Is sharpness really that important?

Started 2 weeks ago | Discussions thread
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Flat view
Raymond Wardenaer
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,537Gear list
Like?
Is sharpness really that important?
2 weeks ago

For us pixel-peepers sharpness in important. I have a feeling - however - that we sometimes are putting to much weight on it. There are so many pictures throughout history that are not very sharp, but have become icons. Todays lenses, made with computer calculations and by modern tools and skilled workers, are mostly all very good, at least those coming from the main makers.
I mostly take images for the internet these days. And even when they used my pictures for posters, nobody were unhappy with the negatives or slides. I have just posted some images taken with my Flexaret 6x6 camera in 1960, and people are impressed by the quality.
But I am among the pixel peepers myself. I don't feel like buying the next best lens, even when I could save some money.
Take the new 18-135mm from Fuji for instance. The tests say, good, but not top quality. Soft in the corners. I don't mind soft corners! I tried it, and really liked the reach. But everybody knows how difficult it is to construct a very good lens covering wide angle and tele.
I have the 14mm and the 18-55mm, and will get a 27mm on Wednesday. (The last one is for my superlight combo X-E1/27mm as a walk around set). 
The 18-135 is tempting. That means selling the 18-55. Anyway I shall not do anything until I see the 90mm.
Sorry for this rant, but I had to get it out.

 Raymond Wardenaer's gear list:Raymond Wardenaer's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Flat view
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow