>>4310624Pretty good for a shitty lens on fine grained film actually, and it would print good. The reason you say it looks super bad at 100% is because of what 100% is on your screen. Most likely <80 dpi. With scaling and subpixel antialiasing. These old lenses do not have MTF charts that would wow on CMS 20 or a leica m11 monochrom, but it's still pretty good for the technology.
Buy a retina display and view this at real 100% on it (256dpi) not web browser 100%. This would print much, much better than it views in web browsers forcing an archaic resolution standard.
>>4310629Ken rockwell said that meaning that unsharp mask solves literally every problem, even using a shitty lens, which is wrong. Look at his photos before you repeat his advice. The man has been lying about being a professional photographer for several decades.
OPs issue is he's expecting a decent enlargement out of a low resolution camera, which only works with cope like "j-just dont look at it that closely and if you have good eyesight only wear glasses for reading and stand even further back"