The sharpness curse!

[Berowne]

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!

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]

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]

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

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

 

[mrsfotografie]

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

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

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

 

[AlanF]

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

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

 

[thepancakeman]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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 ;-)

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.