Does this look too sharp?

Started Apr 17, 2013 | Discussions thread
purpleray Senior Member • Posts: 1,260
Re: Does this look too sharp?

Adventsam wrote:

purpleray wrote:


On my new 2560x1440, quad HD screen, it looks too sharp.  But, quite a few of my old shots now look too sharp on this screen.  The screen has established a new ball game for photos and PP.

Perhaps, it might look too sharp anyway in terms of atmosphere and context - the scene with the soft water seems to demand a more soft romantic look for the rocks and trees.   I might find this hard to achieve with my new screen!!

The other issue about "too sharp" that surprises is the lens, the 14-150 - not renowned for sharpness.  However, I use it a lot and find it plenty sharp for my 'travel' purposes.  I note that Henry Richardson's shoot of Nepal is mostly with that lens as well.

So for me some interesting issues have been raised.



Ray, I like the 14-150 a lot and find it very sharp throughout the range, to be honest I am starting to wonder if the 14-150 is really that good, how good will the 12-35 and the 35-100 be!

I have the 12-35 and at times I try to put the 12-35 on thinking to myself f2.8 is important or better sharpness is important - but I find if I'm going walk about to some place nice with a variety of scenes and people that the 14-150 is sharp enough AND has the flexibility of focal length range.  So I'm using it more and the 12-35 less.

Nevertheless, the long term plan is 12-35 w 35-100 for my photo specific events.  This is specifically for theatre work where the F2.8 is needed but also when I go and shoot something like Sculpture by Sea here in Sydney.  I will need 2 m4/3 bodies for this.

I'm waiting for the new pro Oly m4/3.  Then I will decide on whether the new Oly fast lenses should replace the Pany ones.

Only thing is the 35-100 is a touch short imo for my use, 150 or 300equiv mm being ideal for pulling most subjects including some birds. If Oly release a fast 40-150 I will buy it without hesitation and pair it with the 12-35, if not I will continue with my 14-150, 14mm prime and converter for now,

I'll also sell all my 4/3's gear - E620, e5, 12-60,50-200 and 50 F2.   I've been thinking of keeping the 50-200 but it is so big in the m4/3context.  But again nothing long enough and fast enough in m4/3.

I am happy with most things but would like the 7-14 or 9-18 next, but the 7-14 lacks filter thread which is a nuisance.

The 7-14 is a beauty.  So small coming from a 4/3 context, that the size advantage of the 9-18 is not an issue for me.  You do need to be careful in composition into the light re the purple blotches.  However, I find that the F4 speed is not such an advantage over the 9-18 than I thought.  I tend to shoot at f5.6 or F6.3 anyway to maximise DOF for the wide-angle short to back effect.  I'm beginning to use the 7-14 more than the 12-35 because it has a specific FOV advantage that is minimal re 14-150 for the 12-35.



Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow