How wrong you are - sharpness is just a metaphor of death. Death of the subject in the guillotine of the shutter (Barthes). As I said most of the masterpieces are slightly OOF, but then your only argument is that the OP wants to make sure he gets something for his money.
Actually, we can't, because that implies you can post some proof of your continued exaggerations. Your feigned acquiescence is yet another weak tactic used by those that can't support their claims. You know, like your ad hominem attacks.We could have this game of quoting others back and forth whole day long, I don't care, I know what I see in front of me and I don't care about wasting my weekend time on proving some anonymous on Internet wrong, you can have last word
I think that's best. I don't believe shooting a few photos of newsprint from a tripod is a lab test, but from what I've seen from your photos, I also don't think it's necessary. Now that I think about it, only one person on this thread has said they're "positive" something is wrong with your lens, while others have said your results look fine. Looks like you've decided which side of that is probably correct.
Could be, or if IBIS was used, it may have had some effect. Like I said, if you really want to know, the easiest way is to eliminate as many variables as possible. I also don't think you need to worry about it.
Yes, IBIS was on. Is it recommended to turn IBIS off when shooting at higher shutter speeds just like with the optically stabilized lenses?
I have mine on pre-order
From what I've seen here, Guy Parsons has made the most detailed posts on the matter. IIRC, it's been his experience that at higher shutter speeds, any stabilization may not be beneficial. Here's his page on the subject:
Yesterday, I walked into the store for a monopod. I walked out with some CF tucked under my arm, and my name first on the list for a 45/1.8. I haven't celebrated the Feast of the Trumpets before, but I will this year.I have mine on pre-order
Only thing I see is lots of fluffed up empty hot air words about art when OP is asking whether his copy is representative of standard performance.
Not interested in commercial photography, which is exploiting the lesser parts of photography for money. Fashion is just fetish, and I don't need the money.
It was so predictable you will continue behaving as if you are impersonation of His Holiness or Second Coming. It is so sad that your own photographs you posted strongly indicate you have absolutely nothing to base that pompousness on as you are not even near but on the completely opposite side of quality / art.
Don't care if you do, and you should not mind if I don't ignore stench coming from wannabe artists, high nosed elitism in any form is just a bunch of rotting eggs in small space that requires disinfecting.
