How important is sharpness?

[wanderer86]

This discussion is interesting, and shows me just how out of touch I am with modern photography. Back in the '80's, I wouldn't think of photographing a woman without some degree of soft focus filter on my ETRS.....wow, things have changed.....not saying either is better, just things have changed.....

It's funny you mention that because when I got my Cokin filter holder at a pawn shop, it came with a BUNCH of filters, and a few of them were soft focus filters and the photos on the packaging looked very 80s/early 90s.

I used to be of the mind that all my photos had to be tack sharp when I shot digital. Shooting film has helped me alot because I've had to adjust to the quirks of certain older lenses and my own mistakes. Sometimes "mistakes" with film end up being my favorites though so I think in the end it's really how the photo makes you feel, like others have said, and if the softness of the image adds to that, then great

 

[runnah]

For some shots, the sharper the better. For other shots, content reigns supreme and sharpness is almost irrelevant. As I become more experienced, I realize sharpness is less relevant, but I still want the best sharpness possible when I buy gear. I would pay $1350 all over again to double the sharpness of my 150-600, but for other lenses of mine I wouldn't do that. For telephoto, sharpness means extra reach.

I think subjects like wildlife, sports and landscape (some) need sharpness because it's details of those subjects which give them the most interest.

 

[Derrel]

Someone long ago once said, "The Devil is in the details," which means that hey...you don't really want a sharp lens, because,well, you know, that means the Devil is in the pictures it makes! I think he was a Canon wide-angle lens engineer.

 

[jamiebonline]

I used to be of the mind that all my photos had to be tack sharp when I shot digital. Shooting film has helped me alot because I've had to adjust to the quirks of certain older lenses and my own mistakes. Sometimes "mistakes" with film end up being my favorites though so I think in the end it's really how the photo makes you feel, like others have said, and if the softness of the image adds to that, then great

Well this is where I am coming from because I am now trying film with old lenses too and realise I can't get the same corner to corner sharpness like with the digital kit I was using. I shoot portraits and a little street photography. I don't think I care that it is not tack sharp. There is also relative sharpness to consider due to accurate focusing and avoiding shake. It's not all in the glass. I agree we are in an age where sharpness is so highly rated and maybe overrated. Also agree certain genres can really suit sharpness.

 

[wanderer86]

I used to be of the mind that all my photos had to be tack sharp when I shot digital. Shooting film has helped me alot because I've had to adjust to the quirks of certain older lenses and my own mistakes. Sometimes "mistakes" with film end up being my favorites though so I think in the end it's really how the photo makes you feel, like others have said, and if the softness of the image adds to that, then great

Well this is where I am coming from because I am now trying film with old lenses too and realise I can't get the same corner to corner sharpness like with the digital kit I was using. I shoot portraits and a little street photography. I don't think I care that is not tack sharp. I agree we are in an age where sharpness is so highly rated and maybe overrated. Also agree certain genres can really suit sharpness.

Depending on the quality of the older manual lenses that you are using, those things can be super sharp! My Zuiko 50 1.4 is amazing. And oh my goodness don't even get me started on the 80 mm Planar Zeiss on the Hasselblad. With lenses in general also the coating on the older lenses can help too some of them are multi-coated, etc. that helps with the refraction of the light which increases sharpness I'm still learning alot about that as well. Here's a cool article to browse if you'd like to learn more.

http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/index-166.html

 

[wanderer86]

Here is a really good one as well http://www.canonrumors.com/tech-articles/all-about-lens-coatings/

 

[jamiebonline]

Here is a really good one as well http://www.canonrumors.com/tech-articles/all-about-lens-coatings/

Thanks! Yes sure some of the old manual focus lenses are very sharp.

 

[Derrel]

>>SNIP>>some older manual focus lenses. I love the bokehs and the feel of them is just so good. I think they add something to my work but know there is softness in the corners in some of them. Worse at certain apertures, as is typical, I guess. However, I don't zoom into 100 percent and analyze them myself and I don't think most people, even other photographers, will notice or care either. Also I post mostly online on Facebook and Instagram and my online portfolio on shoot proof, the images are very small to moderately sized. I think it depends on the photography you do. If you are being paid a lot of money to do commercial work, for example, perhaps there is a duty to the client to use the sharpest lenses you can get your hands on, even if the client won't notice. Of course some sharpness is absolutely noticeable. Again it depends to what degree.

So what do you think? How important is sharpness for you? And if I may add a side question, how much do you analyze a lenses performance in other areas too such as chromatic aberration and so on. Would you reject a lens or pay a lot more for a lens based on extensive analyzes of them?.

Corner softness has long been an issue with most lenses at their maximum aperture, and even one stop closed down, the corners are often not that good. With many lenses, closing down three full stops brings the corners to almost equality with the central area. On many lenses, it takes four full f/stops worth of stopping down to get corner resolution that is close enough to equal that the sharpness appears roughly equal across the entire frame. It will not measure or test out as perfectly equal, but "good enough for government work," might be the insulting phrase that's best to describe many lenses when they are shot stopped down four stops. So...say a 35mm f/2 lens....f/2.8 is one down, f/4 is two stops down, f/5.6 is three stops down, and f/8 is good enough across the frame that the image will look sharp corner to corner, edge

 

[limr]

And some of us will sometimes shoot, for example, a Holga specifically to get softness in the corners

 

[Derrel]

I have kept the Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 AF-D lens for portraiture because at the widest five f/stop settings, it has it has a sharp central core image, with a good deal of light fall-off toward the perimeter of the frame, and noticeably softer corner areas, and absolutely superb, lovely bokeh. The bokeh rendering of the 85/1.4 has earned it the internet-era nickname The Cream Machine (which I find sort of silly, but whatever). Stopped down to studio electronic flash f/stops, like f/7.1 or f/8, the sharpness is very high across the frame, and the light fall-off is minimal. it can flare a bit when shot toward the sun.

That lens is in direct contrast to the new, G-series Nikkor, the 85mm f/1.8 AF-S model, which is one of the top-10 or so highest resolving lenses DxO mark has tested on the Nikon D800-series bodies. This lens, the 85/1.8 G, and its 85mm f/1.4 G-series big brother, were at one time the absolute highest-resolving lenses DxO mark had tested. The 85mm 1.8 G is, overall, by all combined metrics, a stellar performer, being free of most optical defects, and its very good even nearly wide-open. But its images look to me to be sterile. Hard. Mechanical. Not gentle, but crisp, and hard, and almost unflattering on people. The bad purple color fringing the old, 1980's 85/1.8 Nikon lens was known for is almost totally eliminated, even when shooting toward bright skies and strongly-silhouetted things like tree branches or power lines.

For people, I leave the 85/1.8 G at home. For landscapes and scenic shots at the beach, where I want high resolution across the entire image area, and where shooting RIGHT toward the sun is a big possibility, I use it.

 

[IntrepidB]

Sharpness is important to a certain degree.

For me, more important than a sharp lens is a lens that can focus accurately. If the focus is nailed on, then it's ok if the sharpness is not that high. If the lens can't focus consistently, for me it's s***, and I will avoid using it.

Other things that I can't stand are shaken photos, if there is some sign of unwanted camera motion, the photo loses a lot of points.

 

[Fred Berg]

A boring photo that's sharp is still a boring photo.

 

[wanderer86]

A boring photo that's sharp is still a boring photo.

I completely agree

 

[jamiebonline]

Sharpness is important to a certain degree.

For me, more important than a sharp lens is a lens that can focus accurately. If the focus is nailed on, then it's ok if the sharpness is not that high. If the lens can't focus consistently, for me it's s***, and I will avoid using it.

Other things that I can't stand are shaken photos, if there is some sign of unwanted camera motion, the photo loses a lot of points.

Yes, it's important to nail focus (I do it a lot manually now) although it depends on the nearness of the subject and it's size and the dof. you have a bit more leeway at times. camera shake is the other point. having lack of sharpness for these reasons is not really what i was thinking. more like how sharp the lens is.

 

[IntrepidB]

Yes, it's important to nail focus (I do it a lot manually now) although it depends on the nearness of the subject and it's size and the dof. you have a bit more leeway at times. camera shake is the other point. having lack of sharpness for these reasons is not really what i was thinking. more like how sharp the lens is.

In case the lack of sharpness comes from the lens, it's acceptable in most cases. I always prefer a sharp lens, but a great shot with proper exposure and other things right will still be a great shot even if the lens is not so sharp.

Some lenses are soft under certain circumstances (Canon 50mm 1.8 at 1.8 or 75-300mm at 300mm), so I just avoid using them at these extremes by stopping down the aperture or avoiding the longer range end.