only one of the many factors to consider


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jun 23, 2014)

keithcooper said:


> Well said .. there is some utter nonsense talked about sharpness in many places. ;-)
> 
> My general feeling is that (for some) it's much easier to explore sharpness and other technical craft issues relating to image 'quality' than address the fact that their photos just aren't that great, and that concentrating on technical issues is just a way of avoiding concentrating more on the image content, or other less quantifiable/tangible aspects.
> 
> ...



It's astounding how many guys at my local camera club pay thousands and thousands of pounds on the latest and greatest gear, agonising if this particualr lens has a slightly better cache (notice I didn't say Bokeh)...and yet they neglect the certain and clear need to attend workshops or training courses from the very experianced to hone their craft further. I guess it's why they are called camera clubs and not photography clubs. 

My landscape and wildlife skills came from attending a lof of Guy Edwardes workshops and even now I still learn new things. When I went on my first workshop with him, I took my existing skill set and added it to what he was showing me. I learnt a lot, and it refeined me as a more general photographer. Within my wedding context, my panning skills are vastly improved. My compositional pallet and exposure control were exapnded. What i brought into the workshops were my gear, existing camera craft, workflow and photographic eye.


----------



## Steve (Jun 24, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> It's astounding how many guys at my local camera club pay thousands and thousands of pounds on the latest and greatest gear, agonising if this particualr lens has a slightly better cache (notice I didn't say Bokeh)...and yet they neglect the certain and clear need to attend workshops or training courses from the very experianced to hone their craft further. I guess it's why they are called camera clubs and not photography clubs.



Its the same with any gear oriented hobby - you'll always find a bunch of dudes more interested in the equipment than the activity. I'm always amused by golfers that spend thousands on club sets, putters, rangefinders, balls, etc but never a dime on lessons and then wonder why they can't legit break 100. Or cyclists that will spend a fortune on carbon fiber everything to shave nanograms off their rigs and then go out for a cheeseburger and milkshake. With photography, its no different. There's always going to be those guys that want to buy their way to competency. At this point, I pretty much assume that if I see a guy shooting birds with a brand new 600 f4 IS II, full wimberly and 1DX all wrapped up in pristine lenscoat that he sucks and takes bad pictures.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 24, 2014)

Disdain for gear does not equal creativity.

Funny how many who belittle enthusiasm for great tools post hundreds of comments in a gear forum!

Be proud to be a gearhead!


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jun 24, 2014)

I am not sure I understand what the post is about. 

What is the reason for your frustration? Are you feeling bad for the lenses? Are you feeling bad for the people who make the wrong choices? 
I don't see anyone else who is suffering from this sharpness addiction- I am sure no one is losing a client or a competition because his amazing shots weren't taken with an L lens or because his lens has low MTF values!

The 50L still sells well, and commands a high price. If it were more popular it would be even more expensive. And those new IS primes- thankfully they got 'ignored' and the prices came down. Now you can have all your limbs AND a prime with IS.

Objective tests matter to a small minority of people. Don't get frustrated- just ignore them.


----------



## Ruined (Jun 24, 2014)

YuengLinger said:


> Disdain for gear does not equal creativity.
> 
> Funny how many who belittle enthusiasm for great tools post hundreds of comments in a gear forum!
> 
> Be proud to be a gearhead!



It is not so much that I have a disdain for gear, but rather frustration that some are so one dimensional when reviewing and discussing lenses. Gear is nice, but there are many more equally important aspects to gear than sharpness, that's all. Yet, sharpness gets the lions share of discussion and review time by far.


----------



## Ruined (Jun 24, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> I am not sure I understand what the post is about.
> 
> What is the reason for your frustration? Are you feeling bad for the lenses? Are you feeling bad for the people who make the wrong choices?
> I don't see anyone else who is suffering from this sharpness addiction- I am sure no one is losing a client or a competition because his amazing shots weren't taken with an L lens or because his lens has low MTF values!
> ...



The frustration stems from two things:
1) It is a shame that some write off lenses because of sharpness tests, as some of the real gear treasures aren't the sharpest lenses. A lot of folks missing out on the good stuff...
2) From one that likes the look of the 50L/85L, I fear Canon might start prioritizing sharpness over bokeh in future lens design for instance so lenses can get higher review scores.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 24, 2014)

Personally I never thought the 50L justified its price relative to the 50 1.4 especially given issues like focus breathing
The canon 50 1.4 AF was not reliable. For me finally the sigma art is the 50 I've been waiting for it has amazingly good bokeh and it is nice that its also sharp corner to corner full frame. It worth its price. And AF is the best of any 50 I've ever used


----------



## weixing (Jun 24, 2014)

Hi,
I saw someone using the new Sigma 50mm Art lens on his 5DIII and I look at a few images from his 5DIII LCD screen is very sharp, but I think it's may be a bit too sharp for my liking... for example, the edge of the catch light on the eye is too well define... IMHO, look a bit not natural.

Have a nice day.


----------



## Berowne (Jun 24, 2014)

Sharpness is important and for sharp pictures you need the right gear. But what do you need most for sharp pictures? 

* exact focusing, 
* optimal aperture, 
* either fast shutter speed or heavy tripod, 
* clear sunlight or flash, 
* if available big format (the bigger the better, film or sensor is unimportant) 
* and experience in developing and printing (unimportant whether files or film). 

Lens design is only one factor, perhaps a minor one, most important in case of the lens is, that it is perfectly centered and adjusted to the camera.


----------



## benperrin (Jun 24, 2014)

Berowne said:


> Sharpness is important and for sharp pictures you need the right gear. But what do you need most for sharp pictures?
> 
> * exact focusing,
> * optimal aperture,
> ...



Don't forget correct exposure and optimal contrast play a part in sharpness. There are plenty of people who don't need or want lenses so sharp but I'd rather have mine sharp and have to soften it in post (which I'll never do) than to need it sharper and not be able to.

Having said that, I do agree with the OP that sharpness is by no means the only characteristic people should be looking at when choosing a lens. There are many more factors that go into that decision and in the end it's up to the individual to decide if it's worth it.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jun 24, 2014)

Ruined said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > I am not sure I understand what the post is about.
> ...




So, you're feeling bad for those making the wrong decisions. Well, it's their loss if they don't listen to the wise and don't believe their eyes in favor of some specs. But, fair enough.
Regarding 2, I am sure you need not worry. Canon knows their market, and they care more about what the top pros tell them rather than the review sites. Otherwise, you'd see Canon shipping lens hoods with non-L lenses.


----------



## 9VIII (Jun 24, 2014)

I'm still on the "creativity is completely subjective so I'd rather be doing something objective" train.

Basically every photograph I take is just a documentation of whatever is in front of the camera, therefore, sharpness is always one of my primary concerns.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jun 24, 2014)

Sharpness is a very personal and subjective thing. Every photographer has their own level of aceptable sharpness. Some are easily swayed by forums and other photographers, but cost has a lot to do with this. We all set our bar based on what we can afford and to be honest this is an irrational behaviour. Surely our view of aceptable sharpness should be defined by how large we print and that it looks like on the wall? 

Here's a shot I took a few weeks ago of a Puffin. At the time, sharpness was the least of my concearns. At the time, composition, tripod craft, exposue and not scaring this chap off were my priority. I was using a 400mm f2.8 at the time and I didn't want to get any closer, so I fitted a 2x converter and shot it nearly wide open. It was only when i got back to base I realised how sharp it was....stunningly so!






Here's the image, 5DIII 400mm f2.8 and a 2x TC f6.3, Manual Exposure, Gitzo Systematic tripod





Here's the 100%, it's looking like a Flickr is aplying some jpeg compression to my image. It looks sharper on my local file.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Jun 24, 2014)

Life lesson: Don't get frustrated about what other people do. 

There are more of "them" than there is of you so you would spend far too much time being frustrated. Life is too short for that. 

You buy the lenses that you feel are best for you, and don't worry about other people buying lenses they feel are best for them.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jun 24, 2014)

weixing said:


> Hi,
> I saw someone using the new Sigma 50mm Art lens on his 5DIII and I look at a few images from his 5DIII LCD screen is very sharp, but I think it's may be a bit too sharp for my liking... for example, the edge of the catch light on the eye is too well define... IMHO, look a bit not natural.
> 
> Have a nice day.



You need to review the pictures on a computer monitor as the Mk III may apply too much in-camera sharpening.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 24, 2014)

Ruined said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > I am not sure I understand what the post is about.
> ...




2)???? But Canon nailed both sharpness AND bokeh (and all the ephemeral feelie stuff) on the 85mm 1.2. You are lumping the wrong lenses together.

I'd have dropped the $$$ on the 50L in a heartbeat if it had close to the wide-open sharpness of the 85. Yes, I based part of my decision on information gathered from the Web, but also from a friend and commercial/wedding/portrait master of photography who uses the ef 50mm 1.4 instead of the 1.2 because, not only does she save a little of her large equipment budget, but because the 1.2 did not work for her. She is one of the most dynamic, fast moving photographers I've ever seen. She is happy to slow down and use her 85mm 1.2, but she thinks the 50mm 1.2 just is not reliable enough nor "magical" enough to hassle with.

Granted, this is the viewpoint of a very demanding, highly paid (~$10k per job) photographer, so it might be biased towards performance and results. 

This thread seems to be partly some kind of frustration with a lack of sharpness in very expensive lenses, frustration that is being spun by self-deception into a disdain for those who stick to their guns and demand that performance matches price. Another common theme in the negative posts here is simple gear envy. (Remember it really IS how you use it.)

I had the ef 35mm 1.4 L, found it to be soft wide-open and with CA problems up to f/5.6, sold it at a small loss, and then bought a Sigma 35mm Art. Great decision. Had an ef 85mm 1.8, found it wanting, so bought the 1.2 L. ANOTHER great decision.

As for what photographers used and settled for in the 70's, well, heck, people settled for a lot of things before they were improved.

Of COURSE we are going to zoom in on our photos on a monitor--that's what all our processing software instructs us to do. So, we see that certain lenses and cameras produce great results at full size, others not so great. Having excellent sharpness allows for tighter crops, bigger prints.

And you can always convincingly soften an image. You CANNOT always sharpen a soft image and maintain IQ.

I think my frustration with people who are happy to saw away with a dull knife has been vented, thank you.

BTW, GMCPhotgraphics--lovely shot of the puffin.


----------



## tron (Jun 24, 2014)

YuengLinger said:


> Disdain for gear does not equal creativity.
> 
> Funny how many who belittle enthusiasm for great tools post hundreds of comments in a gear forum!
> 
> Be proud to be a gearhead!


+1


----------



## tron (Jun 24, 2014)

benperrin said:


> Berowne said:
> 
> 
> > Sharpness is important and for sharp pictures you need the right gear. But what do you need most for sharp pictures?
> ...


Usually, a sharp lens exhibits other equally desirable characteristics (apart from weight maybe, but for these we have the version II white lenses...). 

I read over and over about sharpness not being everything but the Original Posters most of the time do not mention other characteristics that they consider as equally desirable. Only generalizations...


----------



## sdsr (Jun 24, 2014)

YuengLinger said:


> Sharpness simply gives us many more options. Who is sillier--somebody who pays $1k plus for a lens and doesn't care if it's a little blurry or the person who expects sharpness?
> 
> Would you buy a car and accept that it pulls to the right? An oven that doesn't give quite the right temp? A gun that just misses most of the time?
> 
> Oy.



You're rather missing the point, misreading the original post as arguing that sharpness doesn't matter at all; overlooking the fact that most lenses people are likely to buy today are sharp up to a point (how many $1000 lenses would be deemed "a little blurry?"), so that differences tend to be marginal and may not even be noticeable under normal viewing conditions in most uses; and assuming that we all want the same things from the lenses we buy. The appeal of ultra-sharpness is obvious (I certainly get a kick out of the amazing resolution/detail/sharpness I get on my A7r via various lenses even at 100% viewing), but so is the appeal of certain other qualities in lenses that aren't quite as sharp. (A better analogy than a car that pulls to the right vs one that doesn't might be a car whose maximum speed is 90 mph vs one whose is 120 mph, where one chooses the former because it is more comfortable, quieter, a nicer shape and has better air conditioning.) 

Which is better for you - which is the the "silly" $1000 purchase - depends on your taste/needs/wants. (For my part, I would be annoyed if I paid a lot for a lens that had relatively unattractive bokeh and/or intrusive purple fringing.) There's even a range of Russian lenses (copies of old Zeiss models) valued for a distinctive look, especially wide open, which is the result of characteristics that would likely be deemed flaws by most (one, a Helios something-or-other, managed to find its way into photozone.de, where it was resoundingly thrashed). Luckily they tend to cost much less than $1000....


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 24, 2014)

I haven't seen many very sharp lenses for today's DSLR's that fail in other respects.

As for blurry $1000 lenses, you might have missed the original 16-35 2.8 (yes, BLURRY out towards the edges, even at 24mm to 35mm, not just at 16mm)...I do consider the 50L relatively blurry (that is, unacceptably soft) at below 2.8 for the money, and its bokeh can be quite harsh too, plus its real MFD goes to over 4' if focus shift is to be avoided).

As for contrast, since it is an integral part of sharpness, I can't even imagine washed-out type of lens produce super sharp images...Color? What sharp lens have you seen with lousy color renditions?

So, as others are asking, what is the point of complaining not only about sharpness, but photographers who demand it in premium gear?

I'd simply like more lenses like the 135mm f/2 and the 85mm f/1.2, and the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art...and less lenses with various problems, including soft focus. No lens is perfect, no kidding, but for my money, the best I can find, thank you--to a point. No Otus for me.


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 24, 2014)

Ruined - I've been meaning to reply but life has been busy...but I agree with you completely. The 50L is one of my favorite lenses and even if it's not as sharp as my 24-70 II or other lenses, that doesn't mean it's soft mush. The other qualities more than make up for it, but as you point, no one ever reviews those qualities because they aren't so easy to measure. 

Some people spend way too much time and effort posting this and that on the boards and the 50L will never get any love from those people. For you, me, and the rest of the people that care about more than sharpness, we just need to get out and shoot and show how great our work is, sharpness zealots be damned


----------



## sdsr (Jun 24, 2014)

YuengLinger said:


> ...
> 
> So, as others are asking, what is the point of complaining not only about sharpness, but photographers who demand it in premium gear?
> 
> I'd simply like more lenses like the 135mm f/2 and the 85mm f/1.2, and the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art...and less lenses with various problems, including soft focus. No lens is perfect, no kidding, but for my money, the best I can find, thank you--to a point. No Otus for me.



How many people in this thread, op include, have complained about sharpness or those who need/want it? As for "the best I can find", well, for some people that includes the 50L; to assume it doesn't or shouldn't begs the question.


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 24, 2014)

sdsr said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


The other thing that always seems to be missing from these discussions is that nearly all of us who own the 50L have at least one other lens in the 50mm focal length that is sharper, like the 24-70II. If we need to shoot a photo that will be printed at a huge size, by all means we'll use the 24-70II, but if we want a unique look for portraits, the 50L is what we love to use.


----------



## surapon (Jun 25, 2014)

Ha, Ha, Ha----to my dear friends.
I love to read this post, but I have the low level brain in the high tech and bad perception in my heart.
In my Idea, Sharpness are depend on Young eyes and Old eyes( Like Me), to look at the Photos , when we print it 24 X 36 inches and put on the wall to see = 5-7 feet from the Photos. Yes, My eyes/ Old eyes can not see the Difference from the Photos that created from 100% sharpness Lens( $ 12,000 US Dollars) or from 96% Sharpness Lens ( $450 US Dollars).-------Yes, IF I have 100 Millions US Dollars in my Bank account, And Yes, If one of my dear friend tell me that , He have more money than me = 100 Milolions + 20 Dollars = Richer than me, And He can use that $ 20 Dollars to buy extra 3 Meals of Mcdonald fastfood restaurant---Ha, Ha, Ha, I should cry, because He richer than Me ?----NO WAY.
I wish , I were 21 years old again, and see the effected of great sharp lenses but no money to buy and enjoy them. Well, Yes, Now I am old, and have money to buy any thing that I want, BUT = FOR WHAT ?---My Eyes so bad, have the Thick eyeglass-my body are not have a good functions like 44 years ago---Except, I still have a good mouth, which can complaints in every bad things and make the people hate me---Ha, Ha, Ha.
Have a great Wednesday, Sir/ Madam.
See you after I come back from Chicago for Convention/ Exposition of AIA ( the American Institute of Architects) June 26 to 29.
Your Friend, Surapon


----------



## mnclayshooter (Jun 25, 2014)

Surapon, I always love reading your posts. You make some great points. 

To expand on a couple you made: 

I dare any of you to climb up and see a billboard on the side of the highway up close sometime to see the level of detail you see on them up close. I think you'll be suprised how big the pixels look on there and just how fuzzy they seem to be when they're 3 feet in front of you rather than 300 feet away. 

Just remember your lens is pretty sharp... if used correctly, pretty much regardless of the name/number/designation of the lens - virtually no lens manufacturer of any modest level of repute would sell one that isn't. Just because there's one out there that might be very slightly sharper on some chart, doesn't make the lens in your hand a pile of junk. 

My sense is that MOST of the reviewers of equipment on here are reading their info off spec pages, rather than actually holding the equipment and going out and using it. Makes me wonder if I could write spec pages for the London Bridge and try to get someone to buy it... or tell me that the Golden Gate Bridge is better because it's different? 

Also consider... if it's your hobby/passion and that's all... you can decide what is an acceptable level for you to participate in that hobby... including the level of investment you're willing to make... will you enjoy taking photos if you don't have the best/sharpest lens out there? I can't answer that for you. IF peer pressure is too great, you'll have to make the decision of what to use and what you "need". 

If you plan to make a living off it... you have to make a decision how much overhead cost you want to have vs how much income you're going to make. Somewhere there's a balance point...(Cost/Benefit ratio) that only you can evaluate for your situation. 

Ask yourself - did you miss a photo because you happened to have the 17-40 instead of your 16-35? more than likely not... did you miss a photo because you happened to have the 17-40 on instead of the 200-400, maybe??? but level of sharpness didn't even come into question in that trade-off did it? You have to decide how much crap you want to carry around with you... pick a lens or a couple lenses that get the job done and leave the spec writing and reviews to the internet dweebs who get paid every time you click on their page. 

I'd love to drive the biggest and best pickup truck made.. but... I have to settle with the one that is sold when I'm buying it and is on the lot... the one that I can afford, and the one that suits my needs at the time. Camera equipment is no different. YMMV. 8)


----------



## Viggo (Jun 25, 2014)

Great pictures through time isn't always about technical stuff, that is a fact and isn't worth discussing.

But, a sharp lens is usually the best it can be in other ways as well. I consider the 200 f2 to be as close to theoretical perfection as it can almost ever be in every possible aspect from AF to IS to the optical attributes. And it is also without any doubt, the lens which creates the coolest feel of my pictures, usually the shots I get from it wouldn't at all look as nice shot with anything else, that's what matters to me. 

And speaking of 50's, the shots I get from the astonishing 50 Art is always cooler than anything I got from the 50 L, it's much better in every way, this is all my opinion of course, and that makes the shots better. 

All this doesn't mean anything when looking at all the epic shots from the film days and shots that capture moments where the tech means nothing, but they shot the best they had at the time, is it soo bad that we want to do the same, just that now the gear is epically better?

Is the historical images of today shot with "not the best gear" not really...

I have bought cheap tools for a simple job with my car or when building my deck in the back yard, tried them once and returned for proper gear and got the job done faster and better AND had much much more fun.


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 25, 2014)

Viggo said:


> And speaking of 50's, the shots I get from the astonishing 50 Art is always cooler than anything I got from the 50 L, it's much better in every way, this is all my opinion of course, and that makes the shots better.


I agree with your points about the 200L and memorable photos not being the best technically. Also, I see that you've decided to hang onto the 50A. Were you able to get the AF dialed in or have you just accepted that it's not perfect?


----------



## NancyP (Jun 25, 2014)

I am having a good time experimenting with vintage lenses on the 6D. Some are good, some less so. I daresay that they aren't as sharp as the modern computer-aided designs, but the color and contrast are good. Nikon AIS 50mm f/1.2, AIS 105mm f/2.5; Mamiya-Sekor (for 135 format) 60mm f/2.8 macro and 55mm f/1.4 lenses are all pleasing with respect to color and contrast. Some of my other closet inhabitants (wide angles) don't look like the 6D mirror will clear the back end of the lens, so have not been tried - but might be interesting on a mirrorless camera. The massive spherical aberration wide open of the 50mm f/1.2 could be regarded as a "feature" instead of a "defect" if one is after a "pictorial" low contrast look.


----------



## Viggo (Jun 25, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > And speaking of 50's, the shots I get from the astonishing 50 Art is always cooler than anything I got from the 50 L, it's much better in every way, this is all my opinion of course, and that makes the shots better.
> ...



I have found some workaround methods, and use center when the outer fails, so accepted that it's not perfect, but I have to say, the AF is really good and it's not frustrating and/or annoying. It's probably, along with the 200, my all time favorite lens, and I have owned or tried pretty much everything.


----------



## klickflip (Jun 25, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Ruined - I've been meaning to reply but life has been busy...but I agree with you completely. The 50L is one of my favorite lenses and even if it's not as sharp as my 24-70 II or other lenses, that doesn't mean it's soft mush. The other qualities more than make up for it, but as you point, no one ever reviews those qualities because they aren't so easy to measure.
> 
> Some people spend way too much time and effort posting this and that on the boards and the 50L will never get any love from those people. For you, me, and the rest of the people that care about more than sharpness, we just need to get out and shoot and show how great our work is, sharpness zealots be damned



agreed, much more about quality that can't be measured than sharpness, but when 50L is in focus it's sharp, partly depends on your subject matter and Fstop but if I need a series of consistently sharp (in focus ) shots then 85L II is first to turn , then 135L and 35 art dependent on FOV needed. I i have time to work the short then 50L will get beautiful results with more effort.


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 26, 2014)

Viggo said:


> I have found some workaround methods, and use center when the outer fails, so accepted that it's not perfect, but I have to say, the AF is really good and it's not frustrating and/or annoying. It's probably, along with the 200, my all time favorite lens, and I have owned or tried pretty much everything.


Viggo, that's good to hear and I'm glad it's worked out so well for you.



klickflip said:


> agreed, much more about quality that can't be measured than sharpness, but when 50L is in focus it's sharp, partly depends on your subject matter and Fstop but if I need a series of consistently sharp (in focus ) shots then 85L II is first to turn , then 135L and 35 art dependent on FOV needed. I i have time to work the short then 50L will get beautiful results with more effort.


Yes, photos are more than just sharpness and the 50L & 85L just beg to be used at f/1.2 even if the keeper rate is lower


----------



## Viggo (Jun 26, 2014)

Thanks mackgyver! In really happy as well, I have been waiting for a epic 50 since I bought my first camera and to finally have it and actually see it gives me the results I wanted every single time is the best feeling.

And a snapshot at breakfast turns into a fun memory and a picture where I don't notice the flaws if the lens, but the cuteness in my daughter ;D

Hate me for loving that 1.4 sharpness, I REALLY don't care


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 26, 2014)

Viggo said:


> Thanks mackgyver! In really happy as well, I have been waiting for a epic 50 since I bought my first camera and to finally have it and actually see it gives me the results I wanted every single time is the best feeling.
> 
> And a snapshot at breakfast turns into a fun memory and a picture where I don't notice the flaws if the lens, but the cuteness in my daughter ;D
> 
> Hate me for loving that 1.4 sharpness, I REALLY don't care


Great photo of your beautiful daughter - turning a "snapshot" into a true photograph! I don't hate you for wanting the sharpness wide open - I'm sure nearly all 50L owners would be beyond excited if Canon came out with a 50L II that was razor sharp at f/1.2!


----------



## tron (Jun 26, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > ..
> ...


+1 Exactly! And then they would forget about the previous L "unique" characteristics and they would enjoy their new sharp 50mm L lens ;D


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jun 26, 2014)

tron said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...



I'm sure there will be some, but If I need a 50mm, I'll use the focal length on a zoom. This year i've had a prime lens consolidation, selling my 50L, 24IIL, TS-e 45 lenses. I even sold my Siggi 12-24 too. I just wasn't using them any longer and they were expensive assets to have lying around the house gathering dust. 
My wedding mojo works well with a smaller kit than before. So i'm being really well served with my 16-35IIL, 35L and 85IIL. I take along a 70-200 f2.8 LIS II and 24-70L for the reception speaches but that's pretty much my regular kit. For landscapes I use a 16-35IIL, TSe 17L, 24-70L, 70-200 f2.8 LIS II and tele converters with a 100mm macro LIS for occasional use. I currently have no shooting need for a 24IIL or a 50L.


----------



## Viggo (Jun 26, 2014)

tron said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...



EEEEExacttlly! And thanks


----------



## weixing (Jun 26, 2014)

Hi,
Everyone got their personal preference... some like extreme sharp lens, some like lens which might not be the sharpest lens, but produce an unique look, some like lens that produce smooth bokeh, some might like the pentagon bokeh certain lens produce, some also like the donut bokeh mirror lens produce (must be quite an interesting image if use a mirror lens to shoot a donut... all the bokeh are also in donut shape... ha ha ha), some even like the result of lens that produce all sorts of aberration on the image... there is no right or wrong answer in photography and IMHO, it's this type of diversity which produce those interesting images... just imagine if every images we saw is extreme sharp, clear and all give the same look, then it's must be very boring after a while...

Have a nice day.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jun 26, 2014)

Viggo said:


> Thanks mackgyver! In really happy as well, I have been waiting for a epic 50 since I bought my first camera and to finally have it and actually see it gives me the results I wanted every single time is the best feeling.
> 
> And a snapshot at breakfast turns into a fun memory and a picture where I don't notice the flaws if the lens, but the cuteness in my daughter ;D
> 
> Hate me for loving that 1.4 sharpness, I REALLY don't care



That is *really* sharp. What software did you use for PP? Any unsharp mask used?


----------



## Viggo (Jun 26, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks mackgyver! In really happy as well, I have been waiting for a epic 50 since I bought my first camera and to finally have it and actually see it gives me the results I wanted every single time is the best feeling.
> ...



I just use Lr for the fullsize images, but when I resize I use NIK output sharpener plug in in Photoshop.


----------

