The whole question of lens sharpness...

Started Jun 12, 2013 | Discussions
gdourado
Regular MemberPosts: 188
Like?
The whole question of lens sharpness...
Jun 12, 2013

Hello, how are you?

So, after spending a lot of time on photography sites, blogs and forums, one thing that seems to always be mentioned is lens sharpness.

There seems to be sort of an obsession about sharpness that always generates flaming debates about sharpness, bad copies, sample variation and such...

This got me wondering... Do we really need more and more sharpness? For portraits, events, models... is super sharpness even a good thing? How much is enough? And why do people get so turned on by this?

Hope to hear your opinion on this matter.

Cheers!

-- hide signature --
Cailean Gallimore
Senior MemberPosts: 6,082
Like?
Re: The whole question of lens sharpness...
In reply to gdourado, Jun 12, 2013

Some people take the issues of sharpness and high ISO performance to the point of obsessing over barely discernible differences, but when it comes to easily discernible differences, it does matter what we see.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Daisy AU
Senior MemberPosts: 1,561Gear list
Like?
Re: The whole question of lens sharpness...
In reply to gdourado, Jun 12, 2013

gdourado wrote:

Hello, how are you?

So, after spending a lot of time on photography sites, blogs and forums, one thing that seems to always be mentioned is lens sharpness.

There seems to be sort of an obsession about sharpness that always generates flaming debates about sharpness, bad copies, sample variation and such...

This got me wondering... Do we really need more and more sharpness? For portraits, events, models... is super sharpness even a good thing? How much is enough? And why do people get so turned on by this?

Hope to hear your opinion on this matter.

Cheers!

-- hide signature --

I wonder about the same.  However, one advantage of very sharp images is that it allows you to crop and still retain acceptable sharpness.  I'm not into portraits but a softer look is better, in my opinion.

-- hide signature --
 Daisy AU's gear list:Daisy AU's gear list
Nikon D7000 Nikon 1 V1 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR +8 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
D Cox
Senior MemberPosts: 8,019
Like?
Re: The whole question of lens sharpness...
In reply to gdourado, Jun 12, 2013

You don't always want a very sharp image, but often you do. It is easy to reduce sharpness, but very hard to increase it.

The ideal is to have a range of lenses in your armoury to suit different occasions. This can include soft focus lenses.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Chris R-UK
Forum ProPosts: 12,434Gear list
Like?
Re: The whole question of lens sharpness...
In reply to gdourado, Jun 12, 2013

I think that there is a minimum sharpness requirements.  There are a small number of lenses around that are definitely not sharp, e.g. the Canon 75-300mm lens that is sometime bundled with Canon bodies by less scrupulous retailers. Judging by posts on this site, owners of these lenses seem to want to upgrade quite quickly after purchase.

However, IMHO most lenses are sharp enough for most general purpose photography and less experienced photographers are unlikely to see much improvement in their shots after upgrading to a sharper lens. Their limitations will be their own skills and not the lens that they are using.

Of course there are some types of photography that definitely require sharp lenses.  Detailed landscape/architectural photography and bird photography are two that spring to mind.

-- hide signature --

Chris R

 Chris R-UK's gear list:Chris R-UK's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Alphoid
Senior MemberPosts: 2,617
Like?
Sharpness is easy to measure
In reply to gdourado, Jun 12, 2013

Lens quality matters much more than almost anything else in equipment. Lens quality comes down to contrast, bokeh, flare resistance, distortion, and a hundred similar properties. Sharpness happens to be the easiest to stick a number on, so people obsess over it. It's by no means the most important. Contrast is more important (and also easy to measure), but somehow, reviewers don't give numbers it. Distortion is easy to measure, but matters less (and is also somewhat subjective -- there are different shapes and easy/hard-to-correct). Flare and bokeh are important, but almost completely subjective.

That said, sharpness does tend to correlate with lens quality -- nice lenses tend to be nice along multiple axes. Contrast and sharpness, in particular, are closely related in optical design, so sharp lenses tend to be contrasty as well. I've seen a small number of reasonably sharp lenses that take mediocre photos (Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 comes to mind), as well as a small number of not-so-sharp lenses that take beautiful photos (my Minolta Beercan 70-210mm f/4 comes to mind). As a rule of thumb, however, most of my best lenses also tend to be my sharpest, so it is a good proxy.

The same thing happened with sensor megapixels for many years, and now with high ISO performance. They aren't the most important properties of cameras, but they tended to correlate with camera quality, so they were good things to shop on. At some point, manufacturers realized that this was happening, and started optimizing first entirely for megapixels, and now increasingly for high ISO, sometimes sacrificing more important properties in the process, so they stopped acting as good proxies.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Alleg1
Contributing MemberPosts: 602Gear list
Like?
Re: The whole question of lens sharpness...
In reply to gdourado, Jun 12, 2013

gdourado wrote:

Hello, how are you?

So, after spending a lot of time on photography sites, blogs and forums, one thing that seems to always be mentioned is lens sharpness.

There seems to be sort of an obsession about sharpness that always generates flaming debates about sharpness, bad copies, sample variation and such...

This got me wondering... Do we really need more and more sharpness? For portraits, events, models... is super sharpness even a good thing? How much is enough? And why do people get so turned on by this?

Hope to hear your opinion on this matter.

Cheers!

-- hide signature --

I like to have a reasonable level of sharpness, but what constitutes this is highly subjective in the real world outside of test charts.

I think you are spot on, ultimate sharpness can become an obsession for some people, and can be undesirable in some areas such as portraiture.

Many digital pictures posted on photo forums appear to be oversharp,in my view, and appear somewhat artificial.

Judged on the criterion of sharpness, many great photographers would fail.

 Alleg1's gear list:Alleg1's gear list
Nikon D100 Nikon D300 Olympus E-510
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Do you wish your vision was less than sharp?
In reply to gdourado, Jun 12, 2013

gdourado wrote:

Hello, how are you?

So, after spending a lot of time on photography sites, blogs and forums, one thing that seems to always be mentioned is lens sharpness.

There seems to be sort of an obsession about sharpness that always generates flaming debates about sharpness, bad copies, sample variation and such...

This got me wondering... Do we really need more and more sharpness? For portraits, events, models... is super sharpness even a good thing? How much is enough? And why do people get so turned on by this?

Hope to hear your opinion on this matter.

Cheers!

-- hide signature --

Do you wish for your vision to be less than sharp?

The goal should always be to maximize the sharpness of a lens. One can always blur the image through software later on if that is what they want.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: The whole question of lens sharpness...
In reply to D Cox, Jun 12, 2013

D Cox wrote:

You don't always want a very sharp image, but often you do. It is easy to reduce sharpness, but very hard to increase it.

The ideal is to have a range of lenses in your armoury to suit different occasions. This can include soft focus lenses.

No, it's impossible to increase real sharpness if it wasn't there to begin with. There is also no point in a soft focus lens when you can use software to blur a sharp lens.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
looper1234
Regular MemberPosts: 314
Like?
Re: The whole question of lens sharpness...
In reply to gdourado, Jun 12, 2013

sharpness is a bit vague in its definition, what people really want, is the resolution.

a sharp picture will contain more data on the light than a unsharp version.

and this abundance of information gives one room to maneuver in post processing.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: The whole question of lens sharpness...
In reply to Alleg1, Jun 12, 2013

Alleg1 wrote:

gdourado wrote:

Hello, how are you?

So, after spending a lot of time on photography sites, blogs and forums, one thing that seems to always be mentioned is lens sharpness.

There seems to be sort of an obsession about sharpness that always generates flaming debates about sharpness, bad copies, sample variation and such...

This got me wondering... Do we really need more and more sharpness? For portraits, events, models... is super sharpness even a good thing? How much is enough? And why do people get so turned on by this?

Hope to hear your opinion on this matter.

Cheers!

-- hide signature --

I like to have a reasonable level of sharpness, but what constitutes this is highly subjective in the real world outside of test charts.

I think you are spot on, ultimate sharpness can become an obsession for some people, and can be undesirable in some areas such as portraiture.

Many digital pictures posted on photo forums appear to be oversharp,in my view, and appear somewhat artificial.

Judged on the criterion of sharpness, many great photographers would fail.

For the discerning and serious photographer lens sharpness is not at all "subjective."

There is no such a thing as an image being "oversharp" because of a lens. A lens can not be too sharp.

Few 'great photographers" would have preferred a blurry lens over a sharp lens, especially today.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: The whole question of lens sharpness...
In reply to looper1234, Jun 12, 2013

looper1234 wrote:

sharpness is a bit vague in its definition, what people really want, is the resolution.

a sharp picture will contain more data on the light than a unsharp version.

and this abundance of information gives one room to maneuver in post processing.

There is nothing "vague" about the definition of sharpness. You can have a camera with 50 megapixels on it but slap a blurry lens on it and all the potential resolution of the sensor can not be realized.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Chris R-UK
Forum ProPosts: 12,434Gear list
Like?
Re: The whole question of lens sharpness...
In reply to Basalite, Jun 12, 2013

Basalite wrote:

[snip]

There is no such a thing as an image being "oversharp" because of a lens.

But is can certainly be "oversharp" because of excessive sharpening in post processing.  I think that that is what the previous poster was referring to.

-- hide signature --

Chris R

 Chris R-UK's gear list:Chris R-UK's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
papillon_65
Forum ProPosts: 18,351Gear list
Like?
It's amazing how sharp most lenses can look...
In reply to gdourado, Jun 12, 2013

with the appropriate use of flash or controlled lighting.

-- hide signature --

667....neighbour of the beast.
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

 papillon_65's gear list:papillon_65's gear list
Sigma DP1 Merrill Sigma DP2 Merrill Fujifilm XF1 Sigma DP3 Merrill Fujifilm X-T1 +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
olliess
Contributing MemberPosts: 915
Like?
Re: The whole question of lens sharpness...
In reply to Basalite, Jun 12, 2013

Basalite wrote:

There is nothing "vague" about the definition of sharpness.

Ok, then what's your definition of sharpness?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
richardplondon
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,447Gear list
Like?
Re: The whole question of lens sharpness...
In reply to gdourado, Jun 12, 2013

Being interested in having a lens with good peak sharpness, is not the same thing as being obsessed with having only sharp pictures.

Very often, one wants to control different degrees of sharpness or softness within a picture - through depth of field manipulation by using different subject distances and background distances, together with aperture control, also even with subject and/or camera movement.

That is a (uniquely photographic) "creative parameter" alongside all the other kinds of tone and colour, perspective, composition etc considerations.

And if a given lens is very restricted in its ability to show sharp vs soft contrast in the subject - because it is never capable of being truly sharp, no matter what you do, and/or, if its effective aperture range is not very broad - then certain kinds of pictorial "story" simply cannot be told.

It is worth expanding the concept of a "sharp" lens, BTW, in this respect: a lens needs to show not only a high resolution, and a broad aperture range, but also good control in terms of contrast / flare, to deliver these kinds of pictorial contrasts clearly to the viewer.

RP

 richardplondon's gear list:richardplondon's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX1 Pentax K-5 Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM Pentax smc DA 21mm F3.2 AL Limited Pentax smc DA 70mm F2.4 AL Limited +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
UtahManSir
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,582
Like?
Re: The whole question of lens sharpness...
In reply to gdourado, Jun 12, 2013

gdourado wrote:

Hello, how are you?

So, after spending a lot of time on photography sites, blogs and forums, one thing that seems to always be mentioned is lens sharpness.

There seems to be sort of an obsession about sharpness that always generates flaming debates about sharpness, bad copies, sample variation and such...

This got me wondering... Do we really need more and more sharpness? For portraits, events, models... is super sharpness even a good thing? How much is enough? And why do people get so turned on by this?

Hope to hear your opinion on this matter.

Cheers!

-- hide signature --

The sharper the lens, the bigger I can print. I hate to tell a client that I cannot print something the size they want because the file is not sharp enough and breaks down at larger print sizes.

Lloyd

-- hide signature --

“For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong.” Henry Louis Mencken
http://lloydshell.blogspot.com/
http://lloydshell.zenfolio.com/
WSSA #354
http://lloydshell.zenfolio.com/img/s3/v41/p234497562-3.jpg

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
BertIverson
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,001Gear list
Like?
Sharpness not too important on 2.4MP monitor ...
In reply to gdourado, Jun 12, 2013

gdourado wrote:

... Do we really need more and more sharpness? For portraits, events, models... is super sharpness even a good thing? How much is enough? ...

My take on this is simple. If one can fill the frame (avoiding cropping), lens sharpness is usually irrelevant when viewing on a 2.4MP monitor. Viewing a 16MP shot on a 2.4MP monitor means about 4-6 sensor pixels are rendered into 1 pixel on the monitor. In the case of a zoom lens, it only needs to be real sharp at the extreme long end. At lesser FL one will fill the frame (see above).

my 0.02 -- PS pixel peeping not allowed

Bert

 BertIverson's gear list:BertIverson's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
UtahManSir
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,582
Like?
Re: Sharpness not too important on 2.4MP monitor ...
In reply to BertIverson, Jun 12, 2013

BertIverson wrote:

gdourado wrote:

... Do we really need more and more sharpness? For portraits, events, models... is super sharpness even a good thing? How much is enough? ...

My take on this is simple. If one can fill the frame (avoiding cropping), lens sharpness is usually irrelevant when viewing on a 2.4MP monitor. Viewing a 16MP shot on a 2.4MP monitor means about 4-6 sensor pixels are rendered into 1 pixel on the monitor. In the case of a zoom lens, it only needs to be real sharp at the extreme long end. At lesser FL one will fill the frame (see above).

my 0.02 -- PS pixel peeping not allowed

Bert

I don't care about the screen, I want good prints. The screen is irrelevant.

Lloyd

-- hide signature --

“For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong.” Henry Louis Mencken
http://lloydshell.blogspot.com/
http://lloydshell.zenfolio.com/
WSSA #354
http://lloydshell.zenfolio.com/img/s3/v41/p234497562-3.jpg

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Detail Man
Forum ProPosts: 15,125
Like?
Re: The whole question of lens sharpness ...
In reply to gdourado, Jun 12, 2013

gdourado wrote:

There seems to be sort of an obsession about sharpness ... Do we really need more and more sharpness? ... For portraits, events, models... is super sharpness even a good thing?

This got me wondering ... How much is enough?

Solve the problem once and for all with a 2 Mpixel camera ...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads