How sharp does a lens have to be ?

Like all things photographic, the answer is "it depends". More important than sharpness (to me) is how the lens images. I once had a Fuji MF rangefinder and it's shots were really sharp, but I didn't like them. Too clean (boring). Even the cheaper old folders I had shot better photos because their IQ was better. More character or something. I generally like German glass, some people like Japanese. Nikon SLR lenses are nowhere as sharp as say Leicas, but because they are high contrast they often deliver nice prints that appear to be sharper than they are due to their contrast.

Another caveat to IQ is whether or not you're printing digitally or on an enlarger. Photoshop can cure a great number of lens ills, whereas w/ an enlarger you basically get the lens characteristics as it is. Web images are not a good way to evaluate how a lens will make a printed photo. What we see on a monitor is not what gets printed.
 
Last edited:
I dont find a tripod any sharper than a high shutter speed. Sure, it helps a lot at slower speeds but with a 35mm lens and 1/250 or 1/500 there is nothing to choose between hand held and a tripod.
 
In my experience, camera/lens movement, mirror slap as well as missing focus can be major contributing factors to degradation of image sharpness. One of the great things about rangefinders is there is no mirror ;).
Although using 1/250 and 500 "may" be sufficient to counteract camera shake with a 35 mm lens, it isn't always the case that the subject moves across the frame when you happen to be using a heavy telephoto with an SLR.

As good as rangefinders are, they all pale in comparison to the twin lens Rollei design. When you take a picture, the camera "rests" on your belly, you put a little tension down on the strap, hold your breath and squeeze the shutter very gently. This, combined with its Compur shutter, makes the Rollei even better than cameras that are meant to be used up to the eye with the arms raised.

Now in saying all that, I still think using a tripod is best with almost any camera to get the ultimate IQ.
 
Last edited:
World statstics reveal that only 35% of adults possess 20/20 vision ... which means I don't need a 50mm Summilux!

:p
 
It also depends on the size of the print. The bigger the print the better the lenses have to be - both on the camera and on the enlarger. For screen jpgs most any camera lens made since the 50s will give good results. In a full 16x20" print every bit of detail counts a lot more- despite viewing distance, which is a cop out to me. I've not ever looked at photographs with a rope setting the minimum distance they can be viewed from.
 
sepiareverb said:
It also depends on the size of the print. The bigger the print the better the lenses have to be - both on the camera and on the enlarger. For screen jpgs most any camera lens made since the 50s will give good results. In a full 16x20" print every bit of detail counts a lot more- despite viewing distance, which is a cop out to me. I've not ever looked at photographs with a rope setting the minimum distance they can be viewed from.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. But surprisingly many people want a single cast-iron answer good for all pictures at all times in all media.

Tough!

Cheers,

R.
 
Turtle said:
I dont find a tripod any sharper than a high shutter speed. Sure, it helps a lot at slower speeds but with a 35mm lens and 1/250 or 1/500 there is nothing to choose between hand held and a tripod.
Click to expand...

It may make a difference when you make 16x24 or 20x30 prints. What appears as sharp in 8x10 or 8x12 prints may appear as unsharp for large prints.

I always tried to use the sharpest lenses that I had,and then used a heavy tripod with a cable release. I checked how the wind was blowing, and I used very slow transparency film that had high resolution.

These factors play a role in the end result.
 
Last edited:
The sharper the better.

I recently picked up a 50mm cron v.3 for my M8.2 and she is very sharp at F8. More so then my 35mm cron v.3 at F8.
 
All my ZM lens are lovey and sharp - no complaints, they are sharp enough for me. My old Nikkor AF 28mm f2.8 and 50mm f1.4 were not!
 
FOUR sets of standards to consider,
  1. Actual LPM (LPPM today)
  2. Lens Characteristics
  3. Film Choice, or Sensor ability to record fine detail, low noise etc
  4. Subject
Most of us want a mix of all 4 that works for our type of photography and/or pick the combo for the end result we desire.

Hence many of us own a few lenses that are the same focal length, but with different characteristics. OR, a certain brand/optical formula that has what we want.

All 4 areas need to be considered in most photographs.
And the "Subject" will also determine if we want "Super" sharp, "Sharp Enough", or "Moody Sharp" (more character than sharpness)
 
Last edited:
It takes a LOT of technique, which isn't always possible, to get the best sharpness from even an average lens. Camera shake and slight defocus will quickly reduce a new Summicron's resolving power to the level of an 1920s Anastigmat. If you need to use depth of field it will always involve big compromises in sharpness; there is still only one true plane of focus and everything else in your picture is blurred to some extent, plus you'll generally be using a small aperture and adding diffraction too.

When you're using a tripod or shooting at at least 1/250 on a 50mm lens AND you've had time to focus precisely AND the subject is flat and in the plane of focus, you can start worrying about whether your lens is sharp. Then bear in mind that most non-photographers will never notice the difference between 100 lp/mm and 10 lp/mm anyway.
 
My Lux 80mm-R f/1.4 is sharp enough for me, and the same I can say about my Lux-R 50mm and Summicron-R 50mm as well.

Every lens is sharp enough, at least all my Leica lenses are...
Regards,
Boris
 
Last edited:
I sometimes wonder how sharp is too sharp.

To the original question, a lens doesn't have to be sharp at all. It just has to produce the desired effect, whatever that is.
 
tunalegs said:
I sometimes wonder how sharp is too sharp.

To the original question, a lens doesn't have to be sharp at all. It just has to produce the desired effect, whatever that is.
Click to expand...

If the lens doesn't have to be sharp but the desired effect is a dead sharp photo how to do it then?
 
taskoni said:
If the lens doesn't have to be sharp but the desired effect is a dead sharp photo how to do it then?
Click to expand...

Then you use a sharp lens. You use a lens that produces the desired effect. Therefore a lens doesn't have to be sharp, unless you need sharpness. Just as lens doesn't need to be fast if the conditions do not call for it. Etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom