I hardly see any room for improvement (sharpness)

[saxe]

With my 30D + 50mm 1.4 combo, stopped down just a tiny bit, creates incredibly sharp images. The images below are not PP'ed, only cropped.

This is the original image. Taken at 1/800, f3.5, ISO200



Here is the 100% crop. No complaints from me!



I guess I could have gotten even more detail out of it if I had shot it in RAW and used a very good converter. Not worth the hassle with these kinds of results right out of the camera!
--
http://picasaweb.google.com/markusrosvik

 

[bronxbombers]

With my 30D + 50mm 1.4 combo, stopped down just a tiny bit, creates
incredibly sharp images. The images below are not PP'ed, only cropped.

the 50mm f/1.4 is extremely sharp when stopped down, just look at the MTF.

 

[vadim_c]

In order to see a difference you need to compare it with something.

 

[Bohdan]

you mention that you should could have shot it in RAW. I assume you shot this using the built in Picture Styles. Which one did you use since some of them have some sharpening already applied.

btw... I am looking at the shot at work (not the best LCD) but it just looks "ok" to me. I'll check it out, again, when I get home.

--
I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.

 

[saxe]

Feel free to post a comparison shot!
--
http://picasaweb.google.com/markusrosvik

 

[saxe]

Hi Bohdan, I am pretty sure I shot it in the portrait picture style.

If you don't think this is sharp I'd love to see one of your sharp images!

Thanks for the comment!

you mention that you should could have shot it in RAW. I assume you
shot this using the built in Picture Styles. Which one did you use
since some of them have some sharpening already applied.

btw... I am looking at the shot at work (not the best LCD) but it
just looks "ok" to me. I'll check it out, again, when I get home.

--
I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.

--
http://picasaweb.google.com/markusrosvik

 

[Bohdan]

I didn't say it wasn't sharp, I said it was "ok" which suggests some room for improvement. I'm now looking at it with my HP LP2065 which, if a shot is sharp, renders an image that you could cut yourself on. Then again, you said no PP so I should keep that in mind.

Portrait has some sharpening already added which is not a whole of a lot but enough to tell how sharp and image can be with PP, imho. I'm sure that shot will be stunning.

I'm still looking for a shot that crops an eye or so..... don't have one (just got my 40D about 6 weeks ago). I currently only have the 70-200 f4 IS which I am extremely happy with, btw.

If you don't think this is sharp I'd love to see one of your sharp
images!

Thanks for the comment!

you mention that you should could have shot it in RAW. I assume you
shot this using the built in Picture Styles. Which one did you use
since some of them have some sharpening already applied.

btw... I am looking at the shot at work (not the best LCD) but it
just looks "ok" to me. I'll check it out, again, when I get home.

--
I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.

--
http://picasaweb.google.com/markusrosvik

--
I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.

 

[vadim_c]

Too lazy to mess with posting pictures, but can tell you there is nothing exceptional in the image you posted in terms of sharpness. In fact the same level of sharpness can be achieved with a kit lens, at least from what can be seen in the snaphot. There is much more to the quality of the lens and the one you have is an exceptional lens but if you are concerned about sharpness only you should have got 50/1.8, which would be not worse than what you posted.

Feel free to post a comparison shot!

 

[vadim_c]

Just found one that I posted earlier. This is a 100% crop from a kit lens. it is not the same subject but judging by the dust on the counter you can conclude that the image is not less sharp.

 

[therickman]

Cute kid. But I'm confused by your post. Of course your 50 F/1.8 is sharp at F/3.5. All lenses are sharp stopped down two and 2/3 stops. That's not much of a validation of the lens. The real judgement of performance is wide open, or at least faster than F/2.8.

My 50 F/1.4 is very soft wide open to F/2.0. Right around F/2.2 and on it's very clean.

--
Insert pretentious obligatory quote here...

 

[Rowbear]

--
Robert
http://www.pbase.com/rgravel/mes_photos

 

[therickman]

Correction, I know it's your 50 F/1.4. I mistakenly wrote "F/1.8."

--
Insert pretentious obligatory quote here...

 

[saxe]

I am sorry but comparing a rigid, lifeless studio shot where everything is bolted to the ground and wouldn't move even in gale force winds to a hand held shot of a 2-year-old is quite a stretch. I know that if you want to be strictly scientific with no variables that is what you need... But how boring. I am interested in real life results, and that was what I was happy about in the initial post.

Having said that, I do appreciate your effort in posting that picture, I just don't see the relevance.
Thanks.
--
http://picasaweb.google.com/markusrosvik

 

[saxe]

Thanks for the comment. I know that it is sharper stopped down. That, and more DOF, was why I stopped it down. I was just pleased with the result, thats all.
--
http://picasaweb.google.com/markusrosvik

 

[saxe]

--
http://picasaweb.google.com/markusrosvik

 

[vadim_c]

I am sorry but comparing a rigid, lifeless studio shot where
everything is bolted to the ground and wouldn't move even in gale
force winds to a hand held shot of a 2-year-old is quite a stretch. I
know that if you want to be strictly scientific with no variables
that is what you need... But how boring. I am interested in real life
results, and that was what I was happy about in the initial post.
Having said that, I do appreciate your effort in posting that
picture, I just don't see the relevance.
Thanks.

Well we were talking about sharpness and all what you said has no relevance to sharpness whatsoever.

 

[saxe]

New term: real life sharpness

I am sorry but comparing a rigid, lifeless studio shot where
everything is bolted to the ground and wouldn't move even in gale
force winds to a hand held shot of a 2-year-old is quite a stretch. I
know that if you want to be strictly scientific with no variables
that is what you need... But how boring. I am interested in real life
results, and that was what I was happy about in the initial post.
Having said that, I do appreciate your effort in posting that
picture, I just don't see the relevance.
Thanks.

Well we were talking about sharpness and all what you said has no
relevance to sharpness whatsoever.

--
http://picasaweb.google.com/markusrosvik

 

[Steve Balcombe]

Hi Markus.

I know you are very pleased with the shot and you have every right to be, it's lovely. But your subject line was specifically about sharpness and I have to side with the others who have noted that it is not especially sharp. Also, stopping down from f/1.4 to f/3.5 is not just a little bit, it's nearly three stops. That should be enough to make almost any lens sharp!

If you used the Portrait picture style, I would expect the image to be a little soft as it applies less in-camera sharpening than the Standard style. This is with good reason - it is more flattering - but it doesn't show off the sharpness of the lens.

 

[Bohdan]

I missed the fact that it was at f3.5... I thiought it was shot wide open although I was curious why the DOF was so huge.

My previous statements, stand. At 3.5 (for a 1.4 lens) it is nothing exceptional in terms of sharpness.

If "portrait" out of the camera with no PP, then who knows what the lens can actually do.

I think, at least I do, buy a faster lens for it's wide open capability. If it doesn't deliver wide open then it doesn't get purchased.

--
I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.

 

[Steve Balcombe]

I think, at least I do, buy a faster lens for it's wide open
capability. If it doesn't deliver wide open then it doesn't get
purchased.

Yep, this is the dilemma that I have. I'm lucky enough to have the 50/1.8 MkI that I bought in 1991-ish so there is maybe less pressure on me to upgrade than if I had the MkII. The 50/1.4 has USM which I would certainly prefer (although it's not ring USM) but it is not sharp at f/1.4 - and from somewhere around f/4 the two lenses must be practically indistinguishable. There is just that relatively narrow range around f/2 to f/2.8 where (I believe) the 50/1.4 would give me improved IQ and frankly it is just not different enough.

I've been thinking of going for the 85/1.8 instead but I'm not sure if I would use it enough. Slightly better lens and I would still have the 50 for when the 85 is too long, but I worry that it could end up being the lens I always leave behind (I've too much in the bag already!)