Examples where great corner performance mattered

[WJJ3]

I was curious if anyone has any good examples of photos where great corner performance was important to the image. I have been looking a flickr for such photos and don't really see any. I am looking for snap shots, 'street', candids, handheld, decisive moment type photos where larger apertures are necessary for capturing these moments in available light. Anyone have any links or photos they can share in which sharp image corners with highly corrected aberrations was important or necessary for making a strong image?

The reason I ask is because corner performance is obsessed over and there just doesn't seem to be much practical justification for it. We all know we can take a mediocre lens, stop it down to f8~11 and shoot from a tripod and get really good performance, so it seems hand-held large aperture images are the forte of highly corrected lenses. It would be great to see images that show that the thousands of dollars we spend on high performance lenses is more than just an attempt to satisfy our gear insecurities...

 

[bmattock]

You're being entirely too sensible. I suggest you spend half a year's salary a single lens, then take pictures of the bushes outside your house and post them.

 

[Brian Legge]

I find corner performance matters less in street and more in other genres. I've used a variety of classic lenses that have slightly soft corners. I rarely had issues with that, though I did find the softness distracting at times. Not a deal breaker but not what I wanted when I took the shot.

That said, I do prefer straight lines even in street photography. I didn't realize this until shooting with a 35mm that has higher than average distortion. Vignetting isn't generally a problem though I dislike severe vignetting in color shots.

Edit:

Not quite corner but getting there. Shot wide open in medium format, unposed despite how it may appear:


I really appreciated the corner sharpness here, though it was a stop or two down from wide open:

 

[Rayt]

Cheap lenses vs expensive lenses. So the difference between them boils down to corner performance? Is this your argument?

 

[ferider]

....We all know we can take a mediocre lens, stop it down to f8~11 and shoot from a tripod and get really good performance

Actually we don't. Also at f8, a mediocre lens will be noticeably worse in the center than a good one. All depends on what you want. You might not need a 24 MP camera. But if you do, you roughly need 100 lp/mm to match the sensor. Similar or more if you shoot a good slide or high resolution BW film.

Mediocre lenses can not do that, not even in the center. If you have for example a Jupiter or Industar, check its passport and you will see.

Note that a lens good enough for the above doesn't need to be expensive, there are many < 100$ lenses that can outresolve a 24 MP sensor.

20 years ago, when people said "man, that is a sharp lens", they first referred to the center performance.

I guess we should agree first on what you mean by mediocre ?

Roland.

 

[WJJ3]

I find corner performance matters less in street and more in other genres. I've used a variety of classic lenses that have slightly soft corners. I rarely had issues with that, though I did find the softness distracting at times. Not a deal breaker but not what I wanted when I took the shot.

That said, I do prefer straight lines even in street photography. I didn't realize this until shooting with a 35mm that has higher than average distortion. Vignetting isn't generally a problem though I dislike severe vignetting in color shots.

Edit:

Not quite corner but getting there. Shot wide open in medium format, unposed despite how it may appear:


I really appreciated the corner sharpness here, though it was a stop or two down from wide open:

Great examples! Second one is just what I was looking for. Great corner performance here visibly contributes to the strength of the image

Cheap lenses vs expensive lenses. So the difference between them boils down to corner performance? Is this your argument?

Kind of, but its more than that. Certainly their are crappy lenses. Thats not what I am talking about. And surely one gets more than optical performance when they buy a top dollar lens, like build quality etc.
But 'lens rendering', the 'way lenses draw', and high performance are mostly too subtle to tell differences online or in final prints provided that good technique is used and the photo is actually nice and interesting. This type of conversation can quickly get convoluted, especially with people who want to insist the superiority of their expensive lens is obvious in photos. I honestly don't think it is. That is why I was looking for examples...

You're being entirely too sensible. I suggest you spend half a year's salary a single lens, then take pictures of the bushes outside your house and post them.

Haha! all too common

Actually we don't. Also at f8, a mediocre lens will be noticeably worse in the center than a good one. All depends on what you want. You might not need a 24 MP camera. But if you do, you roughly need 100 lp/mm to match the sensor. Similar or more if you shoot a good slide film.

Mediocre lenses can not do that, not even in the center. If you have a Jupiter or Industar, check its passport and you will see.

Note that a lens good enough for the above doesn't need to be expensive, there are many < 100$ lenses that can outresolve a 24 MP sensor.

I guess we should agree first what you mean by mediocre ?

Roland.

Thanks for your comments. The <$100 lenses that offer good central and mid zone performance are what I am talking about.

Heck lets include lenses more than a hundred dollars. We could say for example in 35mm a f1.4 from CV compared to a f1.4 from Leica. Or a f2.5 from CV compared to a f2.5 from Leica. I'm sure we could make a lot of other comparisons...

 

[ferider]

The <$100 lenses that offer good central and mid range performance are what I am talking about...

But that means you are saying cheap, not mediocre. For example, the Nikkor 50/1.8 AIS can be had below 100$. resolution/contrast wise on par or better than almost any other 50mm lens. Now at f8 this lens is excellent in the center _and_ in the corners.

I'm trying to say that a lens that's good enough in the center for - say - a 24 MP camera at f8 and on a tripod, this lens will also be good in the corners. No need to worry. In online reviews people love to dissect corner vs center performance, but they are interdependent when the lens is closed down that far.

And money is completely orthogonal as my Nikkor example shows.

I have a 24 MP Sony a850 and an m240. With 50/1.4 attached there is a factor 10 $ difference in value. I honestly cannt imagine a photo that I could take with the Leica but not with the Sony.

BUT: usually the Leica is more fun.

Roland.

 

[uhoh7]

There is a funny niche called landscape photography.....


EF Salmon by unoh7, M9 SEM 21

And no, you don't get great landscapes with "any" lens at f/8. But there are some good inexpensive lenses like the mirco-nikkors etc.

And a sharp corner, or at least a good edge is nice in all sorts of situations:

On track by unoh7, M9 28 cron.

In fact, since street stuff is often zone-focused with good DOF and composition critical in the best shots, some strong edges can be very nice. Of course shooting at wide apertures with central subjects is lots of fun and then who cares?

It's a matter of personal preference. If you don't care it's not important for you. But it's another step to say no one else should care. 🙂

For 90% of photography on this planet a phone seems perfectly fine. So a mediocre lens should be OK too 🙂

 

[waileong]

Stop down?

Stop down?

IF you're stopping down, you lose light, you lose DOF and the ability to isolate the subject, you lose the ability to stop subject motion (without bumping up the ISO, leading to increased grain), you lose nice bokeh, etc.

All the above are not really linked to corner performance. No one looks at corners. They are not the reason we buy an expensive lens.

On the contrary, it's more important that the main subject (rather than the corners) be rendered with high resolution, contrast, precise focus, depth of field (to isolate it from the background), etc when we choose to shoot wide open. That image quality will not suffer (or suffer too much) when we choose to shoot wide open.

I was curious if anyone has any good examples of photos where great corner performance was important to the image. I have been looking a flickr for such photos and don't really see any. I am looking for snap shots, 'street', candids, handheld, decisive moment type photos where larger apertures are necessary for capturing these moments in available light. Anyone have any links or photos they can share in which sharp image corners with highly corrected aberrations was important or necessary for making a strong image?

The reason I ask is because corner performance is obsessed over and there just doesn't seem to be much practical justification for it. We all know we can take a mediocre lens, stop it down to f8~11 and shoot from a tripod and get really good performance, so it seems hand-held large aperture images are the forte of highly corrected images. It would be great to see images that show that the thousands of dollars we spend on high performance lenses is more than just an attempt to satisfy our gear insecurities...

 

[mfogiel]

This is Summicron 28 wide open. It's wide open coma performance across the frame is the only reason why I keep this lens.
20113908 by marek fogiel, on Flickr

 

[WJJ3]

But that means you are saying cheap, not mediocre. For example, the Nikkor 50/1.8 AIS can be had below 100$. resolution/contrast wise on par or better than almost any other 50mm lens. Now at f8 this lens is excellent in the center _and_ in the corners.

I'm trying to say that a lens that's good enough in the center for - say - a 24 MP camera at f8 and on a tripod, this lens will also be good in the corners. No need to worry. In online reviews people love to dissect corner vs center performance, but they are interdependent when the lens is closed down that far.

And money is completely orthogonal as my Nikkor example shows.

I have a 24 MP Sony a850 and an m240. With 50/1.4 attached there is a factor 10 $ difference in value. I honestly cannt imagine a photo that I could take with the Leica but not with the Sony.

BUT: usually the Leica is more fun.

Roland.

sorry, i added more to my reply.

this is my point exactly; that when you shoot at f8~11 performance is fine, and even when you shoot wide open fast lenses which are not highly corrected in the corners it seems not to detract from the image. Im hoping for more examples that show images shot at larger apertures with highly corrected aspherical expensive lenses that really contributed to capturing a nicer, stronger image...

 

[WJJ3]

There is a funny niche called landscape photography.....


EF Salmon by unoh7, M9 SEM 21

And no, you don't get great landscapes with "any" lens at f/8. But there are some good inexpensive lenses like the mirco-nikkors etc.

And a sharp corner, or at least a good edge is nice in all sorts of situations:

On track by unoh7, M9 28 cron.

In fact, since street stuff is often zone-focused with good DOF and composition critical in the best shots, some strong edges can be very nice. Of course shooting at wide apertures with central subjects is lots of fun and then who cares?

It's a matter of personal preference. If you don't care it's not important for you. But it's another step to say no one else should care. 🙂

For 90% of photography on this planet a phone seems perfectly fine. So a mediocre lens should be OK too 🙂

thank you for posting photos. and thanks for the sarcasm. i really dont see enough of that on this forum. the aim of my thread is to see images that were shot at larger apertures. landscape photographers stop down...

I didnt say any so i dont know what you are trying to emphasize with quotes. to address what you said, I would argue that its harder to find a lens that WOULDNT give you a great image at f8 than it is to find one that does.

your image of the kids is really cute. and it would have been fine shot with a 500 dollar ultron instead of your 3000 dollar summicron. im sorry, it doesnt support the point im trying to argue.

lastly i didnt say no one else should care

 

[WJJ3]

IF you're stopping down, you lose light, you lose DOF and the ability to isolate the subject, you lose the ability to stop subject motion (without bumping up the ISO, leading to increased grain), you lose nice bokeh, etc.

All the above are not really linked to corner performance. No one looks at corners. They are not the reason we buy an expensive lens.

On the contrary, it's more important that the main subject (rather than the corners) be rendered with high resolution, contrast, precise focus, depth of field (to isolate it from the background), etc when we choose to shoot wide open. That image quality will not suffer (or suffer too much) when we choose to shoot wide open.

thanks for your comments. you hit my nail on the head. so we can forget about an aspherical summilux and just get a canon 50mm for 300 bucks and be done

 

[WJJ3]

This is Summicron 28 wide open. It's wide open coma performance across the frame is the only reason why I keep this lens.
20113908 by marek fogiel, on Flickr

wonderful image. thank you for sharing. highly corrected coma seem like the most legit reason to prefer an expensive aspherical lens. your image illustrates that well

 

[willie_901]

... highly corrected coma seem like the most legit reason to prefer an expensive aspherical lens. your image illustrates that well

I completely agree.

 

[13Promet]

Not between my best street shots, but sometimes the scene calls for a composition with the subject in the corner.

Not a 3.000$ lens btw...

https://flic.kr/p/BvmQ2v


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

 

[Pherdinand]

i know a few examples but they're all of football 😛

 

[WJJ3]

Not between my best street shots, but sometimes the scene calls for a composition with the subject in the corner.

Not a 3.000$ lens btw...

https://flic.kr/p/BvmQ2v


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

thanks, great shot! yeah the fruit and price tag in the corner and the animated sellers hands gesturing that direction make the corner a key part of the composition here. great example. so many factors involved when looking at film images online...are you happy with your nokton? do you think the asph summilux would have given you a better image here?

i know a few examples but they're all of football 😛

richard sherman, go 'Hawks!

 

[Steve M.]

In every example posted here, my eye goes directly to the center of the shot. That's how we see things. Humans are also self interested, meaning that if there's a person in a pic it gets our attention first, then the eye goes to other stuff. People who have cats see this all the time. When another cat pops up on the telly or monitor, their cat focuses right on that.

I never gave corner sharpness any consideration, although some landscape photographers make a fetish of it. In over 4 decades of making images and hanging out and showing in galleries and museums, I have never once heard anyone say "oh, look how sharp the corners are in that shot". It's all about the image, not sharpness, bokeh, corner detail, etc.

 

[Hsg]

Examples where great corner performance mattered

Perfectionism about photography gear usually begins once the photographer's talent has peaked.

The obsession with lens sharpness and that other cringe-worthy term, 'lens rendering', begins once the photographer's early enthusiasm has run its course and reality has set in.

My images suck, its not because of me, its my lens, my camera, my camera sensor/film, my camera menu and dials my tripod, and etc. etc..


You're correct, soft corners in a photo is not going to make or break that photo, especially with photoshop, but its easy and rewarding (buying stuff) to blame the gear, rather than one's own limited abilities...