Is lens sharpness an amature's perspective?

[Abitconfused]

I enjoy sharp lenses very much. I like that they allow greater freedom for cropping and that the prints reveal significant detail. Then I read a post from a seasoned professional who remarks that really sharp lenses are made for amateurs who crave sharpness. However, I see where almost all lens reviewers display charts and illustrations showing how sharp or flawed a lens is. Also, long standing photo magazines often show how large a print a lens may produce at such and such a quality. So at what point in my development as a photographer does a light bulb go off in my small brain and I say to myself, "Ah ha! This fuzzy zens is really great!" Portrait photographers have an argument here. Few of us are giddy with delight when all our age spots and wrinkles stand out in 3D in a photo of our mug but really... Am I missing something here?

[Adrian]

Love him or hate him, Ken Rockwell makes the point that almost all modern lenses are capable of delivering excellent sharpness. Picture quality probably has a great deal more to with the operator than the lens. For those who want to operate at the extremes of aperture, and pixel peep around frame edges, it may be a factor. I am rarely so limited by a need for extremes (aperture or edge) that it matters.

[Donald]

This is the classic - The difference between theory and the real world. Given what 99.9% of the photographic community do with their lenses, any reasonable quality, modern lens is going to deliver. Once you move up into the world of professionalism and want BIG prints and magazine quality stuff all the time, then start getting concerned about the need to exclusively high-end lenses. Until then, get on with enjoying photography.

[Slipper]

I think it is relative to how you view your shots. The point and shoot guy with a half decent camera will get superb 6x4s for the album or quality screen shots for the digital album.
The kit lenses with the average mid priced DSLR are pretty good, but spend a few hundred pounds on a cheap Canon L lens, and there is a significant improvement even just viewing on screen. Go up the scale to a £1000 pound plus (UK) and I see the clarity.
When you show clearer shots to non photographers, they too seem to "mostly" appreciate that it is a "better" photograph.

Having said that, the average person is quit happy with their "phone " shots and dont see the need for higher quality, same with mp3 music. So there is a balance of quality with ease of obtaining and at the right price.

[Shadowman]

Computer monitors allow us to view our images (zoomed to 100% or larger)in a manner we rarely use in the real world. When I visit an art gallery I don't take a magnifying glass or loupe and in most galleries you aren't allowed to get that close anyway.

[Glenn NK]

Seasoned professional? Oh.
How much salt do you have? It'll take more than a grain or two.


On the more serious side, the new high MP sensors by Sony are revealing the flaws in more than a few lenses. Sharpness will become more important as sensor technology progresses.

I'm familiar with a working photographer that routinely prints larger than 30 inches (762 m). To him, sharpness is an issue.

If one is shooting sports for a magazine, then sharpness could be much less of an issue (magazines aren't very large).

So, sharpness relates to one's needs, not to some absolute measure.

Glenn

[Donald]

Seasoned professional? Oh.
How much salt do you have? It'll take more than a grain or two.

Since I'm the only one who has used the word 'professional' in the posts above, I assume this is a joke against me. But, I'm afraid I don't get it.

Just for the avoidance of doubt, I am not a professional photographer and I don't think anything I wrote made that claim or suggested it.

[Nicks Pics]

I'm not sure who thinks pros don't need sharpness, not many of the best photos I see are fuzzy. Isn't there something about the camera sensor too that affects sharpness?

[Shadowman]

Since I'm the only one who has used the word 'professional' in the posts above, I assume this is a joke against me. But, I'm afraid I don't get it.

Just for the avoidance of doubt, I am not a professional photographer and I don't think anything I wrote made that claim or suggested it.

Actually, it was Ed (the OP) who used that exact phrase "seasoned professional", your comment I think referred to the progression a photographer goes through as they hone their skills.

[Donald]

Actually, it was Ed (the OP) who used that exact phrase "seasoned professional", your comment I think referred to the progression a photographer goes through as they hone their skills.

Ah! Sorry all.

[pnodrog]

In spite of the amount of technical discussion that crops on on CiC there are very few photographs posted for critique that display anything other than composition or technical shortcomings of the photographer or conditions. Certainly lens sharpness even at 100% viewing tends to be the least of our worries. So it must be about 0.01% important.....

[xpatUSA]

I enjoy sharp lenses very much. I like that they allow greater freedom for cropping and that the prints reveal significant detail. Then I read a post from a seasoned professional who remarks that really sharp lenses are made for amateurs who crave sharpness. However, I see where almost all lens reviewers display charts and illustrations showing how sharp or flawed a lens is. Also, long standing photo magazines often show how large a print a lens may produce at such and such a quality. So at what point in my development as a photographer does a light bulb go off in my small brain and I say to myself, "Ah ha! This fuzzy zens is really great!" Portrait photographers have an argument here. Few of us are giddy with delight when all our age spots and wrinkles stand out in 3D in a photo of our mug but really... Am I missing something here?

Ed, you're missing nothing, IMHO. I would hardly, for example, consider the sharpest lens on the planet, at $4490, 'made for amateurs'. As you say, a sharp lens brings micro-contrast to the table, that is to say high MTF at high detail frequency. Some like it, some don't.

There are many un-wrinkling options out there but seriously good sharpening apps are few and far between.

[rpcrowe]

I recently had the occasion to shoot some imagery with my old 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 lens on my 7D. This lens is certainly not thought of as in the class of L lens sharpness. However, I was quite surprised and pleased to realize just how sharp the images from this (generally considered) inferior lens were after appropriate sharpening and other post processing. Especially since I did not need over 8x10 inch size prints...

OTOH... If I were going to shoot an important image or one from which I would need to produce relatively large prints, I would certainly reach for the sharpest lenses in my kit!

I am thinking however, that given a reasonably sharp lens, the post processing (especially the sharpening) it probably the most important factor in producing sharp prints...

[FootLoose]

I read a post from a seasoned professional who remarks that really sharp lenses are made for amateurs who crave sharpness.

What was the context of the claim? What kind of images does the professional produce?

[Glenn NK]

Since I'm the only one who has used the word 'professional' in the posts above, I assume this is a joke against me. But, I'm afraid I don't get it.

Just for the avoidance of doubt, I am not a professional photographer and I don't think anything I wrote made that claim or suggested it.

Not referring to you at all DONALD - the second post referred to someone else by name and my comment was about him.

Sorry for the confusion. If there was a joke it certainly wasn't directed at you or about you.

Glenn

[Glenn NK]

In spite of the amount of technical discussion that crops on on CiC there are very few photographs posted for critique that display anything other than composition or technical shortcomings of the photographer or conditions. Certainly lens sharpness even at 100% viewing tends to be the least of our worries. So it must be about 0.01% important.....

I suspect that sharpness could be a factor when printing large; but on the web, maybe not so important.

Somewhat related, I read a fair bit of nonsense spouted about the recently announced 7DII - with everyone basing opinions on JPEGs down-sized for the web.

The fellow I mentioned above has added a Sony A7 and adapter in order to use his Canon TSE 24 lens (to get better resolution prints).

[Abitconfused]

This image from a Sigma 12-24mm is sharp enough for me at 12mm. Yet there are sharper wide angle lenses. The Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 comes to mind and the new Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8.



Sharp?? Sharp enough?? For what...certainty sharp enough for a computer monitor at an average of 85 PPI. I made a 17 inch width enlargement and liked it too.

[Abitconfused]

Sigma 50mm Art. Sharp?

[TobyMac]

In my opinion a sharp lens is of course always great but the true quality of the image comes from what story it tells. You can have a super sharp image that tells a rubbish story, still doesn't make it a great image, however a powerful image that is not as sharp would still be considered a good image.

When I started out I was also always craving the sharpest lenses possible because I thought that would make my images better. I quickly learned however that this is not the case, so maybe the message to beginners should be to master the gear you have and create good images with that before spending large amounts of money on top quality glass.

[Inkanyezi]

As I, like probably many here, have a foot in each camp, pro and amateur, my opinion on the matter does not correspond wholly to any of the above, except for the one TobyMac expresses. When I was working with photography, I didn't worry much about the gear. Anything I could get my hands on was good enough, even though I have had favourites among cameras as well as lenses. Also, one of my workhorses, the Century Graphic 6x9, with 127 mm Ektar lens, was not as sharp as some other cameras in the cupboard, even though I liked it very much. For the pro work, it boiled down to using what was most suitable for the situation.

Amateur, is a two-edged word. Sloppily used, as in the dictionary entry of unprofessional, it leads the thought astray, and deviates from its origin, which should rightly correspond to someone who loves the trade. It is one of the many words that can be interpreted in diametrically different ways.

OTOH, as a professonal, I didn't worry a lot about lens sharpness, but rather how the image would come out. Any lens would do the job, but other properties, as lighting and composition were more important than resolution or MTF. Of course I would do my best to make the image sharp enough for its purpose, but sharpness of a lens was never a limitation when it was my job. It has later, in my amateur photography, become increasingly so though, as the very small sensor of my present gear is less forgiving of lens imperfections.

And... as I have not found that 'perfect' lens that I would want, I still keep an eye open for the probability, but keep working with what I have and try to make the best of it. I'd say that the hunt for the perfect lens is more for amateurs than for pro. When you are professional, you just do the job, and you do your best to make it good enough. Perfect is nice, but it is not needed in the profession. However, for some jobs, special gear is needed, and it might be costly. For the pro, it is a matter of payback, but as an amateur, there isn't any payback, so the wallet matters in a different way.