The sharpness curse!

[9VIII]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

...

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]

...

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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.

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