Examples where great corner performance mattered

[WJJ3]

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.

Thanks for your thoughts on this. I tend to agree, but can't help but think there must be some images out there where it mattered...

...Or maybe highly corrected aspherical lenses are a lens designers artform meant to be admired simply for their advanced optical designs. I seem to recall seeing a story where a famous photographer (Salgado?) said he didn't like Leica's new 35mm aspherical summicron because it was too big or heavy or something, and the old one was fine...

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...

Thanks, yeah, definitely some cringe-worthy terms get used to describe different lens' image characteristics (@@). I'm willing to keep an open mind and think that there probably are images which benefited from a particular lens' optical qualities, but my openness extends only as far as the actual images that would support any claims that a better / stronger image resulted from a state of the art lens.

Hoping to see some more examples!

 

[jonmanjiro]

I was curious if anyone has any good examples of photos where great corner performance was important to the image.

This shot below is an example of a photo where I can certainly see that the corner performance is excellent. Whether or not its important to the image is entirely debatable though 🙂

Similar to mfogiel's great shot of Monaco, it was taken at maximum aperture at night with bright lights in the distance (shot at f/1.4 and 1/15 with a ZM Distagon 35/1.4 on a Zeiss Ikon using Fujifilm Superia X-TRA 400 film).

I took the same shot with a Summilux 35/1.4 FLE and was underwhelmed by the noticeably more corner softness, coma, and vignetting.

ZM Distagon 35/1.4@F1.4 (click the image to see a larger version)

 

[ellisson]

Modest softness in an otherwise sharp lens is not a big issue for me. My subjects are in the center or within the central 70-80% of the image. Unless there is something really distracting in the "softness" of the corners, it does not affect image viewing. If there were something important in the corners, that something would not be placed in the corners. And unless the image is confined to a reasonable DOF for the aperture used, I would not want to confuse "softness" for degree of focus in various parts of the scene.

 

[PhotoMat]

Admittedly, I am not a street shooter, so I can't speak to that genre. My experience has been in the area of landscape and nature photography, where a noticeable loss in edge sharpness would be detrimental to most images. Much of my medium format work is shot with a Mamiya 7II and Velvia. The image quality of the Mamiya lenses is nothing less than stunning.

 

[WJJ3]

This shot below is an example of a photo where I can certainly see that the corner performance is excellent. Whether or not its important to the image is entirely debatable though 🙂

Similar to mfogiel's great shot of Monaco, it was taken at maximum aperture at night with bright lights in the distance (shot at f/1.4 and 1/15 with a ZM Distagon 35/1.4 on a Zeiss Ikon using Fujifilm Superia X-TRA 400 film).

I took the same shot with a Summilux 35/1.4 FLE and was underwhelmed by the noticeably more corner softness, coma, and vignetting.

ZM Distagon 35/1.4@F1.4 (click the image to see a larger version)

Thanks Jon, Interesting to hear the results of your comparison. As Marek beautifully showed us, night shots with points of light like this are definitely where high dollar, highly corrected lenses excel. Got any more shots with this lens at larger apertures where the corner-to-corner performance made the shot?

 

[WJJ3]

Modest softness in an otherwise sharp lens is not a big issue for me. My subjects are in the center or within the central 70-80% of the image. Unless there is something really distracting in the "softness" of the corners, it does not affect image viewing. If there were something important in the corners, that something would not be placed in the corners. And unless the image is confined to a reasonable DOF for the aperture used, I would not want to confuse "softness" for degree of focus in various parts of the scene.

Hi, good point about not confusing out of focus area for lens softness. Thats an important point of what I am trying to explore here, and adds more weight to the idea that highly corrected lenses aren't really contributing to photo quality. If photos made at wider apertures have too shallow a zone of acceptable focus the then point about corner performance is moot.

I also appreciate your view that if something in the image was important it wouldn't be placed in the corner, however I am still willing to entertain the idea that sharp, well corrected corners could possibly contribute to the strength of the image...

 

[jonmanjiro]

Thanks Jon, Interesting to hear the results of your comparison. As Marek beautifully showed us, night shots with points of light like this are definitely where high dollar, highly corrected lenses excel. Got any more shots with this lens at larger apertures where the corner-to-corner performance made the shot?

Coma behaviour wide open is more of a factor for me than corner sharpness, although corner sharpness is also very good with the Zeiss ZM 35/1.4. Here's another shot taken wide open at night (which is pretty much the only scenario I can think of where highly corrected glass makes a clearly discernible difference). Again you can see the coma is very well controlled and sharpness across the frame is very good. Did corner sharpness make the shot? Nah, but the performance is pretty clear.

 

[WJJ3]

Admittedly, I am not a street shooter, so I can't speak to that genre. My experience has been in the area of landscape and nature photography, where a noticeable loss in edge sharpness would be detrimental to most images. Much of my medium format work is shot with a Mamiya 7II and Velvia. The image quality of the Mamiya lenses is nothing less than stunning.

Thank you for posting this. Your image is gorgeous. Im going to guess you are fairly well stopped down here?

 

[telenous]

I struggle to think of any street/docu/candids where top corner performance is somehow vital. (I can think of a few examples in art photography, but that's not what you asked.) But the proof is in the pudding. Take as an example Cartier-Bresson, who often placed subjects in his portraits deeply sunk in one of the corners of the frame (in portrait orientation). We know the lenses he was using at the time left something to be desired in terms of corner performance.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/32357038@N08/8464335726

https://gr.pinterest.com/pin/534802524479339427/

Are these photos lesser for whatever loss in detail in corner extremeties? (Or for any other aspect where his lenses were lacking compared to contemporary ones?) Nah, I didn't think so either. :angel:


.

 

[jonmanjiro]

haha , for Me it NEVER matters
Thankfully I don't suffer from that

You certainly go through your fair share of lenses, Helen, so you must be suffering from something hehehe 😀

 

[Bob]

Haha on Me.... True Jon... Caught 😉
by now I should receive a PHd in the rendering of 'Glass' 🙄

Not only lenses, but Leica camera bodies too 🙄

I thought for sure you had found your "true love" with your M4.
What a beautiful camera. Very special, and that model was limited production That one you should of hung onto. 😉

Oh-well, variety is the spice of life. That's what the old people say !
As long as you're having fun Helen, that's what counts. 😀

 

[PhotoMat]

Thank you for posting this. Your image is gorgeous. Im going to guess you are fairly well stopped down here?

Thank you for your kind comment.

This image was shot with the 43mm lens on my Mamiya 7II, most likely f/11 and obviously using a tripod. As with the majority of my landscape shots, I shoot everything from a tripod if the circumstances allow it. I like to take advantage of everything that medium format, fine-grained film and excellent lenses has to offer.

 

[MIkhail]

I was curious if anyone has any good examples of photos where great corner performance was important to the image..

I for one, would like to see examples where corner AND center performance above "acceptable" is important or adds anything to image. Have not seen it yet...

 

[bobbyrab]

Ok, this is not particularly answering the specifics of sharpness, acceptable sharpness can be had at budget prices, that I wouldn't argue with, but I particularly dislike the typical barrel distortion you get in wider FLs particularly towards the edges, so for me the test of a lens with good edge performance is the minimising of distortion, which I would prize above sharpness. Generally this is a strength of RF lenses. So this is with a Zeiss 25, a fantastic lens for anything with strong linear compositions...

bornmthbeach by fatbobbyrab, on Flickr

 

[jsrockit]

haha , for Me it NEVER matters
Thankfully I don't suffer from that

I don't think it matters to the majority of viewers either.

 

[mdarnton]

I know this sounds really sarcastic, but it's not as much as you think. . . Most of us do this for our own enjoyment, a lot of it being about the process itself, and don't believe our work is really going to have a life beyond that, before our survivors haul it all out to the trash. If we want to look at the question rationally, 99% of what gets put up by people as Photography with a capital "P" is basically crap that even their friends don't want to see.

Given that the enjoyment of such photos is entirely for the person shooting them, I think that people have a right to define the criteria that are necessary for themselves to enjoy what they're doing. If having needle sharp corners is important to the one single person who is going to like the photo, the photographer, then it's important. Heck, it doesn't injure me even a tiny little bit if someone wants to spend $7000 on an apo-Summicron just to shoot bad resolution tests of brick walls, so I say Go for it, if that's what turns you on.

 

[WJJ3]

Coma behaviour wide open is more of a factor for me than corner sharpness, although corner sharpness is also very good with the Zeiss ZM 35/1.4. Here's another shot taken wide open at night (which is pretty much the only scenario I can think of where highly corrected glass makes a clearly discernible difference). Again you can see the coma is very well controlled and sharpness across the frame is very good. Did corner sharpness make the shot? Nah, but the performance is pretty clear.

sorry, I lost track of this thread briefly, but thanks, indeed a great shot to illustrate excellent coma flare correction, which it sounds like several people here value

 

[WJJ3]

I struggle to think of any street/docu/candids where top corner performance is somehow vital. (I can think of a few examples in art photography, but that's not what you asked.) But the proof is in the pudding. Take as an example Cartier-Bresson, who often placed subjects in his portraits deeply sunk in one of the corners of the frame (in portrait orientation). We know the lenses he was using at the time left something to be desired in terms of corner performance.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/32357038@N08/8464335726

https://gr.pinterest.com/pin/534802524479339427/

Are these photos lesser for whatever loss in detail in corner extremeties? (Or for any other aspect where his lenses were lacking compared to contemporary ones?) Nah, I didn't think so either. :angel:


.

It would be interesting to see what lens HCB would have chose were all the modern options available...

I for one, would like to see examples where corner AND center performance above "acceptable" is important or adds anything to image. Have not seen it yet...

Thanks, well acceptable is going to differ from person to person, but I tend to agree to the extent that the lens is not a total dog...

Ok, this is not particularly answering the specifics of sharpness, acceptable sharpness can be had at budget prices, that I wouldn't argue with, but I particularly dislike the typical barrel distortion you get in wider FLs particularly towards the edges, so for me the test of a lens with good edge performance is the minimising of distortion, which I would prize above sharpness. Generally this is a strength of RF lenses. So this is with a Zeiss 25, a fantastic lens for anything with strong linear compositions...

bornmthbeach by fatbobbyrab, on Flickr

Thanks for this, I agree distortion can be distracting and in some cases kind of wreck the image, so definitely highly corrected distortion is desirable. Interestingly older spherical designs, and maybe even more so, older symmetrical wide angle designs might be better corrected for distortion...

I don't think it matters to the majority of viewers either.

Thanks, the aspect of image quality I wanted to explore, if it is even relevant at all, is surely going to be subtle

 

[WJJ3]

I know this sounds really sarcastic, but it's not as much as you think. . . Most of us do this for our own enjoyment, a lot of it being about the process itself, and don't believe our work is really going to have a life beyond that, before our survivors haul it all out to the trash. If we want to look at the question rationally, 99% of what gets put up by people as Photography with a capital "P" is basically crap that even their friends don't want to see.

Given that the enjoyment of such photos is entirely for the person shooting them, I think that people have a right to define the criteria that are necessary for themselves to enjoy what they're doing. If having needle sharp corners is important to the one single person who is going to like the photo, the photographer, then it's important. Heck, it doesn't injure me even a tiny little bit if someone wants to spend $7000 on an apo-Summicron just to shoot bad resolution tests of brick walls, so I say Go for it, if that's what turns you on.

Thanks, yeah to each their own, and I didn't want to imply what lenses people should be using or ought to be using. I wanted to find out if great corner performance of highly corrected lenses make a difference in the photographs they render. I have an aspheric Leica lens that I splurged on and really enjoy owning and using, but not sure if its excellent optical quality is contributing anything to my photos. It would be great to see some more photos where excellent optics contributed to the image, as some people have shown.

 

[tunalegs]

Saab by Berang Berang, on Flickr

Corner performance? Literally only one corner in this photo has performance. The others? Well...
I do think that one perfectly sharp corner does make the photo pretty interesting though.