/p/ - Photography » Thread #2646481

[20 / 3 / ?]

Anonymous Wed 12 Aug 2015 15:23:41 No.2646481 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>2646482 >>2646485 >>2646490 >>2646492 >>2646494 >>2646550

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/lens-sharpness.htm

>Sharpness is the most overrated aspect of lens performance. Lens sharpness seems like it ought to be related to making sharp photos, but it isn't.

Is Ken Rockwell just retarded? Or does this have some truth to it? Serious question.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 12 Aug 2015 15:29:06 No.2646482 Report

Quoted By: >>2646484

>>2646481
there is more to a lens' sharpness than it's accutance (sharpness)

micro-contrast can have a big effect on perceived sharpness and things like chromabs and aberations can reduce apparent sharpness.

However it's fairly logical to say that a lens with better glass will have more work put into it and therefore be sharper in every way.

So yes and no, a bit retarded, but a bit correct

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 12 Aug 2015 15:31:59 No.2646483 Report

Quoted By:

When you're processing a RAW image every pixel can be put to use. So from an unprocessed RAW image or if shooting in JPG then no, but in general, yes, the sharper the image the better.

Ken Rockwell is retarded.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 12 Aug 2015 15:33:16 No.2646484 Report

Quoted By: >>2646488

>>2646482
Then what do you think of DXO mark's 'sharpness' rating, what is this based on?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 12 Aug 2015 15:33:17 No.2646485 Report

Quoted By:

>>2646481
There is more than this quote in his opinion piece.

He is kinda right that professional photographers will have to manage the un-sharp areas (or even require them) anyways, since a lot of people like blur, bokeh and other out-of-focus elements in a picture.

His taste and work isn't my taste and work, though.
If *I* could have it that way, I would have everything recorded in a gazillion megapixels and perfectly sharp across the entire picture, so I can just peek at any tiny region and see stuff.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 12 Aug 2015 15:36:23 No.2646488 Report

Quoted By: >>2646489

>>2646484
accutance (actual sharpness)

It's also not nearly as relevant to modern lenses, as they're all designed by computers these days, micro contrast and aberrations were more like side effects of a non "perfect" optical formula.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 12 Aug 2015 15:37:45 No.2646489 Report

Quoted By:

>>2646488
Thanks.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 12 Aug 2015 15:41:42 No.2646490 Report

Quoted By: >>2646502

>>2646481
he's retarded.
just like op.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 12 Aug 2015 15:45:12 No.2646492 Report

Quoted By:

>>2646481
Ken is so based he does all sharpening in post.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 12 Aug 2015 15:56:31 No.2646494 Report

Quoted By: >>2646499

>>2646481
Lens sharpness is important if your printing big

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 12 Aug 2015 16:03:53 No.2646499 Report

Quoted By:

>>2646494
Not really.

Even the A7Rii sensor can only support up toa 24" print on the long edge at optimal printing quality. You need one heck of a shitty lens for it to show at this size. Anything larger than that and upscaling is your issue, not lens softness.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 12 Aug 2015 16:07:00 No.2646502 Report

Quoted By:

>>2646490
>trying to convince yourself that you're not retarded by calling OP retarded

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 12 Aug 2015 16:35:00 No.2646520 Report

Quoted By: >>2646524

it's kinda irrelevant if you aren't shooting on a tripod I guess.

Most lenses are the same sharpness in practical use tbh. I think proper focus and field curvature is more important

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 12 Aug 2015 16:43:23 No.2646524 Report

Quoted By:

>>2646520
>Most lenses are the same sharpness

HUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 12 Aug 2015 17:21:29 No.2646539 Report

Quoted By: >>2646557

easy:
Dxo is a software house that wants to sell software. Their comparing different "optimum Sweetspot measurements" is a sales-pitch - albeit a useful one. To a limited degree that is!
You can absolutely trust their relative findings. Yet you cannot arrive at any meaningful conclusion regarding a lens' usefulness directly from measurements as they produce in their labs directly.
You need prior experience emphasized in the art / work you want to create. You need to know what you want in a lens and what you absolutely do not want to be without.

You need baseline experience upon of witch to build your own reasoning and then draw tour own conclusion!

Learning these things takes practice. One of my personal big IFs: How does a lens/camera work for me as a photographic TOOL? Usability. Does it match my Shooting-environment?
How much better will I work with sth. new compared to the "old".
Is that difference worth the money? Can I spend that much dosh somewhere else more efficiently?

e.g.: just added an expensive normal-zoom to my stuff. Had an inexpensive all-purpose Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 before for years. The new 20-40mm is more contrasty and smaller, handles much better and cost me 2.5 times as much. But TO ME it was worth it. I new what I was getting and why!

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1366659749309.png, 441KiB, 300x900

Anonymous Wed 12 Aug 2015 17:44:34 No.2646550 Report

Quoted By: >>2646577

>>2646481
It's weird how there's this huuuuuge price disharmony in that top chart.

Sony and Sigma has a bunch of 900-1100 dollar lenses up there, fighting beyond their weight class.
I mean, holy shit, they're up against 4000 dollar lenses.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 12 Aug 2015 17:54:32 No.2646557 Report

Quoted By: >>2646698

>>2646539
>cost me 2.5 times as much.
Was it a Zeiss?

Zeiss are fucking expensive, that's the only sure thing around here.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 12 Aug 2015 18:44:52 No.2646577 Report

Quoted By:

>>2646550
Probably an example of Asian (Japanese, Chinese) costs and design decisions as opposed to German ones.

Germany is absolutely excellent too, but not as relatively cheap as Japan or China.

PS: It's not like you're powering absolutely insane profits in Germany. Carl Zeiss made 80 million profits on 4.3 billion revenues. You are just paying better wages, R&D and maybe also some inefficiency.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 12 Aug 2015 22:44:02 No.2646691 Report

Quoted By:

No, my aforementioned 20-40mm is a (very "unique") Pentax. Because my digital Camera (-system) is Pentax aps-c DSLR.
Does not invalidate how I use / interpret lens-tests as such.
I bought a Samyang-ultra-wide with a Samsung 12/2.0 nx20 (on clearance sale) because it would do "the job" for me just as well for less money as a Pentax 12-24mm zoom-lens would have cost me alone when supply was scarce in Europe.

Anyway: Ken Rockwell is a funny fellow: read his "about" page, then you'll know how to treat his opinion!

I actually learned a ton off his site. Granted: not every word is to be taken seriously to the letter. But he has his "serious Pieces" as well.
Lens sharpness is a very difficult topic! For some it is crucial, for some it is negligible: The important part is how well you understand the practical limitations of physics that apply to your shooting -style!
Look up Zach Arias on YouTube: "Crop or crap" for another perspective on gear-adequacy.

Anonymous !!uPiHYFPeJke

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO original.jpg, 170KiB, 1896x1069

Anonymous !!uPiHYFPeJke Wed 12 Aug 2015 22:50:14 No.2646698 Report

Quoted By:

>>2646557

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches